Posted on 10/29/2011 1:02:58 PM PDT by Jacquerie
You know, the Constitution is not a dictionary. So, there isn’t an internal definition of “natural born citizen”. Neither is there a definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. So what? They didn’t need definitions since the framers knew what they meant.
It is only today, when our education system has so failed to maintain a clear understanding of the Constitution among our citizens that people start having trouble with meanings - and start thinking that a “high crime and misdemeanor” must be an indictable violation of a statute, for example, or equating “natural born citizen” with any old citizen by birth.
You can’t define terms of art by aggregating their component parts. A wombat is not a kind of bat, and a mongoose is not a type of goose. These terms have meanings that are wholly determined by their usage at the time the framers put them on paper, and luckily, we can still find out what this meaning was, and remains today, despite our degraded education and slack understanding.
Bravo!
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.346:
I just found this by searching for writings on Natural born citizen. Could someone with more knowledge elaborate on what this actually means? Anchor babies can’t be considered US citizens - How about neither can Obama since he could have applied for citizenship in another country thus is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States...
105th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 346
To clarify the effect on the citizenship of an individual of the individual’s birth in the United States.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 7, 1997
SECTION 1. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.
In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen or national of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a citizen or national of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a citizen or national, or is entitled upon application to become a citizen or national of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States.
If your re-read what you posted it is the citizenship of the children of aliens about which the court had “doubts,” not the natural born citizenship.
As the Minor court said, they did not “reach” the question of whether the children of aliens were citizens. The court reached that issue in Wong Kim Ark (WKA) and said so in that case. In WKA the court ruled that Wong was as much a citizen as a natural born citizen...but did NOT find Wong to be a natural born citizen.
Rubio, like Wong, had foreign citizen parents at his birth and was born on US soil so I have not doubt Rubio is a US citizen, but under the clear precedent applied to Mrs Minor, Rubio is NOT a natural born citizen.
Numerous subsequent citations affirming the Minor precedent definition of born on US soil to two citizen parents appear to have been scrubbed by Obama operatives. Why? Because the Minor case is a threat to Obama's eligibility. At birth, Obama at least had one citizen parent while Rubio had none. It the Minor case is a threat to Obama it is even more of a threat to Rubio.
The case of Anwar al-Awlaki shows exactly why a person like him and like Rubio pose a threat to national security by being more likely to have loyalties to another sovereign and to have been raised without the ingrained sense of what it means to be a US citizen that the founders expected two citizen parents to impart to all future US presidents.
106th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 319
To clarify the effect on the citizenship of an individual of the individual’s birth in the United States.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 6, 1999
Found another one by the 106th Congress....
The issue has been decided. Everybody knew that Obama’s father was not a US citizen nor even an immigrant to the US (he was a graduate student on a student visa), and that was never a problem. It was never raised even once.
The only question that was ever raised was whether Obama and McCain were born on US soil. McCain technically was not, because he was born off the base in Panama, but Congress agreed to accept that because at that time there was no OB hospital on the base and thus the Panama hospital had to be used by the military. I think this bought him off, because after that, nobody ever again questioned where Obama was born (well, not anybody in the media).
The whole question under current American law is where you are born, not where your parents came from or their status at the time.
I disagree. SCOTUS itself decides the scope of their constitutional reach and they cannot be challenged without provoking a crisis.
The Senate passed a non-binding resolution on McCain because they know they cannot supplant SCOTUS or amend the Constitution themselves. I suspect that the 99 Senators and McCain entered into a back-room deal in which they agreed not to challenge either McCain or Obama and affirm that they would certify the election without objection for either one if they got that far. Just my guess.
The Senate was silent on the screamingly obvious question as to Obama having possibly been born a UK subject, something he had not declared at the time.
Note that Obama has NEVER allowed legal discovery of his HI BC which prevents the BC from being entered into evidence in federal court. That is the cornerstone of his legal firewall. His eligibility can never be challenged in a civil federal court case without legal discovery of the BC.
What do you make of this finding? I would bet that anyone researching this would have already found this, but I’ve never seen this posted by Leo Donofrio or Butterzillion or anyone interested in citizenship of the child?
I’ve found multiple bills on this very subject by various Congresses. Could you ping someone just to see this?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:H.R.346: - 105th Congress
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:H.R.319: - 106th Congress
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.190: - 107th Congress
I just started reading “Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, Reported by James Madison” and am yet to find any discussion or definition of Natural Born Citizen. The index has not been helpful. Could you post the date(s) and by whom this was discussed? Thanks.
You could read some of the information on my about me page. I have some references to Natural born status.
“SCOTUS itself decides the scope of their constitutional reach and they cannot be challenged without provoking a crisis.”
If it does, the name is tyranny.
Article I Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . .
Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Article III Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
“The Supreme Court hasn’t specifically defined it because it was always understood—until now, when it’s convenient for the Democrats to change the rules.”
I believe that Supreme Court DID define natural born citizen in Minor v. Happersett, as extensively explored by Leo Donofrio here:
It has already been decided. Afterthe kenyan is no longer in office it will be revealed that he was no citizen at all. Instead of arresting and trying him that section of the Constitution will be recognized as no longer valid. In effect the kenyan has set a precedent. Anyone on Earth is eligible to run for the US Presidency.
I should have read all the posts before I posted. You said it already.
Yes, your analysis is indeed brilliant in OP. And you are also right that SCOTUS has nothing to do with who is natural born citizen (NBC).
Since congress has not passed any bills defining explicitly what constitutes a “NBC” and no president has signed it to make it an official law, it is still an open question.
Should congress pass such a bill, it can still be litigated in the SCOTUS for constitutionality since the CONSTITUTION does not explicitly define NBC. And SCOTUS will never retroactively void Obama election, JMHO. So, from here on any one born on US soil will be NBC. And unfortunately under current system that includes anchor babies.
The only thing for certain from constitution is that NBC is different from naturalized citizen, the only other kind of citizenship available, to my knowledge.
Please excuse me, just saw your ping.
You have an impressive About page!
Guests just arrived, will get back to you tomorrow.
Exactly, since constitution is not a dictionary, everything has to be litigated in SCOTUS for constitutionality.
Do you seriously believe, after the Obama situation, the SCOTUS will find Barry was not a NBC and therefore every bill he signed into law is now null and void?
IMHO, they will not go there for a hundred years at minimum.
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.