Posted on 08/25/2009 12:23:06 AM PDT by Vincent Jappi
CRAIG V. US – 10th Circuit Court of Appeals – HELD (08.05.2009): 14th Amendment native born citizens have no Constitutional right to natural born citizen status.
Steven Craig recently brought a law suit – Craig v. United States – in the Western District of Oklahoma where he argued that he was deprived of a Constitutional right to be determined a “natural born citizen”. His argument was based on the fact that Congress has specifically determined who is a naturalized citizen but as to natural born citizens there is no concrete answer.
Mr. Craig was essentially trying to force the courts into making a judicial definition of “natural born citizen” by asserting that without such a definition Mr. Craig is deprived of his legacy status as a natural born citizen.
This was a novel attempt, but as I have recently told Mr. Craig, natural born citizen status is not a protected civil right. In fact, it’s not a right at all. And as such he could not expect to prevail as the court would not have subject matter jurisdiction. Without a deprivation of rights, the court has no claim to adjudicate. Furthermore, I explained to Mr. Craig that he does not meet the federal standing requirements in that his alleged injury is no different than millions of other citizens.
Mr. Craig’s suit was dismissed by the District Court. In the Court of Appeals (10th Circuit), the dismissal was upheld. The court rejected the case on the basis that they had no subject matter jurisdiction since there was no injury in fact as none of Mr. Craig’s rights were harmed. It was also held that Mr. Craig did not have standing. As stated above, this came as no surprise to me.
However, a rather incredible turn of events has taken place and Mr. Craig’s law suit has actually advanced the cause of POTUS eligibility truth by accident. Or, perhaps Mr. Craig knew he was backing the courts into a corner just by bringing this suit because as it turns out, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has just handed the movement its greatest judicial victory thus far. Mr. Craig deserves a round of applause for his novel attempt which appears to have forced a very important judicial admission from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Recap of recent media bias
Let’s stop here for a second and consider all of the recent media ridicule and propaganda which has attempted to paint the natural born citizen POTUS eligibility issue in discriminatory tones. Obama pundits argue that all “native born” citizens have the right to be President and that we shouldn’t discriminate based on parental heritage as that would deprive civil rights.
The problem with their analysis is that there is no “right” to be president. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees.
And that’s what I’ve been saying all along. POTUS eligibility being limited to natural born citizens is not a an issue of civil rights, it’s an issue of national security.
The Obama eligibility pundits demand that all citizens born on US soil – despite whether they be born of alien parentage – have a Constitutional right to be President in that it would be a deprivation of their civil rights if natural born citizen status is not granted to them.
This is the mantra of those who support that Obama is a natural born citizen even though Obama admits he was a British citizen at birth via his father who was never a US citizen.
But the status of “natural born citizen” is not a right owed to native born US citizens. In fact, it’s not a right owed to any US citizen because nbc status is simply not in any way, shape or form a “right” at all.
QUESTION: If natural born citizen status is not a right, then what is it?
ANSWER: It’s a description of a certain path to citizenship.
There are various paths to citizenship:
- naturalized citizen
- 14th Amendment [+ Wong Kim Ark] native born citizen
- statutory citizen
- natural born citizen
All of the above citizens have exactly the same rights.
This is undeniable and SCOTUS has confirmed it on numerous occasions. A naturalized US citizen has every damn right that natural born citizens have bar none.
THE 10th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVIEW OF CRAIG v. US
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals described Mr. Craig’s claim as follows:
Though it is somewhat difficult to distill Mr. Craig’s arguments on appeal, he continues to assert that due to the lack of a legal definition for natural-born citizen, the existence of citizens who are naturally-born, as understood by the Constitution’s Framers, is no longer acknowledged. According to Mr. Craig, this has resulted in the “involuntary expatriation” of those whom he believes fall into this category of citizens… He further argues that the district court should legally define “natural born Citizen” in an effort to prevent the deprivation of citizenship legacy, as contemplated by the Constitution, and the diminution of his and purported class members’ “rights and intrinsic property as . . . multi-generational citizen[s].”
