Replies

See #s 101 and 111.

1. Let's flesh out your opinion.

2. Senator John McCain was born of American parents in Panama when his distinguished father was in a substantial command position in the US Navy. I believe he was later the head of naval operations for the Vietnam War when the senator, in his youth, was shot down as a naval aviator over North Vietnam and wound up being badly injured and taken to the "Hanoi Hilton" prison. Was John McCain a "natural born citizen" when he ran for POTUS in 2008 or at any time in his life? If so, why? If not, why not?

2. Mitt Romney's great grandfather apparently fled Utah for Mexico when Utah Territory, as a condition of admission to the United States, outlawed polygamy. Romney's great grandfather reportedly had four wives at the time. Assume that he fled to Mexico not only to avoid criminal prosecution for polygamy which had previously been quite legal in Utah Territory, but also to reject what he reharded as the USA and the Utah Territory infringing on his religious "right" and that of his four wives to be a polygamist and intended to renounce his citizenship when he moved to a Mormon colony in Mexico with others of similar views. Mitt Romney's paternal grandfather was born in Mexico not in the USA at all. I suspect but do not know that his paternal grandmother was likely to have been born there as well and to parents either Mexican (in which case we would have heard by now) or of a Mormon family who had fled to Mexico either as polygamists or simply as Mormons offended by what was perceived as US and Utah religious discrimination. If one assumes the foregoing, was George Romney, Mitt's father, a natural born citizen? Is there any evidence that he or anyone in his family line (and according to your theory both maternal and paternal ancestors) had regularized any alleged citizenship in the US? When? Where? Before or after Mitt was born? I will stipulate that Mitt's mother was a natural born American citizen according to your apparent standards. Does her citizenship plus Mitt's birth in Michigan suffice to make him a "natural born citizen?" Even if his father was, for whatever reason, NOT a natural born citizen or not a citizen? This issue arose in 1968 when George Romney ran for the GOP POTUS nomination but no one bothered to DO anything about it because George Romney was going to get his ass kicked for making such a fool of himself claiming to have been "brainwashed" into supporting the VietNam War after figuring out that he would get little credit for supporting the war when contesting Nixon (flip-flopping with outrageously empty-headed and not credible rationalizations is an old Romney family tradition). Short question under that complicated history, is Mitt Romney eligible as a "natural born citizen" to run for POTUS? If so, why? If not, why not?

3. A man is in the US military and fought for our country in the VietNam War. His family history is such that his natural born citizenship is based upon BOTH of his parents being natural born citizens and both being descended from families going all the way back to George Washington's officer corps and even those ancestors were born within the thirteen (really fourteen since Connecticut consists of the colonies of Connecticut and of New Haven). While in South VietNam, he meets and falls hopelessly in love with an astounding young VietNamese woman, marries her, brings her back to the USA to reside permanently (and joyously) with him. Before her citizenship is final, their first child is born in, say, Kansas. Is that child a "natural born citizen?" If so, why? If not, why not?

4. Same situation as #3 but that child is born in VietNam and those parents are legally married there prior to the birth. Mom returns to Kansas in 1975 as the Reds take over the South? Is that child a "natural born citizen?" If so, why, If not, why not?

Recognize that these questions seek your opinions but also your reasoning. For the latter, something more substantial is needed than that you REALLY, REALLY want your personal definition of "natural born citizen" to be the law just because it makes sense to you personally and to others who understandably despise Obama and want him gone. Courts require proof and preferably some legal precedent. As to these questions, Minor vs. Happersett is generally silent, deals with entirely other issues, gives mere lip service in the form of non-precedential dicta to even the qualifications of a woman differently situated might have successful access to federal courts to force Missouri to allow her to vote in its elections after she moved there, based on what one of you called "the gold standard" of two American parents and birth in Virginia (or any other state of the USA). The decision does NOT address anyone with only one citizen parent (or none) or who was born elsewhere since no such person was a party before the court.

