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 ... 751-800801-850851-900 ... 1,551-1,578 next last
To: Mr Rogers

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Some have repeatedly attempted to derail eligibility concerns by citing the conflicted national affiliations of the earliest presidents, Jefferson for example. But this is a dead end for that line of argument, because the phrase above,

“or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,”

clearly sets forth an exception to the NBC requirement, out of necessity. Where would the first generation of Americans be able to get their elder statesmen if they excluded Jefferson et al. In later generations, the more stringent standard would apply, because time would have produced a new generation of leadership fully capable of meeting that higher standard.

In any discussion of law, you start with the text, not the history. History may be informative, and even necessary to consider. But statutory language gets first dibs at creating meaning. Here you have two classes of citizenship, clearly spelled out by the text. There is no reason for that distinction if folks like Jefferson and others could qualify under the NBC criteria. It is inescapable then that merely being a “Citizen of the United States,” per the grandfather clause, is not the same as being an NBC. From there you probably have to explore what that difference might be mostly in external sources, history, decisions of the court, etc. But it is a given that there is a difference (as well as a secondary inference that NBC was somehow more difficult to meet), and a full accounting of that difference and its inferences must be made to get to the truth.

Hence the “grandfather clause” problem. You simply haven’t knocked around enough of these eligibility discussions if you haven’t encountered it before. I’m not saying it’s decisive. Only that it cannot be ignored in the formulation of any solution that might be worthy of being considered complete.


801 posted on 03/10/2013 1:44:47 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest; Mr Rogers
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**

Ah. I'm glad you recognize that your position leads to an absurdity.

Mr Rogers recognizes it, apparently. I think most intelligent people would recognize it.

And it's not because Mr Rogers and I are in some kind of secret collusion here. The ABSURDITY is an OBVIOUS CONSEQUENCE of your position.

If your position is CORRECT, then it means, as an OBVIOUS CONSEQUENCE, that legally speaking, the North Koreans can pass a law tomorrow making every person born in the United States a North Korean citizen. Therefore, we would be giving any country on earth the power to destroy or at least significantly cripple the United States, by making it impossible for us to elect a Constitutional President. At least, without passing a Constitutional Amendment so that we could do so.

Those are the LEGAL CONSEQUENCES of your position.

Or do you not think laws mean anything?

So, according to you...

Those HACK Framers have messed it up again.

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?

No. It's obvious that dual citizenship EXISTED, whether we passed a law "recognizing" it or not.

Heck, THREE OUT OF OUR FIRST FOUR PRESIDENTS were dual citizens... WHILE IN OFFICE.

Look. We defined whether a person was a citizen OF THE UNITED STATES, or not.

We made NO PROVISION for any change WHATSOEVER in a person's UNITED STATES citizenship status on the basis of whether or not some other country also recognized that person as a citizen.

So there's no clause invalidating a person's eligibility to be President on the basis of whether some other country recognized him as its citizen. It doesn't exist. DOES NOT EXIST.

So your claim that "a person born a dual citizen... is not eligible because such a class of citizenship did not exist in 1787" is simple and complete NONSENSE.

There are clear rules for defining who is and is not a US CITIZEN. There were and are NO RULES that say that citizenship is revoked, changed, or modified IN ANY WAY by the fact that another country recognizes him as a citizen, whether he accepts that citizenship or not.

It simply doesn't exist. And it's a damn good thing, too, because as we've seen, it leads directly to a complete legal absurdity.

802 posted on 03/10/2013 1:46:42 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

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

Thanks!

803 posted on 03/10/2013 1:48:24 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
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.

I've read the same. Wish I had bookmarked it at the time.

Immigrants weren't 'immigrant's' until they registered to begin the naturalization process.

Everyone else was considered a denizen .

Denizens were under the jurisdiction of the States. It's HOW they kept what we now call 'illegals' out of the country.

From the 1st legal treaties written after Constitutional Ratification:

The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker

The States had the FULL Constitutional authority to eject foreigners and aliens from their State and/or make restrictions on their residence until the federal government decided it could hopscotch past the 'parties to the compact' and make the 14th Amendment into some kind of grant of national jurisdiction.

804 posted on 03/10/2013 1:52:20 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

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

Source, please.

805 posted on 03/10/2013 1:53:08 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Ladysforest
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.

These Founding Fathers are people who read international works, and many of them traveled internationally. They knew people who came here not just from England but from other countries as well.

I don't think it escaped them that it was possible for a citizen born in one country to have "dual citizenship at birth" in another country. I don't think they were that FREAKING STUPID.

And yet, that seems to be ladysforest's argument. That the Framers of the Constitution were so STUPID that they couldn't even conceive of dual citizenship existing in fact, when they wrote the Constitution.

I guess they must have gotten smarter in a hurry, since 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens while serving in that office.

806 posted on 03/10/2013 1:53:48 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

Then here is how I would answer your problem:

The grandfather clause is, I guess “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”. That means that a NATURALIZED citizen, having probably fought for the new country during the Revolution, could become President.

There was an example, although I don’t remember the name. He came to the US in the 1760s, fought in the Revolution, and then was for a time Speaker of the House. As a naturalized citizen, he would ordinarily been prohibited from being in line to take the Presidency, but he was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted.

It also allowed anyone born outside the USA, who was a naturalized citizen in 1787, to become President. And again, I think there were two motivations for that. Politically, it made a lot of folks figure THEY could become President, and thus they voted for it. And second, most of those would have fought in the Revolution and thereby proven both their understanding of the new country, and their devotion to it. Those who helped deliver the new country shouldn’t have been barred from the Presidency due to being naturalized citizens, and they were not.


807 posted on 03/10/2013 1:54:58 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

I see you choose not to answer the two simple yes or no questions I asked you.

