Skip to comments.“NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”:DEFINED BY 14TH AMENDMENT FRAMERS AND IN TREATISE RELIED ON BY SCALIA
Posted on 12/11/2008 3:30:02 PM PST by STARWISE
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 dont report the news anymore. No. Now they tell you what they want the news to be. Theres 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 dont want to talk about that do they - because it would blow the hes 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 isnt), but rather that the law shouldnt be discussed at all.
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 wouldnt be eligible, but they also knew that they couldnt 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.
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 McCains name from the ballots.
I couldnt 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.
ITS NOT ABOUT OBAMA OR McCAIN - ITS ABOUT WHO COMES NEXT. THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AND FALLEN ON THEIR PRESIDENTIAL SWORDS TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY
Rest at link
The people are subservient to the Document and if we dont keep it that way, we have plenty of historical examples throughout history detailing exactly what will happen to us if the Document is defeated.
In conclusion, I would like to thank reader John Boy for pointing to Justice Scalias opinion in District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller.
In that case, Justice Scalia took into consideration a certain historical legal reference:
The common references to those fit to bear arms in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant Other legal sources frequently used bear arms in nonmilitary contexts.10
Now look at footnote 10″:
E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords);
Since Justice Scalia cited to this legal textbook in March of 2008, its not outrageous to think he might also refer to The Laws of Nations on the natural born Citizen issue?
Ill leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758.
This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen.
And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
read later as well.
read again later
If you have not read information at this web site of Leo Donofrio, please do. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Then please take 90 minutes sometime soon to listen to the video at this link below. At the link click on the video on the left titled: WTP Obama Citizenship Challenge - National Press Club. Information the media wont report.
Also go to Freeper Joe Thunders web site FreedomMarch.org and read other information on the cases before the courts.
Joes program on Plains Radio this evening 12/11 at 9:00PM Eastern will be an update on things going on the media wont report.
Looks like Bobby Jindal can never be President of the United States.
Weren’t both of McCain’s parents US Citizens?
1] Sen. McCain is a U.S. Cit-zen because he was born in a U.S. Military hospital in the U.S. controlled Panama Canal Zone. His father & mother were/are U.S. Cit zens and there fore is a “natural” born citzen.
2] And as distasteful as it seems Sen. Obama’s mother is/was a U.S. Citizen and under the 14th Amended of the Constitution is to be considered a Citizen. This is just IMHO.......
You sent me that a little bit ago lol.
I am still watching the video! thanks!
This will be adjudicated, no matter how long it takes and no matter what the political and social pain
Not unless you can prove conclusively that his parents were naturalized citizens when he was born. Or so Donofrio would have us believe.
It’s not going anywhere. The *absolute best* one could ever get out of the Supreme Court would be an affirmation that “indeed” one has to be a natural-born citizen of the United States and leave it up to Congress to specify how one enforces this.
The issue goes back to Congress and Congress mulls around for a few years figuring it out. By the time Obama has left office, Congress may have it down to pass some legislation about the methodology for enforcement... LOL..
In other words, it’s going nohwere.
Is it any wonder that Bush and his Administration wants nothing to do with this. McCain and his campaign wants nothing to do with this. Palin wants nothing to do with this. Cheney wants nothing to do with this. The Republican Party wants nothing to do with this. Of course, the Democrats want nothing to do with this and neither does Obama (LOL...). You can add a long list of other officials and media and “you-name-it”, along with a list of conservatives who want “nothing to do with this”....
[”Jim, he’s dead!”]
Jindal’s mom and dad were not citizens when he was born, they were here on student visas.
However, both Jindal and Obama are qualified to be president.
America has changed since you were in school. We no longer have a justice system, these days it is a legal system. It is meant to employ members of the legal profession which doesn’t include anything about rendering justice.
If you've got a better way to consistently administer justice other than by creating a body of laws and following them, the world awaits your solution.
You said — “This will be adjudicated, no matter how long it takes and no matter what the political and social pain”
Ahhh.., that reminds me of a song — the lyrics go — “In the year 2525...”
