Posted on 09/03/2013 10:18:04 AM PDT by Lakeshark
Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution provides, in pertinent part:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
**snip**
This political season, the eligibilities of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz are the subject of debate.
As much as we want certainty, the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution, in the writings or history of those who framed the Constitution, or in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time the Constitution was drafted. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on the issue, it probably never will.
The modifier “natural born” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and its precise origins are unclear, although it is assumed to be derived in some manner from the British common and statutory law governing “natural born Subjects.” **snip**
want to go on record again objecting to the term “birther.” If the term were confined to conspiracy theorists, that would be one thing. But it has become a tool to shut down even legitimate debate.
The term was used as a pejorative as part of a deliberate Obama campaign strategy to shut down debate on his issues **snip**
5. The Framers never expressed what “natural born Citizen” meant **snip**
6. “natural born Citizen” usage at the time of drafting the Constitution is uncertain **snip**
7. British common and statutory law doesn’t solve the problem **snip**
8. There Is No Requirement That Both Parents Be Citizens
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
Birth certificates require paperwork even for babies born in this country.
I wrote: “Statutory law is artificial and and not natural, by legal definition.”
You wrote: “I see, you’re one of those redefine the English language to try to defend a silly position.”
There you go again with the false and insulting accusations. You irrationally complain about the definitions being made up out of thin air, then complain the the definitions from the legal sources must mean I am a “barracks lawyer, and then you oomplain they are not real legal definitions. It appears you do not really care what the definitions are so long as you just get your way no matter what.
“Natural law”? Where do I find that in the law library? Please give us the Black’s Law Dictionary legal definition of “natural law” for citizenship. My copy only talks about natural law pertaining to things of nature and not human governance.
There you go again by misrepresenting what I wrote. Here it is again. “Statutory law is artificial and and not natural, by legal definition.” Notice how I wrote “Statutory law” and I discussed how “Statutory law” is “artificial” and not a “natural” existence. For example:
ARTIFICIAL. Created by art, by law; existing only by force of or in contemplation of law.
Black, Henry; et al. Black’s Law Dictionary. Second ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.; 1910.
Artificial. As opposed to “natural”, means created or produced by man. [ommitting the legal citation]. Created by art, by law; existing only by force of or in contemplation of law. Humanly contrived[....] (113)
There it is in black and white as a legal definition that “artificial” is the opposite of “natural”, and something “created by[...]law is “artificial.” Hence a citizenship created and acquired by law is by legal definition “artificial” citizenship. Since something created by law and therefore is “artificial” is the opposite of something “natural”, then it follows that artificial citizenship created by law is the opposite of “natural” citizenship not created by law. Of course, you’ll just deny the written legal definitions, kick over the game board, and attempt to change the subject.
You wrote:
You barracks lawyers always like to say stupid phrases such as, “Statutory law is artificial and and not natural, by legal definition”, as though there is such a thing. There isn’t. All laws are man made. The definition of a citizen by birth is up to each nation to define as they wish.
Now you are denying the Natural Law the Founding Fathers used as a basis for the founding of the United States of America and the Constitution, and you engage in nastiness in your denials. Perhaps you would care to review your remarks and their nastiness to see if they comport to a rational and courteous adult worthy of being taken seriously in a debate or discussion?
obumpa
Yes, the whole marriage angle was convoluted and suspicious. There are a number of arguments which can be made about the nature of the alleged Muslim marriage ceremony on Maui and the issue of the Kenyan spouse under tribal laws. The whole marriage issue is a moot point with respect to the citizenship, because the Hawaiian divorce proceedings decided parental status and child custody under Hawaiian law. The Hawaiian court decision may be rebuttable in a court of law, but has of course not occurred. In any event, hawaiian law and U.S. law nonetheless determined the child’s citizenship upon the father the Hawaiian divorce court acknowledged.
Even if no father had ever been established ofr Dunham’s child, any U.S. citizenship acquired would have been acquired by operation of law and not by nature as required to be a natural born citizen.
Quite a few courts and state elections boards have ruled that Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen. No court or election board has ruled that he does not qualify.
Allen v. Obama, Arizona (2012)
Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana (2009)
Fair v. Obama, Maryland (2012)
Farrar v. Obama, Georgia (2012)
Freeman v. Obama, Illinois (2012)
Galasso v. Obama, New Jersey (2012)
Jackson v. Obama, Illinois (2012)
Paige v. Obama, Vermont (2012)
Powell v. Obama, Georgia (2012)
Purpura, et. al. v. Obama, New Jersey (2012)
Strunk v. N.Y. Board of Elections, New York (2012)
Swensson v. Obama, Georgia (2012)
Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto), U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C.. (2010)
Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court, Virginia (2012)
Voeltz v. Obama, Florida (2012)
Welden v. Obama, Georgia (2012)
For example: Allen v. Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
Tisdale v. Obama, Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v. Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
When his mother carried him out of the hospital in Calgary, Alberta she was carrying out a Canadian citizen with a Canadian birth certificate.
