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

Skip to comments.

Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother] Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.

TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: 2016gopprimary; arizona; awjeez; birtherbs; california; canada; carlcameron; congress; cowabunga; cruz2016; debatingbirthers; fff; foxisnotcredible; japan; mccain; mexico; naturalborncitizen; newmexico; obama; teaparty; tedcruz; tedcruziseligible; texas; thisspaceforrent
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 951-1,0001,001-1,0501,051-1,100 ... 1,551-1,579 next last

When you label conservatives who debunk your ridiculous theories are traitors, you’ve officially gone off the deep end. You are fighting an imaginary war against conservatives, just because they refuse to believe your nonsense. Newsflash, you are in the fringe. You are not standing up for the Constitution. You are our own worst enemy. You push the birther agenda, instead of focusing on the awful legislation and regulations pushed by Obama. If you put as much fervor into defunding Obamacare, as you do about birtherism, maybe more senators beside Ted Cruz would be pushing for such an initiative.

Keep on living on the fringe.

1,001 posted on 03/10/2013 9:23:55 PM PDT by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan

And what is ‘the agenda’ I have posted which has so enlightened you? And it might be instructional if you post my ‘definition’ of NBC, so we can get a handle on this brilliance you seem to possess. ... Axelgreasy is hiring poorer and poorer workers as Brennan becomes little barry bastard boy’s favorite now.

1,002 posted on 03/10/2013 9:25:52 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 998 | View Replies]


The birther agenda. You believe that the only way to stop Barack Obama’s awful presidency is to push this birther nonsense. In doing so, you are now attacking strong conservatives such as Ted Cruz, and lesser conservatives like Marco Rubio.

Is Mark Levin a traitor?

1,003 posted on 03/10/2013 9:28:49 PM PDT by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1002 | View Replies]


Fifth grade we had a troika of beauties for teachers. A blonde Barby doll and two brunettes. It was common knowledge in the school that one of them was pictured in the Playboy magazine in her younger days. She was our art teacher. An unforgettable year.

1,004 posted on 03/10/2013 9:31:12 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 991 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
I bet you can't define conservative, certainly not from what's in your heart, judging by your posts.

None the less, your insults are SOP for your team and I'm used to it. Same old, same old. I forgive you your trespasses against me.

Your team has won, so lighten up and be happy, Francis.

You'll have your progressive utopia with your progressive leader and his citizenship of the world status, so enjoy the ride...until the money runs out.

We're all agreeable until then.

1,005 posted on 03/10/2013 9:33:03 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1001 | View Replies]


Well let’s see. I’m ardently pro life, pro traditional marriage, and pro free market. I believe that the FDR was public enemy number to the Constitution, especially when he attempted to stack the court to push his New Deal legislation. On top of it, I believe Owen Roberts was a turncoat, who changed his votes to allow FDR to push threw the New Deal abominations.

I can’t stand Barack Obama, and constantly compare him unfavorably to Obama. I also find it interested that another Justice Roberts has switched his vote to push through another abomination, Obamacare.

Stop questioning others conservative values because they refuse to believe your birther nonsense. Get over it. You are on the fringe.

1,006 posted on 03/10/2013 9:38:13 PM PDT by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1005 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan

Hey fool n00b, you keep writing ‘you believe’. Well genius, quote me. You’re a joke, an amateur at FR. I have no further need to play with your weakness. Have nice day

1,007 posted on 03/10/2013 9:39:06 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1003 | View Replies]


When the money runs out, that’s where the “well as armed militia” comes in handy.

1,008 posted on 03/10/2013 9:39:34 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1005 | View Replies]


Well, Jeff and Mr. Rogers have been here much longer than me, and they find you birthers to be just as nonsensical.

1,009 posted on 03/10/2013 9:43:50 PM PDT by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1007 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan

Quick, what hospital has taken claim to Obamas birth?

Sadly, none :(

They must be racist.

1,010 posted on 03/10/2013 9:44:43 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1006 | View Replies]

She was our art teacher. An unforgettable year.

Clearly! Man, life wasn't fair. I had nothing like that.

It was screwed up in a lot of ways. We got crappy performing cars and high gas prices just when I got my license. The 60s got some of the best music and we got disco?!? It got better, but damn, that's just not cool.

Our hair and clothes were messed up...remember those men's basket ball shorts or leisure suits? Yikes, what were we thinking?

On the other hand, we had short shorts, tank and tube tops, nair commercials, etc. and all pre-AIDs before sex was deadly again...ok, maybe it wasn't all bad...and disco did die and the music got much better...and we were the ones who first got to beta test the computer and video game revolution...

Maybe it wasn't so bad...I'm still jealous of your art teacher, though...

1,011 posted on 03/10/2013 9:46:41 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1004 | View Replies]


The argument is over the definition of “natural born citizen.”

As a result of my refusal to accept the birther definition of “natural born citizen” I’ve been called a traitor.