Let’s try again:

1) Are you prepared to go with what the EVIDENCE says regarding where “offences against law of nations” came from in our Constitution?

2) Prior to my asking, had you ever carefully read the Opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark, from start to finish?

These are not hard questions. Yes, or no.

I can deal with your other twistings after we’ve dealt with those.


808 posted on 03/10/2013 1:57:40 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
And NBS/NBC was mentioned far more than 6 times in the WKA decision.

No, it was not. 2 referenced other cases, 1 mentioned the Act of 1790, the one I posted earlier and 2 in the dissent.

If you believe there were more....

SHOW ME.

809 posted on 03/10/2013 2:00:43 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“Source, please.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html


810 posted on 03/10/2013 2:04:48 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“And NBS/NBC was mentioned far more than 6 times in the WKA decision...SHOW ME.”

Well, if you insist...see how many times you can find the phrase “natural born subject” or “natural born citizen”:

I. In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States.” and “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

also declares that

no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that

the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

124 U.S. 478.

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. 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. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or [p656] explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell’s State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.

The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co.Lit. 8a, 128b, Lord Hale, in Hargrave’s Law Tracts, 210, an in 1 Hale P.C. 61, 62; 1 Bl.Com. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl.Com. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, p. 173-177, 741.

In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicil of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: “The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil.” P. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying:

The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.

And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil, domicilium, the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which

the personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy or intestacy, [p657] must depend,

he yet distinctly recognized that a man’s political status, his country, patria, and his “nationality, that is, natural allegiance,” “may depend on different laws in different countries.” Pp. 457, 460. He evidently used the word “citizen” not as equivalent to “subject,” but rather to “inhabitant,” and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

Cockburn on Nationality, 7.

Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:

“British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown. “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.

The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person’s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

And he adds:

The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man’s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.

Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:

Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of [p659] that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.

2 Cranch 64, 119.

In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: “He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York.” 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin’s Case, Blackstone’s Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.

3 Pet. 155. “The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens.” 3 Pet. 156.

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.

3 Pet. 164.

In Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. 242, decided (as appears by the records of this court) on the same day as the last case, it was held that a woman born in South Carolina before the Declaration of Independence, married to an English officer in Charleston during its occupation by the British forces in the Revolutionary War, and accompanying her husband on his return to England, and there remaining until her death, was a British subject within the meaning of the Treaty of Peace of 1783, so that her title to land in South Carolina, by descent cast before that treaty, was protected thereby. It was of such a case that Mr. Justice Story, delivering the opinion of the court, said:

The incapacities of femes covert, provided by the common law, apply to their civil rights, and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights, nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.

3 Pet. 248. This last sentence was relied on by the counsel for the United States as showing that the question whether a person is a citizen of a particular country is to be determined not by the law of that country, but by the principles of international law. But Mr. Justice Story certainly did not mean to suggest that, independently of treaty, there was any principle of international law which could defeat the operation of the established rule of citizenship by birth within the United States; for he referred (p. 245) to the contemporaneous opinions in Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, [p661] above cited, in which this rule had been distinctly recognized, and in which he had said (p. 162) that “each government had a right to decide for itself who should be admitted or deemed citizens,” and, in his Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, published in 1834, he said that, in respect to residence in different countries or sovereignties, “there are certain principles which have been generally recognized by tribunals administering public law” [adding, in later editions “or the law of nations”] “as of unquestionable authority,” and stated, as the first of those principles, “Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country.” Story, Conflict of Laws, § 48.

The English statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700). c. 6, entitled

An act to enable His Majesty’s natural-born subjects to inherit the estate of their ancestors, either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens,

enacted that “all and every person or persons, being the King’s natural-born subject or subjects, within any of the King’s realms or dominions,” might and should thereafter lawfully inherit and make their titles by descent to any lands

from any of their ancestors, lineal or collateral, although the father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor, of such person or persons, by, from, through or under whom

title should be made or derived, had been or should be “born out of the King’s allegiance, and out of is Majesty’s realms and dominions,” as fully and effectually, as if such parents or ancestors “had been naturalized or natural-born subject or subjects within the King’s dominions.” 7 Statutes of the Realm, 90. It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called “natural-born subjects.” As that statute included persons born “within any of the King’s realms or dominions,” it, of course, extended to the Colonies, and, not having been repealed in Maryland, was in force there. In McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the title to land in the State of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were “native-born citizens of the [p662] United States,” and, without such assumption, the case would not have presented the question decided by the court, which, as stated by Mr. Justice Story in delivering the opinion, was

whether the statute applies to the case of a living alien ancestor, so as to create a title by heirship where none would exist by the common law if the ancestor were a natural-born subject.

9 Wheat. 356.

Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,

if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,

and saying that such a child “was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354.”

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

19 How. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, speaking by Mr. Justice (afterwards Chief Justice) Sewall, early held that the determination of the question whether a man was a citizen or an alien was “to be governed altogether by the principles of the common law,” and that it was established, with few exceptions,

that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”

Garder v. Ward (1805), 2 Mass. 244, note. And again:

The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.

Kilham v. Ward (1806), 2 Mass. 236, 265. It may here be observed that, in a recent English case, Lord Coleridge expressed the opinion of the Queen’s Bench Division that the statutes of 4 Geo. II, (1731) c. 1, and 13 Geo. III (1773), c. 21, (hereinafter referred to) “clearly recognize that to the King in his politic, and not in his personal, capacity is the allegiance of his subjects due.” Isaacson v. Durant, 17 Q.B.D. 54, 65.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.

That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.

The same doctrine was repeatedly affirmed in the executive departments, as, for instance, by Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, 2 Whart.Int.Dig. (2d ed.) p. 394; by Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Opinions, 373, and by Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Opinions, 328, 382, 394, 396.

