Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789
puzo1.blogspot.com ^ | 4/2/2010 | Mario Apuzzo, Esq

Posted on 04/02/2010 2:13:33 PM PDT by rxsid

"Friday, April 2, 2010
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789

In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/. In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”

In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.

Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have know how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. He giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.

Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. Given this time-honored definition, which has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and some lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).

..."
Continued: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; constitution; founders; immigrantlist; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; nbc; obama; obamaisabirther; oopsthereitis; ramsay; soetoro; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-193 next last
To: Pilsner; BP2
"Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual

By that strain of Birther "logic," Obama's kids are Brits, not American Citizens, and the progeny of his (theoretical) sons will be Brits too. And no one is eligible to be President, unless they are descended in an unbroken line of natural born citizen male ancestors back to 1787, when the Constitution was adopted.

And then you folks get all riled up when Obama holds you out as a bunch of raving wack jobs, and smears all of his opponents by equating them to you."

---------------------------------------------

You do know, of course, that the natural allegiance that is due perpetually, is for the INDIVIDUAL. The paragraph that comes from (& the one before it) clearly are in reference to the individual and their allegiance owed the crown. Horribly bad attempt at obfuscation.

101 posted on 04/02/2010 6:54:14 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Was his status widely known? Chester Arthur’s wasn’t...until 2008.


102 posted on 04/02/2010 6:55:46 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor
Are you still holding to your previously posted drivel?:

" The citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours. If you are a U.S. citizen now, and you never were naturalized as a U.S. citizen, then you are a natural born citizen.?

103 posted on 04/02/2010 6:57:24 PM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Pilsner
By that strain of Birther "logic," Obama's kids are Brits, not American Citizens, and the progeny of his (theoretical) sons will be Brits too.

That would depend on bammies citizenship status now wouldn't it?

Learn some basics before you continue to make a fool out of your self.

104 posted on 04/02/2010 6:57:36 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Fraud protected by government officials is still fraud.

To delight in the successful perpetration of fraud is not something to be proud of.


105 posted on 04/02/2010 6:59:38 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Show me one example where the results of Democrat policy are not the opposite of what they promise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Don’t look now, but two truly insane afterbirthers posted right after you.

I wonder if the unions pay overtime on Good Friday's?

106 posted on 04/02/2010 7:03:08 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Yes, that is definitely the case.

Funny, last time I checked a man with a foreign father was currently the president while everyone who tells me I'm wrong has seen the folks arguing their case get laughed out of courtroom after courtroom.

So it looks like my definition of NBC is having a pretty good track record while the fictional "2 citizen parent" definition appears to be a big loser.

Anyways, don't blame me. I didn't write the law.

I'm tired of debating the issue. You're not going to convince me I'm wrong when all I need to do is google "44th President of the United States" to see that's just not the case. And while I am at, I can go ahead and google Ankeny v. Daniels, Donofrio v. Wells, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz and, oh, about 60-something more birther courtroom defeats.

107 posted on 04/02/2010 7:26:36 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
I don’t know if Arthur’s father or Wilson’s mother were formally naturalized.

Wilson's mother would have become a citizen upon marrying his father, assuming she was not naturalized by derivation when her parents were naturalized.

Arthur's father was naturalized, but not at the time of Chester's birth. Rather when Chester was 14.

108 posted on 04/02/2010 7:28:56 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
Arthur was born before public registers of births became common. Apparently the Arthur family Bible lists him as having been born in North Fairfield, VT, and there is no proof that he was actually born across the border in Canada. It's possible that his father had acquired US citizenship before Chester was born--if so, and if Chester was born in Vermont, then he was fully eligible.

Chester's father's naturalization certificate was recently found. It shows him being naturalized when Arthur was about 14 years old. Arthur was not eligible.

I think Congress would just quickly pass a law changing the rules so that Obama would qualify..

Even if a mere statute could do that, which it can not, it would not help The One. Because making it retroactive would be an ex post facto law, which the Constitution forbids Congress to pass. (Article I section 9, 3rd paragraph)

109 posted on 04/02/2010 7:43:04 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
Arthur was born before public registers of births became common. Apparently the Arthur family Bible lists him as having been born in North Fairfield, VT, and there is no proof that he was actually born across the border in Canada. It's possible that his father had acquired US citizenship before Chester was born--if so, and if Chester was born in Vermont, then he was fully eligible.

