Posted on 12/27/2009 2:36:30 PM PST by patlin
Until recent decades, American public policy consistantly prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com ...
That is an excellent point, and well worth repeating.
True, and although he was never held to account, he also shares responsibility for the violence his cousin endorsed after that election.
The first part is completely false. The second half may well be true but it's questionable if it would currently apply to Obama.
Show me the law/statute passed by Congress that recognizes dual citizenship and the law/statute passed by Congress repealing the part of the oath for naturalization where the person no longer has to renounce any foreign allegiances he/she may have.
If you can find them, then you will have a case to debate, until then, you are just plain wrong.
Can you post a link to that law?
Haven’t seen you in a while. Your response is about the best mutual agreement we have had in a while.
I look forward to seeing more of your responses.
How was your Christmas? I trust, Merry and filled with friends and Family.
This may help you out a little, posted on a Conservative site. Also is your spouse eligible to run for the office of the U.S. Presidency???
The Illegality/Un-Constitutionality of Dual Citzenship
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on December 27, 2009
First, thanks to the readers for their patience in my non-posting days leading up to Christmas. Yes Christmas has now past, but for those of us who were snowbound and whose 18 wheels must keep rolling to pay the bills, our holiday gatherings will have to be revisited after the new year has rung in.
Now, back to the business of our Constitution & US citizenship, in which I have had some spirited debates on recently, I bring to you a snippet from Edwin Meese III’s 2005 release of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. I came across this while researching back through Article I in my effort to better understand the commerce clause & the general welfare clause.
It was like fate that the word ‘dual’ jumped out at me while fanning to get to the page I was headed to.
page 111:
Until recent decades, American public policy consistantly prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.
Yet today there are millions of American citizens who are also citizens of other countries. Many are naturalized American citizens whose native countries do not recognize the renunciation of loyalty that their native citizens make in the American citizenship oath. Others are the off-spring of one American parent and one foreign parent, deriving citizenship from both sides, or foreign-born children adopted by American parents. Because the courts now prohibit the government from expatriating those who maintain an active citizenship in a foreign nation (some American citizens have even held public office in other countries), dual citizenship has become a fact of American life, despite statutory law. ~ Joseph Bassette
Meese’s full review of the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution covers the War of 1812 and numerous Supreme Court cases, but let these facts ring loud and clear:
1) America has never legally recognized dual citizenship, and the framers never intended for a dual national to hold the highest office in the land
2) The American judicial system has over-stepped its bounds and created fictitious laws that they had no authority to do so
3) It is a fact, that as of this day, there is no statutory law allowing for dual citizenship that has ever passed out of the US Congress
Which brings me back to THIS, a list of Congressional aactivities since 1973 to remove the term ‘natural born citizen’ from Article II and replace it with ‘citizen’ as well as Congressional activities to change the laws and confer natural born status on all anchor babies that would have been retroactive if passed. They were also ALL Congressional activities that all died in committee because they knew full well the public would not stand for a foreigner to become President.
Oh, wait, they didn’t need the legislation, they only needed a dumbed down public & corrupt election process.
Does it make it law? absolutely not!
Does it make it irreversible? absolutely not!
Will it ever be reversed? I pray for our Nation’s national security & sovereignty that it does.
This entry was posted on December 27, 2009 at 5:27 pm and is filed under Corruption, Educational Material, Media Propaganda, US Congress Legislation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Of course not. Should my wife choose to become naturalized (and she's not required to) she'll be in the same boat as the current Governor of California (who, unless the Constitution is amended, is ineligible for the Presidency).
My California-born son, on the other hand, will be at the age of 35 no less eligible than the current, sworn-in occupant of the White House.
Au contraire. In the Dred Scott decision, the Supremes proclaimed that "persons of African race" were not and could not be citizens of the United States, regardless of whether a given State considered them citizens, or their personal status (free or slave). This decision was rammed thru, despite the fact that, as the dissenters on the Court pointed out, free blacks had at various times been considered citizens of a rather large number of states, including some southern ones.
By this rather dramatic power grab, the Supremes allocated to themselves the power of determining who was and was not a citizen of the United States, regardless of what a State said. The 14th Amendment was needed, or at least was used, to overrule this atrocious decision.
That's what the 14th was all about, recall, that no one born on the soil of the United States could be denied citizenship. Who do you think was doing the denying, and under what authority?
If you like, I'm open to the argument that the definition of how citizenship is acquired was changed by the 14th amendment, as it doesn't change my point with regard to the situation today. It also doesn't make your point, as the 14th merely states the law, it does not say it is changing it from that existing before. It took the power of determining citizenship, already severely wounded by Dred Scott, completely away from the States, or Congress for that matter.
The Wong Kim Ark decision is pretty clear, at least to me, that native born = natural born = born on the soil of the UN to someone other than a foreign diplomat. One of the dissenters pointed out that this decision made a child of "coolies" eligible to be elected President. Presumably he thought this was self-evidently a bad thing. He was nevertheless outvoted.
You may believe, and perhaps rightly, that the law should be otherwise. If you think a Supreme Court decision or constitutional amendment to impose your definition of "natural born" is politically feasible, I want some of whatever you're smoking.
I find it quite remarkable that there is little discussion of what needs to be done to prevent the future election of a perhaps ineligible president. Since all it would take is one state requiring all candidates to document their eligibility before going on the ballot, this shouldn't be too difficult to put through. But nobody seems interested. Why do you think that is?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101492
Senator calls for vetting of candidates’ eligibility
GOP’s Coburn likes plan to require birth certificates
Posted: June 18, 2009
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., says it’s the responsibility of the states to make sure political candidates are eligible for the offices they seek, but he’s in favor of both state and federal demands that future presidential candidates have a formal procedure to document their qualifications.
The Illegality/Un-Constitutionality of Dual Citzenship
Here's an article from a Conservative site, and if it unclear to you then check with the Heritage Foundation with your oposing questions!!
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on December 27, 2009
First, thanks to the readers for their patience in my non-posting days leading up to Christmas. Yes Christmas has now past, but for those of us who were snowbound and whose 18 wheels must keep rolling to pay the bills, our holiday gatherings will have to be revisited after the new year has rung in.
Now, back to the business of our Constitution & US citizenship, in which I have had some spirited debates on recently, I bring to you a snippet from Edwin Meese III’s 2005 release of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. I came across this while researching back through Article I in my effort to better understand the commerce clause & the general welfare clause.
It was like fate that the word ‘dual’ jumped out at me while fanning to get to the page I was headed to.
page 111:
Until recent decades, American public policy consistantly prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.
Yet today there are millions of American citizens who are also citizens of other countries. Many are naturalized American citizens whose native countries do not recognize the renunciation of loyalty that their native citizens make in the American citizenship oath. Others are the off-spring of one American parent and one foreign parent, deriving citizenship from both sides, or foreign-born children adopted by American parents. Because the courts now prohibit the government from expatriating those who maintain an active citizenship in a foreign nation (some American citizens have even held public office in other countries), dual citizenship has become a fact of American life, despite statutory law. ~ Joseph Bassette
Meese’s full review of the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution covers the War of 1812 and numerous Supreme Court cases, but let these facts ring loud and clear:
1) America has never legally recognized dual citizenship, and the framers never intended for a dual national to hold the highest office in the land
2) The American judicial system has over-stepped its bounds and created fictitious laws that they had no authority to do so
3) It is a fact, that as of this day, there is no statutory law allowing for dual citizenship that has ever passed out of the US Congress
Which brings me back to THIS, a list of Congressional aactivities since 1973 to remove the term ‘natural born citizen’ from Article II and replace it with ‘citizen’ as well as Congressional aactivities to change the laws and confer natural born status on all anchor babies that would have been retroactive if passed. They were also ALL Congressional activities that all died in committee because they knew full well the public would not stand for a foreigner to become President.
Oh, wait, they didn’t need the legislation, they only needed a dumbed down public & corrupt election process.
Does it make it law? absolutely not!
Does it make it irreversible? absolutely not!
Will it ever be reversed? I pray for our Nation’s national security & sovereignty that it does.
This entry was posted on December 27, 2009 at 5:27 pm and is filed under Corruption, Educational Material, Media Propaganda, US Congress Legislation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
It was like fate that the word ‘dual’ jumped out at me while fanning to get to the page I was headed to.
page 111:
If you kept fanning to page 189, you'd see that the Heritage Guide has an entire section entitled "Presidential Eligibility." Wherein it states, on page 190:
"Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President."
It says absolutely nothing about a dual citizenship bar. The definition of "natural born citizen" as provided by the Heritage Guide explicitly confirms that Obama is a natural born citizen.
You're inadvertantly reinforcing the point that citizenship, at the time the Constitution was ratified, was determined by the several States, which had been in existence under the Articles of Confederation since 1781, each having their own, separate Constitutions and their own, separate definitions of a natural-born citizen, with differing requirements and differing terminology, some derived from the English common law, and some not.
The Framers sought not to override preexisting, Constitutional requirements within the several States. They were, after all, representatives of their own respective States at the Convention. The Framers sought to form a constitutional republic from these several States, and the role of the Federal Government was severely constrained under the Constitution as ratified. It was further constrained almost immediately after ratification via Amendment, in order to accomodate a strong desire for a Bill of Rights, as detailed at length upthread. Recall George Mason's powerfully stated Objections, arising from the perception that the Constitution as ratified overturned English common law.
The Constitution set forth standards for eligibility to Office at the Federal level. The Constitution enumerated power to the Legislative branch to enact a uniform rule of naturalization. The several States made all remaining determinations as to just who were their citizens, and furthermore, what sort of citizenship these State citizens possessed, under powers reserved unto these States.
There is a rather unique eligibility case from the earliest years of our Republic, involving Albert Gallatin. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it, and the particulars of State jurisdiction regarding determinations of citizenship and just how that impacted his eligiblity for elected Office. He was ruled ineligible, by the way. And, do recall, please, that the Article II requirements for eligibility have never been amended. The original understanding of the Framers still stands as a result, and does apply to the matter at hand regarding Barack Obama.
The majority may have disagreed that their decision made a child of coolies eligible to be POTUS and rejected that contention of the dissenter.
The question before the Court as stated by the majority concerned only the citizenship and citizenship rights of Wong, not his NBC status, which is not a citizenship right.
The decision equated Wong's citizenship rights with the rights of the natural born while maintaining a distinction between the two. NBC status is not a right but rather it is a condition of birth. The court did not say that Wong was NBC.
Interesting reading about Terri/Donofrio and Hawaii cover up:
Then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ6iLuyCAx0
Quite true. No reason for them to, as the issue was not in play. It also did not say Wong was not NBC.
The issue won't be settled till the Supreme Court rules. I'm good with that.
bfl
Yeah, there's a problem with that. The Naturalization Act of 1790 doesn't say that both parents must be citizens. Link
Where is the paperless pretender's SR511 or any other documents of his alleged citizenship???
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.