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the “general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,” says:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

2 Kent Com. 258, note.

Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, said:

The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens o the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned,

(namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to)

such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.

P. 20.

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]

P. 22, note. This paper, without Mr. Binney’s name and with the note in a less complete form and not containing the passage last cited, was published (perhaps from the first edition) in the American Law Register for February, 1854. 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204.


811 posted on 03/10/2013 2:09:12 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

**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**

Ah. I’m glad you recognize that your position leads to an absurdity. “

That was YOUR absurdity. You want to play the lets pretend game along with Rodgers. I was pointing out that it has no place in this discussion.

You can’t help but get flustered and begin insults. It’s because you cannot produce any sources for the claims you make. I keep trying to steer you back, and you go all rant on topics you don’t seem to have a meaningful grasp of.

Like saying, “No. It’s obvious that dual citizenship EXISTED, whether we passed a law “recognizing” it or not. “

The point was that it is not OFFICIALLY recognized by any US *LAW* and never has been. Simple.

It follows that if it was not an officially sanctioned type of citizenship, it would not have been addressed in 1787 at the time the Article ll restrictions of eligibility were being decided. Simple.

And since it was not a legally recognized type of citizenship then or now, it stands to reason that it would disqualify a person from meeting any other type of standard citizenship which was ( in 1787) and is still legally recognized to this day.

A natural born citizen has a legal status, a naturalized citizen has a legal status, a 14th amendment citizen has legal status, but strictly speaking dual citizens do not in the same sense. Our own government admits to that, and says while it’s not officially recognized it is tolerated.


812 posted on 03/10/2013 2:18:18 PM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 802 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Let me get one thing straight. I do not have to answer TO YOU in any way shape of form.

I DO NOT have to justify my opinions any further to you, as I have already provided sources to substantiate my position.

Everything everyone has provided as evidence has been conveniently ignored BY YOU

Your behavior has been arrogant and belittling, you have substantiated NOTHING, and added nothing positive whatsoever to the conversation.

Yet you consistently make childish demands of people that they ‘agree’ to something based on your conditions and on your opinion that what you have to offer is of any value at all.

You have already been asked once if you think we’re all stupid…well, if you think we'll fall for THAT one, it's obvious that you do.

-----

I'd like to rephrase my earlier statement to you -

Go play your stupid little ego-stroking games by yourself.

813 posted on 03/10/2013 2:23:58 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
That was idiotic, unnecessary and totally childish of you to mega-post the thread for everyone because you are to lazy to prove what you had asserted.
814 posted on 03/10/2013 2:26:49 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
Thanks. I believe that with regard to the POTUS, our FFs did all they could to make sure there would be no clouds on his or her title, so to speak.

As such, we voters could kick back and enjoy our right to the covenant of warranty and quiet enjoyment of knowing that person is a citizen of the highest quality.

And, that we voters will not be disturbed at any time in the future because s/he has a defective title and must defend the title conveyed to us against the claims and demands of nations and persons whomsoever.

815 posted on 03/10/2013 2:27:40 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

There is a specific tie of citizen parentage and place of birth in Vattel’s references which were very much known to the Founders. However the knot or blank so to speak in the debate about NBC as to a Constitutional requirement is that there is no specific wording that incorporates Vattel’s words exactly or some other corresponding expression into the requirement for POTUSA. My take is that with the records of deliberation of the Congress and the fact that Articles I and II address two different categories of citizen, the Founders intentionally wanted POTUSA to be a special kind of citizen. At the time their actions were in consonance with their words, I believe they thought so. I find it very easy to accept such even though my only brother who died on Okinawa in WWII and myself who also served in the Pacific would not qualify for POTUSA because of immigrant parents not being naturalized at our birth.


816 posted on 03/10/2013 2:31:11 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The point of any grandfather clause is the sunset effect. Once all who lived at the time the Constitution was adopted died off, the only remaining criteria would be NBC status. So I am not sure how to read your response. The clause creates two distinct categories of qualified individuals, one of which would expire over time (”US Citizen at a specific time”), the other remaining for perpetuity (NBC). It does not specify naturalized versus “born here,” but creates this temporary transitional category for all who are not NBC but are still a citizen by whatever other means then allowed, whether by naturalization or by birth. Again, that second category is gone now. It cannot be used to directly define modern eligibility. It can be used to explain many of the early exceptions to NBC qualification, such as Jefferson. Hence my uncertainty in evaluating your response.


817 posted on 03/10/2013 2:35:56 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Ah, your bizarre circular argument again.

I suppose that the Founders understood that amendments could be made at any time in the future to include whatever the citizens felt was needed or warranted.

But since dual citizenship is still not an officially recognized/legal type of citizenship it might be pretty tough to have Article ll amended to include this.

Why don’t you petition for this and let us know how that works out. Seven or eight attempts have been made by our elected reps. to amend Article ll and no attempt has yet been successful. You should read of the attempt that Barney Frank made, it’s good stuff. Lots of arrogant posturing about “fairness”.


818 posted on 03/10/2013 2:36:20 PM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
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.

On the contrary, I asked you what the heck you're talking about, and you haven't answered. I simply have no idea what you're referring to when you say "the grandfather clause problem." I have asked you to define it for me, but you won't. Then you accuse me of having "ignored" it.

And I do not limit the evidence collecting to the founders.

Neither have I.

DL makes the point, which you completely circumvented, that there were various opinions on the matter.

Where? Give me one opinion on the opposite side, dating from before 1840, as clearly worded as Rawle's.

You claim these opinions exist. All right, let's hear them. List them.

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.

List them.

I can think of ONE such opinion in early America, and it was voted down 36 to 1.

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.

