You keep your lawyers and I'll raise you the author of the 14th!
|
Posted on 09/01/2012 6:31:40 AM PDT by GregNH
[SNIP]Last week, I had the occasion to cross paths with “revered” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been for many years the darling of conservatives, a judge who they believed had the guts to enforce the Rule of Law and the Constitution in the face of corrosive influences, foreign and domestic. I took the occasion to ask him a simple question, one he would be able to answer. I asked the “constitutionalist” Scalia what he believed to be the definition of “natural born citizen,” without asking him to render an opinion on whether Obama was eligible to be president, given that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States at the time he claims falsely that he was born here.
Looking like a deer in the headlights and stuttering sheepishly, Justice Scalia responded, “I don’t know. Isn’t a natural born citizen a person born in this country?” I pressed on, asking “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?” Again, Justice Scalia, pulling back out of apparent fright at having to give a straight answer, responded in the same fashion, “I don’t know.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.wnd.com ...
It has been resolved by the 14th amendment - for good or bad.
This just goes to show that no one ..and I mean NO ONE..knows how a ruling would come down from SCOTUS on this issue...despite FREEPERS who claim to know exactly what would happen.
Scalia does talk about it in the oral arguments of Nguyen.
It would seem that many of our FReepers are more qualified to sit on the bench than Scalia.
In the meantime, and for another 140+- days, we have to live with "an empty chair".
Unfortunately, it also goes to show how we are viewed as the crazy uncle in the basement. Despite the plethora of articles and discussion about this topic over the past four years here and in the conservative blogosphere, the concept has not even appeared on the radar of the most conservative of Supreme Court justices that it is a legitimate issue.
Scalia didnt look and sound flumuxed because he didnt know the answer...
he did not want to put himself in the position of having to recuse himself from an Obama Natural Born Citizen case, by taking a side on it, before a decision is to be made.
what a jerk the author is.
The author supposedly asked, “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?”
Am I supposed to believe that Scalia doesn't know there is a difference between a citizen born and one naturalized? My daughter-in-law was naturalized a week ago. She is not eligible for President because she wasn't born in the USA. I find it incredibly hard to believe someone who claims Scalia doesn't know the difference between being born in the USA and being naturalized...
His answer is consistent with his comments in a SCOTUS case during oral arguments.
From another thread....
Lets see empty chairs in every front garden nation wide.
The media is totally disinterested in Obama's past records.
The media is totally fascinated by Romney's past records.
The media is totally fascinated by Todd Akin.
The media is totally disinterested in Paul Ryan's black college girlfriend.
The media is totally disinterested in Obama robo-signing letters to dead and wounded SEALs.
The media was totally fascinated by Bush robo-signing letters to dead and wounded Iraq & Afghanistan veterans.
Are we seeing a pattern yet?
I thought Roberts was the SC poker player.
Who is this guy? He's gone from assertion to conclusion with no argument or evidence. The Constitution is not always as clear as the nose on your face. Sometimes it is, but often it is not. It takes diligent research sometimes to uncover the intended meaning and original understanding of the text, sometimes going back to English common law which was much of our framers point of reference.
The point is, the Constitution doesn't mean what somebody WANTS it to mean. It's meaning is found in the understanding of the text which, again, may be clear, but should be verified by looking at the historical context of the intent and understanding of the framers.
come on....THINK. he is the BEST we have. do you really believe he would answer that question and have to recuse himself when a decision on Obama needs to be made....
Not just that, but Scalia is smart enough not to allow Klayman insert him into the middle of the Election.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), was a case about a woman who wanted to vote. It had nothing to do with qualifications for POTUS. It does, however, address the issue of what a natural-born citizen is, but leaves open the question of children born in a U.S. jurisdiction to non-citizen parents. In my quick search, I don't see any subsequent cases that shed any more light on the subject. Relevant part of the opinion below:
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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. Minor, 88 U.S. 162.
Nevertheless, there may be an issue because Rubio's parents were not citizens at the time Rubio was born. WorldNetDaily's research shows a native-born citizen born to non-citizen parents may not be what is meant in the Constitution as a "natural-born citizen." http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/rubio-autobiography-proves-hes-not-eligible-for-vp/
There are also those who assert that a native-born citizen IS a natural-born citizen. It almost certainly would have to be decided at the SCOTUS level, if Rubio were to run for POTUS. (What the Immigration Service says is not a deciding factor.)
It seems to me to be a minor point that his parents became citizens two or three years after Rubio's birth in the United States. I guess more research will need to be done to find what was the the intent of the framers was in their use of the term "natural-born citizen". I believe in strict construction of the Constitution by ruling as close as possible to the original intent of the framers, not what a judge or Justice WANTS their intent to have been. My guess is SCOTUS would most likely allow Rubio to be a natural-born citizen for purpose of Article II Section 5 of the Constitution. This may in fact be what the framers intended, but SCOTUS is generally not strict in constructing textual Constitutional meaning, which is why I think they would rule in favor of Rubio, whether or not this was the original intent and understanding of the text of Article II Section 5 of the Constitution.
During the oral aruments of Nguyen, the attorney says that the naturalized term in the Constitution can include natural born citizens as suggested by Rogers V Bellei.
What is clear from the oral argument is that the definition of Natural Born citizen is up in the air.
It is interesting to note that when a case came up again discussing Nguyen..no mention was made of natural born citizen- perhaps because it was now the topic across the country.
What I would have loved to have seen would have been a projected image of an empty suit slowly coming into focus and then appearing behind Eastwood as he spoke, and Eastwood would turn slightly and address the empty suit rather than the chair.