10th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING:
The district court correctly determined that it lacked subject-matter, jurisdiction over this case…, Even liberally construed, Mr. Craig’s claim is not grounded in a constitutional or federal question: there is no such “right” (a) to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts to define.
That’s an incredible holding. It simply crushed the mantra which cries that 14th Amendment native born citizens have a legal right to be deemed natural born citizens. According to this holding, not even a [natural-]born US citizen like Mr. Craig – whose parents were both US citizens at the time of his birth – has a right to obtain certification of natural born citizen status.
Furthermore, the court unequivocally stated that the claim was not grounded in a Constitutional or federal question.
The Court quotes the following case law to support its position:
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1…
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964) (quoting Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 827 (1824))…
That quote from Schneider v. Rusk is very important. It states that the rights of all citizens, naturalized or native born are equal. It carefully uses those two terms in discussing equal rights. But the Supreme Court used a different term than “native born” in the next sentence as to Presidential eligibility where they indicate that the only thing which separates natural born citizens from all naturalized citizens and those native born citizens who do not rise to NBC status is the ability to be President.
The 10 Circuit Court of Appeals holding makes it clear that there is no right to be deemed a natural born citizen. Mr. Craig does not have that right and his law suit to protect that right was correctly dismissed. If Mr. Craig, a native born US citizen born of citizen parents [and thus also a natural-born citizen] has no right to be deemed a natural born citizen, then no other native born US citizen has that right, not even Obama.
QUESTION: Why is it important that there is no right to be deemed a natural born citizen?
ANSWER: Because you can’t be President unless you are a natural born citizen but no court has ever answered the question of who can be President.
QUESTION: Then how can we determine who meets the natural born citizen requirement of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 ?
ANSWER: By Constitutional amendment or federal judicial review of the issue with the Courts examining all relevant evidence.
That hasn’t happened yet.
All the media reports and propaganda stating all the various liberal definitions concerning natural born citizen status are bogus. Both SCOTUS in Schneider v. Rusk and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Craig v US have unequivocally stated that all citizens have equal rights. Therefore, natural born citizen status and the legal eligibility to be POTUS is not a protected right available to any citizen.
If you are President and there exists a legitimate challenge to your eligibility then the courts should be called upon to adjudicate the issue because the phrase “natural born citizen” is specifically written into the Constitution. Under our Constitution, the voters do not decide the meaning of this provision. The media does not have that power either. Only the courts or the Congress through an amendment can decide the issue.
If a President’s eligibility is in doubt and that doubt has a fair grounding in the legal and foundational history of the nation, then the federal courts should hear the issue.
The fact that the courts have refused to hear every single case on the merits tells you that the Constitution is under attack. If Obama retains his position as POTUS without a judicial determination then he will have set a precedent for future generations to be governed by the sons of foreign leaders who hate America.
How do you feel about Kim Jong Il fathering a child with an American woman who gives birth on US soil? Should that child be eligible to be Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces? The same goes for children of Osama Bin Laden.
If that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution, then this is the twilight zone and I need to go home now.
As was stated in both SCOTUS cases, Minor v. Happersett, and Wong Kim Ark, the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen” so we must look outside the Constitution for that definition. Obama supporters have a certain body of law and commentary they point to in support of their position that he is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be POTUS.
On the other hand, people like myself have a body of law and various historical commentaries which make a very strong case that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS.
I will be publishing some incredible research on this issue by a group who has been forwarding me some rather incredible historical finds on this issue.
The simple truth is that the most important safeguard of our national security – the President of the United States – is only eligible to that office if the Constitutional requirements are met. But in our entire history of a nation, this issue has never been judicially determined.
SCOTUS in Minor and Wong Kim Ark – both decided years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment – tell us the definition of natural born citizen is not written into the Constitution. Any attempt to simplify the issue by stating that all 14th Amendment native born citizens are also POTUS eligible on that basis is a fraudulent statement.
The issue is in serious need of litigation. It’s in the best interest of the nation to have the issue settled because this is no joke. If Obama’s eligibility is not heard on the merits in our judicial system, then the answer to who is a natural born citizen will be settled by virtue of Obama being President.