If something is a misrepresentation of fact, does that count as evidence in favor of a proposition? If something is irrelevant, does that count as evidence? If someone's words have been twisted to what they did not mean, does that count as evidence? If an opinion is expressed which was weighed and voted down 36 to 1 by a person's contemporaries, does that count as evidence? If there is no documentable link between A and B, yet someone asserts that there is a link, does that count as evidence?

Because that is ALL that birthers have.

And I know that you undoubtedly haven't read as much on the subject as I have. I've read a lot now. But you should start to pick up on the fact that birthers have no case.

Let's go back to post #695, because I'm not sure you read it. Maybe you should go back and read the entire thing. Then I have a question for you, since you seem to have some legal background.

Let's say you have a witness, in a case. We'll call him "Fred."

And you put Fred on the witness stand. And he sit up there, and he says some things. He was in Charleston on the night of the 27th. He was sitting in a restaurant, and he overheard Mr. Smith plotting to overthrow the government. No, he has absolutely no prior knowledge or relationship to Mr. Smith, and no motive for accusing him of anything. Yes, he's aware that the crime is punishable by 35 years in jail.

So then the defense lawyer comes in. And he brings a statement from Fred's wife, that she and Fred were out of town, in vacation in Las Vegas the entire week of the 27th. He produces a videotape from a casino that very clearly shows Fred, sitting in Las Vegas on the night of the 27th, playing roulette.

So the claim he was in Charleston that week is false.

So then he produces a second videotape, taken in New York, where Mr. Smith was presenting at a conference on the evening of the 27th.

So the claim that Smith was in Charleston on that night is false.

So then he produces a third videotape, which happened to be caught accidentally at a Charleston restaurant earlier in the month. And in that videotape, Fred (and it's clear that it's him) is caught making out with Smith's wife.

So the claim that he has no motive for accusing Smith of anything is obviously false.

Let me ask you: What is the credibility of Fred and his accusations at that point? Now that he has made 3 false claims in a row?

And yet I pick 5 RANDOM claims made by Mr. Birther, and I show that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, IN A ROW, IS COMPLETE NONSENSE.

And you want to keep Mr. Birther on the stand. Why is that?

Perhaps you can explain to me exactly why that is? Why, after having seen that 5 claims in a row from Mr. Birther are complete bull****, picked at random from among what I assume would be some of his "best" claims, why do you still try to make the case that Mr. Birther has any "evidence" at all?

As for “absolutely false,” or even “absolutely true,” that is nonsense. We are not talking about divine law, but human law. Men err.

I said that the birther claim that a person born on US soil must have two citizen parent is ABSOLUTELY FALSE, and I stand by that claim. I have done enough reading and analysis to know that it's true.

Let's put it this way: I can claim that when the Constitution says a person must have "attained to the Age of thirty-five Years," "attained to" is specific wording that means after reaching the age of majority, that is, 21. So I can claim (and I might even be able to find some foreign author to base the claim on, and say the Founding Fathers absolutely loved him and used him for the Presidential eligibility clause). So therefore, Presidential candidates REALLY have to be at least 56 years old, not 35.

Would such a claim on my part be "sort of true?" No. It would be FALSE. It would be ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

And that is the status of the two-citizen-parent claim. Just like the 56-years claim, it is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

There is no credible evidence to support it, and tons of evidence against it. So yes, it is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

The grandfather clause would not have been necessary if that were the case.

Do you actually know WHY the grandfather clause was put in the Constitution?

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.

Sir, I salute you and wish you the greatest of success in your struggle on behalf of the Second Amendment. That is a worthy battle to fight.

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

Here is what I believe.

The arguments have all been made. Nothing that you have presented, or any other birther argument that I have seen here, is new. And every single one of those arguments, which I have all seen before, is rubbish.

You might think that I'm exaggerating. But you yourself put 5 arguments before me, and I promptly demonstrated that each and every one of them was rubbish. So there's a sample for you.

Since all the arguments have been made, and they are all nonsense, it is time for those who respect the Constitution as it was written, not as birthers wish it was written, to stand up and say: Enough is enough. Please stop twisting the Constitution. Leave it alone.

If that comes across to you as ad hominem, I'm sorry. Again, the fact that 5 birther arguments chosen at random, were all promptly shown to be hogwash, should be a clue that it is not.

It has been good talking with you. And I wish you success at your efforts to defend the Second Amendment.

819 posted on 03/10/2013 2:43:32 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 789 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
However the knot or blank so to speak in the debate about NBC as to a Constitutional requirement is that there is no specific wording that incorporates Vattel’s words exactly or some other corresponding expression into the requirement for POTUSA. My take is that with the records of deliberation of the Congress and the fact that Articles I and II address two different categories of citizen, the Founders intentionally wanted POTUSA to be a special kind of citizen.

I agree with you.

The closest wording that I can find is in the Preamble, which says that the Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." "Ourselves" are clearly "We the People." Our "posterity" is our children, our children's children, and so forth.

The Framers meant to seculre liberty to the citizens of America and their citizen children. The way to secure liberty is by restricting the highest office of the land to the tightest of qualifications. To me, that meant "our Posterity," as laid out in the Preamble, or the citizne children of citizen parents. Even if "ourselves" aren't natural born, our "posterity" are.

-PJ

820 posted on 03/10/2013 2:49:48 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 816 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

McCain was born to a US serviceman on duty at a foriegn station. In that case he is natural born. There was a law past several years ago dealing with that specific issue—which was more of a concern when the US took on an empire status by deploying our troops all over the world. When we minded our own business and kept to our own land this was not a problem. Seems like a good solution to work towards.


821 posted on 03/10/2013 2:50:19 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest; Mr Rogers
Your argument is just nonsense.

A natural born citizen has a legal status, a naturalized citizen has a legal status, a 14th amendment citizen has legal status, but strictly speaking dual citizens do not in the same sense. Our own government admits to that, and says while it’s not officially recognized it is tolerated.