Chester's father's naturalization certificate was recently found. It shows him being naturalized when Arthur was about 14 years old. Arthur was not eligible.

I think Congress would just quickly pass a law changing the rules so that Obama would qualify..

Even if a mere statute could do that, which it can not, it would not help The One. Because making it retroactive would be an ex post facto law, which the Constitution forbids Congress to pass. (Article I section 9, 3rd paragraph)

110 posted on 04/02/2010 7:43:04 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
“How's Apuzzo doing in court these days? Victory is right around the corner, I'm sure.

I figure that post would bring at least one of you guys around. LoL!

The judiciary will have to lie to themselves and to the nation by contorting the intent and meaning to find Obama as a natural born citizen . You better hope this doesn't get to the courts on the merits.”

I'll be honest with you. This specific issue has been addressed by one court already. I don't expect the Supreme Court to ever take it up because they would consider it a settled matter that doesn't require their attention. But if they do, I think the decision leaves Obama an NBC without so much as blinking an eye.

No one is sweating this because no one outside of these circles lends it any credence. Apuzzo or Orly or whoever is never going to win a single case for this. And we don't say that to apologize or cover for Obama.

Take the latest health care bill. I don't believe it will be overturned. However, I wouldn't rule that out, because certain precedents create a plausible string that some court might pull together to at least overrule parts of it. But this stuff? Honestly, it really does have zero chance of ever going anywhere.

I know you believe it should. I understand that is frustrating, and I apologize if in the past I have come across as mocking your frustration. But in all seriousness, don't make too much of an emotional investment in this.

111 posted on 04/02/2010 7:43:22 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Was his status widely known? Chester Arthur’s wasn’t...until 2008.

Yes, very widely known. The affair between his mother, a woman of high society, and her French tutor was a big scandal, which greatly hindered his early social status. I can't find any instance of his rivals, some of the greatest legal minds of the day, using this to claim he wasn't Constitutionally eligible due to his father's status.

112 posted on 04/02/2010 7:44:09 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

An interesting, but moot point because Fremont was neither elected nor sworn in as the US President.....

What this does illustrate is that our system for insuring that a Presidential candidate meets the Constitutional requirements is flawed. (Is there any system?)

Maybe we need a way to verify eligability before a candidate can be put on the ballot......... just saying.....


113 posted on 04/02/2010 7:50:45 PM PDT by Forty-Niner ((.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Pilsner
And then you folks get all riled up when Obama holds you out as a bunch of raving wack jobs, and smears all of his opponents by equating them to you.

The "wack jobs" are the after-birthers foaming at the mouth ranting and spitting spews when news comes out they are so wrong.

Hey, have a pilsner - you'll feel better.



114 posted on 04/02/2010 7:53:41 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
I'll be honest with you. This specific issue has been addressed by one court already. I don't expect the Supreme Court to ever take it up because they would consider it a settled matter that doesn't require their attention. But if they do, I think the decision leaves Obama an NBC without so much as blinking an eye.

I'll be honest with you tired, the eligibility cases have barely left the judges personal offices and nowhere near being heard in the court room. You wish it was settled. Don't blink too much they may take it up eventually.

115 posted on 04/02/2010 8:00:03 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Pretty sure the status of the child follows that of the mother for an out of wedlock birth. That is, if the mother is a citizen, and the child is born in the country, then the child is a natural born citizen.


116 posted on 04/02/2010 8:01:39 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
A detailed, historical, entomology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here:

Entomology is the study of insects. I believe you intended etymology.

117 posted on 04/02/2010 8:02:31 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
Take the latest health care bill. I don't believe it will be overturned. However, I wouldn't rule that out, because certain precedents create a plausible string that some court might pull together to at least overrule parts of it. But this stuff? Honestly, it really does have zero chance of ever going anywhere.

Many parts will be overruled or at the very least it's going to be repealed when Obutt is gone after 2012...especially the part forcing people to buy medical coverage - honestly.

118 posted on 04/02/2010 8:03:19 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

I agree with you. I think there’s a fighting chance Obamacare will be over-turned on the individual mandate. How do you turn 300 million consumers into commercial enterprises with a straight face?

parsy, who thinks the Constitutional experts can’t see the forest for the trees


119 posted on 04/02/2010 8:03:46 PM PDT by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
“Dregs” was the word in the English translation that corresponded to the word “lies” in the French sentence.