Emotional "outbursts" are not arguments and are no substitute for the real thing. As someone once observed of a particularly silly position, the proponent's "argument" could be accurately summarized as "Shut up!" she argued. If there is nothing other than Minor vs. Happersett (1874 no less) for you to rely on, then it would seem likely that the matters of George Romney, Mitt Romney, John McCain, AND Obozo would be cases of "first impression," i.e. virgin issues never decided by our courts previously and quite ripe to be decided. Yet every case brought against Obozo's qualifications have foundered and been dismissed by the courts or lost by the petitioners just as Mrs. Minor (for entirely different reasons) lost her case.

Your collective definition of "natural born citizen" does not hold water (at least not yet) and has no apparent precedent. Of course, SCOTUS handed down Roe vs. Wade in 1973 and has kept it on life support ever since, so, who knows? Nonetheless, I suspect not. If you disagree, hire this Attorney D'Onofrio. It will be cheaper if yo pool your resources to do so. Whatever you do, don't agree to pay his fines for frivolous lawsuits in federal court when he loses. The courts have entertained literally dozens of these suits and rejected them by decision or dismissal in every case I am aware of. Eventually the judges tire of wasting scarce judicial time on such repetitive bad claims and fine those responsible (particularly the offending attorneys).

You ask big questions, BlackElk.
That’s okay; only little answers are required.

see #114 (with thanks and a tip of the hat to Scooter100)

My definition of NBC (both soil & blood, to be succinct) does not matter one whit. The Supreme Court owes us all a definition that is clear and in keeping with the Framer’s intent.

All candidates for any public office should have to show their bona fides, the same as anyone opening a checking account, getting a driver’s license, or joining a little league team.

Rubio seems like a no-brainer - parents were nto citi=zens when he was born.
McCain, as far as I can tell - not eligibile - born on Panamanian soil.
Romney, depends on if his parents were citizens under US law when he was born; probably should be decided by a court.

At issue is not whose opinion here will ultimately prevail so someone earns “I told you so” rights. What really matters is that our gov’t is ignoring legitimate grievances by earnest citizens about perceived violations of a national security provision of the Constitution. PERIOD

2. The distinction or lack thereof of McCain's father is completely irrelevant to the issue of constitutional elibibility. Likewise, Senator McCain's martial exploits or lack thereof have no bearing.

"Was John McCain a "natural born citizen" when he ran for POTUS in 2008 or at any time in his life? If so, why? If not, why not?"

Not, since he was born at a hospital in Colon. There have been attempts by members of Congress to declare the offspring of military members born overseas to be Natural Born Citizens. Why would such efforts be made at all, if these offspring are good to go already?

2.2 Romney is eligible if both of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth on US soil. The rest of your commentary regarding mormonism, polygamy etc is once again irrelevant, and as far as it goes, George Romney isn't running for President at the moment, so his eligibility is not part of the discussion except as a matter of speculation regarding whether or not the issue would have become a problem for him if he had stayed in contention longer than he did.

3. "A man is in the US military and fought for our country. . . going all the way back to George Washington's officer corps. . ."

I don't understand these repeated appeals to false authority, debts of gratitude for service to country, and emotional patriotism. The soldier's service, however valuable, and however long his NBC pedigree is, do not trump the Constitution. If his Vietnamese love isn't naturalized at the time of the child's birth, that child is not eligible to aspire to the presidency. I myself have a child who was born to a non-naturalized alien, and my child is in the same ineligible boat.

4. Same response as for #3.

"The decision does NOT address anyone with only one citizen parent (or none) or who was born elsewhere since no such person was a party before the court."

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

"Emotional 'outbursts' are not arguments and are no substitute for the real thing."

I'm sorry, I must have missed the "emotional outburst" part of my post.

"Your collective definition of "natural born citizen" does not hold water (at least not yet) and has no apparent precedent."

As another poster mentioned, SCOTUS owes us a ruling on it. "Of course, SCOTUS handed down Roe vs. Wade in 1973 and has kept it on life support ever since, so, who knows? Nonetheless, I suspect not. If you disagree, hire this Attorney D'Onofrio."

As I made no mention whatsoever of any Attorney D'Onofrio, I believe that last is what's known as an unsolicited verbal left hook.

I appreciate your having taken time to author such a lengthy post to me, but after reading and re-reading everything that you've written, I'm of the opinion that it is nevertheless merely a verbose and eloquent *shrug* vis a vis the simple logic exercise that I posited.