So tell me.

Billy and Bob live in Peoria. Both were born in Peoria. Billy is a US citizen. Bob is a US citizen. Billy has no other citizenship. Bob had an Hessian grandmother, and the government of Hessia says that any grandchild of a Hessian is a Hessian natural born citizen.

So Billy is not a dual citizen, but Bob is.

You say that Bob, as a "dual citizen," has "no legal status." What does this mean? Does this mean he can't get a driver's license? How is Bob's US citizenship any different from Billy's?

Ah, you say. But Bob can't run for President. Why not? Where is the rule that says he can't? You can produce no such rule, because it doesn't exist.

But you say his dual citizenship stops him, because he "has no legal status." That's nonsense. THERE IS NO LAW ANYWHERE ON THE BOOKS IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES LEGAL SYSTEM THAT SPECIFIES THAT BOB'S US CITIZENSHIP IS IN ANY WAY DIFFERENT FROM BILLY'S, OR THAT HE IS TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IN ANY WAY.

In fact, as far as the US government is concerned, it's his Hessian citizenship that might as well not exist.

So your argument is completely, absolutely, totally absurd. But you will never give up the absurd argument, because you like it.

And that's what it is to be a birther.

822 posted on 03/10/2013 2:52:31 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 812 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Residents of the colonies through the course of the Revolution, who had not fought for or aided England in warring against the Patriot cause, ipso facto became the original citizens. There was no “naturalized” because these were The People of a new political entity formed out of a previous political entity.

I've encountered your peculiar insistence that the United States was somehow just a continuance of English rule many times over the past four going on five years, and this has got to be the strangest by far. “Naturalization” had nothing to do with the so-called “grandfather clause.” The Founders grandfathered themselves and their generation because they could not be natural born. They could not be natural born because the country didn't exist when they were born, your strained assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

823 posted on 03/10/2013 2:54:31 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Sorry. My bad. I assumed you were perfectly capable of googling it for yourself. However, as I am too lazy and too preoccupied with other more important tasks to help you out, I leave you to your own devices anyway. Enjoy the nirvana.

Peace,

SR


824 posted on 03/10/2013 2:55:47 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

McCain was born to a US serviceman on duty at a foriegn station. In that case he is natural born. There was a law past several years ago dealing with that specific issue—which was more of a concern when the US took on an empire status by deploying our troops all over the world. When we minded our own business and kept to our own land this was not a problem. Seems like a good solution to work towards.


825 posted on 03/10/2013 2:56:06 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Let me get one thing straight. I do not have to answer TO YOU in any way shape of form.

I never asked you to answer to me.

I have asked you whether you would answer TO REALITY.

I have asked you whether you would answer TO EVIDENCE.

I DO NOT have to justify my opinions any further to you, as I have already provided sources to substantiate my position.

Well, one of the first things you provided was a claim that Vattel was the source of the phrase "law of nations" in our Constitution. I asked whether you would change that opinion if I provided conclusive evidence that there is a far, far better candidate for where that phrase came from.

You have steadfastly and absolutely refused to answer that you would be swayed by reasonable evidence, if I presented it.

In doing so, you have as much as admitted that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON EARTH THAT WOULD SWAY YOU FROM WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.

And by so doing, you have given some useful information to others reading this thread.

You have very strongly indicated that evidence means nothing to you. Only your OPINION matters, and if given a choice between your opinion and REALITY, you will take your personal opinion.

So you have very clearly told everyone following this thread that if it is REALITY they are interested in, then they can safely ignore any and all posts by you.

Because you've made it clear that you aren't dealing in reality. You're just here to claim whatever fantasy takes your fancy.

Everything everyone has provided as evidence has been conveniently ignored BY YOU

Really? I think if you would go back and read what I've posted, you would see that that statement is completely false.

Of course, this is completely in line with the fact that you've shown yourself to be a person who prefers fantasy to reality. So you are free to fantasize that "I've ignored all the evidence." I'm sure it will make you feel better to believe that.

Your behavior has been arrogant and belittling, you have substantiated NOTHING, and added nothing positive whatsoever to the conversation.

I asked you if I provided conclusive evidence of all of those points, would you go with the evidence? You have adamantly refused to listen to any evidence. I'm not sure why I or anyone else should respect someone for whom evidence and reality mean... absolutely nothing.

826 posted on 03/10/2013 3:02:08 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
No, but you are doing everything possible to twist it.

Interpreting it your way yields twisted results. Interpreting it correctly does not yield twisted results. The correct interpretation precludes Anchor babies, Birth tourism, explains the many thousands of Loyalists who remained British, and explains why slaves and indians were not citizens (though born here) until laws were passed making them so.

827 posted on 03/10/2013 3:02:40 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Birthers who claim otherwise are spitting in the face of William Rawle and the Founders and Framers that he was friends with. And it is time that real Patriots stopped tolerating this nonsense.

No, we are just pointing out that a Lawyer Heavily trained in BRITISH law, may not be the best authority for arguing what is the meaning of UNIQUE portions of AMERICAN law. We threw off British legal thinking as regards to subjectship. The law of the time was "Perpetual Allegiance."

We stabbed a dagger right through the heart of British Subject law. We could never be independent had we adhered to it.

828 posted on 03/10/2013 3:06:15 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
... but to the fictional Hessian government, it's the US citizenship that does not exist or is certainly viewed as being of secondary importance. Rights and obligations appertain.

Can you envision any problems that might arise, from a President who is legally beholden to another nation? Will his actions be in the best interests of this nation, or of Hessia? You can't say you know the answer to that question, and neither could the Founders. It wa deemed best to disallow the possibility of such a potential conflict of interest in a President and Commander-in-Chief of the military.