I really don't want my car keyed to death....but my deductible is only $200.
That was my first thought as well.
From my understanding, if Barack Sr. was really his father and he wasn’t born in the US, Jr. isn’t rightly a US citizen at all. (Since his mother was too young at the time to by the laws at the time to pass on US citizenship in those circumstances.)
This is very disappointing.
You can bet it will be resolved if the Republicans attempt a similar stunt
There is no reference to a candidate’s parents in the constitution.
How does the 14th Amendment resolve the meaning of "natural born citizen" in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5?
bfl
I disagree. They use to give legitimacy to this administration.
Roberts sold his soul to the devil for his wife’s Beltway social life.
A lot of people are lawyers. I’m about to become a lawyer also. Doesn’t matter who’s a lawyer, what matters is a diligent inquiry into the original understanding of a word or phrase in the text that is unclear on the face and applying that original intent to the case at hand.
You keep your lawyers and I'll raise you the author of the 14th!
|
This is the problem with theories. in 2009, Jerome Corsi claimed B0’s father was Barack Sr.
Corsi contested that presumption that 0bama was born Hawaii, however, it appears that Corsi now claims that Frank Marshall Davis was 0bama’s father which would complicate the theory that 0bama was born in Kenya.
Scalia would be a fool to answer the question. He’d just get himself disqualified if the issue ever came up.
Shouldn’t this issue have been ruled on long ago, to state who is qualified to be president? The SCOTUS is the most derelict branch of government, and that is saying something.
Bingo. Hence the need to look at what was meant and intended by our framers in the use of "natural born citizen" in the context of non-citizen parents who subsequently became citizens.
pay close attention to the “Well,..maybe...” of Scalia
Justice Breyer: Yes, I mean, their... their citizenship is conferred by statute, and they are citizens from birth, and there are probably tens of millions of them, and George Romney was one of them, and I had not thought that they were naturalized citizens.
I thought they were citizens who were citizens by virtue of their birth, and they’re citizens from birth, but you were saying they’re the same as naturalized.
Or maybe I misunderstood.
Ms Davis: Yes.
Your Honor, the wording of the Constitution is natural born citizens for purposes of being President or Vice President.
And what... I haven’t done the research myself.
What commentators say is that natural born is the equivalent of... includes, encompasses jus soli and jus sanguinis.
But that’s a different term than naturalized.
Justice Breyer: If that’s so, then those who... then those who are born abroad of an American parent are natural born citizens in your view?
Ms Davis: That’s correct.
Justice Breyer: Contrasted with naturalized citizens who would have been aliens who previously were aliens and would have become citizens by virtue of a naturalization law; is that right?
Ms Davis: Your Honor, I guess the question is whether the term naturalized in the Constitution also encompasses natural born citizens.
In Rogers versus Bellei suggested that it did.
Justice Breyer: Well, I... for present purposes what we’re interested in is what standard of review to apply, and whether the extremely deferential standard applies to these natural born citizens.
Ms Davis: I think it’s... I think it’s totally clear that jus sanguinis citizenship has a different history than naturalized citizenship and has traditionally by this Court as well as by Congress been treated differently.
Justice Scalia: But has not been called natural born citizenship?
I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.
Ms Davis: Yes, by the same token...
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?
Ms Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
Also note..from that exchange...born on US soil might be enough for Scalia.
Right.
I don’t know how the law deals with such issues, but I’ve taken it that if push came to shove, were he really born abroad and it were so proved, that Barry could and would play the ‘really Frank Davis’s son’ card.
You are correct. However, allegiance that you bold is in reference to obedience to US Federal Govt, not where the parents came from. If you are legally in the US, you give birth to a child, that child is naturally born. You can argue with Mark Levin, I love to hear that.
Resolved? Probably not. Decided? Oh yeah, just like obamacare was decided and Kelo was decided and Roe v Wade was decided.
They'll find and decide what they need to to keep their masters happy and then go back to enjoying their lifetime perks.
They aren't going to decide against obama and that voting block and they aren't going to decide against people like Rubio, the GOPe's counter to obama.
Anchor babies are natural born now, illegal immigrants soon will be. Who cares what a bunch of old dead white men had to say? What did they know? We have Kagan and that wise latina Sotomayor to guides us now.
Nice find.
Thank you
great info. thanks !
Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney are both fully qualified to become president. Where their parents were born has nothing to do with their qualifications.
I have some doubt as to Obama’s actual birthplace but it is a bit late to raise a challenge on where he was born. We'd be better served by focusing on what he's done while in office...
I would love to have more stuff to show that 0bama is a fraud. However, this issue would not change the last three and half years (i.e. laws signed, appointments, etc).
Chester Arthur’s father was not a US citizen at the time of Chester’s birth.
In another 100 years it is possible that a Mexican citizen born in Mexico can become US President...and no,I am not joking. We are throwing the doors wide open
I don’t see this issue being resolved anytime soon by a definitive Supreme Court ruling. Which is probably a good thing knowing now a little more about Chief Justice John Roberts’ judicial philosophy.
[P]arents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty here is in the context of who can vote and falls short of "parents who are United States citizens", leaving open the question about Marco Rubio, who is native born and whose parents became citizens a few years after his birth.
[P]arents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty here is in the context of who can vote and falls short of "parents who are United States citizens", leaving open the question about Marco Rubio, who is native born and whose parents became citizens a few years after his birth.
I think when McCain was challenged on his citizenship, it was to distract the country from the fact that BO is NO American.
JM fell for it but should should have countersued. Too many times BO goes on the offensive and no one stands up to his bullying tactics.
It's already been resolved.
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.