He was a Canadian at birth — not an American at birth.
http://www.foreignborn.com/visas_imm/start_here/4birth_abroad.htm
He was an American citizen at birth.
Nothing I wrote has anything to do with ‘deemed’ or ‘considered’. If you don’t understand that, after I expressly told you why I quoted those laws, then you cannot see the forest for the trees, and are beyond any help I can give over the Internet.
No court has allowed discovery and a full trial, much less a jury trial. The courts have engaged in a deliberate conspiracy to suppress and evade a fair hearing and trial. Even Justice T
homas has acknowledged SCOTUS is evading the issue, and the other courts are inferoir courts to SCOTUS.
Furthermore, SCOTUS has been reversed before by later SCOTUS couts and by Congress. It may also be long long overdue to impeach members of SCOTUS for violations of their oath of office.
Ultimately, the final arbiters will be the Citizens of the United States, if and when they ever have the honesty and integrity to fulfill their civic responsibilities.
The American consulate in Calgary would dispute your assertion.
You can move there but you don't want to take a trip there.
Sure, sure, you don’t like the truth, so you kick the game board over and storm off hurling invectives. Why don’t you try and deal with the subject at hand, where the “natural” in “natural born citizen” is the opposite of the artificial born citizen created by laws enacted by men.
He was both:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen;”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Barack Obama is the third president born with dual-citizenship. The first was James Buchanan. His father (James Buchanan) was a citizen of Ireland who immigrated to the United States and was naturalized. Ireland at the time was part of the British Empire. Under the force of “nemo potest exuere patriam,” (“No one can cast off his country”), Buchanan remained a British subject his entire life under British law and bestowed this status to his son at his son’s birth. This is not dissimilar to Barack Obama’s status as a British subject at his own birth. Buchanan would have been a British subject his entire life under British law. Obama also had Kenyan citizenship until age 23.
The second was Chester Alan Arthur. Arthur, like Buchanan, was the son of an Irish immigrant (William Arthur). Like James Buchanan’s father, Arthur’s was also naturalized when his son Chester was 14. As was the case with Buchanan, Arthur was also a British subject under British law. Unlike Buchanan, Arthur’s British nationality was rescinded with the passage of the Naturalization Act, 33 &34 Vict. c. 14 in 1870 (at age 41).
And of course our first seven Presidents were born as British subjects but grandfathered in as U.S, citizens under Article 2, Section 1.
No they won't because they have to have form FS-240 in their files and that will tell them the date that it was filed and processed and citizenship approved and that won't be his birth date.
The problem is you don’t even know why I posted those quotes.
They show that, at the time of the writing of the US Constitution, “natural born” subject or citizen was a part of normal legal speech, and that a natural born citizen is the American version of a natural born subject. When legal documents of the time use NBC & NBS interchangeably, then the meaning of NBS carries over into the meaning of NBC.
That is why, when the US Supreme Court wanted to know the ORIGINAL INTENT of NBC, they examined the common law meaning of NBS. There is no need for the Supreme Court to rule on NBC, because they already did so. In 1898.
The clear picture is that the vast majority of legal scholarship on this subject, both liberal and conservative agree with the conclusions of this article.
You can pout and scream all you want, but that's the simple truth. There simply is NO precedent in any court for the opposite view, yet here you are keeping your fist clenched and wanting to believe otherwise.
Cruz IS eligible, and if he runs, I surely hope you're not so stupid as to let some foolish internet ramblings you appear to believe to allow you to let Christie or Hillary (or any other demonrat), the ones who actually do have conflicting loyalties to win.
I'm totally amazed at how some of those "conservatives" who think the GOPE are morons can actually be more stupid than them.
Cruz was born an American citizen.
Form FS-240 is simply used for proof of citizenship for citizen babies born outside the country. All citizen babies born both in country and out of country need to have some proof of citizenship. Just because one doesn't have proof of citizenship the moment they are born doesn't mean that they aren't a born citizen.
Perhaps you think that all citizen babies have birth certificates immediately when they are born. Where was Abraham Lincoln's papers/forms/certificates when he was born in a back woods cabin?
You're being absurd with your date-on-form argument.
Then when did he become a Canadian citizen???
Are all these people who refuse to even look at the other side of this issue as dedicated to the sanctity of the 16th Amendment as they are to these three words?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.