I can’t stand Obama. I believe his policies are destroying the nation. I find it despicable that the media completely disregarded his connection to Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Marxism. However, I refuse to acknowledge that definition of NBC.

1,012 posted on 03/10/2013 9:51:36 PM PDT by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1010 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
Fair enough. If true, then you've satisfied a lot of conservative credentials requirements.

If I have misjudged you, then please forgive me my trespasses against you.

I guess we just disagree about who is a citizen and why. You like a much more liberal wide open definition and status where anything goes.

I take a much more conservative approach, choosing the most stringent, highest best standard for citizenship and believe that highest standard is also what the FFs chose.

If that is the basis of our disagreement and what has banished me to your fringe, then that's the way it is.

We have arrived at where we started. I know your arguments, but you cannot cite mine as I stated them nor why.

Not much left to say...

1,013 posted on 03/10/2013 9:59:26 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1006 | View Replies]


Well, I just see no purpose for this conservative in fighting. I have no problem with taking a stringent standard for citizenship. I’m a Constitutional conservative. Most liberals want to pervert the Constitution or just disregard completely.

I just see no one the Court would ever take that definition of NBC, even if it what the Framers intended. We’ve already had two Presidents that did not meet that requirement.

The argument is most likely moot anyway? Do we really expect someone as conservative as Cruz would get the Republican nomination?

I’m fully expecting Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, and staying at home in November 2016.

1,014 posted on 03/10/2013 10:05:09 PM PDT by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1013 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan

*I just see no way the Court would ever enforce that definition of NBC. Sorry for the typo. It’s getting late and I’m off to bed.

Like I said though, we shouldn’t be going attacking each other when we have to fight against the media, the entertainment industry, professors, public schools, etc on q daily basis.

As conservatives, pop culture is waging war on us. We should be united, not divided. If you don’t believe me just check out the latest Kindle commercial, where the guy refers to “his husband” at the bar.

I certainly don’t want my kids growing up in a world where black is white, and right is wrong.

That’s why I think we need to focus on the easy criticisms of Obama. Obamacare being the focal point.

1,015 posted on 03/10/2013 10:10:44 PM PDT by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1014 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
Well, I just see no purpose for this conservative in fighting.

To those who feel as I do and believe the Constitution demands that highest standard for the POTUS and anything less is UN-Constitutional, then you understand the purpose well enough.

If you do, then you know that to me and others with this understanding, it is a Constitutional fight mandated by the oaths I've sworn. Just the way it is.

Just the way we were raised and taught back "in my day".

Assuming that you and the others who argue your point of view are Americans, it is the internet after all and you never know for sure, then y'all have been robbed of a good education, but you just don't know it.

I'll give you this. You didn't call me a racist like your side used to do on these citizenship threads. That's a step in the right direction.

1,016 posted on 03/10/2013 10:17:56 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1014 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; Jeff Winston

“Naturalized individuals have never been eligible.”

Consider this hypothetical:

In 1784, a 35 year old London-born man moves from England to Massachusetts and in 1787 he is naturalized by an act of the state legislature to be a citizen of Massachusetts.

Would he fall under the grandfather clause?

Under English law at the time, he would still be a British subject.

Under the Constitution would this disqualify him?

1,017 posted on 03/10/2013 10:29:10 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy
"John McCain was born in Panama. Many US “Natural Born” Citizens are born abroad to U.S. Servicemen serving overseas. Are they ineligible too? You are $#%&%!

No Retired Army Guy, McCain was ineligible and so is Cruz. McCain was born on unincorporated territory, a Congressional oversight. The Canal Zone was incorporated as sovereign territory in 1937, a year after McCain was born. It seems unfair, but what a mess we would have if "fairness" trumped laws. The most recent evidence that players in Congress understood this is S 2678, sponsored by Obama and his campaign chair, Clare McCaskill, and co-sponsored by Hillary, Leahy, Webb, and later, Menendez, in Feb 2008, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’. The bill failed to pass.

It's objective was to make McCain appear to be eligible. It could not have had effect because only the Supreme Court may interpret provisions of the Constitution. It didn't pass so questions of constitutionality could not be asked. I agree that Article II Section 1 should be amended to cover children of military citizens, but carefully, since the concerns held by our framers hold today. Being President is not a right. The objective of the Constitution is to compile the natural law that applied to protecting our individual sovereignty from enemies foreign and domestic. The threat from foreigners was particularly important to our framers, and their prescience is remarkably valid today.

There has never been doubt about the citizenship of a child born on our soil of citizen parents. He/she is a natural born citizen. FR has thousands of citations of the five chief justices and almost thirty supreme court cases, so I won't duplicate them. Today we have immigrants, born to illegal aliens, who are naturalized as "anchor babies" - the mother reaches the US to have her baby in one of our hospitals. The child's allegiances, probably like Obama's, could be, like many Hispanics who won't salute our flag, strongest to the country of origin of his mother or father. That child is a "Native-born citizen of the US", exactly the term used by Obama on his web site to define his birth status. That is a 14th Amendment naturalized citizen. Obama is not eligible to the presidency, but his daughters are, I don't question Rubio's or McCain's or Jindal's or Cruz's allegiance, but our framers decided it was unwise to leave the president's criteria, designed to minimize the chance of a devious enemy of our Constitution, someone whose secret goal it is to replace our form of government, up to political arbitration.