As far as the all-caps yelling section of your reply, please return to the words of Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett to familiarize yourself with the answer to your question.

829 posted on 03/10/2013 3:09:34 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
I cannot imagine a natural born citizen being stripped of his citizenship for failing to meet residency requirements. Can you?

Yes. It's not hard.

All you have to do is accept that citizenship in the United States was defined a good deal like it was in our mother country, England, and that "natural born citizen" really means "citizen at or by birth."

Let us ponder for a moment, what you are saying. If you understood what I said correctly, you are telling me that a natural born citizen can lose his citizenship merely by failing to live in the United States. Does this correctly represent your opinion?

I'll reiterate for clarity. You are saying that a "natural born citizen" can lose their citizenship by failing to reside inside the United States.

Correct me if I am misstating your opinion.

830 posted on 03/10/2013 3:11:46 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Really? THIS crap is your argument?

And a train leaves at 4:42 but travels just 2 seconds in the wrong direction while the engineer is on his cell phone. How long until another country declares the train to be it’s property even though a war would ensue?

See, it’s like that with you.


831 posted on 03/10/2013 3:16:30 PM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
IMO your argument has de facto won since Obama took office and the stricter definition is never going to be enforced. But I’m in no way convinced that that’s what the framers meant and it is disingenuous to simply pretend that the stricter definition didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was written.

It occurred to me yesterday that what people such as Jeff Winston advocate is the most LIBERAL possible interpretation of the meaning, while what people such as myself advocate the most CONSERVATIVE possible interpretation of the meaning.

Jeff's standard allows anchor babies, birth tourism, fails to explain why Indians and Slaves were barred from citizenship, and also fails to explain the Children of British loyalists after the Revolutionary war. (that they were British, not American. In those days you didn't get to chose your allegiance. )

The Conservative Standard contains none of those paradoxes.

832 posted on 03/10/2013 3:18:08 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
I'm trying to pull out why you think there was a problem regarding the grandfather clause. Let's see if I can figure out what you're referring to.

By searching in one of your posts, you said:

...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.

So you say that if being born on US soil qualifies a person to be a natural born citizen, then the grandfather clause was unnecessary? Is that it?

Do you know WHY the grandfather clause was included?

Strictly speaking, the grandfather clause WAS unnecessary, for almost all of those who might have become President.

But there were a few people who were among our honored early leaders, who were not born on American soil.

These people gave and sacrificed much for the American cause. They poured their lives into it. And those men are why the grandfather clause was added.

It wasn't added for Washington, or Jefferson, or John Adams. All of these had been born on American soil. As James Madison pretty much noted in the debate regarding Smith, such persons were natural born citizens of the communities they were born in. And when we parted with England, their allegiance was FIRST to those communities and SECOND to the distant King and the English government.

In other words, George Washington was born in Virginia, and that alone made him a natural born subject/citizen of Virginia. When Virginia split from England, he stayed a natural born subject/citizen of Virginia. And when the United States was declared, that made him a natural born citizen of the United States.

It was not so with men like James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton, both of whom were important delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Wilson was born in Scotland to Scottish parents, and came to America when he was 24. This was 10 years before the Declaration of Independence. Wilson pushed for Independence.

And you can tell, in some of the discussions at the Constitutional Convention, that he was deeply offended that people like himself, not born in America, should be considered second-class citizens when it came to being considered for positions in the new government.

Also in this boat was Alexander Hamilton, one of the most brilliant young delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and quite possibly the man who pushed the hardest of all for ratification of the new Constitution. And do you know what? Without Hamilton's efforts, the new Constitution might well have failed.

But Hamilton was not born in America. He was born on Nevis, in the British West Indies, and came to America as a young man.

It was for Hamilton and Wilson, and those like them, that the grandfather clause was included. Unfortunately, Hamilton, who might well have taken advantage of that clause to become one of our early Presidents, never really got the chance. He died a young man in a stupid duel with the sitting Vice-President of the United States.

So now you know.

833 posted on 03/10/2013 3:20:04 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 824 | View Replies]

To: xzins
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

I would argue that anyone who is a citizen as a result of a subsequent act of Congress cannot be a "natural citizen". A "natural citizen" is a citizen by nature, not by acts of man.

834 posted on 03/10/2013 3:21:34 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

So even if the voters elected Vladimir Putin it would be a violation of the 2nd Article for him to BE President and it would be a violation of the 20th Amendment for him to “act as President”? Would you agree?


835 posted on 03/10/2013 3:22:47 PM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Did they ask their chubby contributor, Karl Rove, for this opinion?


836 posted on 03/10/2013 3:23:39 PM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
No, we are just pointing out that a Lawyer Heavily trained in BRITISH law, may not be the best authority for arguing what is the meaning of UNIQUE portions of AMERICAN law.

You really don't know how lawyers were trained in the early United States, do you?

837 posted on 03/10/2013 3:23:42 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

SCOTUS should hear the cases about Obama’s eligibility, subpoena all the records, and if it is found that he is not eligible he should be judicially disabled from “acting as President” as per the 20th Amendment. Joe Biden should immediately become “acting President” and be impeached for treason. Nancy Pelosi and all the other Congress-critters who knew Obama was ineligible should be arrested immediately for treason, after which impeachment hearings should be held for Joe Biden - with the one or two Senators who aren’t in jail.


838 posted on 03/10/2013 3:31:59 PM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
So for you to claim, falsely, that Rawle "was on the OTHER SIDE during the war" is flat-out despicable.

Should we believe that he was in blatant defiance of his Step Father in supporting the American cause? That is a ridiculous claim. He may have came to be a Patriotic (Patriotic derives from Pater, meaning "Father" by the way.) American, but he certainly could not have been while living with his Loyalist stepfather, and while getting his legal training in London.