I've been similarly "burned". I was impressed with an anti-drunk driving poster I saw while on a trip to SHAPE in Belgium. I didn't have a French dictionary handy, so I grabbed a French/English dictionary at the convenience store next to the cafeteria and tossed it in my backpack. Later that evening, I pulled the dictionary out at my hotel room to attempt a translation. The word I didn't understand was translated as "bloke". Oh crap, the dictionary is UK English, not American English.

120 posted on 04/02/2010 8:07:25 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2485787/posts

The Left Claims They Can’t Find Anyone Who Says Obamacare is Illegal


121 posted on 04/02/2010 8:08:54 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( Repeal ZeroCare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
you have a good point. It seems reasonable to me that his father was a naturalized US citizen, as the election of 1856 was hotly contested-slavery vs no slavery and much was brought up about Fremont's birth, but I saw nothing concerning NBC (as of yet) I am unsure when his father came to the US and in the 1790’s he could have been a citizen just by taking an oath off the ship he came on..

http://www.stlgs.org/natProcess.htm

interesting enough the 1856 election Republicans worried about the huge fraudulent naturalization of aliens in Pennsylvania(by democrats) in return for their votes..

see the footnote #10 at page 139 from link below. Some interesting reading about Fremont and the election and his birth controversy

http://books.google.com/books?id=sYFVlFO5D0EC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=charles+fremon&source=bl&ots=PZwtIFWwJM&sig=n4MXYGcyqvNhPPQ0JIE5XWvy-1Y&hl=en&ei=mKu2S6zdB4iSsgOhj5iXBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAcQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=charles%20fremon&f=false

122 posted on 04/02/2010 8:09:36 PM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
Are you still holding to your previously posted drivel?:"

Technical Editor said: The citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours. If you are a U.S. citizen now, and you never were naturalized as a U.S. citizen, then you are a natural born citizen.

It's not drivel; it's the truth. It's U.S. law. An anchor baby can grow up to be president if people vote for him or her, because an anchor baby is a natural born citizen. Whether anyone would, however, is an open question, but we see that a lot of airheads voted for Obama, who had a lot against him besides an uncertain birth story. Ever heard of a child born to illegal immigrants who had to go through a naturalization process? Of course not. They are citizens by birth, natural born citizens. That's what all the ruckus is about regarding illegal immigrants (or at least part of the ruckus). They qualify for all the rights and services reserved for American citizens simply by being born here. Aren't all you opponents of illegal immigration talking about that fact as well as the general outrageousness of the illegals being here illegally and tolerated both by government and business?

Once again: If you never had to go through the naturalization process to become an American Citizen, and you are presently a citizen of the United States, then you were either:

One more time:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

123 posted on 04/02/2010 8:18:59 PM PDT by Technical Editor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor

The citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours.

So if you were born in a foreign country the citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours? Drivel. By your thinking a foundling can be President according to statute.

Still waiting for you to post the State department opinion...hint there is a difference between a citizen per statute and natural born citizen for Constitutional eligibility purposes...


124 posted on 04/02/2010 8:23:24 PM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor
One more time:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html



One more time...heck probably a thousand more times. 1401 does not define who is a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN".

125 posted on 04/02/2010 8:29:52 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

They obviously haven’t read here:

http://volokh.com/

parsy, who says a lot of these guys are professors of law.


126 posted on 04/02/2010 8:33:57 PM PDT by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

They obviously haven’t read here:

http://volokh.com/

parsy, who says a lot of these guys are professors of law.


127 posted on 04/02/2010 8:33:58 PM PDT by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
They obviously haven’t read here

Well, obviously, we are talking about 1789. Who came first - volokh or David Ramsay?
128 posted on 04/02/2010 8:44:51 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( Repeal ZeroCare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

Sorry, I see you were referring to the link I sent you and not the thread we are on.

Here’s another....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/02/100-percent-repeal-of-obamacare/


129 posted on 04/02/2010 8:49:31 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( Repeal ZeroCare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

On the health care stuff. One of the Volokh guys has already debated the issue on the radio. Others there have their doubts, too. Volokh is kinda conservative.

parsy


130 posted on 04/02/2010 8:50:07 PM PDT by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

I posted Post #129 for you, not me.;)


131 posted on 04/02/2010 8:51:39 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( Repeal ZeroCare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

I didn’t read it - I’m going on empty right now.


