Petition Asking Supreme Court To Define "Natural Born Citizen"

KheSanh ^ | November 11, 2012 | KheSanh

[KheSanh]

A petition asking the Supreme Court to give a clear concise definition of the term "Natural Born Citizen".

Whitehouse.gov url to obtain the first 150 signatures:

http://wh.gov/9dpd

[RegulatorCountry]

You’re determined to remain on the offense demanding facts when you’ve provided nothing of the sort yourself. Strange, that. It’s as if you’re only blowing smoke. Provide your own cites, then we’ll proceed.

[Puzo1]

Like a typical Obot, you cannot win the argument so you tell the world that the argument supposedly failed without being able to convincingly show what is wrong with the argument.

And let us not forget that I have amply demonstrated that the fools are you and your coterie.

[Puzo1]

Furthermore, your whole argument about Obama not losing citizenship is a straw man argument. At a minimum, one must be born a “natural born Citizen” in order to be a “natural born Citizen.” Obama never got to first base because he was not born a “natural born Citizen.”

[BigGuy22]

“Furthermore, your whole argument about Obama not losing citizenship is a straw man argument.”
__

Oh, Mario, why are you so insistent on trumpeting your own incompetence?

Practice your reading comprehension. I entered this thread a page or two ago for a single purpose — to respond to someone’s claim that the President lost his U.S. citizenship based on an unsupported assertion that he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro.

I explained why this is a bogus argument. If you disagree, by all means tell me why.

But don’t be so dumb as to snark at me for responding to his argument rather than yours. That only shows how foolish you are.

[BigGuy22]

"You’re determined to remain on the offense demanding facts when you’ve provided nothing of the sort yourself."
__

How silly can you get? Are you really challenging me to find a law that lists all the ways in which one would not lose his U.S. citizenship?

That's not the way the law works, and I think you know that. But in case you don't, I'll give you a clue.

Here's what the State Department says (http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html):

"Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship."

The burden is on you to show that President Obama fits into one of those categories.

[Puzo1]

I know how the Obots operate. They will use any argument to confuse the public. I am glad to see that you agree that even if you prove your argument to be correct, you still have not proven that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.”

[BigGuy22]

“I am glad to see that you agree that even if you prove your argument to be correct, you still have not proven that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.””
__

LOL, talk about “argument[s] to confuse the public”!

We do agree about one thing, however. The only people who haven’t proven you wrong are the ones who haven’t entered the argument, and I have not (at least in this thread!).

[Puzo1]

So, you want to argue about losing citizenship rather than what that citizenship was in the first place. The only people who haven’t proven you wrong are the ones who haven’t entered the argument, and I have not (at least in this thread!).

[Mimi3]

“POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);”

[allmendream]

The Constitution envisioned three types of US citizen. Any type of citizen could be a Senator, and we have had nbc citizens, naturalized citizens, and those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution as Senators. Of the three types, I agree with you, naturalized citizens are excluded from the Presidency. Natural born citizens and citizens at the time of adoption have been President.

[edge919]

You are right that she erred in mentioning the hospital. If you wish to read something sinister into that, go ahead.

What would be the motivation then to lie about this?? You've completely dodged that question. Why??

But as far as whether the State of Hawaii has verified the information in the COLB and the long form, they have of course done that.

Sorry, but they haven't. They've only verfied that they have a document on file with some information that matches. What this doesn't say is whether the information is correct, as would be required under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

In fact, multiple copies of a verification letter were being sent to Kansas possibly on the very same day that you conveniently dropped your ballot challenge.

IIUC, that letter of verification didn't respond to a specific question of whether the birth certificate was correct or accurate. The bottom line was that the Secretary of State in Kansas shouldn't be requesting such a letter in the first place. This was Obama's job (or his lawyers). Kobach ended up effectively trying to defend Obama because his lawyers failed to do so in the hearing. The challenge was supposed to be decided at the end of the original hearing, but the objections panel didn't have a legal reason to deny the objection. The fact they extended the hearing and tried to find evidence on Obama's behalf showed that they weren't going to follow the law.

[Puzo1]

The Founders and Framers put in the Constitution that the type of “citizen” who was eligible to be president depended upon when the person was born. They provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that for those born before the Constitution was adopted, they could be “Citizens of the United States.” For those born after the Constitution was adopted, they could only be “natural born Citizens.” For those born after the Constitution was adopted, no one qualified to be President who may be a “citizen of the United States” rather than a “natural born Citizen.” Consider that American common law, as Minor v. Happersett confirmed, makes those born in the country to “citizen” parents “natural born Citizens” and the Fourteenth Amendment, as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark confirmed, makes those who are born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” “citizens of the United States.” These historical and legal developments demonstrate that today those who are born in the United States to “citizen” parents, making them natural born Citizens,” are eligible to be President, and that those who are born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” making them only “citizens of the United States,” are not.

