Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Red Steel; LucyT; Fred Nerks; Brown Deer
Question #2: Are all individuals born on U.S. soil Article II “natural born citizens,” regardless of the citizenship of their parents?

That's a question that the US courts and their judges do not honestly answer despite numerous Supreme Court cases that give them the natural born citizen definition based on natural law.

That's delusional. The current state of the law is that a person born in the US is Natural Born for purposes of Article II Section 1--you may not like it but that is the current legal rule under the U S Constitution.

What "numerous Supreme Court cases" give a different definition? Miner? The "we hold that . . . " language is mostly dicta--the plaintiff was born in the US so she was a citizen no matter where her parents were citizens--addition of citizen parentage was irrelevant; and the holding is not relevant to the Article II Sec. 1 issue because the argument was not over the eligibility of the plaintiff to hold the office of President.

And, why should citizenship of the parents make a difference? From our point of view, Rubio would make a great President committed to American Constitutional principles of government and the Judeo Christian ethic as a basis for our legal system. And frankly, I think there is a reasonable probability that Zero will ultimately be found to have been born to a multi generational US Citizen father and thus eligible under any any theoretical argument you might want to make about the relevance of citizen parentage.

The reason why place of birth is important is because the government and the head of state of the place a person is born has the power under international law to assert certain kinds of control over the person throughout the course of their life.

A good example is US tax policy. A German national; successful businessman who has earned billions of dollars of income throughout his life; born in the US in 1946 because his father was a prominent anti-Nazi businessman who was significant in connection with post war reconstruction efforts--the father and mother in New York for several weeks in connection with post war financing plans when the birth occurred; the US Government position is that he was liable for US Federal Income Tax on all of his billions of dollars of income throughout his life.

There is further documentary record that kind of issue was the exact reason for use of the NBC term in the Constitution by the founders.

An easy decision for the Court on this issue and correct on the applicable Constitutional legal principles.

Making this argument a centerpiece of our legal effort has hurt our case badly.

An effective lawyer for our side, making the record before the ALJ, would have focused on the place of birth issue. We have rules about evidence--what facts and sources can used to create an evidentary record before a Court or Administration Law Judge.

Whatever the ALJ might rule, the clear evidence is that the image of a Hawaii birth certificate furnished to support the born in Hawaii argument is not a true copy of a certificate of Hawaii birth records but is instead a fraud. That record can be made sufficiently clear to stand up on appeal.

Thus there is only one class of admissible evidence of the place of birth. Statements against interest are admissible as evidence, either because they are not defined as hearsay or because they come in as exceptions to the hearsay rule depending on the status of the person making such statements as a party or interested witness or other factors defined by local law; and further depending on local law as to definition.

Over the years, there is a pretty clear record of statements by Zero that he was born in Kenya. A number of people heard him make those statements--in political coffee hours; in one on one coversation; in public speeches; and he is responsible for publications which attribute the fact of his birth in Kenya to him.

The only legal evidence on the question of where he was born are his own statements against interest.

Now I tend to doubt that he was born in Kenya. But a legal record on appeal on this basis would ultimately put the burden of proof on the question of his place of birth on Zero--in order to defend his eligibility to hold the office, he would need to appear and prove that he was in fact born in the United States which I also tend to doubt that he can do.

In short, effective legal work on this case should have been the key to our success.

39 posted on 07/05/2012 8:28:07 AM PDT by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: David
That's delusional. The current state of the law is that a person born in the US is Natural Born for purposes of Article II Section 1--you may not like it but that is the current legal rule under the U S Constitution.

Oh, the Indiana state Ankeny opinion elevated over the Supreme Court, yes I got it. The current state of law have forsaken original intent. That's not delusional that's a fact. They just make it up as they go or go quack some other erroneous ruling, but that floats both political parties boat so who cares.

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch)

Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, (1830)

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. (1830)

Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857)

Slaughter-House Cases, (1872)

Minor v. Happersett, (1875)

Elk v. Wilkins, (1884)

United States v. Ward (1890)

Perkins v. Elg, (1939)

Schneider v. Rusk, (1964)

The Supreme Court opinions above whether they are holdings, dicta, or conclusions, taken in totality, make a pretty powerful case, but we know the contemporary courts are blind and mute to them.

Judges today rather act in specious ways promoting administrative and lower court cases to protect Obama, and that's not much difference the way John Roberts did with ObamaCare. It sure floated Roberts' boat.

And, why should citizenship of the parents make a difference? From our point of view, Rubio would make a great President committed to American Constitutional principles of government

American Constitutional principles of government? The man who is obsessed with making illegal aliens legal. The man who is obsessed in pushing his Dream Act. Back in the day, they would have called this a foreign evasion. His "principles" are foreign and counter to the natural born citizen clause's original purpose preventing foreign allegiances.

The reason why place of birth is important is because the government and the head of state of the place a person is born has the power under international law to assert certain kinds of control over the person throughout the course of their life.

When a person is born in a foreign country but has foreign parents does that make him a Natural Born citizen of the country that he was born in, or is he a Natural Born citizen of his parents home country? So you can be a Natural Born citizen of two or more countries at once? It must only be an American thang to have it both and many ways so forget natural law.

The Supreme Court has said people having duel citizenship have an obligation and rights of nationality to both countries. See Kawakita v. US, 1952:

"The concept of dual citizenship recognizes that a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both."

Would Kawakita under the language and intent of the Constitution's Natural Born citizen clause make him eligible for president? So what is the purpose of the NBC clause to the courts? Does the clause have any meaning to you or to these contemporary courts?

A good example is US tax policy. A German national; successful businessman who has earned billions of dollars of income throughout his life; born in the US in 1946 because his father was a prominent anti-Nazi businessman who was significant in connection with post war reconstruction efforts--the father and mother in New York for several weeks in connection with post war financing plans when the birth occurred; the US Government position is that he was liable for US Federal Income Tax on all of his billions of dollars of income throughout his life.

I see courts follow the billions $$. The guy is liable to both countries Germany and US which bring up the next point.

A better example. I have a neighbor who said that his son who is an American citizen, and has American parents, but was born in Germany. The son was called by Germany to duty to do compulsory German military service while he resided in the United States. And I've pointed out in Kawakita v. US 1952, he has a responsibility to Germany. So does that make him a Natural Born citizen of Germany or of the United States? The intent and meaning behind the NBC clause is to prevent to prevent split allegiances for US presidents, but today however, that has been relegated without amendment to the dustbin of history.

Making this argument a centerpiece of our legal effort has hurt our case badly.

I don't make it the centerpiece of the legal argument in current climate of the US judiciary since they go with the winds of political expediency. However, that does not mean I won't point out this obvious folly. I'm not going to remain silent about it. I agree with you that getting Obama on fraud and being born elsewhere leaves little else for the courts to hide behind while they currently protect him.

42 posted on 07/05/2012 10:52:18 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson