Posted on 12/11/2008 3:30:02 PM PST by STARWISE
PREAMBLE
This week has been quite enlightening as to the blatantly obvious fact that our “Fourth Estate” press corps have been transmogrified into propaganda ponies polly wanna crackering whatever may be handed down to them from “The One Corporation - your source for everything…” (cue eery theme tune). They don’t report the news anymore. No. Now they tell you what they want the news to be. There’s a huge difference.
For the record, my law suit was brought to remove three candidates from the ballots - three candidates who have big Constitutional issues as to their eligibility.
At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father. Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son, I have been labeled a conspiracy freakoid of nature.
Never mind that I included demands for Panama John McCain and the Nicaraguan born Roger Calero to also be removed from our ballots. No, they don’t want to talk about that do they - because it would blow the “he’s just another Obama hater” mantra clear out of play.
A citizen (me) raised the Constitutional issue of first impression as to the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution - that ultimate pesky legal document for those who would rather “be” the law instead of following it.
What are the Fourth Estate propagandists worried about? Thou doth protest too much. Me thinks so. Why? Because the law is against their man - it indicates Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States. And most of the media pundits have basically agreed by default. I say this because when yelling and mocking the issue, their main argument is not that the law is on their side (they know it isn’t), but rather that the law shouldn’t be discussed at all.
PRESIDENTIAL PRECEDENT
Other than the fraud perpetrated by Chester Arthur (see prior stories), every post grandfather clause President of this nation was born in the United States to parents who were US Citizens.
In their wisdom, they recognized the danger in having people born under the jurisdiction of another country taking the role of commander in chief.
They did this recognizing that multitudes of loyal men wouldn’t be eligible, but they also knew that they couldn’t see into the soul of all possible candidates, so just to be safe, they put a restriction in the Document which is there to protect us from a sneak attack in the oval office by somebody who might have loyalty to another nation.
The framers themselves were good men, loyal to this infant nation, but they recognized that people like them had to be excluded from future Presidential eligibility as an order of protection.
McCain and Obama know that.
And in my stay application, I never accused either man of disloyalty. Quite the opposite.
*snip*
As to John McCain they would have found this:
Senator John McCain is an American patriot who has valiantly suffered more for this country than most of us ever will.
He has shown bravery beyond that which the country has any right to ask, and it is with very deep and sincere regret that I respectfully request that this Honorable Court order the Secretaries of the several States to remove John McCain’s name from the ballots.
I couldn’t have shown the candidates more respect. But both of them should have known that if either were to become President - despite the loyalty they have for this country - the dam would be broken and the waters of foreign influence would be forever capable of drowning our national sovereignty and placing our military in the hands of enemies from within.
IT’S NOT ABOUT OBAMA OR McCAIN - IT’S ABOUT WHO COMES NEXT. THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AND FALLEN ON THEIR PRESIDENTIAL SWORDS TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY
~~~
Rest at link
The Obama File
Natural Born Citizen Chart
People are confused because they don’t understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms. This chart that shows the elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in Caselaw by the Supreme Court.
For each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. in 2008 under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the relevant federal law under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). As you can clearly see, Obama is a U. S. citizen, but he’s not a “natural born citizen” and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was a foreigner. His birth certificate is only relevant to answer the question, “what does Obama have to hide?”
http://www.theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenChart.htm
Both of Barry O's parents were not citizens. There is some evidence, not yet conclusive, that he was born outside the country. He could provide conclusive evidence that he was born in the country. But he hasn't. And no one else yet has either.
God bless Mr. Donofrio, he may have a long, long lesson in how it is about Obama. I pray not.
There are two types of citizenship. Natural born(a citizen at birth), or naturalized.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
Donofrio is arguing that throughout the period of the framing and even when the 14th Amendment was debated, the "Natural Born" status was held as a higher standard than "Citizen at Birth" that may be conveyed by act of Congress, and thus "Unnatural" Thus if you rely on an Act of Congress for your Citizenship, then you are "Naturalized" even though you are entitled to Citizenship at birth.
Many individuals meeting the criteria put forward in the definition you are citing from Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401 are Dual Citizens. They are Subject to the Sovereignty of another Nation throughout their youth and some even past that. This is exactly who the framers sought to prevent from ascending to the Presidency. A person of divided loyalties.
Thus the test for Natural Born establishes a qualification over and above simply Citizen at Birth for one office in all of the United States, The Presidency. And for this. The qualification is that you are a citizen with no other nation having a claim of sovereignty over you. To establish this, your parents must have been naturalized citizens at the time of your birth and you must have been born while residing in a Sovereign possession of the United States. In Donofrio's discussion of this.. he sites one of the Framers of the 14th Amendment who specifically bounds the grant of Citizenship provided by the 14th Amendment as not establishing natural born status to those who become citizens through its operation.
Madison saves for last the greatest authority on the issue:
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]
It’s important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed.
As Donofrio pointed out.. John McCain's situation is particularly difficult to accept as not qualifying for natural born, but as his long form certificate clearly shows (That is if you get out a map and find where this hospital was located which does take some effort), he was born under Panamanian not US sovereignty.
The shocking thing is that another candidate, Roger Calero, in this cycle who made it all of the way to the General Election in 5 States was born in Nicaragua of Nicaraguan parents and not challenged either.
Another Complete write up on McCain's situation was posted by the "Fact Checker" of the
Washington Post - The Fact Checker - May, 2008
A really complete write up of what this Challenge in the Supreme Court is about can be found at
The Donofrio Natural Born Citizen Challenge before Supreme Court Today
Its a bit long but is pretty clear and well documented.
As I understand it, Donofrio's case was damaged by the New Jersey court which referred it to the Supreme Court such that Donofrio said it was unlikely they could take it up. The current pending case is based on the same facts and will be considered Friday, December 12.
Even a rejection at this point is entirely possible because of the problem of Standing. This is requiring a very elaborate argument to achieve it, and this may not be sufficient. However, as the Electorial processes moves forward many more parties achieve "Standing". By, January 3rd, If I am reading all of this correctly every Official of the United States who has taken an oath to the Constitution of the United States will have an obligation to resist any effort to place an unqualified individual in the Office of the President of the United States and to resist all official actions of that person.
This is ultimately the stick that lay behind these suits, to avoid the Chaos of each person having to make their own interpretation of the Constitution and bringing themselves into legal and moral jeopardy if they choose wrong.
Yes, I am very aware of that and also aware that the SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case.
No, and you can't point out anywhere that a difference is defined either. The Supreme Court and Congress have both determined that there are two categories of citizenship - natural born and naturalized. And both have outlined the requirements for each. Alas, there is no third category regardless of what you and Donofrio think.
Why?
But Congress cannot redefine any terms of the Constitution. (Except by amendment of course, but that they cannot do alone).
But the term is not defined by the Constitution in the first place. And the Constitution gives Congress the power to create uniform laws for naturalization. How can you define who can be naturalized and how if you do not first define who doesn't need to be naturalized? In other words who are citizens at birth? And that is what Congress has done, and what the Supreme Court has upheld.
Otherwise congress could declare that "right of the people" actually meant "power of the states".
There are those who would say they already have.
No dreaming necessary.
There is a difference between a citizen and a naturalborn citizen and the judge you are quoting never claims otherwise.
That is not the issue. The question is what is the difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen at birth. The law recognizes no difference. The courts have found no difference. The Constitution doesn't define a difference. What does?
See my reply 74 for the relevant quote.
A citzen at birth, just as the law says.
Logically those folks could be considered "naturalized at birth", because Congress only has the power to "Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization", not to define Constitutional terms, such as "Natural born citizen".
No. Logically Congress has to define who is a natural born citizen. Otherwise how do they identify those who need to be naturalized as citizens? Especially since the Constitution does not define the term. If it did then we wouldn't be having this conversation. And the only logical conclusion to your position is that there are as many definitions of natural born citizen as there are people caring to define it. That is an unworkable situation.
So it all hinges on his place of birth. IMHO of course.
In Obama's case, yes it does. It always has. For McCain, there is no question on his natural born status. He is a natural born U.S. citizen.
Got a source for this contention?
Thanks;
Good read.
Thanks.
[UPDATE]: 11:26 AM - Dec. 12 2008 : Rumors of a decision denying Cort’s application are unequivocally false. A SCOTUS Spokesperson just told Cort Wrotnowski there has been no decision. She indicated there will be no decision until Monday. The conference is sealed, no clerks are allowed in.]
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
I never said "natural born citizen" was not defined, just that Congress has no power to define it, for purposes of being eligible to the office of President.
There was an understanding of the term at the time. The issue rarely comes up, and it's been so long, it's hard to put one's finger on exactly what that understanding was.
That's why we have courts, to enforce contracts, and punish criminals. Now if the courts, including the Supreme Court would just do their job and determine what the definition was for Constitutional purposes, we'd be fine. But instead they are dancing around trying hard to not decide.
If Congress can redefine the Constitution, we in effect have no written Constitution, just a living breathing document that can mean whatever it's expedient for it to mean.
Then who had the authority to define it and where is it defined?
There was an understanding of the term at the time. The issue rarely comes up, and it's been so long, it's hard to put one's finger on exactly what that understanding was.
Who's understanding would that be?
That's why we have courts, to enforce contracts, and punish criminals. Now if the courts, including the Supreme Court would just do their job and determine what the definition was for Constitutional purposes, we'd be fine. But instead they are dancing around trying hard to not decide.
They have, 110 years ago. In the Kim case.
If Congress can redefine the Constitution, we in effect have no written Constitution, just a living breathing document that can mean whatever it's expedient for it to mean.
That is a ridiculous statement. For the Congress to redefine the Constitution in this matter then the Constitution would have to define what natural born citizen was. The Constitution did not. What it did to was give Congress the authority to establish naturalization laws. Part of that process, by definition, has to be defining natural born citizen. That that they have done. By defining citizen at birth and establishing the fact that there are two classes of citizen, not three.
Who defined "arms" in the second amendment? It was just understood. But historicial digging can reveal what that understanding was.
They have, 110 years ago. In the Kim case.
Was Kim a candidate for President? Did the decision use the term "natural born"?
A quick look at the decision, says no. Definitely to the first question, and in the final decision, as opposed to the analysis, also no. They declared Mr. Kim to be a Citizen, and implied that he was natural born, by viture of his being born in the US. But they also say that it's because of the 14th amendment, not any ordinary law Congress passed. thus the case does not address the situation of McCain, nor of Obama if he were born abroad.
Under that decision, Mr. Obama would be a natural born citizen if born in the US, regardless of the citizenship of his parents.
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
It used the term 'citizen at birth' and Justice Gray also stated that the law recognizes two forms of citizenship - citizen at birth and naturalized. So if only two forms are recognized then citizen at birth and natural born are synonymous.
Under that decision, Mr. Obama would be a natural born citizen if born in the US, regardless of the citizenship of his parents.
And therefore eligible to be president.
If you are interested in what is going on keep checking Leo’s web site and Joe Thunder’s web site.
Leo: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Joe Thunder:http://freedommarch.org/Home_Page.html
Bob Shultz on Plains Radio now, 7:22 Eastern.
http://www.plainsradio.com/
Thank you, stt.
Scanning... scanning... scanning.....
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.
