Posted on 12/11/2008 3:30:02 PM PST by STARWISE
What flaming horse sh*t. If you’re a citizen at birth, you’re a natural born citizen. If you’re born to an American citizen, whether in Hawaii, Kenya or on the moon, you’re a citizen at birth. This clause is meant to prevent naturalized citizens from becoming president, not those born to American citizens abroad. Get a grip.
Wrong.
There is a difference between being a citizen and being a natural born citizen that you do not understand.
Well, since you don’t know I will clue you in. Islam is a religion and not citizenship.
The author of this piece is basing his argument on the lack of passage of the "Equal Rights Amendment" by using the male- deliniated definitions used by the Founders. I have to admit it's a valid argument on it's face.
Where is the difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth defined, either in the Constitution or in federal law?
That is what is shown in the intial post by Leo Donofrio and throught the case he is making. Read it and that is the answer then to your question.
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:”
Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
As I also said before it would have been easy for the Framers to just state “born in the U.S.” but instead they used a term (natural born citizen) already defined legally at the time as is clearly shown in Leo’s lawsuit.
“Is that sort of like...you can’t renounce your Islam religion?”
My total appologies.
I now realize what you were trying to say: “Once a Roman Catholic, always a Roman Catholic.” It is the same saying.
Speaking for myself, I am on a short wire. I believe many folks are here on FR, but it is no excuse for rudeness on my part.
Please forgive me.
Also to add:
They also set forth a timeline for the fact that citizens had to be living here for a certain timeframe (I cant remember off the top of my head the exact words - paraphrasing) but..
even if both of your parents were citizens and you were born on U.S. soil but your parents did not fit the prescribed timeline of living in the United States then you still weren’t eligible for the presidency.
No it was not. Donofrio blathers on about Vatell and his Laws of Nations and natural law and quotes from senators and what have you. But we aren't governed by the writings of 17th century Dutch lawyers or the opinions of Senators, we're governed by laws enacted under the Constitution of the United States. If there is a difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth then what is it? Where is it defined in the Constitution? Where is it defined by law, U.S. law? Where is that done? What Supreme Court case has defined the difference? Can you point me to any of that?
Again, defined by what U.S. law or what clause of the Constitution?
McCain's birth certificate, both long and short form, indicate he was not born in the Canal Zone, but in Colon, Republic of Panama. Colon is not in the zone. However both his parents were US Citizens (and his Grandfather was a US Navy Admiral at the time) with the required US residency period. Where he was born is irrelevant, even under the test of the "Law of Nations", as well as under English Common and statute law as documented by "Blackstone".
Obama's father was not a citizen, so he fails the "Law of Nations Test" regardless of where born. But that test is a bitter different from that in the English common and statute law at the time the Constitution was written. That would make him a natural born citizen if born in the US, as would the 14th amendment, IMHO anyway. Under the law at the time, he would be a citizen at birth if born in the US (14th amendment) but not if born outside the country, because his mother did not meet the necessary residency in the US requirement. (5 years after the 14th birthday. Stanley Ann was only 18 when he was born, 17 when she got knocked up).
So if natural born citizen and citizen at birth are synonymous, and if federal law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions have stated that children born in the U.S. are citizens at birth regardless of the nationality of their parents, then there is no way Donofrio can be correct in his claims. Agreed?
Bears repeating.
You said:
“No it was not. Donofrio blathers on about Vatell and his Laws of Nations and natural law and quotes from senators and what have you. But we aren’t governed by the writings of 17th century Dutch lawyers or the opinions of Senators, we’re governed by laws enacted under the Constitution of the United States. If there is a difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth then what is it? Where is it defined in the Constitution? Where is it defined by law, U.S. law? Where is that done? What Supreme Court case has defined the difference? Can you point me to any of that? “
Just because a certain clause of the Constitution lacks a certain degree of precedent before the Court does not make the meaning of the words or the context of thm in the times they were used irrelevant.
You call Leo’s case “blather” but it is not. He is speaking directly to the proper context used when the words were written. There is plenty of precedent that involves this sort of judicial interpretation. It is called orginalism.
At the time of McCain’s birth there were (I believe) no US military hospitals in the Canal Zone.
I can't think of one, but the laws must be followed, especially the Surpeme Law, not "gotten around", or not enforced due to technicalities that are no part of the law itself.
Laws like this one:
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
Now if the Courts duck even trying to enforcethat law, what other parts of the Constitution are they going to duck?
More likely he did not distinguish in his own mind that while his parents were resident at the Coco Solo base in the Canal Zone, he was not born on the base.
But he did promptly submit both his birth certificates, which clearly show him being born in Colon.
He may be a dual citizen, but he does not have dual loyalties. Dual loyalties were the reason behind the "natural born citizen" requirement in the firt place, and according to Blackstone, English statute law, Defined a person born outside the realm of English Subject parents, to be natural born subjects, and even the common law did so if the father was an English Subject.
But might as well stop beating that dead horse, he did not win the election, and unless Obama is DQd and there are no faithless electors, he's never going to be President anyway. He only needs to be a citizen, which he is, to be a Senator, and now that's all he'll ever be anway.
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.