Incidentally, the same article notes that Rawle only spent a total of two years studying in England AND traveling through Europe. I can imagine the latter probably took up at least half of that.

How long did it take to learn English law back then? Two years would seem adequate to me.

All of which was well before he sat WITH BENJAMIN FRANKLIN AND GEORGE WASHINGTON at Franklin's house.

You might think a man is known by his associates, but Judas kept excellent company. That Rawle had hung around with luminaries does not mean he knows what they had decided in 1787.

You also neglected to mention that Rawle was appointed BY GEORGE WASHINGTON in 1791 as U.S. District Attorney for the entire State of Pennsylvania.

Which does not prove that he is correct on this issue.

Finally, we can note that not only was Rawle's statement about the children of aliens CRYSTAL clear, NOBODY EVER CONTESTED IT. Nobody ever said that Rawle was wrong. On the contrary, his quote was later referenced as authority by the United States Supreme Court.

So was Vattel. And in quite deliberate fashion. This just reinforces my point that the court can sometimes be wrong. When they were quoting Rawle, they were wrong.

839 posted on 03/10/2013 3:32:44 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
There were quite a number of people residing in the colonies who were born elsewhere at that time. The mid-eighteenth century was a period of large influx from the German-speaking regions of Europe. Among these, very few were Loyalist, not here and not elsewhere in the thirteen colonies, that I'm aware.

Your argument for selfish motivation does not hold water when you consider just how many decades came and went before an actual NBC was elected President, rather than one of the original citizens of this nation who were “grandfathered.”

You realize that the children of the Founders born before the Revolution weren't natural born either, don't you? The “soil” wasn't regarded as having possessed some magical property conveying eligibility to the Presidency before the Presidency ever existed.

The “soil” is the geographic territory of the nation, under the full jurisdiction of it. Mt. Vernon in Virginia was not on the “soil” of the United States in 1760. It was on English soil. That is because the geographic territory was under the jurisdiction of England.

That ceased upon the establishment of a new nation, the United States. At that point, Mt. Vernon became native “soil.”

840 posted on 03/10/2013 3:33:45 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 833 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
It occurred to me yesterday that what people such as Jeff Winston advocate is the most LIBERAL possible interpretation of the meaning, while what people such as myself advocate the most CONSERVATIVE possible interpretation of the meaning.

Nice try. But the fact is, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CREDIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, CONSERVATIVE OR OTHERWISE, THAT ADHERES TO YOUR VIEW.

Neither is your view the historical one. It simply isn't.

Jeff's standard allows anchor babies, birth tourism,

That may be. But I don't think anchor babies or birth tourism were problems that the Framers of the Constitution could have foreseen in 1787, since it took weeks for people to get from one country to another.

Again, we are talking about the system the Framers of the Constitution set up. Not the one we might prefer to set up today.

...fails to explain why Indians and Slaves were barred from citizenship, and also fails to explain the Children of British loyalists after the Revolutionary war. (that they were British, not American. In those days you didn't get to chose your allegiance. )

No, it doesn't fail to explain ANY of those things.

Indians were not citizens because they were members of other nations. Indian tribes were regarded as separate nations that we had no control over, just as we had no control over the governments of England or France, and that we made treaties with, just as we made treaties with England and France.

This is pretty elementary. I'm surprised you don't know it.

Slaves were not citizens because they were legally regarded as property, not people. Again, this is pretty elementary and I'm surprised you don't know it.

As for the children of British Loyalists, we dealt with that issue as well. This had nothing to do with the birth of children to immigrants. It had to do with dividing Americans up after the Revolution into US citizens, or British.

The Supreme Court was clear that if a person was born in America before or immediately after the Revolution, he or she had the right to choose American citizenship upon reaching adulthood. If he or she was taken off to England or somewhere as a child by Loyalist parents, and waited a long time and failed to elect to come back to America, then he or she could lose that right by not making the choice as a young adult.

A minority on the Court argued that anyone born on US soil after July 4, 1776, was automatically a US citizen, even if their birth was immediately after than date, and that even in later life they were still US citizens even if they had never come back to America. They also said that NOTHING was better settled in the law than the fact that the children born in a country were citizens of that country, even if their parents were aliens.

So your claim that the COMPLETELY HISTORICAL AND ACCEPTED UNDERSTANDING of natural born citizen fails to account for these various groups of people is simply and completely false. Just like your claim that it ever took two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen.

841 posted on 03/10/2013 3:35:51 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Indians were not citizens because they were members of other nations.

Well, my goodness, they should have been dual citizens under your understanding, then. Wonder why they weren't? /s

842 posted on 03/10/2013 3:39:29 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 841 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
I'll bet Mr Rogers can give a good guess... as to why, exactly, precisely...

Ah...so you're whistling for help, eh? I think you need it. Your last screed boiled down to just two words; "You're wrong!"

You obviously know how to throw an avalanche of words at someone in a debate, but you've got to work on actually making a case. You haven't done that, so far.

Now, why don't you tell me how your interpretation of NBC is logically superior to mine? Do that, and we may actually start a real conversation.

843 posted on 03/10/2013 3:42:29 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

His definition is also exactly what the Democrats want—and the GOPe are thus eager to provide: both a defilement of the Constitution and an opening for antiAmerican presidents in one fell swoop.


844 posted on 03/10/2013 3:45:40 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Mr. Rogers, this response is beneath you.

A verification can’t be a signed blank check. Do you acknowledge that? Only what is actually stated as verified is verified.

For instance, a person could take the verification that MDEC received, which says that the information contained in the image at xxx.gov “matches” the information contained in the real record, alter the content at xxx.gov to say that Obama was born to Mickey and Minnie Mouse - and argue to a judge using the argument that because a verification of anything is a verification of everything, blank-check fashion, Onaka just verified that Obama was born to Mickey and Minnie Mouse. Would you agree that this is NOT what the statute allows to happen?