[BigGuy22]

“U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);”
__

Yep, that’s right. So, if you wish to show under that provision that the President lost his U.S. citizenship, you must first prove that he obtained naturalization in a foreign state (which has not been proved, and has in fact been denied by the State Department); and that, as a child, he did it “with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.”

The State Department web page I quoted above also says:

“As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.”

So, mere naturalization would not do it. The presumption would be that the subject wishes to retain his U.S. citizenship unless proven otherwise. An affirmative act of renunciation is required.

Furthermore, the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual says (www.state.gov/documents/organization/120538.pdf):

“i. Renunciation of U.S. citizenship and minors:

(1) Consult CA/OCS/ACS: Whenever you receive a request to renounce from a minor you immediately must contact CA/OCS/ACS. CA/OCS/ACS will not approve a Certificate of Loss of U.S. Nationality (CLN) for a minor without the concurrence of CA/OCS/L, and appropriate consultation with L/CA;

(2)Voluntariness and intent: Minors who seek to renounce citizenship often do so at the behest of or under pressure from one or more parent. If such pressure is so overwhelming as to negate the free will of the minor, it cannot be said that the statutory act of expatriation was committed voluntarily. The younger the minor is at the time of renunciation, the more influence the parent is assumed to have. Even in the absence of any evidence of parental inducements or pressure, you and CA must make a judgment whether the individual minor manifested the requisite maturity to appreciate the irrevocable nature of expatriation. Absent that maturity, it cannot be said that the individual acted voluntarily. Moreover, it must be determined if the minor lacked intent, because he or she did fully understand what he or she was doing. Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent...”

So, the ball’s in your court. If you wish to prove that President Obama, as a child, not only was naturalized in a foreign country, but persuaded also the consular official that, at his tender age, he had the maturity to understand the implications of renouncing his citizenship; and not only that, but also that the State Department somehow lost all those records and continued to treat him as a citizen totally oblivious the the fact that he had formally renounced his citizenship as a child. And remember, we’re not just talking about the State Department under Hillary Clinton. Obama went to Indonesia in the 1960s; there have been many presidential administrations since then.

Have you got the proof? I’d love to see it!

[BigGuy22]

“Sorry, but they haven’t. They’ve only verfied that they have a document on file with some information that matches. What this doesn’t say is whether the information is correct, as would be required under the Federal Rules of Evidence.”
__

Not even close! The verification letter confirmed essntially all of the information in both documents — and certainly confirmed the only facts relevant to his eligibility to the presidency, namely his age and place of birth.

Now of course they didn’t attest that the information was correct! How could they? They (at least as far as I know) have no personal knowledge of when and where the President was born. That’s why the letter is written in their official rather than their personal capacities. Their job is to attest to what’s in the official records of the State of Hawaii, which under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution must be respected throughout the country, and that’s exactly what they’ve done. And that, my friend, is evidence.

If your copy of the FRE has a different take on that, please quote it for me!

[BigGuy22]

“What would be the motivation then to lie about this?? You’ve completely dodged that question. Why??”
__

Sorry, I skipped that part.

What question did I dodge, the one about why she lied about it? I didn’t dodge anything. I told you I don’t think she lied about it, I think she made a mistake.

Personally, it’s hard to understand why she would lie about that. It didn’t do anyone any good for her to say it, and the misstatement was quickly noticed and discussed. I can’t find any incentive for her to lie about it.

But I imagine you’re sure she did, and I don’t really care either way. The only point I was making was that there was vetting done behind the scenes that was used by the McCain campaign to decide whether to play the birther card. When Linda Lingle told them there was nothing to it, they chose not to make an issue of it.

[edge919]

What question did I dodge, the one about why she lied about it? I didn’t dodge anything. I told you I don’t think she lied about it, I think she made a mistake.

She gave a very specific recollection that isn't backed up by any facts. You call that a "mistake"?? Why?? What part(s) of her statement was a mistake and how??

Personally, it’s hard to understand why she would lie about that. It didn’t do anyone any good for her to say it, and the misstatement was quickly noticed and discussed.

Why would it be hard to understand why she would lie about it?? She's trying to protect Obama and/or her state. And where was it "quickly noticed and discussed"??? It certainly wasn't by the media who reported her comments.

The only point I was making was that there was vetting done behind the scenes that was used by the McCain campaign to decide whether to play the birther card.