Don't you wonder why our GOP hierarchy are floating naturalized citizen after naturalized citizen as fresh blood for future elections? When citizens learn that they have been deceived about what is clear from dozens of Supreme Court cases, the Republican mainstream will be seen as guilty of enabling Obama's tenure in office, even though he, Obama, always described his class of citizenship as naturalized. He knew he would never be asked. Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, have all shown their unsuitability for office by failing to honestly answer who were natural born citizen.

1,018 posted on 03/10/2013 10:29:17 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

Indeed, as a US citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, he would have been eligible.

I must cut this off somewhere. This is the last post before my final one for this discussion.

1,019 posted on 03/10/2013 10:35:33 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1017 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Jeff Winston

“And wouldn’t you know the English Common Law book which defined “natural born subject” used the Vattel Definition? “

Here is what Chief Justice Cockburn wrote in 1869.

“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”

1,020 posted on 03/10/2013 10:59:02 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: Ax
"All three of my kids were born overseas. My sons were born in the U.S. Army Hospital at Camp Zama, Japan, and my daughter was born in a British hospital (private insurance, not on the NHS). Since both of their parents are natural born US Citizens, they can hold any office."

The interpretation depends upon the status of Camp Zuma. Your daughter is definitely not a natural born citizen. She was not born on US soil. The definition of what constitutes US soil has been settled, and settled again. Congress establishes what soil is sovereign. Certainly embassies are sovereign. The Panama Canal Zone was made sovereign, incorporated, in 1937, a year after McCain was born.

A natural born citizen is born to parents who are citizens, AND, on our soil. Natural born citizens are citizens, the reasoning from Minor v. Happersett, and why Virginia Minor's natural born citizenship was essential to the decision in Minor v. Happersett. As Wong Kim Ark reasserts, citizens have all the rights of natural born citizens. The important distinction is found in Article II Section 1, where natural born citizenship is required for the presidency. You could have been naturalized citizens, but had your children on an incorporated foreign base, and your children would be natural born.

In your case there should be clarification, but never has been. Directing Congress to make laws about who may be President is a direct challenge to separation of powers. What you would like is to have children naturalized under law, declared natural born citizen. Every word in the Constitution must be assumed to have meaning. No definitions are found in the Constitution, though “treason” is the one term modified for our unique republic. Every colony/state had its own naturalization rules, and the Constitution ordered Congress to make “An uniform rule for naturalization”. Only natural born citizens are explicitly defined, referring to the common-law familiar to our framers. Over twenty five attempts to amend that definition have failed to pass.

The tactic used by both parties, both of which have attempted to amend Article II Section 1, twice by John Conyers, once by Menendez, once by Orrin Hatch, and two other attempts, all between 2002 and 2007. Since both parties have political strategies involving loosening Article II, and specifically, the natural born citizen definition, they both agreed to pretend it doesn't exist. Conyers’ amendments would have made Obama eligible. Hatch was thinking about Schwarzenegger, born overseas to aliens, and Menendez would have made Obama eligible.

Democrats wanted Obama in office, and Republicans were for letting McCain claim his entitlement to the party nomination, even though his ineligibility had been examined through almost a decade of legal and congressional investigation. Only wonks followed the old soldier's eligibility issues, along with law professors who saw any Republican as fair game. But then McCain became useful, not just with McCain Feingold, for which he got funding from George Soros, but because he was no more eligible than Obama. Together the two parties crushed any cogent legal discussion from the media. Fox News is owned by a Democrat and a Saudi Prince. They will certainly not entertain eligibility discussions, particularly since that Prince Alwaleed bin-Talal, was Obama’s patron, at least from his Occidental days, and paid for (a twenty million dollar donation) for Obama’s Harvard Law admission.

1,021 posted on 03/10/2013 11:12:20 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; mylife; Longbow1969; BuckeyeTexan; Cold Case Posse Supporter; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
As mentioned earlier, I am going to wrap up my long participation in this thread with this post, because I have important other things to do.

One or two people have asked for evidence of what "natural born citizen" means.

I am going to present a pretty fair list of known relevant quotes from early America, and early American authorities. These include quite a few people very, very close to our most important Founders and Framers.

I understand this is a long post. But for those who want to know the evidence from early America as to what "natural born citizen" meant, THIS IS IT.