132 posted on 04/02/2010 8:52:30 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( Repeal ZeroCare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

No problem. You have to work your way thru Volokh but there are several very reasoned threads/arguments about why HCR is unconstitutional, and at least one radio show.

parsy


133 posted on 04/02/2010 8:59:34 PM PDT by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

DUH! lol. your right. most deffinately. thanks!


134 posted on 04/02/2010 9:06:17 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

If he wasn’t born in country, to two citizen parents...he wan’t eligible then, nor now per the intent and understanding of the men who wrote the requirement into the Constitution.


135 posted on 04/02/2010 9:07:53 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

Thanks.


136 posted on 04/02/2010 9:19:16 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( Repeal ZeroCare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

As for why American’s in 1856, may or may not (you’ve given no sources) have questioned his status...the obvious answer would be, you’d need to ask them. As was already pointed out, it’s a moot issue as he wasn’t elected POTUS. Anyone, even a resident alien green card holder, can run for POTUS. There is no Constitutional requirement that one must be NBC in order to run for office.


137 posted on 04/02/2010 9:22:17 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
The citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours.

TE says: The citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours -- if and only if you are born in the United States.

So if you were born in a foreign country the citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours?

No. You need to read 1401. It tells you about that circumstance and what is required.

Drivel. By your thinking a foundling can be President according to statute.

You are misunderstanding what "according to statute" means here in this context. It does not mean that you cannot have a statute that defines who is a citizen at birth (a natural born citizen). It means that if a statute says all resident aliens are now declared U.S. citizens, those citizens are not natural born.

Still waiting for you to post the State department opinion...hint there is a difference between a citizen per statute and natural born citizen for Constitutional eligibility purposes...You are misunderstanding what "according to statute" means here in this context. It does not mean that you cannot have a statute that defines who is a citizen at birth (a natural born citizen). It means that if a statute says all resident aliens are now declared U.S. citizens, those citizens are not natural born.

There have been statutes enacted that take classes of people and make them U.S. citizens by that statute only. Those are the U.S. citizens that are not natural born citizens.

I post what I wish to post only, not what you attempt to manipulate me to post.

138 posted on 04/02/2010 9:31:23 PM PDT by Technical Editor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

If, to you, “citizen at birth” doesn’t mean “natural born citizen,” we are on two different planets, I think. We know that NBC is nowhere “defined,” so we have to think a little. One day it will click for you, but only if you get out of your echo chamber. You thumb your nose at U.S. law, so I guess there’s just no hope for you. You are like a schizophrenic and his visions of things that aren’t there. If you ever return to reality, you’ll understand that 1401 tells you who is a natural born citizen. If you knew how to determine what a reputable source of information about legal issues is, you’d have moved on to other things by now. I hope you come to your senses someday.


139 posted on 04/02/2010 9:37:38 PM PDT by Technical Editor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor
No. You need to read 1401. It tells you about that circumstance and what is required.

I am well versed in Citizenship and Immigration Law, and its previous versions. I don't need to read 1401. The applicable law was the McCarren-Walter Act of 1952. You need to understand the difference between a statute and the Constitution. Since you refuse to do any research I will point you to the State Depatment statement:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President;”

c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes .

140 posted on 04/02/2010 9:44:53 PM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor
It's already clicked. Have you even looked at the article that this thread is about? So who should we believe? David Ramsey the American Revolutionary War historian who twice served in the Continental Congress, and who wrote "The History of The American Revolution," or Tech Editor, who wrongly extrapolates that "Citizen" in US code 1401 equates to natural born citizen as the same meaning in Article 2, Section 1, Article 5 of the US Constitution. US code 1401 does not or could it define, or does it even attempt to interpret the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution.

You are like a schizophrenic and his visions of things that aren’t there.

It's you who is seeing things that are not there.

so I guess there’s just no hope for you.

There is plenty of hope for me. You however, have your nose stuck somewhere else. Just the other day I had to correct you about the subject of Steinkauler in SCOTUS 1939 case of Perkins v. Elg because he was referred to as a native born citizen where you erroneously concluded that a native born is always a natural born citizen.

141 posted on 04/02/2010 10:20:46 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Pilsner; rxsid; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; ...

> By that strain of Birther "logic" blah, blah, blah ...

What we've outline to you is fact.

Listen, I know you may not like it. It may not fit in with your After-Birther talking points, as you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. But it is what it is.