This cannot be emphasized enough.
The natural-born citizen provision in Article II section 1 clause 5 is our "safety valve," our "watertight door" for national security. It is ALL about NATIONAL SECURITY. It is NOT about the "feelings" or "rights" of an individual who wants to believe "anyone can become President, and if you say I can't, then you've hurt my feelings." Oh, boo hoo. Who cares about someone's "feelings" when the welfare and safety of an entire nation is at stake?
Many knuckleheads and Dem/rat trolls spout this line all the time. I point it out to them but they say Lalalalalalaalalalaa can't hear you.
spout this line all the time = all 14th Amendment native born citizens are also POTUS eligible
To allow this to stand will mean an illegal parent could have an anchor baby, that waves the Mexican flag, and doesn't speak English, could run for president.
IF the gloal oligarchy has scheduled OThuga to be a fall guy during some great trauma . . . then at some point, that’s the way it will go.
IF there were such a social upheaval demanding redress of his obvious inelligibility . . . they might CONCEIVABLY throw him to the wolves and gleefully watch the chaos they’d set up.
IF neither of the above are true, then we can expect more years of his utterly doing everything he can to shred every bit of decent life left in America . . . and to cause as much death and chaos as he’s able to cause and to set-up to be triggered.
INDEED.
GREAT GRAPHIC.
To be elected, he would yet have to learn how to scream “RAAAAACIST!” in English.
You've made a good faith effort to understand and interpret the practical impact of the so-called "grandfather clause," necessitated by the need for eligible winners of Presidential elections in a new nation, which could have no natural born citizen Presidential candidates for some period of time after ratification of the Constitution.
But, you've missed an important point, the eligibility requirement of age. So, effectively, it was 35 years at a minimum, from the founding of this nation, assuming minimum residency requirements were also met.
And so, if you look at the Presidents elected and certified, during the period of time in question, you see eight Presidents who were born prior to the founding of this nation, for a period of over 35 years.
George Washington was born in 1732 in a British colony called Virginia. He was born an English citizen, never naturalized.
John Adams was born in 1735 in a British colony called Massachusetts. He was born an English citizen, never naturalized.
Thomas Jefferson was born in 1743 in the British colony called Virginia. He was born an English citizen, never naturalized.
James Madison was born in 1757 in a British colony called Virginia. He was born an English citizen, never naturalized.
James Monroe was born in 1758 in a British colony called Virginia. He was born an English citizen, never naturalized.
John Quincy Adams was born in 1767 in a British colony called Massachusetts. He was born an English citizen, never naturalized.
Andrew Jackson was born in 1767 in a British colony called The Carolinas. He was born an English citizen, never naturalized.
William Henry Harrison was born in 1773 in a British colony called Virginia. He was born an English citizen, never naturalized.
The United States of America was formally declared an independent nation in 1783.
After a long ride 'round Robin Hood's legal barn,
Three years to go. If it doesn't make it to court, Obama's dirty little secret won't count. That part of the Constitution will be over by precedent... and by Team Obama's precise plan of attack on the constitutional requirement that the POTUS be a "Natural Born Citizen."
For later..
It would have been strange for the founders to have shed blood and lost fortunes to have been banned from high office after proving their loyalty. Benedict Arnold was such an example of a brave loyal American, until he got more from the Brits. Someone with such a flimsy moral compass wasn't POTUS material and the founders knew it. They wanted people who were for the American ideal from the beginning, and could be trusted. Someone born and raised in America, with both parents American, would have no such loyalty temptations.
As we see now, Obama has split loyalties. He loves world socialism, hates Capitalism, releases Al Quida prisoners, yet pursues Dick Cheney, dismisses Black Panther thugs, and calls retired veterans a mob. His mother was a communist. and his father, we think, was a British Muslim. His mentor, Frank Davis, was also a communist and a pedophile. His wife is ashamed of the American ideal. He is proud that he was raised in Indonesia as a Muslim. He recently went to Kenya to get personally into Kenyan politics to root for the Muslin dictator that murdered many Christians. He constantly apologizes for his own country. I think his loyalties are split and it will cost American lives and fortune. He doesn't have to burn an American flag on the White House lawn to show his colors.
