Posted on 03/18/2011 8:38:52 PM PDT by patlin
1859 Official Opinion of US Admin
1859 Opinion of US Attorney General
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com ...
Here's a link to the full story if you want to read it (click on the PDF):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10915FB34551B7493CAA8178CD85F4D8584F9
“Is she eligible to be president?”
Yes. That is why McCain, Palin, the RNC and every state GOP refused to challenge Obama based on his father. If you were in the US with the permission of the government, and your child was born here, she is a natural born citizen.
The issue was discussed at length by the Supreme Court long before Obama was born:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Many birthers try to add an extra requirement that you both be US citizens at the time of birth, but that wasn’t English law in the colonies, and it didn’t become US law after our independence. Natural born citizen was a legal phrase used in the Constitution by the Founders. It had an established meaning at the time the Constitution was written.
Another troll who does not know what it claims to speak of. The articles state, and I quote:
Naturalization Question: Attorney General Black’s Opinion Upon Expatriation and Naturalization
New York Times
Published: July 20, 1859
[H]ere none but a native can be President…A Native and a Naturalized American can go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under heaven, including the country in which the latter was born…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the government of the United States…One of the never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization, solemnly and rightfully, in pursuance of public law and municipal regulations, threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. [end quote]
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0C13FB34551B7493C2AB178CD85F4D8584F9
THE NATURALIZATION QUESTION.; THE POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION DEFINED. Important Official Paper.
New York Times
Published: July 15, 1859
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60C14FB34551B7493C7A8178CD85F4D8584F9
This release from the Executive Office reads the same. Native, native-born & natural-born are used synonymously and once the immigrate absolutely & entirely abjures and renounces all foreign fidelity, thereby owing direct and absolute allegiance exclusively to the United States, he stands on the same ground as the former with the exception of being president as stated in the corresponding release from the US Administration.
“Subject to the jurisdiction” means “Exclusive allegiance to the United States, one at birth and the other upon naturalization”. Period. But then again, I wouldn't expect the logic of a troll to conclude anything different than: "The 1859 DOJ issued two different conclusions in the very same case and had them printed in the public domain within 5 days of each other."
Still got your head stuck up the horses arse so all you can do is obfuscate I see.
That established meaning being someone who was born domestically to citizen parents .
You should stop lying about this.
The lies keep coming.
Everyone who could have address this was put on notice with Hillaries head on the stick during primaries.
The understanding is clear. Your parents (both) and especially your father must be citizens at the time of your birth.
jus sanguinis is the stronger of the two elements of natural born Citizens.
This was obvious in the first Immigration Act of 1790. The act indicated that those born of US parents (note it says parents (plural)) were considered as (note: considered as, not ARE) natural born Citizens (note: the precise match to the Article phrase).
In 1790 the law that jus sanguinis trumped jus soli in regards to being considered a natural born citizen.
This phrase was later removed. Maybe after some thought it was determined that the jus soli requirement was required.
There are those that say this is settled law (as here) and say it is settled indicating that almost anyone is eligible to be president. There are those that say it is completely unsettled law and that is stil needs to be defined.
Both are false.
The intent is clear - a strong check against foreign influence for the highest office of the land. Thus, only natural Citizens who were natural Citizens from birth (’natural born Citizens’) are eligible.
If your father is not a citizen of any country in the world then you are not a natural citizen. This is natural (”universal”) law.
To be a patriot you have be one loyal to ... your FATHERS land. This is the meaning of patriot.
There are active attempt to scrub the intent and meaning of our laws from the web and from legal rulings. Leo Donofrio captures this well.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/irli-got-some-splainin-to-do/
The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen. obama was the child of an alien father,and if he was born in Hawaii is a citizen, but as quoted in WONG KIM Ark is not a Natural Born citizen. read Wong KIm Ark before posting information concerning it.
I think in the case of some Senators and Reps, who have the duty to monitor the results of the electoral college, one has to conclude there is a conscious rejection of the principle stated in the constitution.
See too, walking all over the Commerce Clause. How many people in the US Congress object to that particular overreach?