Nowhere are the CORE facts stated as verified: male, Aug 4, 1961, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama. Honolulu is mentioned but not verified. It is only said that the BC “indicates” (which in legal language means “claims”) Obama was born in HI. IOW, he’s just saying what the BC says. But if the BC was legally valid all those other facts would have to be verified, and they’re not.

Why weren’t they? What lawful reason allows for Onaka to leave those specific items unverified?


845 posted on 03/10/2013 3:50:19 PM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Believe me, I've heard everything you've had to say on this.

Here is another one of your overreaching statements. I know for a fact that you haven't read everything i've had to say on this because I have argued this topic on half a dozen other websites, none of which I recall having seen you.

Given the care you have taken in making such an overreaching claim, why should we take you seriously about what you claim to have read? The Wise man doubts, the fools is certain.

I've read your stuff and the stuff written by just about everyone else out there.

No you haven't. All you are doing here is damaging your credibility.

I've weighed the arguments on both sides. And yours fall flat, again and again.

You went in with that opinion, so it is no surprise you emerge with that opinion.

And the odd thing is, no matter how many times you're shown the falsehoods and flaws, you simply won't give up your falsehood.

You presume to think that you have EVER demonstrated that my argument has a falsehood or flaw about it. That demonstration exists only in your mind. Certainly no one with objectivity is aware of it.

One can quote a very strong and crystal clear authority like Rawle, who was friends both with George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and do you listen?

Rawles is not the only authority. He is not even the most knowledgeable authority. I would say that honor belongs to Dr. David Ramsey who was a historian and in the thick of it.

No. Instead, you insult this friend of Washington and Franklin by falsely accusing him of having supported the British during the war.

By clinging with both fists to false doctrine regarding the Constitution, so hard that you will turn on and insult early American experts like Rawle, you are an enemy not only of William Rawle, but also of his friends George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and of the Constitution they gave us.

Now you have turned to hyperbole.

846 posted on 03/10/2013 3:50:37 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
You really are concerned with the accuracy of evidence as you espouse yourself to be, you should do something about the erroneous graph on your homepage since the decision of Wong Kim Ark never said he was a natural-born citizen
847 posted on 03/10/2013 3:51:20 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Should we believe that [Rawle] was in blatant defiance of his Step Father in supporting the American cause?

I withdraw the claim that for you to make the point is "despicable." There is indeed some evidence to suggest that Rawle may have been a Loyalist as a teenager. But it is clear that, IF SO, he rejected that and became a loyal US citizen.

How long did it take to learn English law back then? Two years would seem adequate to me.

Regardless, do you know what the universal and essential training of AMERICAN lawyers was, before, during and for perhaps 100 years after Independence?

It was English law.

You might think a man is known by his associates, but Judas kept excellent company. That Rawle had hung around with luminaries does not mean he knows what they had decided in 1787.

Really? Because HE WAS THERE. He was in PHILADELPHIA, throughout the Constitutional Convention, and he is KNOWN to have met with both Franklin and Washington in Ben Franklin's home in Philadelphia in the months before the Convention.

In fact, they had ongoing meetings, so it's almost certain that he continued in close company with them AFTER the Constitutional Convention.

Were you there, DL? Were you in Philadelphia? Did you know Ben Franklin and George Washington personally? Did YOU spend hours and hours discussing political and legal matters with them in Ben Franklin's home?

If you didn't, then before William Rawle who did, I think there is only one valid thing you could possibly do.

And that is: Shut the hell up.

You also neglected to mention that Rawle was appointed BY GEORGE WASHINGTON in 1791 as U.S. District Attorney for the entire State of Pennsylvania.

Which does not prove that he is correct on this issue.

No, but it proves he was in a HELL of a better position to know something about it than you ever were.

Finally, we can note that not only was Rawle's statement about the children of aliens CRYSTAL clear, NOBODY EVER CONTESTED IT. Nobody ever said that Rawle was wrong. On the contrary, his quote was later referenced as authority by the United States Supreme Court.

So was Vattel. And in quite deliberate fashion. This just reinforces my point that the court can sometimes be wrong. When they were quoting Rawle, they were wrong.

Well, it was the majority of the Court, in the deciding Opinion, that referenced Rawle's quote. And they did so specifically in regard to citizenship, in a discussion that talked extensively about NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP.

So you can claim "the Court was wrong" all you want. But your opinion carries no weight at all, and theirs does.

As for Vattel in The Venus, he wasn't even referenced regarding citizenship. He was referenced regarding DOMICILE. And the translation wasn't even the one that says "natural born citizens."

So that is a thoroughly, thoroughly LOSING argument.

In fact, any Vattel argument you can come up with is a losing one. Historically, you have absolutely no evidence that the Framers paid the slightest attention to him in the Presidential eligibility clause. And it is prima facie, on-its-face OBVIOUS that "natural born subject" became "natural born citizen" when we changed "subject" to "citizen."

So your entire argument is just baseless birther bs.

848 posted on 03/10/2013 3:55:12 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 839 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
I argue with a guy that is always linking his own writing back at his own blog in support of his arguments. That it is ridiculous for him to cite himself as his own authority is simply beyond his understanding.

I think you have done something similar with your graph. It simply says what you want it to say because it's based on your whim. It is proof of nothing.

849 posted on 03/10/2013 3:55:21 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Well, my goodness, they should have been dual citizens under your understanding, then. Wonder why they weren't? /s

If they took up US citizenship as adults, then they would have been, as long as their tribes still regard them as citizens of the tribe.

850 posted on 03/10/2013 3:57:54 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 842 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 751-800801-850851-900 ... 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