Being born in Hawaii, if he was, doesn't make you "natural born". There are many "citizens" that can't hold the office of President. He feels as though he is a "global citizen" and would probably defend the UN before defending the US. I'm sure he has already told Israel they are on their own. All the old friendships and alliances are suspect now. The "change" that is comming will most likely destroy America as we know it. We may as well have Putin or Chavez as POTUS.
The grandfather clause had no set time limit, chuckles. It expired when there were no more Presidential candidates who were citizens at the time of the Constitution being ratified.
The 14 year requirement relates to residency.
The 35 year requirement relates to age.
John Tyler, this country’s first President to not be Constitutionally eligible under the grandfather clause, but to be natural born instead, was born in 1790, and became President upon the death of William Henry Harrison in 1841.
That is 58 years after US independence was recognized. Not 14, and not 35.
If Stanley dropped little Barack in the middle of Peoria's 4th of July Parade, it still would not make him a "Natural Born Citizen," because of the putative dad's British citizenship.
What Team Obama is attempting is to conflate "Native Born," with "Natural Born." Thus, when it turns out that Barack was born in Hawaii, Team Obama will say "I told you so..... Native Born!
The "place of birth" controversy is, in some ways, a sideshow; i.e., a distraction to the main event of Constitutional eligibility by virtue of being a "Natural (not "Native") born Citizen."
Boy, do we need a win in court!!
The problem is that most people don’t understand he legal issue.
They do confuse “native-born” with “natural-born”.
Then if no tribunal is willing to review the issue, all that is left is an appeal to public opinion.
And there you have people who still have a good sense of what is normal behavior and what isn’t.
People who don’t believe that if you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars not to have to release a simple document, you have nothing to hide.
Or, given that the release of that document would cost at most $15, that
1,400,000 - 15 = 0
Exactly the source of my pessimism. Despite the daily hoopla about "plummeting poll numbers," it seems to me that somewhere in the neighborhood of half (or near enough) the nation somehow believes in this guy. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 100% of the commonly accessible MSM believes in the guy and provides him with support that is better than paid advertising.
The result: people asking these eminently sensible eligibility questions are marginalized. We need elected officials to step up and ask the eligibility questions, loudly, and long. Hint: they are probably not going to be Democrats.
Haley Barbour or equivalent Republican Governor. 1 Republican State Attorney General. 1 Congressman. 1 Senator. Hell, right now, I'd settle for a County Commissioner or City Council Member! RINO Steele. Anybody?
Instead, the only people rushing to the attack (bless them!)are the folks with the relatively simple Birth Certificate question. A damn good question! But an issue too easily dismissed, and misdirected by the disingenuous counter strategy of confusing "Native Born" with "Natural Born," It has worked for months, just as has the dishonest ploy of intentionally mixing up the COLB with the Birth Certificate.
We need heavier hitters raising the "Natural Born Citizen" issue, as stated in the Constitution. That still won't get it to court, but it would weigh much more heavily in the court of public opinion than what we have now.
Heavier hitters needed Ping
~~ Unassailable primary allegiance to country ... PING!
Slight correction: "for a minimum of 14 years. Several Presidents were elected after July 4, 1811, who were "citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Including two who were natural born Citizens of the United States. (Van Buren and Taylor), who were born after the Declaration of Independence but before the Constitution was passed (December 5, 1782 and November 24, 1784).
William Henry Harrison, born February 9, 1773 was the latest born President to have been born in a British colony. (Save perhaps BHO Jr. of course :) )
Harrison for example took office in 1841, well after your 14 years. (although he died after only a month in office). Others born before 1776 but taking office after 1812 include Jackson (born 1773, took office 1829), J.Q. Adams(born 1767 ,took office 1825) and Monroe (born 1758 took office 1817). Madison, born 1751, first took office in 1809, but started his second term in 1813.
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.