Posted on 10/18/2009 12:42:55 PM PDT by Danae
True true, and none of that can change a baby’s status at birth. No Citizenship act can be retroactive.
Amazing no?
Well, since none of those bills ever made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, they certainly haven’t been ratified, and nothing has changed.
This applies to John McCain as well, which makes that Senate Resolution, coming mere months after the McCaskill bill, S. 2678, all the more bizarre. McCaskill as sponsor, and every co-sponsor voted in favor of a resolution that they knew was erroneous ... both Republicans and Democrats.
Yep
It stinks doesn’t it?
It especially stinks considering that S. 2678 co-sponsor and “constitutional scholar” Barack Obama, as well as co-sponsor and current Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton voted in favor of SR 511.
You’d think that a “constitutional scholar” who had co-sponsored a bill for Constitutional amendment to make foreign born children of military parents natural-born citizens would understand what he co-sponsored enough to realize that the bill he co-sponsored negated the very Senate Resolution for which he voted in favor.
And then, we have a current Secretary Of State, who co-sponsored S. 2678 and voted in favor of SR 511, who apparently is too stupid to know that the one contradicted the other.
And just where was Senator John McCain, in all this? I assume he had some minimal, residual sense of propriety remaining and abstained. But, in these upside down times, I just don’t know.
McCain said Obama would be a good President.
Right then and there, I knew both would suck as president.
The stock market then crashed.
Good article.
What is so upsetting, this was swept under the rug until a few weeks before the election.
Unfortunately filing those papers makes one a citizen, but not a natural born one. Unless you or your wife were serving in the military or the diplomatic corps, or otherwise in the employ of the nation, then McCain's case is different. Both Blackstone's "Laws of England" and Vattel's "Law of Nations" (neither is the full title) have exceptions covering the case of someone serving the country abroad. But if you're just there on some commercial venture, or just as tourists, the child is a citizen at birth, but not natural born, since their citizenship depend on a law passed by Congress.
The Two Citizen requirement comes from Vattel's "Law of Nations" book 1 section 212. Section 217 contains an exemption for those born "in the armies" of the nation (and in other cases where the parent is serving the country, such as diplomats)
Doesn't matter if the birth was on a base or not. What matters is that the parent(s) were outside the country but in its service. If they were, and both are citizens, the child is still natural born. See Vattel, book 1, section 212 and 217.
True, but they can affirm that the requirements have been met. McCain had two citizen parents, and he was born while his father was in the service of the country, even though serving overseas.
” ...Vattel’s “Law of Nations” book 1 section 212. Section 217 contains an exemption for those born “in the armies” of the nation...”
Well THAT settles it. McCain wasn’t a NBC because his father was in the NAVY !!
(just kidding!)
You and I have discussed this before. In actuality, Vattel might not appear to have been the guiding influence behind citizenship for children born abroad to U.S. citizens, one or both of which are/were serving in the military. Not since the 1790 Act was repealed and replaced in 1795, at least. But, neither does Blackstone, for that matter. Both Vattel and Blackstone agreed upon the matter.
But, the matter must be understood through the lense of semantic originalism, in order to determine original intent of the Founders. So, it really is the 1790 Act that is most indicative, repealed, revoked, or not. There remains the problem of citizenship by statute, which cannot be natural-born, hence the change in 1795. It violated powers enumerated to Congress, to establish a uniform law of naturalization only.
So, I will grant you, that the argument, odd but old and fairly well established, for Blackstone being the sole definitive source, is thrown into serious doubt, by virtue of this specific cite of Vattel. So, it’s very useful to the discussion, regardless of actual practice since 1795.
It’s all starting to gel and to make complete sense. All our efforts to this end should be ultimately very helpful, to anyone who succeeds in reaching SCOTUS with this.
I did some googling and found a blog by Mario Apuzzo, attorney in the Kerchner v Obama case. They have been waiting almost two months to hear back from the judge on the Motion to Dismiss for their case.
Don’t know if you know about this. Read more here:
The problem I find is if Obama plays the card that his mother and father were not lawfully wed. This would be due to his fathers marriage in Africa making him illegitimate. What I have found Bar and Savigny is as follows;
Bar’s International Law Section 81: “To what nation a person belongs is by the las of nations closely dependent on descent; it is almost an universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it-that of the father where the children are lawful, and where they are bastards, that of the mother, without regard to the place of their birth.”
Savigny on Private International Law, sect 851: “Citizenship indicates birth in a legal marriage where the father himself has the right of citizenship. Illegitimate children acquire by origio citizenship in the native place of the mother.”
Vattel is irrelevant here, and it does matter.
Kenya's People and National interests will be considered when this president is making decisions. We would be fools to think otherwise. There interests are now tethered to ours, if not superseding ours.
I respectfully disagree. The fact that they felt the need to put the matter into law, means to me that they felt it was not covered by the original meaning. It covered those born to two citizen parents in general, not just where the father was military or a diplomat.
Otherwise I think I agree with your analysis.
Well said. Divided loyalties is EXACTLY the reason the Founding Fathers placed the unique NBC requirement on the office of the President, and is precisely why The Usurper must be exposed. Now!!!
Well, then, you’re back to Vattel not applying, and born overseas is not natural-born.
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.