Some quotes are from translations of our Constitution into other languages, particularly French. We were pretty close to the French. As noted earlier, 3 of our first 4 Presidents (1, 3 and 4) had dual citizenship with France WHILE THEY WERE SERVING AS PRESIDENT. This fact, along with the fact that they never required Presidents to live more than 14 years of their lives on US soil, completely destroys the birther meme that they pulled out all the stops to ensure "pure and undivided loyalty."

It is obvious that the first thing that anybody translating the phrase would do, if they had the slightest doubt what it meant, would be to ask for clarification. So the foreign-language translations are probably a pretty good source for what people understood the phrase to mean. But they are far from the only source.

While I may have omitted some known quotes that didn't really say much of anything very clearly, I've tried to include pretty much all relevant quotes. I have not included quotes from David Ramsay, a favorite of birthers, because Ramsay's treatise on citizenship was the centerpiece of a self-interested sore-loser campaign, he had no legal training at all and therefore was not a legal authority, and (more importantly) he was voted down 36 to 1. For those who are interested in Ramsay, I made some comments on him earlier in this thread.

I have said throughout this thread that the birther claims are ABSOLUTELY FALSE. As you read this list of quotes from early America, you will see why I can make such a strong statement. There are FAR, FAR more similar historical quotes, but I have cut it off before the year 1850 in order to keep in EARLY America. The last Founder died in 1836.

French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):

“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”

Equates natural born citizen with born citizen. And given the extremely close relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.

James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."

Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli and jus sanguinis here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

French translation by a friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):

“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)

Again, by another person who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. No mention whatsoever of parentage.

Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795):

"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by Presidents and Supreme Court Justices.

French translation, (translated, 1799):

“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”

Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."

Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):

“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”

In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. Except, of course, the claims of birthers.

Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):

“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”

Once again.

Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):

“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”

And again.

Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)

“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”

Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."

From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):

“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”

From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.

French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe, 1826:

“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”

This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been MADE a natural born citizen of Maryland. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a close friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.)


“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

Once again, NATIVE.

French books on the Constitution:

“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)

Born citizen, born a citizen.

“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)

Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.

By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.

Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.

Justice Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):

“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. The man was LEGEND. And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.

American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:

“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”

Again: The rule was by the common law.

Another French translation, 1837:

“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”

Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.

State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):

“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”

Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.

From Spanish books on the Constitution:

“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)

Born a citizen.

“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)

Born in the United States. No mention of parents.

Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):

“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”

The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.

Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):

“ person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”

America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.

Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):

“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”

Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.

Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)

“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”

Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.

The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)

“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”

A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."

Where are the opposing quotes from early America that say that citizen parents were required? Aside from David Ramsay, who was voted down 36 to 1 in a vote led by the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, THERE ARE NONE.

The birther claim is an absolute historical and Constitutional FALSEHOOD. And it is time that those who care about those Constitution stop indulging those who care so little about it that they are prepared to twist it for their own ends.


I will leave you with the summary graphic, that sums up an accurate understanding of "natural born citizen:"

1,022 posted on 03/10/2013 11:40:46 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1019 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

What’s up with them Frenchys?

Dey some kinda egalitarians?

1,023 posted on 03/10/2013 11:46:08 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1022 | View Replies]

To: highball; Mr Rogers; Ladysforest; Jeff Winston

This doesn’t quite fit your discussion of dual citizenship, but I found it interesting.

Theodore Roosevelt’s “Fear God and take your own part”

Chapter 9 “WHEN IS AN AMERICAN NOT AN AMERICAN?” on page 284 begins his discussion on dual citizenship.

At the end of this chapter, he writes,

“President Andrew Jackson on this theory could have been impressed for military service in the English army against which he fought at New Orleans, if he had ever happened to visit England; and President Arthur would have been in the same plight.”

I’m not sure why he mentions President Jackson as having a dual citizenhip, President Arthur is obvious.

1,024 posted on 03/11/2013 12:44:28 AM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 894 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Mr Rogers, for shame. Denigrate an argument as you see fit, but Christ makes it sin to call people idiots. We are all if us make in God’s image, and we are all owed that measure of respect. I know you are a serious Christian from our interactions in past theological threads. I urge you to reconsider the approach you are taking here to those who likely are your brothers and sisters in Christ.

1,025 posted on 03/11/2013 1:00:31 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 930 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; Mr Rogers; Jeff Winston
Here was Justice Story's take on the "grandfather clause",

"§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source."

During the ratifying in New York several amendments to the Constitution were proposed. These included:

"Moved by Mr. G. LIVINGSTON. SATURDAY, July 5, 1788. — Sec. 2. Clause 2. Amendment moved by Mr. M. SMITH: —

"Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that the Congress should appoint, in such manner as they may think proper, a council to advise the President in the appointment of officers; that the said council should continue in office for four years; that they should keep a record of their proceedings, and sign the same, and always be responsible for their advice, and impeachable for malconduct in office; that the counsellors should have a reasonable allowance for their services, fixed by a standing law; and that no man should be elected a counsellor who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and who is not either a natural-born citizen, or has not become a citizen before the 4th day of July, 1776."