Yep. And it is that phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction," that has been construed (incorrectly, as far as I can tell) as meaning something tantamount to "can be arrested in the US" or "has to obey speed limits like everybody else here."
The construction applied in the Wong Kim Ark case is that if a person doesn't have absolute immunity from US law (i.e., is a diplomat), then they are subject to the jurisdiction, and therefore, citizenship of children, of course, naturally follows, regardless of where the parents national allegiance lies.
The One Worlders, and Congress is full of them, are anxious to eliminate nationalism and national pride. We're all citizens of the earth.
I agree with that. Obama wasn’t born in this country though, so I’m not seeing what it has to do with birthright citizenship.
please go read the entire article I wrote, including my question to Sen. Thune...
“Subject to the Jurisdiction”: You Can’t Have It Both Ways UPDATED with 2 Official Proclamations From The US Administration of 1859
” That established meaning being someone who was born domestically to citizen parents .
You should stop lying about this.”
I cited the US Supreme Court. I’m not the one lying...
Congress was afforded the power to naturalize citizens, but only nature could provide for the “natural born”.
This is why giving congress the power to declare all citizens and not just naturalized citizens is a bad idea.
“read Wong KIm Ark before posting information concerning it.”
Not only have I read it, but I gave a link providing the full text of both the decision and the dissent - so anyone else can read it. In full.
I’m tired of debating with folks. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on this matter. Let folks read it and decide for themselves.
I disagree. You can not have uniformity of the law in any given area unless the laws are written by one entity. Thereby, Congress was afforded the right to determine citizenship, but they were only granted the positive power to naturalize aliens. Nature needs no law, therefore natural born citizens are from the moment of birth, while children born to aliens on US soil require positive law:
Law of Nations: § 214. Naturalization: Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
England didn't recognize the foreign citizenship a child born of aliens within its realm. Therefore, under the colour of their law, the child owed exclusive allegiance to the crown from the moment of its first breath. And those that gained naturalization there, went from being denizens to being classified as “natural born”. Our founders rejected that notion, if they hadn't then any citizen, whether natural born or naturalized would be eligible for president. The King is not an elected office, it is gained through heredity, the King being the exclusive sovereign and the people/subjects requiring his permission to navigate the globe. Our president is elected by “we the people”, each on of us being sovereign with the right to freely navigate the world as we choose. One can not purport that the two have the same meaning by right reason of natural law otherwise known as common sense.
don't let the door hit you in the arse on your way out
It’s a different model. What works for the UK would not work for America. The reason they don’t mind making people natural born, is because their entire system of governance does not exhibit the principle that all people are born equal. They’ve still got the Lords and the Queen. The idea is that all born are subjects to the Queen.
In America, every man is not subject to the president, but to the Constitution, the laws of the land. Again, that all persons are created equal.
The UK is a bit of an oddity both in jurisprudence and in governance. As are the former dominions which essentially retain the principle that all who are born are subject to the Queen.
I’m not sure what you propose works under a republic. You’d have to forswear allegience to the Queen again to get a comparable situation.
The problem is, as you’ve noted, is that anyone could become president once they were naturalized. How much sense does it make to reject foreign entanglements, when someone could come from abroad and govern the nation?
Granted, you’ve got the worst of it right now with Obama, where someone has done just that, come from abroad to govern America, *despite* the laws in place that say this shouldn’t happen.
This is a disaster long term for the republic.
Anyways, long term, that is one of the benefits of the monarchy to retain the general character of the nation. I’d accept your argument if it meant going back to how things were done prior to the revolution, but I sincerely doubt that many Americans, even those who are sympathetic, would support this. We’re both odd-ducks.
It's nice to know that the lack of evidence now qualifies as evidence. Maybe he identified himself as a Martian. There's no evidence of that, either.
4) While an adult, he traveled under a non-US passport to a country (Pakistan) which banned US travelers at that time. (surmised, not proven)
We know that first part's not true. A travel advisory -- even a travel warning -- isn't a travel ban. That's been established and repeated dozens if not hundreds of times, but it doesn't sink in.
Maybe the fact that you're wrong about that part counts as evidence for your surmise in the second part. I guess that's how logic works nowadays.
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.