Nonsense. Fukino's statement came Oct. 31, 2008. The election was held Nov. 4. What kind of vetting gets done only five days before an election??

When Linda Lingle told them there was nothing to it, they chose not to make an issue of it.

There's no evidence Lingle told anyone there was nothing to it. There's no evidence the McCain camp asked her to look into it. And why would they do that only a week out from the election?? The only point I was making was that there was vetting done behind the scenes that was used by the McCain campaign to decide whether to play the birther card.

[edge919]

Not even close! The verification letter confirmed essntially all of the information in both documents — and certainly confirmed the only facts relevant to his eligibility to the presidency, namely his age and place of birth.

Not even close. Again, the FRE requires that such a document must be certified as CORRECT by the issuing agency. Kobach asked if the information was "identical" but the letter of verification didn't use this language. And it didn't specify the age and place of birth as matching.

Now of course they didn’t attest that the information was correct! How could they?

Because that's what health departments do. They don't issue original birth certificates until they can verify the facts of the event.

Their job is to attest to what’s in the official records of the State of Hawaii, which under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution must be respected throughout the country, and that’s exactly what they’ve done.

The Full Faith and Credit clause can only be respected when records can be PROVEN to be authentic. It's why the Constitution says: "the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved ..." This is why said records should conform with the Federal Rules of Evidence, which says: "if the copy is certified as correct by: A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification." This has never happened.

[Puzo1]

This thread is about the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” not about whether Barack Obama lost any U.S. citizenship whatever kind it may have been. Hence, I want to make sure that people reading this thread are not confused and mislead by your argument regarding under what conditions a U.S. citizen may lose his or her citizenship.

The Founders and Framers put in the Constitution that the type of “citizen” who was eligible to be president depended upon when the person was born. They provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that for those born before the Constitution was adopted, they could be “Citizens of the United States.” For those born after the Constitution was adopted, “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen” could be President. Excluding anyone who was not a “natural born Citizen,” for those born after the Constitution was adopted, no one qualified to be President who may be a “citizen of the United States” rather than a “natural born Citizen.” Consider that American common law, as Minor v. Happersett confirmed, makes those born in the country to “citizen” parents “natural born Citizens” and the Fourteenth Amendment, as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark confirmed, makes those who are born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” “citizens of the United States.” These historical and legal developments along with reason and logic demonstrate that today a child who is born in the United States to “citizen” parents, making the child a “natural born Citizen,” is eligible to be President, and a child who is born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” making the child only a “citizen of the United States,” is not.

Barack Obama, being born to a non-U.S. “citizen” father, if born in Hawaii, is only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the time of his birth in 1961, but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It simply is not humanly possible for Obama to be a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” which was 1787. Under Article II, he must therefore be a “natural born Citizen” if he wants to be eligible to be President. But under the well-settled definition of a “natural born Citizen” as confirmed, among other historical and legal sources, by both Minor and Wong Kim Ark, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen.” At best, and only if born in the United States, he is under the Fourteenth Amendment a “citizen of the United States,” but in 1961 and not “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” which was 1787. Hence, being neither a “natural born Citizen” nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” Obama is not constitutionally eligible under Article II to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

[BigGuy22]

"Now of course they didn’t attest that the information was correct! How could they?

Because that's what health departments do. They don't issue original birth certificates until they can verify the facts of the event."
__

Are you being deliberately deceptive here? I can't believe you're really that ignorant.

The people who issued the original birth certificate were responsible for verifying the facts of the event and filing that information in the official state records.

The people who issued the verification letter -- some 50 years later -- are in no position to do that. Their job is to report on the information that they find in those official records.

The rest of your post revolves around similar deceptions or, charitably, misunderstandings, as you are failing to observe the distinction between authenticating a document and verifying its contents.

The verification letters do not purport to attest that either the COLB or the long form is authentic. They simply provide legal proof of the fact that the information is the same as that which is carried in the official records of the State of Hawaii, which under law are presumed to be correct. The letter constitutes legal proof of when and where the President was born.

Take another look at your FRE. These distinctions aren't that hard to understand.

[BigGuy22]

“I want to make sure that people reading this thread are not confused and mislead by your argument regarding under what conditions a U.S. citizen may lose his or her citizenship.”
__

Silly Mario! If you think my argument about how one can lose U.S. citizenship is misleading, why don’t you tell me what’s incorrect about it? You haven’t said word one on that subject. My guess is that you know I’m right.

More than a guess is my conviction that you can’t bear to have anyone discuss anything other than your bogus theories. Well, keep trying to stir the pot, but I’m not falling for it, and even the other folks here at FR don’t seem to be buying it much any more.