"That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, or such as held Commissions under the United States during the War, and have at any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be Freeholders, shall be eligible to the Places of President, Vice President, or Members of either House of the Congress of the United States."

The first resolution did not make it into the final ratification document, while the second proposed amendment was in the final document sent to Congress.

Both John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were members of the New York ratifying convention.

So my question is - who specifically would be considered "a citizen before the 4th day of July" or "Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six"?

Who are they talking about?

I thought there were no "citizens" before July 4th, 1776 only "subjects".

1,026 posted on 03/11/2013 1:19:34 AM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 943 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
"The closest definition we have to the founders was the Naturalization Act of 1790 which stated that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”. (Act to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, 2nd session, March 26, 1790, 1 Stat.L. 103 at 104, 2 Laws of the U.S., ed. Bioren & Duane (1815) 82 at 83.)"

Mnehring, your citation is, of course, correct, but you neglected to mention that it was entirely rescinded in 1795, and Congress never again attempted to interpret natural born citizenship. Many of guessed at why Washington signed the 1st Congress ruling, but he certainly signed its complete replacement in 1795. Some suggest that Washington or Franklin or some other founder had children born overseas, and he signed the 1790 law as a favor. For most founders the grandfather clause made them eligible - 14 years resident and a citizen. This requirement made it clear that as of 1787, a presidential candidate had fought in the revolution, and risked his life to reject British tyranny.

Washington and Hamilton were well known to hold Vattel in the highest esteem; Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was reported by several interviewers as the only book on Washington's desk in New York on his first day in office It may be that the 1st Congress attempt was a loose interpretation of Vattel’s Section 217, “Children born in the armies of the state...”. One wonders whether, had Congress not overstepped its bounds quite so far, Vattel’s Section 217 might not have been accepted, and McCain, but not Obama, would have been eligible?

The fact is, as Madison explained, constitutional definitions are deemed essential to retaining the framer's intent and meaning, and must come from the common-law and language familiar to its framers. Those were almost exactly the words of Chief Justice Waite in the key statement in Minor v. Happersett.

1,027 posted on 03/11/2013 1:21:16 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

Can his mommie run? There’s the ticket.

1,028 posted on 03/11/2013 1:38:01 AM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1026 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
"Like I said in my earlier post. Please point to case law or the writings of the Founding Fathers that support your definition of Natural Born Citizen.?

Sorry if this has been answered HawkHogan. I may not have time to get caught up with such a busy thread, so I'll try to address what are sure to be nonsense responses to a frequently addressed topic. Some of our more more persistent Obots are being pulled out of hibernation, tired perhaps with caressing Carps. It is encouraging to see such interest in a question Anita Dunn and her husband may have thought they had successfully buried.

Definitions for terms in the Constitution are not found in the Constitution because our framers were bright men, and knew that words evolve over time. Madison explained that, and Chief Justice Morrison Waite, who wrote the brilliant Minor v. Happersett decision, explained it clearly. Besides the writings of our first congressional historian, Dr. David Ramsay, and Thomas Paine, the first court case I've read is Chief Justice John Marshall's contribution to “The Venus”, 12 US 253, from 1814. He cites Vattel’s Law of Nations as the most concise source. “The natives, or natural-born-citizens, are those born in the country to of parents who are citizens.” Marshall was quoting the common-law of our republic, from by far the most cited legal source in American jurisprudence between 1789 and 1821, Vattel's Law of Nations (From S. Ruddy in Grotian Society Papers, 1972)

Precedent was established by Minor v. Happersett, reciting the same definition, but without mentioning Vattel, because Waite was well aware he was creating positive law. The previous twenty five or so quotations of the Vattel definition were not essential to the decision of the court, and thus did not establish precedent. Minor v. Happersett did.

The only other president who was not a natural born citizen, and not “grandfathered” by the “citizen at the signing and 14 year resident requirements, was Chester Arthur, whose ineligibility was discovered by a maverick attorney Leo Donofrio, who became so disgusted with the hypocrisy and dishonesty of those in his profession that he resigned from the bar and canceled his licenses to practice in three states and before the Supreme Court.

Donofrio found, among those few documents Chester Arthur didn't manage to have burned before he died, his father's naturalization papers, filed when Chester was 14. Like Obama, Arthur was born to a British(Irish) father, a pastor, who ministered congregations in the US for twenty years, married a citizen, but didn't care to file citizenship papers.

Arthur appointed Horace Gray to the Supreme Court, and Horace wrote a decision, Wong Kim Ark, which was dangerous to Arthur because Wong Kim. was born on US soil, but to domiciled alien parents. Had the plaintiffs known that Arthur had citizenship problems, and that a decision could affect Justice Gray's tenure, not to mention possible prosecution, particularly given one court that argued the Wong Kim was a natural born citizen, they might have asked for Gray to be removed from the decision. But no one knew about Arthur's father. Gray's meandering decision, quoting Minor v. Happersett to cover his behind, Gray wrote a confusing treatise on British citizenship law before deciding that Wong Kim was not really a natural born citizen after all, but was a citizen by the 14th Amendment. This was the case the opened the door to Anchor Babies, and possibly, because Gray was covering possible discovery of Arthur's ineligibility (My reading of Donofrio's interpretation of the deceitful citation of a Binney paper in WKA). The simple answer, only Chester Arthur and Barack Obama are not natural born citizen.

