Posted on 05/22/2011 5:11:47 PM PDT by EricaD
The Inglis case notes that
By the twenty-fifth article of the Constitution of New York of 1777, the common law of England is adopted into the jurisprudence of the state
What this means to the Inglis case (which was a case dealing with the idea of a natural born citizen), is that English Common Law is what is being followed.
Before the Revolution, all the colonies constituted a part of the dominions of the King of Great Britain, and all the colonists were natural born subjects, entitled to all the privileges of British born subjects and capable of inheriting lands in any part of the British dominions, as owing a common allegiance to the British Crown.
Note that the use of natural born subjects is referred to in the case as stemming from English Common Law. This same English Common Law that was adopted into our system of jurisprudence.
There is no seperate, superior type of citizenship under English Common Law. If you are a subject by birth, you are a natural born subject. Likewise under U.S. jurisprudence, if you are a citizen by birth, you are a natural born citizen.
Make believe not withstanding.
Your children can run for president.
Well then back to my original point in this thread...
If.. the republican party nominates a candidate that is not a NBC such as Jindal then they are no longer simply ignoring the issue but are then putting their stamp of support for violating the Constitution along side with the democrats.
If they do this they must have a screw loose.
I believe you will then see a grass roots camapign by some conservatives against their position, probably a third party candidate as well and I will definetally consider being done with the republican party as well. Voting for an illegal canidate and disegarding the Constitution is not a good thing. My hope has always been that the republican party could stand for defending, restoring and upholding the Constitution.
Believe what you want but your arguments are not at all based upon any case deciding Presidential eligibility. I have seen your arguments before and I have seen the arguments against your position. I strongly believe in the arguments against your position.
Though I do have any links available at the moment I have seen numerous cases that state differently then what you cite and have seen numerous other references from the time that also directly claim otherwise.
But this issue is not only about what the Courts have said or what they might say.
This issue is also about what conservatives believe and what the republican party believes and will stand for.
We dont accept other activist decisions and I see no reason to accept any on this issue as well.
If the republican party puts a stamp of approval on disregarding the real meaning of NBC then they do so at the risk of losing a percentage of their base.
Flawed doctrine will breed flawed dogma, which will result in what we had this weekend.
The biggest issue with respect to interpretation of Revelation is deciphering the difference between Israel and the church.
My belief is that doctrinal errors on behalf of the churc's leaders, led to erroneous prophetic statements. I believe that investigation of the churches doctrinal statement will find sufficient error to warrant excommunication.
Framkly I believe that to be too bad.
You are asserting that he is not a NBC. Long before Obamalongadingdong came upon the scene, opinions, even among Constitutional scholars differed on this point. Politicians are going to argue whichever side of the coin happens to suit them at the moment, and until the Supreme Court issues an opinion specific to Presidential eligibility they will continue to do so.
Yes I am asserting my position. Who’s opinion did you think I was asserting?
If the republicans think that they can first ignore this issue then stick it in the eye of those who believe an NBC is someone with two American citizen parents then it is also my assertion that they will lose a percentage of their base and that they have a screw loose.
Ah, I see. Erica’s children can run for president. “Your children can run for president.” What about mine?
You have totally skipped my post. I will ask you again. My situation is not too different. Let’s see if you will respond this time.
“So, if I read you right, my daughter could be a US president.
She was born in this country while I was still a residential alien. Canadian, to be specific, eh? And Canada allows her to become a Canadian citizen if she so chooses, because I was still a Canadian citizen when she was born on US soil.
Hey, how about that. Get a dual citizen Canadian as President. Cool, eh?
Or do you object, eh?”
SO, which is it?
The term "Natural Born Citizen" had a specific meaning at the time of the drafting of the Constitution and that meaning was set forth in Vittel's "Laws of Nations" which was the primary treatise on Citizenship in the Western World at that time. One cannot be a "Natural Born Citizen" if your father is not either a Citizen or a permanent resident at the time of your birth. Both of Jindal's parents were just visiting the United States at the time of his birth and had not subjected themselves to the Jurisdiction of the United States by applying for permanent residency or citizenship until after Bobby Jindal was born.
Hence Jindal is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. He is a "Native Born Citizen". There is a difference.
I would love to have Jindal be the President, but he is not eligible to take the office. That, my FRiend is a fact.
It would appear that you are a "Constitution Hater".
Just for the record, I also think that Jindal is a pretty solid conservative and a very good man and would probably make a great President.
He is not a ‘natural born citizen’ though.
I don’t need to read the links and I know already what the constitution says and what rulings have been made. There is no stipulation that the parents have to be citizens in order for a person to be natural born. Being born in the US is all that it takes. The only time the citizenship of the parents comes into play is if the child is born in some other country. READ the constitution and then point out to me the part that says one must have US citizen parents in order to be natural born.
So in your opinion then, anyone who sneaks across the border can produce a child who will be eligible to be President?
Two Al Quida agents could sneak across and have a baby that is eligible? Iranian secret agents?
Dont answer because you already did. Your post states:
“Being born in the US is all that it takes.”
So you obviously believe that the Framers wrote this section of the Constitution based upon an open borders policy.
That is not a conservative positition at all. It has no respect for our soveriegnity or our National Security at all.
Your defintion of a ‘natutral born citizen’ is also not at all stipulated in the Constitution, so your own argument also works against yourself as well.
Your position on the issue though is not a conservative position at all. It is to assert that the Framers had an open borders mentality towards the position of Commander-in-Chief.
>>> If the republican party puts a stamp of approval on disregarding the real meaning of NBC then they do so at the risk of losing a percentage of their base.
Losing the crackpots is no loss. This was demonstrated after the Goldwater debacle when Bill Buckley and company had to clean house to make conservatism and republicanism respectable again. Leading to Ronald Reagan.
You just won’t answer will you?
Then I say you won’t even stand up for your own mis-reading of the situation. Doesn’t stand, does it, eh?
Well we will see who loses and who the crackpots are.
You can sit back and laugh about an your having an open borders policy towards the position of Commander-in-Chief then for now and mock all who oppose you.
I say it is your side of the issue that all the crackpots are on.
Tribe and Olsen need to read what the founding fathers had to say on the subject. They made it abundantly clear that they believed Natural Born was born in the USA of two citizen parents.
The Framers had an open borders mentality, period. The first law to restrict immigration in any way wasn't passed until 1875. The Republic's borders were wide open for its first century. There were no green cards, no student visas, no illegal aliens. Citizenship required only a two-year residency -- later extended to five (1795), then to fourteen (1798), then back to five (1802) -- and an application to "any common law court of record."
That is not to say that an open borders policy is wise, let alone constitutionally required; just that if you're looking for support from the Framers for tighter border controls, you won't find it there.
Thank you both so much for sharing your insights on this! I’d love to have Jindal on a Republican ticket - but it can’t be.
Really? This is the kind of thing that keeps you up at night?
Yes, this is a glaring loophole in US law. All our enemies have to do is sneak a pregnant woman across the border, wait until she gives birth, and then take their newborn sleeper agent back across the border for indoctrination.
Twenty-one years later, the kid returns to the US to establish the 14 years of permanent residency required. On the day he turns 35, he is eligible to run for president. Now he's home free -- all he has to do is get elected president, something so easy that 38 men have done it in the last 223 years. I mean, a billion or so dollars and 70 million or so votes is all you need. Piece of cake.
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.