Yes, both of McCains parents were US Citizens.
But you refuse to understand their brat of a son was born in the Republic of Panama.
Why do you think it was necessary for him to lie and say in his stupid book (whoever wrote it for him) he was born in Coco Solo, Canal Zone? He thought because of his ego no one would know the difference between Panama and the Canal Zone and thought he could be president.
By Panamanian law, having been born in Colon he is a Panamanian citizen. In other words, at birth, he was dual citizen.
Thanks for posting this.
I absolutely agree with the position taken by Leo Donoforio in regards to the definition of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution.
If the Framers had wanted to say “anyone born on U.S. soil” then they would of said that but instead they used a term that was defined just as Leo said.
Those who want this issue to go away are simply showing a disregard for our Constitution, imo, simply because they feel like it is futile or are afraid of the unrest that this issue may cause.
One cannot renounce one’s Panamanian citizenship. Therefore, don’t try that angle.
Shoot all activist judges and get back to adjudicating the laws the way they were meant to be.
Thanks for the ping to this very well written piece by Donofrio. I have fallen behind on all the BC stuff with the Blago Bling stories, but plan to catch up as soon as possible! Hubby wants the computer tonight, so hopefully later I can get it back...lol.
BTW...Don’t you just love Scalia! He is my fav justice. It should comfort us all that a man of such intellectual depth,integrity and loyalty to our country and constitution is sitting in the highest court in our land!
Is this true? I’m sorry to hear about Jindal. He’s a great conservative.
The fact of the matter is that at this point this is a battle between activist justices and orginalist justices.
How will the orginalist justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) go down in history?
This is a case whereas they have to know that our Constitution is being disregarded. They also have to know that this is a hot potato, so to speak. Will they go down in history as true orginalist judges who stood up for the Constitution and the rule of law? Or will they cave?
Now, Felipe de Jesus CALDERON Hinojosa & Schwarzenegger can run for US el presidente in 2112! They can run the pro Gay/Green Governator with the Presidente of Mexico for co el Presidentes of the 57 states.
With the voters in Mexico, South America, Canada, Europe, Iran and "new voters" in the Former USA, the Governator can be co presidente with the Mexican Presidente for life.
They will win by 200 million votes, and that settles that. No one will challenge either one including a lot of Freepers as they will fear riots if the constitution is considered. Just Move on to 2040.
Thanks for the ping.
My law suit was meant to return the election to the Constitution. Its the Republican and Democratic parties that overturned the election stuffing two ineligible candidates down our throats with no regard whatsoever to the future precedent it would set.
***A very admirable goal.
I really like your sig....
As is Obama, assuming he was born in Hawaii. But Donofrio would disagree with us on all three counts.
There was a federal law during 1929 which stated that any persons being born in or on the canal zone of U.S. Military parents they are U.S. Citizens. I can not remember when this law was cancelled or changed though. That was during a time when they were our friends/allies. The law was done for the military members & the construction & maint. personel who came down from the States, for the Canal zone duty...
I also will NOT argue the point that Sen. McCain is a RINO! That is an already given point!
Sen Obama’s Father ( we think) was a Kenyan Citizen...
Placemarker ... waiting for Joe Thunder’s radio program tonight at 9PM Eastern on Plainds Radio
Is that sort of like...you can’t renounce your Islam religion?
Thanks. With an 8 year administration by Palin & 8 by Hunter, I figure we have awesome talent until 2028. By then we should be able to get another real conservative on the ticket. Maybe Jindal would have gotten his citizenship questions answered by then.
Again, you refuse to accept he was not born in the Canal Zone.
He was born in Colon, Republic of Panaman. These at that time were two different countries.
What is the problem in accepting this?
I am not being rude. I am just amazed as to why the refusal to accept reality. You are not the only one.
So? If he was born in Hawaii then he's a natural born U.S. citizen, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the nationality of his father has no impact on that.
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.
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.
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 cant 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.
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.