1,029 posted on 03/11/2013 2:23:16 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis
"Please give the pinpoint cite in the US Const, US Code, or the Code of Federal Regulations, that supports that definition. Actually, I’ll save you the time. It isn’t there b/c your definition isn’t the law."

Because our three branches of government are presumed to be separate, there is no US Code, no law defining natural born citizenship. It was defined early in our Constitution, Article II Section 1, because it was so important to our framers and founders. There are no definitions in the Constitution, by design. The definition comes from our common-law - the laws that have been accepted without question - familiar to our framers. Here is the positive law, created when Virginia Minor challenged the court to allow her to vote in her home state of Missouri, based upon the equal protections clause the 14th Amendment.

Since citizens, before the 14th Amendment, were defined explicitly only within each state, the only Constitutional definition for a citizens was that for a natural born citizen. Being a natural born citizen before the 14th Amendment was passed, Virginia was also a citizen. She wasn't able to vote as a citizen before the 14th, and the 14th never mentioned suffrage. That is why Minor v. Happersett turned common-law to positive law. Virginia needed to be an unquestioned citizen; the definitions for who is a citizen are constantly changing, even today. The Constitution, based upon natural law, was assumed to be an document based upon eternal truth. A "native", or natural born citizen is a definition from natural law, not from men. Here is the key citation:

“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.”

1,030 posted on 03/11/2013 2:52:10 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

The case that actually established the existing precedent was US v Wong Kim Ark, in 1898. That precedent is that pretty much any child born on US soil is a natural born citizen. And that is settled law. No credible authorities on either side of the aisle give any credence to claims otherwise.

Mr. Winston, you may be confusing a few, though the level of discourse for this thread is refreshingly well informed. Still, I’ll correct a few misstatements; Minor v. Happersett is all about natural born citizenship, because that was the only class of citizen defined in the Constitution. The case is clearly written, and clearly reasoned, and unequivocal.

The 14th Amendment nowhere mentions the term ‘natural born citizen’, and thus can have had no effect upon it. The Supreme Court doesn’t allow decisions to infer changes in other decisions. Reinterpretation must be explicit, and the author of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham, in his two addresses to the House, while explaining his amendment, explicitly tells us who are natural born citizens; “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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….” Exactly the interpretation cited by John Marshall, and by Morrison Waite, and by John Jay, and by Charles Evans Hughes, all chief justices.

In Wong Kim Ark Justice Gray cites Minor v. Happersett and quotes the passage in its entirety. Though he wanders through British Common law, he returns to find that Wong Kim, born to domiciled aliens in San Francisco, is a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. Read the end of the decision. The argument is a mess, and that may have been Justice Gray’s intention. It leads in irrelevant directions but returns to the only decision possible, because it rests on the 14th Amendment, which never mentions natural born citizenship.

1,031 posted on 03/11/2013 3:29:26 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
"...statutory and declaratory born citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone after February 26, 1904 to at least one U.S. citizen parent and did so retroactively to all children born of at least one U.S. citizen in the Canal Zone. John McCain was born in the Canal Zone."

Sounds good aruanan, but a congressionally declared “born citizen” is a citizen by the 14th Amendment, a naturalized citizen. That is bit of misdirection deployed by Obama’s comrades on his web site; Obama describes himself as “A native-born citizen of the US”. We won't question his birth somewhere on US soil, so he is born a citizen “jus soli”, of the soil. He is a born “citizen”, not a “natural born citizen”. The last time the Supreme Court issued an interpretation of NBC was 1875 in Minor v. Happersett. That doesn't mean that they couldn't do so. It doesn't mean that they couldn't ignore precedence. But they haven't yet reinterpreted Minor v. Happersett.

1,032 posted on 03/11/2013 3:42:13 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

Your hypothetical was made citizen of a State under the Articles Of Confederation. The United States existed but not as currently constituted. All US citizens were disputed by England to be its subjects, leading to actions on the high seas such as impression of men in service to the US Navy, which in turn led to the War Of 1812, upon the conclusion of which the matter was settled. England had no claim upon US citizens.

1,033 posted on 03/11/2013 3:56:32 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1017 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; P-Marlowe

My point is not what can be argued from history, my point is what the Congress has established as law for the now. I also aim to point out that the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine who becomes a citizen, how they become a citizen, and what the nature of their citizenship is.

Therefore, a natural citizen NOW is what the law established by Congress says, since the Constitution gives that power to Congress.