As attorney and Constitutional expert John W. Guendelsberger — who Barack Obama appointed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in August — pointed out in 1992 regarding US v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. at 653):

“In particular, the Court noted the Constitution's requirement that the President be a “natural-born citizen,” a condition whose meaning could be derived only by reference to English common law in existence at the time – see US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), referencing Minor v. Happersett (1874).



Again: "that the President be a “natural-born citizen ... a condition whose meaning could be derived only by reference to English common law in existence at the time". That does NOT include a 20th century Immigration Act ... common law in existing at the end of the 18th century!


In ALL of the Federal government, the NBC requirement applies to only ONE person: The President. That office is UNIQUE, as there are NO Internal Check & Balances in the Executive Branch, unlike the nine Justices in the SCOTUS and the 535 Members of Congress that exist today.

If you knew ANYTHING about the events surrounding the Framing, you'd know the 2nd and 3rd "Committee of Eleven" in 1787 actually considered THREE Executives to have a strong, internal set of Executive "Checks and Balances." See, they were a little concerned about a single President usurping power like King George III (rather ironic with Obama in 2010). The problem the delegates in 1787 had envisioning THREE Executors, however, was Executive responsiveness in a crisis.

The delegates ALSO considered requiring Senators to be "Natural Born Citizens" as well (which Massachusetts recommended to Congress in 1798). The 1787 delegate compromise, however, was to lessen the citizenship requirements of Senator, while strengthening that of the SINGLE Executor.

For the office of President, the Framers felt that a SINGLE Executor who had unquestionable loyalty was the best way to hedge against infiltrators, or as John Jay put it, the "admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government."

The Framers had good reason to be so paranoid — between 1776 and 1789, monarchs like Prince Henry of Prussia, and the Bishop of Osnaburgh (2nd son of George III), tried to “invite themselves” to become America’s new king.


So, now that the Constitutional Convention history lesson is out of the way ...

... what does Blackstone's Commentaries say in regards to British subjects, Allegiance and "service to two masters" (i.e., Dual Citizenship)?

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

?


142 posted on 04/02/2010 11:14:46 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor; Red Steel; All

If you ever return to reality, you’ll understand that
1401 tells you who is a natural born citizen.

Oh, really?! You need to do your homework, son.

Clue in Congress on you false presupposition, as they have
tried to define "Natural Born Citizen" — attemping nearly
30 times since the 1870s — and HAVE been UNABLE to do so,
always breaking down in Committee.


Here's one of their last attempts in 2004:


108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2128

To define the term `natural born Citizen' as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 25, 2004

Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To define the term `natural born Citizen' as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Natural Born Citizen Act'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' .

    (a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen' in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means--

      (1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and

      (2) any person born outside the United States--

        (A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or

        (B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.

    (b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term `United States', when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

143 posted on 04/02/2010 11:30:22 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: BP2

I had forgotten about that attempted unconstitutional legislation. I haven’t seen you post it in awhile. :-)


144 posted on 04/02/2010 11:57:59 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor

<>We know that NBC is nowhere “defined,” so we have to think a little.<>

Instead of that little thinking of yours, try reading the article at the top of this thread and the following Supreme Court cases wherein NBC is clearly defined:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/


145 posted on 04/03/2010 6:45:26 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
Maybe the French/English dictionary was printed in China and the French word really meant "broke."

I have foreign-language dictionaries which take the pronounciation of southern England as standard so tell the foreigners using the dictionary that an "r" at the end of a word is silent.

146 posted on 04/03/2010 8:32:47 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
TPretty sure the status of the child follows that of the mother for an out of wedlock birth. That is, if the mother is a citizen, and the child is born in the country, then the child is a natural born citizen.

There's Obama's fall-back position--have his mother's marriage to Barack Sr. declared null and void because his father was married to someone else at the time. If that doesn't work, claim that Frank Marshall Davis was his real father.

Of course, this is assuming that Barack Jr. was born in the US.

147 posted on 04/03/2010 8:42:00 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: BP2
Actually, the "natural born citizen" requirement applies to one other person, the Vice President.

The 12th amendment, adopted in 1804, says "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

148 posted on 04/03/2010 8:50:09 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
I've noticed the Fox News reporter Alister Wanklin can't pronounce works that end in a vowel without appending an "r". Certain parts of the US have that linguistic pattern too.
149 posted on 04/03/2010 10:58:00 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

I think it’s a New England trait. Didn’t JFK say “fahmah” for “farmer” and “Cuber” for “Cuba”?


150 posted on 04/03/2010 11:01:08 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-193 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson