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

Skip to comments.

Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]
birtherreport.com/You Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850 ... 1,551-1,578 next last
To: entropy12

Given the multiple questions surrounding Obama’s birth and parentage, but assuming BHO-I as his bio-father, and especially given the same questions arising for million of young Americans known as ‘anchor babies,’ I maintain and have maintained that the SCOTUS is doing everyone a disservice by refusing to tackle the question of the Framers’ intent in inserting the ‘natural born’ language into the Constitution for presidential eligibility but for no other.

I would argue that that Office is so unique, so special, so different from all others, that the Framers wanted it filled only by one who had the idea of the USA and all it stood for deeply embedded in his bones from Day One. All circumstances of birth and parentage notwithstanding, IMO, the current occupant of the office does not hold that idea or its ideals in his bosom.

I wouldn’t say that Obama’s occupancy of the Office is proof, but it is certainly precedent that merely claiming to have been born on US soil is adequate to meeting the requirement. How it applies to Cruz is another matter altogether. His parents weren’t in Canada as foreign service or military personnel whose children born abroad appear to be exempted in most interpretations. All interesting questions raised and yet ‘evaded’ by SCOTUS.


751 posted on 03/10/2013 10:46:35 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Hahahahaha! Is Mr. Rodgers your alter-ego?

How is:

“If the Constitution makes no mention of dual citizenship, then how can the Constitution bar a dual citizen from being President?”

even worth responding to? It’s surprising he didn’t wrap it up with a hearty, “So there!”

The Constitution isn’t a document for dimwits.

Again I ask you to present your source of proof that dual citizenship was an officially recognized class of citizenship in either the US or in England at the time the Constitution was signed.

Because you see, if it was not even considered a form of citizenship at all, if it in essence “did not exist”, it would not have been mentioned at all - anywhere.

Which is why you cannot produce any source mentioning dual citizenship as a legitimate form of citizenship, officially recognized or not, at or before the signing of the Constitution.


752 posted on 03/10/2013 10:46:47 AM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Given the absence of any legally-determined birth facts for Obama, he might have been born in 1898. But he looks a little young for that so I doubt that his eligibility could have been determined by any court in 1898. To determine Obama’s eligibility we have to start out with some legally-determined birth facts, and Onaka would not verify any birth facts for Obama.

I’m glad that you realize that there are eligibility situations which have not been decided by the courts. The refusal of the courts to take up the eligibility challenges - for ANY of the challenged candidates (McCain, Obama, and the non-US citizen that Donofrio challenged appearing on the NJ ballot) - means that we have precedent of somebody known to not even be a US citizen at all being able to make it to the ballot. If that person had been elected there would presumably be precedent set for a non-US citizen to be President.

This is dangerous stuff. The refusal of the courts to do their jobs means that we have lawlessness, which makes everything shaky.

Under this system, how is somebody like Cruz ever supposed to know whether to spend his money on a Presidential run, or whether it would all be wasted because of an eventual SCOTUS decision? The system is forcing Cruz and/or anybody else with questionable birth circumstances to play “chicken” with the Constitution and with their own money and future. And it is making every person who contributes to his campaign or votes for him in a primary play “chicken” too. It means that if he IS eligible he will still lose votes from some people because they don’t want to take the risk of him being found ineligible. If he ISN’T eligible it means that some eligible conservative candidate loses primary votes to him. The whole thing is unconscionable. The courts are holding us hostage by refusing to settle these questions - “evading” them, as Justice Thomas says. They can be as coy as they want but the truth of the matter is that they are hurting ALL of us by playing cat-and-mouse with the Constitution.

I hate this. I’m about ready to give up on this country altogether, and that’s a sad, sad thing for me to say because I have always loved this country. I don’t even recognize her any more.


753 posted on 03/10/2013 10:48:54 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

If “natural born” has anything to do with sole allegiance, then the Constitution does address dual citizenship.


754 posted on 03/10/2013 10:54:25 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest; Mr Rogers

Look. If I understand your argument, it is that dual citizens at birth are not eligible to be President. Right?

Yes, or no.

So according to your theory, if another country made a person who was born a US citizen ALSO born THEIR citizen, then that person is ineligible to be President of the United States. Right?

Yes or no.

These are simple yes or no questions.

Why can I not get a straight, yes or no answer from these birthers? It’s like I’m asking them to derive Einstein’s equation.


755 posted on 03/10/2013 10:54:59 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 752 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“But he looks a little young for that so I doubt that his eligibility could have been determined by any court in 1898.”

Sorry. I was writing as an adult, presumably to an adult. I wasn’t aware I needed to borrow some crayons to exchange views with you.

If Obama was born within the USA, then WKA (1898) controls his situation. And Hawaii says he was born in Hawaii, after Hawaii was made a state. So that pretty well settles it, unless you have proof that Hawaii lied to the state of Arizona.

Proof, not wacky conspiracy ideas with space aliens coming to earth and swapping documents....


756 posted on 03/10/2013 11:00:41 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Where on there is the gender, date of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, or father’s name ever mentioned?

If Onaka doesn’t specifically mention it then he did not verify it as requested. The only reason for him to not verify something he was requested by a qualified requestor is if he CAN’T verify it because that claim was not made on a legally-valid record.

IOW, unless you can show me “male”, “Aug 4, 1961”, “Oahu”, “Stanley Ann Dunham”, and “Barack Hussein Obama”, Onaka has effectively confirmed that none of those claims are made on a legally-valid HI BC.

So show me where those items are mentioned.

BTW, TPM Muckraker publishing only HALF of Bennett’s request is yellow journalism to the millionth degree. It’s like cutting out a bunch of conversation from a transcript, so that one question is asked and all you hear is the answer to a different question. To know what Onaka is SUPPOSED to verify if the record is valid, you have to know EVERYTHING that was asked. In order to get the half of the request that they published, TPM Muckraker had to also get the other half of the request. THEY EDITED THAT OUT, which is literally journalistic malpractice. Why did they do that?


757 posted on 03/10/2013 11:00:57 AM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; Ladysforest

Natural born has nothing to do with sole allegiance, as discussed at great length by the US Supreme Court in 1898. It simply meant born in the USA, of parents here “in amity” with the US government.

Since we do not control the laws of Botswana, we cannot prevent Botswana from declaring all of us to be citizens of Botswana. But it wouldn’t matter if they did, because the US Constitution doesn’t discuss dual citizenship, nor use it to bar anyone from running for office.


758 posted on 03/10/2013 11:04:48 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 754 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
This is all just speculation. What does native mean? Born in the United States. What evidence is there for a distinction drawn that you are drawing here? Absolutely none.

My distinction is simple: as I stated in my "assumption," they didn't have a JFK airport or Ellis Island in the 1780s with ships coming in every day by the dozens or hundreds. It would be weeks or months before a ship arrived.

In those times, if you were born here you born to natives who were already here.

I'm saying that in the language of the time, it was assumed that native or natural born in America were born to the already established citizens of the country.

I read in the Commentaries of Blackstone that in England it was assumed that a child of aliens born in England was considered to be a natural-born subject, but in France the child of an alien born if France is still an alien. The assumptions were different in Europe because the countries were very close and many shared borders where cross-border travel was common.

Cross-border travel in America was not so easy because you had to cross the Atlantic in a 3-mast ship, which was an expensive endeavor.

An assumption? Yes, but a reasonable one to make.

-PJ

759 posted on 03/10/2013 11:12:53 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

No, what Hawaii has officially verified is that they cannot verify any birth facts for Obama. See the last post I made to you. Yellow journalism hid the truth of what Onaka actually did, by failing to look at the rules Onaka had to follow and by editing out half of Bennett’s request to Onaka. I’ve posted on that a lot around here, but if you haven’t seen it, you can see Klayman’s letter about this at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf

Another explanation is at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wheel-of-fortune-v-family-feud-final.pdf

And BTW, 2 attorneys who have argued based on Minor v Happersett have confirmed that the legal reasoning is sound. Bennett made it clear that he was requesting the items on the actual request form to be verified. He requested that the other items be verified “from the birth record”, which allows Onaka to interpret it to mean a request for verification that those are the items that are on the BC - not that those are the real birth facts (items found on a VALID BC). In addition, the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee fashioned their request to specifically NOT ask for any birth facts to be verified. Their request was what convinced me that even hostile attorneys recognize that Onaka confirmed a legally non-valid BC for Obama. And the counsel for NE SOS John Gale could not rebut the logic either - chose instead to say that NE doesn’t have to care what HI told AZ (after first claiming that Bennett never requested DOB, gender, etc to be verified). So by either words to me or actions, I’ve got 6 hostile attorneys who have admitted that this legal reasoning is sound.

Recently it was reported that George Zimmerman’s lawyer had requested the hospital records for Witness 8, to verify her claim that she was Trayvon’s girlfriend and missed the funeral because she was hospitalized. The prosecution admitted that there were no records, which the media reported as “effectively confirming” that she was not hospitalized. The admission that there was no hospital record is indirect confirmation that she wasn’t in the hospital. Bennett requested verification that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama - and NONE of that was verified. That is an admission that they have no legally-valid BC that makes those claims.


760 posted on 03/10/2013 11:13:21 AM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The state of Arizona considered Hawaii’s answer to be adequate. That suggests courts would as well. You can postulate fraud, but you have no evidence that Hawaii deliberately misled Arizona.

Ҥ338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.

(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.

(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.”

Let me repeat:

“A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”


761 posted on 03/10/2013 11:15:19 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“No, what Hawaii has officially verified is that they cannot verify any birth facts for Obama.”

On the contrary, per Hawaii law:

“A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”


762 posted on 03/10/2013 11:17:17 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 760 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
“A verification shall be considered for all purposes...

The telltale sign for me was when Hawaii refused to let officials from Arizona see the original public records.

According to the Article IV Section 1 "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution:


Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


The Constitution clearly stated that a state does not have to take another state's word for it, but that public records may be "proved." Arizona went to Hawaii to prove the records for itself, and Hawaii blocked them.

We all know that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, which means that Arizona's constitutional right to prove public records for itself supercedes Hawaii's state privacy laws, which they are using to hide Obama's records, regardless of what Hawaii deems sufficient "for all purposes."

-PJ

763 posted on 03/10/2013 11:33:33 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 762 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Before receiving anything from HI, Bennett said Obama’s name would go on the ballot as long as HI sent ANYTHING. And he was true to his word. HI sent a verification that they have no valid BC for Obama, and Bennett put Obama’s name on the ballot as he had promised.

If courts would have considered it good enough, then why didn’t MDEC request Obama’s actual birth facts to be verified so they could submit to the court the same response that Bennett got? The validity of the BC and the truth of the claims made on it were central to the MDEC court case, which is what they used as the reason for making their request. But then they deliberately failed to ask about any birth facts or the validity of the BC. What they got was totally irrelevant to the central question, as defined by them. You think those guys are just stupid, or do you suppose they knew that a judge would HAVE to rule that a response like Bennett got would actually damage their case?

If they have a record they have to verify the existence of a record. They also have to verify any submitted facts that they can certify as having actually happened (that is, those facts are claimed on a legally valid BC). Let’s look at how that would play out.

Suppose I sent in a long-form to HI that said Mary Poppins, female, was born in Honolulu, on Big Island, on Jan. 1, 2013, to Little Bo Peep and Osama Bin Laden. I signed as the informant but there wasn’t any birth weight for the child and there was no doctor’s signature saying that mother and child had been examined. So the record is non-valid. It exists but it is non-valid.

Then suppose that you requested a verification that Mary Poppins, female, was born in Honolulu, on Big Island, on Jan. 1, 2012, to Little Bo Peep and Osama Bin Laden.

Onaka looks at the request application to see which BC is being asked about and sees that he’s got one that claims the same things as are listed in the request application. So he has to verify the existence of the BC.

If he issues a verification saying that they have a birth record for Mary Poppins, does that mean he is verifying all the other stuff as true?

If he responded by saying they don’t have a BC for Mary Poppins when they actually do (and the law says nothing about whether the record is valid or not) would that fulfill the requirement of the statute, that they verify the existence of the birth record if it exists?


764 posted on 03/10/2013 11:34:05 AM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 761 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

“The telltale sign for me was when Hawaii refused to let officials from Arizona see the original public records.”

They didn’t need to. They merely needed to verify the facts, which they did. And Arizona was content. Had Arizona - which does NOT love Obama - not been content, they could have sued Hawaii in court to release more.


765 posted on 03/10/2013 11:40:10 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 763 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
"HI sent a verification that they have no valid BC for Obama, and Bennett put Obama’s name on the ballot as he had promised."

You live in a fantasy land, where a state verifying something is proof that the state doesn't verify something. I don't doubt your sincerity, but you probably aren't sane enough to cross a street without help.


766 posted on 03/10/2013 11:42:36 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 764 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
"The fact you have discovered, that he used the correct phrase one time, is only proof that he was aware of the phrase, and that he chose NOT to use it in his often mis-cited sentence."

Exactly right! I've pointed that out in other conversations I've had in the past. Clearly, Vattel wasn't making the case for Natural Born lineage in his oft-cited sentence, else he most definitely would have used sujets naturels, again!

I figure that fact--that little gold nugget--holds more weight in a conversation than being ignorant of it and going around falsely claiming Vattel "never" used the term sujets naturels. You can send me a check or money order for that nugget, LOL!

“...That being said, in keeping with Our Founding Fathers’ original intent, it is one’s loyalty to his country and her people that is the true litmus test for Natural Born....”

Nope. They didn’t write that. The litmus test for a natural born citizen was identical to the litmus test for a natural born subject - birth under the Sovereign. NBC & NBS were used interchangeably by the ratifying legislatures for years before and after the Constitution. They are the same phrase, and it was one with an accepted legal meaning.


You're getting legalese on me. I'm not talking about a verbatim, word for word, dissection of the legal term Natural Born. I'm talking about the underlying reasoning behind the placement of requirements for the office of President. THAT is the litmus test I'm talking about, not the wording.

For the underlying reasoning, I've always gone to what Pinckney, one of the actual framers of the U.S. Constitution, said about it:
"They [the framers] well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes [as presidential electors] in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible..."

Even the oft cited afterbirther, "Dr. Conspiracy," admits the underlying reasoning behind the Constitutional requirements is experience and attachment (note: NOT linking to him. Google it):

“Experience and attachment” was the “original intent” of the framers, according to one of them who “remembers it well.” It was not “super citizenship” or “purity of blood” or “perfect undivided loyalty” but simple “experience and attachment”.

As best my research shows, this is the only comment by a framer of the Constitution on natural born citizenship that has survived. [John Jay was not a delegate to the Convention. The closest Jay gives to a definition is "not a foreigner."]


Now, Dr. Conspiracy downplays it, saying that "loyalty" has nothing to do with it and it's just "attachment." However, what is "attachment" in the context of Pinckney's statement "attachment to the country" but one thing only, loyalty?

Apparently, Dr. Conspiracy can't read in context and should have consulted a dictionary or a thesaurus when he hit that word, "attachment":

From the dictionary:

at·tach·ment (-tchmnt)
n.
1. The act of attaching or the condition of being attached.
2. Something, such as a tie, band, or fastener, that attaches one thing to another.
3. A bond, as of affection or loyalty; fond regard.
[...]

From the Thesaurus:

Main Entry: attachment
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: affection, high regard
Synonyms: affinity, amore, attraction, bond, case, crush, devotion, fidelity, fondness, friendship, hankering*, liking, love, loyalty, partiality, possessiveness, regard, shine*, tenderness, weakness, yen*

So, even though Dr. Conspiracy can't seem to find a dictionary, he admits that the underlying reasoning behind the qualifications for President is experience and "attachment" to our country, aka - LOYALTY to the United States of America!

Anyway, all that being said, you are correct in that, ultimately, it comes down to the Voters ensuring the loyalty of a Presidential candidate. However, I am of the opinion that when a candidate has a potential problem meeting the LETTER of the law, or, as in Mr. Cruz's case, in a well-known gray area concerning Natural Born and Birth Abroad, it is far better to be up front about it and let the voter chips fall where they may. Obama's biggest mistake, or greatest achievement, depending on how you look at it, was in trying to obfuscate the facts and dialog by belittling and ridiculing those who were genuinely concerned and just wanted reasonable answers to their questions of Obama's "attachments" to the United States, or some other country.

And, now, look where we are: We're at each other's throats over the meaning of what "is" is when it comes to Natural Born. It's truly sad, indeed.

Cheers!

767 posted on 03/10/2013 11:44:28 AM PDT by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

If you don’t verify something specifically, then you are not certifying that the event happened that way. What Onaka verified is the existence of a birth record for Barack Hussein Obama, II. A verification of “male” would be a certification that Obama was born male. A verification of “Aug 4, 1961” would be verification that the birth was on Aug 4, 1961. Etc. But Onaka didn’t verify any of those things. Of the things on the actual verification application, the ONLY thing he verified was that they have a birth certificate under that name.

Why? Why did Onaka leave out all the critical birth facts, after Bennett reiterated in his letter that he wanted the items on the request application verified?

You can’t have a certification that just says, “What you said is true”. A person could claim they had said ANYTHING, and could show that signed blank check from Onaka saying it was all true!! That’s not how legal documents work. If a verification is to be considered legally the same as a certified birth certificate, there is NO WAY that a signed blank check would be acceptable. What is verified is what is ACTUALLY STATED AS BEING VERIFIED.

And that’s NOT male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama.

Why not? Why were those things not verified?


768 posted on 03/10/2013 11:44:30 AM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 762 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; DoctorBulldog

Ooops!

Cr@p!

Must of clicked the “I have already previewed or do not wish to preview” box when I really meant to preview my comment so I could edit it and clean up my sloppy html code! LOL!

Sorry about that. Hopefully there aren’t too many stupid mistakes in there.

Cheers!


769 posted on 03/10/2013 11:48:50 AM PDT by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 767 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

First I find it interesting that you and Rodgers picked up the same diversionary type squirrel “pretend” argument..

**Uhh, lets pretend that some other country decides to usurp the citizenship of our country by suddenly declaring all US citizens to now be the citizens of country X. Then lets ask if any of those “former” US citizens can be qualified under the Constitution because they are no longer US citizens by virtue of country X laying claim to them**

Is this the question that you are asking? And are you seriously trying to participate in this discussion by making up some kooky scenario like this and presenting it as a SERIOUS question?

Or are you trying to cover for the fact that you can produce NO official *LAW* recognizing dual citizenship as a legitimately legal US class of citizenship? It is not in the history of this country, not now not ever. Because dual citizenship, specifically referencing Presidential eligibility under the Constitution is what this discussion is about. A person born a dual citizen (specifically for the issue of our modern times, being born after the Constitution was signed) is not eligible because such a class of citizenship did not exist in 1787 per US law or English common law.

Focus.


770 posted on 03/10/2013 11:51:55 AM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog

It was undoubtedly meant to help “ insure experience and attachment to the country”, but the means was an inadequate method. There was no way they could write a loyalty test into the Constitution, or ensure any future President cared about America. Ultimately, that job was left to the voters. Unhappily, modern voters don’t seem to care about America, or any of the principles that America stood upon - so they voted for Obama, and not just once, but twice.

“You can send me a check or money order for that nugget, LOL!”

Well...I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, but you do have my thanks. I will try to phrase things more correctly in the future.


771 posted on 03/10/2013 11:52:08 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 767 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Very interesting speculation. It certainly has some worthy points to ponder.

Cheers!


772 posted on 03/10/2013 12:02:45 PM PDT by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
Who was Louisa Johnson’s uncle? No one with the surname Johnson signed the Declaration of Independence.

My mistake, Thomas Johnson was a delegate to the Continental Congress, but he went back to Maryland to serve in the state assembly before the Declaration was signed. He went on to be Governor of Maryland and a US Supreme Court Justice.

But I think having a citizen father would have made her a US citizen. Reportedly John Adams initially was opposed to John Quincy marrying a “foreigner.”

Her mother was English. I'm quite convinced LCA's son JQA qualified as a natural born citizen. But I just wanted to point out the difficulty after the Revolution of determining just which of the Americans living abroad qualified as US citizens and on what grounds (and also to show that I still remember things from the school paper I had to write on the Adamses many years ago).

773 posted on 03/10/2013 12:03:30 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest; Jeff Winston

“A person born a dual citizen (specifically for the issue of our modern times, being born after the Constitution was signed) is not eligible because such a class of citizenship did not exist in 1787 per US law or English common law.”

Try to come back to reality. They could not have banned what they could not conceive of existing. If the writers of the Constitution could not have imagined dual citizenship, they could not have banned it in a President.

And they did not. There is no mention of dual citizenship in the US Constitution, so it therefor cannot ban a dual citizen from office.


Consider the case of Lynch v. Clarke. Julia Lynch was born in New York while her parents visited America, and she left at around the age of 3 months and never returned to the U.S. The highest court in NY determined that she was a natural born citizen, eligible to run for President (if she returned long enough to satisfy the 14 year residency requirement):

“Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”

That opinion was often quoted in the years to come, and Lynch was mentioned with approval in WKA.

There is no doubt that Julia Lynch was a dual citizen, and primarily a citizen (or subject) of England. But she was also a natural born citizen of the USA, and her case was never overturned or rejected by any subsequent court. That is, at a minimum, a pretty good sign that in 1844, dual citizenship was not barred by the NBC clause.

Nor could the judge in Lynch find any example otherwise during the years between 1787 and 1844.

The legal meaning of NBC included within it the possibility of a dual citizen, since some countries claim citizenship based on parentage. Had the Framers wanted something else, they could easily have written “born of citizen parents” (4 words) instead of “a natural born citizen” (4 words).

But they wrote what they wrote. You don’t have the right to overturn them.


774 posted on 03/10/2013 12:10:16 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
They didn’t need to.

Don't fall into the same trap as 2nd amendment supporters are being led into.

It's not a matter of "need." It's a matter of being able to exercise your Constitutional rights. You don't have to justify your choice to exercise your rights to someone else.

Arizona has a Constitutional right to prove Hawaii's record, whether anybody thinks they "need" to or not.

If you don't exercise your rights, you run the risk of losing them. I was disappointed that Arizona did not push it further. You say they were content. I think the Obama administration threatened them into acquiesence. One just has to look at all the reporters now coming forward with tales of being threatened by the Obama administration to know that it is going on everywhere.

-PJ

775 posted on 03/10/2013 12:11:43 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Wonder if I can get the senate to pass a resolution declaring me a billionaire?


776 posted on 03/10/2013 12:14:55 PM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

“Unhappily, modern voters don’t seem to care about America, or any of the principles that America stood upon - so they voted for Obama, and not just once, but twice.”

Yeah, I gave the voters a pass the first time they elected him because they obviously were ignorant of him due to the Main Stream Media’s success in covering up his anti-Americanism during the first election cycle. However, it just boggles my mind that, even AFTER they have all had plenty of time to discover what an anti-American scumbag he is, they went ahead and reelected him!

This is certainly not the America that I grew up in. Obviously, our public education system has failed these poor saps. That’s why my wife and I are homeschooling our daughter.

Cheers!


777 posted on 03/10/2013 12:18:07 PM PDT by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 771 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Arizona wanted Hawaii to verify that Obama Jr was born in Hawaii. They did. Arizona doesn’t need to see the original document, and that isn’t what Arizona asked.

It seems pretty obvious to me, reviewing the letter, that Hawaii says Obama Jr was born there. And if Obama Jr was born in Hawaii, he meets the criteria for a NBC.

That really is all there is to it.

And that is why all 50 states, all 535 members of Congress, and all the courts agree that Obama Jr is President of the USA. Sometimes a cigar is JUST a cigar...


778 posted on 03/10/2013 12:21:23 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 775 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog

“That’s why my wife and I are homeschooling our daughter.”

Good on you! Given the current school system, that is an important decision!

We home schooled our kids until the 9th grade. My youngest is now in 10th grade, but we talk a lot about history and science and politics. I think her biology teacher has been frustrated that she won’t accept the teacher’s opinion on evolution without question...

;>)


779 posted on 03/10/2013 12:24:54 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Blah, blah, blah indeed.

No, Vladimir Putin is not eligible for the presidency under Article Two or the Twentieth Amendment (or the Twelveth Amendment). Mr. Putin claims to have been born to two Russian parents in St. Petersburg, Russia. But I have not seen an image of his long form birth certificate to confirm that information.

Has any court or any action of Congress ever ruled Obama to be ineligible?
Does the Hawaii Letter of Verification from Dr. Alvin Onaka prepared for Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett state that “A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama,II WAS BORN in Honolulu, Hawaii?”
Are you aware of the meaning of the word “Verification?”
Has any member of Congress ever requested a congressional hearing on the issue of presidential eligibility and natural born citizenship over the last four years?

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


780 posted on 03/10/2013 12:24:54 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

You asked ‘ Are children born to illegals on US soil NBC?’
In my frame of reference such children are not NBC because of the requirements for parents to be citizens at time of birth. I believe the Founders wisely considered family allegiance to the USA be as a critical requirement for NBC to the extent possible to be ascertained. When the question arises I not only think of Mexicans or other Latin Americans but also of the two sons of the current President of Egypt who were born in the USA. I believe that the Founders wanted to make sure that the requirement for POTUSA was as ironclad as possible to assure a POTUSA had no foreign ties that might compromise their duties to/for the USA. The wisdom of their thinking and writing is being held to test under Obama and his enablers including even government officials.


781 posted on 03/10/2013 12:26:35 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

I only mention the 2nd amendment because that debate is shifting towards why do people "need" guns, as a way of shaming gun owners into having to justify why they want guns.

You brought up the idea that Arizona didn't need to prove records, they only needed to verify facts.

It was the use of the word "need" that triggered my analogy to the 2nd amendment debate.

Debating the "need" to exercise Constitutional rights is a slippery slope that runs the risk of, again, letting the Left dictate the language of the debate. First, it was the need to own guns, now it's the need to prove the public records of other states, next it will be the need to freely exercise religion (Obamacare abortions), speak freely (Obama threatening the press), peaceably assemble (DHS stockpiling ammo), petition the government (nobody has standing), be secure from unlawful search (TSA) or the taking of one's property (wealthiest 1% - I'm waiting for the confiscation of my 401(k)).

-PJ

782 posted on 03/10/2013 12:32:04 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I meant to add the loss of due process (drones) to the growing list.

-PJ

783 posted on 03/10/2013 12:34:04 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 782 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Well, what’s your Fogbow handle Noobie?


784 posted on 03/10/2013 12:34:09 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
You didn’t address the question. Would it violate the 2nd Article of the Constitution and the 20th Amendment if Vladimir Putin became President and acted as President?

Well, you insist upon imagining things that in the real world cannot happen. But, let's make this easy and assume that Vladimir Putin did somehow become president as a result of a violation of the Constitution. The only constitutional way to remove a president is through the impeachment process.

Returning to the real world, though, one of the issues in the campaign of 2008 concerned the claims expressed by some that Obama was not a natural born citizen. By selecting Obama, the voters and their electors implicitly resolved those expressed claims in Obama's favor. Had you been an elector, you might have decided the issue differently. Okay.

Seriously, what do you think should be done at this point?

785 posted on 03/10/2013 12:37:28 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 738 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
Based on my own recent research, I've been moving away from the absolute idea that NBC means children of citizen parents, only because I can't find any historical documentation where this assumption was clearly stated.

I've already suggested that it may have been an inculcated understanding due to the remoteness of America at the time and the assumption that people born here were born to natives of the land, given that travel from Europe took so long. Also, the Preamble to the Constitution refers to establishing the Constitution to secure liberty to "ourselves and our posterity," meaning the citizen people and their citizen children.

That said, from the argument that a born citizen is one who is born in the jurisdiction of the country (and not just on the soil), a legal alien would be under the jurisdiction of the country, but I think that an illegal alien is still under the jurisdiction of their homeland, so their child born on USA soil one day after illegally crossing the border should not be a citizen.

-PJ

786 posted on 03/10/2013 12:41:48 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Wong Kim Ark

..... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Notice they declared him a citizen, but not a natural born one. In fact, from earlier in the opinion:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of [169 U.S. 649, 680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Say WHAT?

1)Children of parents who are citizens are natural born

2)There are doubts about the citizenship of children when the parents citizenship is unreferenced or foreign, but there are NO DOUBTS about what constitutes 'natural born'.

and

3)The judges felt it UNECESSARY to distinguish between the desperate TYPES of 'citizen' in their decision....

WHY?

Because the question wasn't if Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen, but whether he was a 'citizen of the United States'

------

Since the decision made it plain Wong Kim was not natural-born [due to his parents citizenship], the only other type of citizen he COULD be was one naturalized at birth via the 14th Amendment.

Guess the judges missed the fact the co author of the 14th Amendment said it DIDN'T include foreigners or aliens.

[center column, halfway down]
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20

-----

If you love anchor babies, thank the decision of Wong Kim Ark.

787 posted on 03/10/2013 12:53:50 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too; noinfringers2

FWIW, the court in WKA said:

” Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.”

Someone here illegally is not here “in amity” with the government, and thus would not give birth to NBCs. IMHO.


788 posted on 03/10/2013 12:54:33 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; DiogenesLamp

I respect your right to your own opinion, but three times now you have ignored the grandfather clause problem. Granted, it may not be decisive in itself. But I would think if you had a real answer to it, if for nothing else to relieve me of my ignorance, you would at least acknowledge its existence. But you don’t.

And I do not limit the evidence collecting to the founders. DL makes the point, which you completely circumvented, that there were various opinions on the matter. It does not matter to your argument that Rawle was a legal expert. He was just one of many, and many of those had various and conflicting opinions, else you would not even have your quote farm for statements apparently dismissive of parentage. The matter was in discussion, parentage was being raised, and the issue was not settled in the minds of many. I am not asking for extraordinary proof regarding Rawle. I am asking for something which actually qualifies as proof.

You say the birthers have no evidence. But this is not true. What is true is that you have in one way or another dismissed that evidence and now hope that others, like myself, who are trying to give the question a fair hearing, either do not know of the conflicting evidence, or can read your mind and just innately know, as you seem to, that it doesn’t support the birther case, or else just meekly accept your “authoritative” assertion that we are all idiots. That simply isn’t good style in legal analysis. You could never win in a typical appellate court with an approach like that.

As for “absolutely false,” or even “absolutely true,” that is nonsense. We are not talking about divine law, but human law. Men err. Supreme Court decisions display repeated shifts and shades of meaning over time, and some of those shifts are clearly accidental, especially as it relates to what are called “terms of art,” words or phrases given a specific body of complex meaning over time. That is why I said at the outset, unless SCOTUS takes this on, we will not have final certainty.

Am I a birther? Probably, according to you. I am an old man and I was raised my entire life to believe that citizenship, natural born or otherwise, was far more than just being born on this soil. Any animal can do that. The grandfather clause would not have been necessary if that were the case. The quotes you have mined to invoke your reductionist view are noteworthy and valuable to the discussion, but I have learned over time to be wary of quote wars, and I do not consider any single quote to be decisive in itself. Filling in the gaps with rigorous context to achieve true understanding is not a trivial task, and is best left to those with the time, inclination, and ability to do so. Among such you will seldom hear talk of absolute claims of truth or falsity, because human law is shifting sand. Only the divine law endures over time, and human law only survives to the extent it relies on divine law.

So I think our conversation is at an end. My time is precious, and no one is paying me to write the definitive brief for this problem. I leave it to you and other dedicated volunteers and professionals. I do not believe Obama will leave office over a constitutional violation, real or imagined, of any sort. We are past that. His term will expire and he will either leave or find a pretext for remaining in power. My focus right now is gun rights. It is one thing to have a president whose lawless acts will never get him impeached. It is quite another for said lawless one to attempt to remove from us our last practical defense against his mounting tyrannies. That is where I choose to focus my energies.

So if birtherism is where you want to work, go for it. Not for me. But lose the paranoid ad hominem shtick. It’ll never sell in Peoria. Or even Springfield.

Just sayin …


789 posted on 03/10/2013 12:55:05 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
There have been numerous efforts over the decades to undermine the very legal understanding of the term that you, I and others share, that is in fact the historical understanding.

Nothing is immune at this time. I appreciate discourse and accept change as a part of life, good or bad, but do not appreciate the dishonesty.

If the concept can't be changed or you don't like the connotations or whatever, the create a work around by simply changing the definition.

This is the technique I despise the most, whether with NBC eligibility, anytime abortion, and currently gay marriage and gun control, among others.

Can't redo the 2nd? Then redefine a gun to make it illegal or a magazine illegal or the round itself. Lie if you have to or don't have to, it's their end result that's important, not the integrity of the path to get there

They are masters at these techniques and use them against US, a group of people who are masters only of the moment, with an awareness of nothing more than the span of our own lifetimes and what we want, when we want it.

I don't have much faith we survive with this mindset against those concerted efforts with no viable resistance. They have won or soon will and the republic is dead. Then we get a taste of karma and reality and the consequences of stupidly ignoring history, like the spoiled prodigal children we are.

Beam me out, Scottie. Resistance is futile. We have embraced the decline and I don't want to embrace the destination.

790 posted on 03/10/2013 12:55:35 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“If you love anchor babies, thank the decision of Wong Kim Ark.”

Actually, you would have to thank the Founders who used a legal phrase that would permit such a thing to happen. WKA didn’t make up a meaning, but discussed the meaning as the Founders understood it.


791 posted on 03/10/2013 12:56:16 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

What is “the grandfather clause problem”?


792 posted on 03/10/2013 12:58:35 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 789 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The WKA decision spent half of the decision discussing natural born subject/citizen

No, it was mentioned a scant six times. Four in the decision and twice in the dissent.

What you posted is the Appellants Brief, not the determination of the court.

793 posted on 03/10/2013 1:04:03 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
you would have to thank the Founders who used a legal phrase that would permit such a thing to happen.

Show me.

794 posted on 03/10/2013 1:06:19 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
If we agree that illegal aliens cannot confer citizenship on children born here, then we have a case where it's not enough to just be born here for someone to be a natural born citizen.

For legal alien status that confers citizenship to children, is it only permanent resident alien status or does even temporary student visas count?

I would think (hope?) that someone with a delcared temporary status cannot confer citizenship on their children, whereas someone with a declared permanent resident status could.

I read on old naturalization histories that it was required of an alien to declare their intention to become a citizen to begin the naturalization process. It would be reasonable to assume that someone here on a temporary student visa has declared their intention to not stay here, and so should not be able to confer natural born status to their children?

-PJ

795 posted on 03/10/2013 1:08:01 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: GBA

I was otherwised engaged and just now read your response. Very interesting anaolgy, and very helpful, I think. Property was central to the founder’s view of freedom, and the complexities of title under the common law were second nature to them. It would be an interesting framework from which to reexamine the body of evidence. Good thought. Thanks.


796 posted on 03/10/2013 1:11:38 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

But Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and most likely has a Canadian birth certificate. Do you mean to tell me that a man born in Canada that has a Canadian birth certificate is a Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen eligible to run for the presidency?


797 posted on 03/10/2013 1:17:27 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

I KNOW I posted the Appellant’s brief. It sheds light on what the government want the court to decide.

And NBS/NBC was mentioned far more than 6 times in the WKA decision. It covered half of the decision, and for reason - because it was something the government had argued against.


798 posted on 03/10/2013 1:37:50 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 793 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“Show me.”

The legal term was “natural born citizen”, and that definition includes anyone born in the country of parents here in amity with the government.


799 posted on 03/10/2013 1:39:01 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 794 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

I don’t know on Cruz. If both his parents had been US citizens, then I’d say yes, he meets the requirement for NBC. But with just one parent, I don’t know. I can think of arguments on both sides.


800 posted on 03/10/2013 1:40:42 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 797 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850 ... 1,551-1,578 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