Posted on 02/17/2011 2:11:54 PM PST by rxsid
"Jeffrey Toobin Issued False Legal Statements to Anderson Cooper Regarding Vattel and the 14th Amendment.
With natural born citizen legislation racing through 11 state legislatures, truthful legal analysis is more important than ever. False statements issued on CNN yesterday via an Anderson Cooper interview with Jeffrey Toobin demand correction. CNN, should they not immediately correct the false statements, will be privy to the stench of propaganda.
Jeffrey Toobin, alleged to be a “CNN Senior Legal Analyst”, gave a clearly false description of Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”. Toobin stated that the Vattel definition requires a person to be born in the United States to parents who were also born in the United States.
That is absolutely false.
Vattel’s definition only requires that a person – to be considered a “natural born citizen” – be born in the United States to parents who were citizens. One does not have to be born in the United States to be a citizen. Persons born in foreign countries may become US citizens via the naturalization process despite their place of birth.
If a person is born in the US – of immigrant parents who were not born in the US but who have become US citizens prior to the child’s birth – that child is a natural born citizen according to Vattel. Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen, contained in his treatise, “The Law of Nations“, which – according to Ben Franklin – was with the framers at all times as they wrote the US Constitution, states that a person only needs to be born of parents who were citizens. It does not require that the parents be born in the United States.
This definition by Vattel was re-stated by the US Supreme Court in the case of Minor vs. Happersett. Here is the exact language from the US Supreme Court in the Minor decision:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
So here we see the US Supreme Court stating that persons born in the US to parents who are citizens are themselves natural born citizens. Nowhere does it state that the parents must be born in the US. The following definition is attributed to Vattel:
“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.”
This does not impose a requirement that the parents must have been born in the country. To this definition, Jeffrey Toobin falsely stated:
“What Vattel said was natural born citizens means you were born in the United States and your parents are also born in the United States.”
Furthermore, Toobin contributed additional false legal analysis when he stated:
“But the words of the Constitution have been interpreted many times by the Supreme Court, and what it means is born in the United States.”
That is unequivocally false.
First, to be a “citizen”, the 14th Amendment requires that a person be born in the US (or be naturalized in the US) and… that a person be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Despite erroneous popular belief, there is no US Supreme Court decision which states that simply being born in the US is enough to entitle a person to US citizenship. That is a legal myth to which Toobin is also guilty of spreading false legal analysis.
Second, the 14th Amendment does not define “natural born citizen”, it only defines “citizen”. Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution makes a clear distinction between a “citizen” – who is eligible to be a Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” - who is eligible to be President.
Toobin has therefore issued clearly false legal statements. Either these are lies for propaganda purposes, or he’s just a terrible legal analyst.
If Anderson Cooper would like to have a serious debate between myself and Toobin, or any other so called “Senior Legal Analyst”, I would be happy to oblige.
And if legislators in the State of Montana – or any other state – would like legal guidance on this issue, I would also be happy to oblige.
Please contact me at:
leo_donofrio2000@yahoo.com
Leo Donofrio, Esq."
Leo is back...
"Jeffrey Toobin Issued False Legal Statements to Anderson Cooper Regarding Vattel and the 14th Amendment."
A few states have to pass the BC eligibility laws. The attacks by the media prove he is not eligible.
Of course. Read my profile.
In the discussions leading up to the 14th amendment it was made clear that being born here was not to be considered as attaining citizenship. This was not even controversial.
.. Ping!
Leo is back in the saddle? Interesting.
WELCOME BACK LEO!!
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers by reiterating Vattel's definition...not once, but TWICE during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment!
"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
“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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
Nobody questioned or debated Congressman Bingham on who was a "natural born Citizen." They ALL knew exactly what the Constitutional phrase meant. Born in the sovereign territory to 2 citizen parents.
Well then, such “of course” should have been made clear in the article.
So in your estimation, if China decided to grant automatic Chinese citizenship to all people of 50% of greater Chinese ancestry - do you think that as a result of this Chinese law, no natural born citizen of America of Chinese descent could ever be President under American law?
it just gets louder and louder...
“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 parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil 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.
Order affirmed. “
Duh, he wrote the first edition in Frencjh. Which many of the founders, including Franklin, were fluent in. They didn’t need to wait for a Translation, they already KNEW what it meant.
Duh, he wrote the first edition in French. Which many of the founders, including Franklin, were fluent in. They didn’t need to wait for a Translation, they already KNEW what it meant.
If someone born in the US gives up his citizenship, does that get noted on the original birth certificate? If so, that may be why Obama refuses to make his birth certificate public.
Natives or indigenous is what it meant.
Only later, after the writing of the Constitution, was it ‘translated’ as “natural born citizen”.
“Jeffrey Toobin, alleged to be a “CNN Senior Legal Analyst”, gave a clearly false description of Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”. Toobin stated that the Vattel definition requires a person to be born in the United States to parents who were also born in the United States.”
However incorrect this statement may be, he has just proven that if B0’s father was indeed BO, B0 can’t be a natural born Citizen because BO wasn’t born in the US. Thanks, Jeff.
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.