In fact, anything taken to court NOW will bow to the law enacted by Congress.

The other is always a fun argument, but it’s a lot like arguing about whether there was a plot by the mafia to kill JFK.

1,034 posted on 03/11/2013 5:03:52 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; P-Marlowe

I agree that it says only a natural born citizen is eligible to the presidency, however, Article 1 section 8 and Article 14, section 5, both give Congress the authority to write the law about what constitutes being a natural born citizen.

1,035 posted on 03/11/2013 5:08:20 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 857 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
Great post!

You and a few others raise the intelligence of FR and provide the much needed civics and history lessons our public school indoctrination replaced.

I am grateful for the education!

This really isn't a hard concept and there are many similar concepts in our daily lives that explain the common sense.

We get a taste when we buy or sell a car or home and sign a title or have a title search to determine the trail of ownership and our right to buy/sell it free and clear.

We also understand undivided allegiance. For example, would Ahmadinejad say that if an Iranian muslim mother and an Iranian muslim father have a child born in Iran, he'll trust that is child an Iranian muslim based upon the circumstances of birth?

Yes. He would have not reason not to trust that that child is a natural born Iranian muslim by mother, father and country. All factors agree.

Is the same true if an Iranian muslim woman marries an Israeli jew and has a child in Israel?

Would he say that child an Iranian muslim and trust that child's faith allegiances to country?

And what if that same child were born in Iran? Does it matter? Yes, it would to Ahmadinejad.

The only pure, undiluted allegiances of faith and country he'd most likely unconditionally trust are in the first case only.

That's the purity of a natural born citizen. Not hard to understand at all.

Use any combinations of nationality and faiths and run them past the most hard core judge and you'll get an education in understanding undivided, undiluted loyalty.

It's not hard for someone to understand why the FFs did what they did unless they just don't want to and/or they have some other agenda, such as we see on these threads.

1,036 posted on 03/11/2013 6:30:23 AM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1029 | View Replies]

To: xzins
My point is not what can be argued from history, my point is what the Congress has established as law for the now.

Many things are like that today. Abortion, the definition of marriage, the right to and forms of self protection, rights to property, search and seizure,'s all on the table to be decided all over again. And again...

Fair enough. Too bad that in all of them, we seem to just ignore the lessons of history and the wisdom behind why things are as they have been, especially if it gets in the way of what we want, when we want it.

We must really enjoy pain. Part of the deal living life as prodigal sons, I guess.

1,037 posted on 03/11/2013 6:51:39 AM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1034 | View Replies]

To: xzins
My point is not what can be argued from history, my point is what the Congress has established as law for the now. I also aim to point out that the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine who becomes a citizen, how they become a citizen, and what the nature of their citizenship is.

Therefore, a natural citizen NOW is what the law established by Congress says, since the Constitution gives that power to Congress.

That's an excellent point.

If we don't like the citizenship criteria, we should change them via Congress. We shouldn't just pretend that the Constitution says something that it doesn't.
1,038 posted on 03/11/2013 7:50:59 AM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1034 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Gosh. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

If it is wrong, then why are the parents mentioned at all? It serves no purpose to mention parents if loyal parents are irrelevant to the result. Yet they are not only mentioned, they are the FIRST aspect which is mentioned.

So you are trying to tell me that there is no difference whatsoever between loyal British subject parents, and Foreigner parents who just happen to be in England at the time? That is nonsensical.

If you will go to the trouble to read further into that book, you will discover English law does not allow Inheritance from Foreign Parents. Foreign Parents may buy land, but when they die, the land may not go to their Children, it goes back to the King.

Have you never even read US v. Wong Kim Ark?

Yup, plenty of times. It's rather boring, and sheds no light on the issue. Again, the words "natural born" are conspicuously absent from the ruling. Apart from that, Wong Kim Ark has no effect on what is the meaning of English law.

And as the Court in Wong said: The same rule ALWAYS applied. First in England, then in the Colonies, and then in the United States after independence.

And have you ever read a criticism of Wong Kim Ark? I have, and among other things, they completely missed the War of 1812, about which who is British and Who is American was a central aspect of the conflict. The reason they left the War of 1812 out, is because it did not fit the decision at which they were trying to arrive.

The child born within the country, of alien parents, was a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT for as long as we used the word “subject,” and then when we changed “subject” to “citizen,” that child then became a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Unless his father was an Indian. And Unless his father was a slave. And Unless his father was a British Loyalist. And unless his father was a member of a foreign Ambassadorial staff. The fact that your bedrock theory is contradicted by so many examples of exceptions ought to be a clue to you that your theory is in fact wrong.

If you were reasonable, these exceptions would give you pause, because who could suggest this was a reasonable method of determining citizenship if it has so many holes in it? (Not to mention birth tourism and anchor babies.)

You're problem is that you regard the Wong court as the sole determining authority. I regard them as a court that wanted a certain result, and fumbled enough legal crappola together to get the result they wanted.

1,039 posted on 03/11/2013 8:08:52 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
While I was researching Wong Kim Ark for my last reply, I noticed something which I consider interesting. Now we all like to believe the courts make decisions based on law rather than ideology, but anyone who actually pays attention to them knows this is not the case. As often as not, ideology has a greater impact on their decision on a case than does actual law.

Examples include the recent ObamaCare ruling, Roe v Wade, Kelo, etc.

Now you might think this is a recent phenomena that is the result of Roosevelt and Truman's long years of stacking the court with reliable Liberals, but this is not the case. Ideology has ALWAYS played a role in how the courts decide issues.

I suspect that this is the case with the Wong Kim Ark decision, and early research into the judges who rendered the decision seems to support this. I'm going to delve deeper into this aspect, and i'll let you know what I find.

1,040 posted on 03/11/2013 8:17:03 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
No court in this land would define “natural born citizen” in this way because of the uncertainty and upheaval it would create.

Your argument has nothing to do with what is correct law. It only has to do with the consequences of a judgement which people don't like. It shares this characteristic with the O.J. Simpson trial. Many predicted riots if O.J. was found guilty.

The point is irrelevant to what are the facts. We do not believe in rulings based on threats in this nation.

1,041 posted on 03/11/2013 8:19:50 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Jeff Winston is the definition of “Twisted.”

Obama is most certainly not a constitutionally qualified candidate. The son of a noncitizen cannot be a natural born citizen. A british subject by birth cannot be a natural born citizen.

A correct interpretation of the constitution requires a child of two citizen parents.

Deposit your excrement elsewhere.

1,042 posted on 03/11/2013 8:23:21 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 982 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Try the birth certificate. Note the name of the hospital at the bottom. Do not quote fact check as real facts, unless you have independent corroboration, they suck for truth.

Your document is FAKE. McCain did not release a copy of his birth certificate, but he did show it to the Washington Post reporter who did this story. The Reporter verifies that it is not the document you have posted.

1,043 posted on 03/11/2013 8:24:33 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Yes, the dastardly deceitful ‘work’ that went into them.

It figures that one dedicated to the urban terrorist Obama would would see beauty in such devious exploits of our constitution.

Obama is precisely what Article 2, paragraph 5 was designed to protect us from. And you are precisely what defines Treason.

1,044 posted on 03/11/2013 8:29:06 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 988 | View Replies]


Marvelously well stated.

I cannot imagine what these three goons have on the management of this site, that they are allowed to remain here destroying the site’s stated purpose.

There must be something like what they hold over Boehner and Roberts I presume. Pray for the Robinsons without ceasing!

1,045 posted on 03/11/2013 8:34:36 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
It isn't totally nonsense, but when people begin to seriously believe that the voters and their electors ( who rule on candidate qualifications) are going to be swayed by references to the mind games of some Swiss elitist who wore wigs and powdered his nose over 200 years ago, they are beginning to lose touch with reality. None of that baloney will ever matter to voters or their electors and they (and only they) will continue to have the final say on a candidate's qualifications to be president, just as they did in 2008, just as they did in 2012 and just as they did in every single presidential election prior to 2008.

This argument is valid as far as politics go. It is NOT valid as far as Legality goes. The reason the guy gets away with it is because the public in general doesn't care, and neither does the court system. The reason they don't care is because they have a widespread belief that "natural born " simply means born inside our boundaries. The courts have the same mistaken belief, which I believe is the result of a long standing misinterpretation of the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the 14th amendment. It's lingered long enough to become accepted as true whether it be actually true or not. Had the issue been clearer to the courts and the public, (such as him being under the age of 35) then the legal issue would trump the political preference.

None of these people with all of their musty old foreign books and theories has ever proven the birthplace or paternity of any of our past presidents and none of them has the slightest idea how they might go about proving (to the extent required by their own impossible standards of proof) where Obama was born or the identity of his father or where Cruz was born or the identity of his father.

One of the central arguments of we "birthers" is the belief that we don't have the responsibility of proving he is not qualified. *HE* has the responsibility of proving he is. It may be argued that this was never required of other Presidential candidates, but never before did we have a presidential candidate who had gone around for years telling people he was from Kenya. Since *HE* made it an issue during his life, *HE* invited greater scrutiny upon himself.

Obama should have been required to submit a certified copy of his birth certificate showing him to have been actually born in Hawaii, (Hawaii will give birth certificates to people who were not actually born there, so that is another difficulty which should have been addressed) or he should have been excluded from the ballot in all 50 states as having not demonstrated the qualifications to run for the office of the Presidency.

The system broke down on the state level because state officials merely accepted a statement signed by Nancy Pelosi alleging he was qualified. Nancy Pelosi doesn't actually know what she is talking about, and the state officials should have required certain proof, not a signed allegation.

If Cruz runs, they can present their evidence and cite their ancient treatises and, as always, the president will be selected by the voters and their electors after they have considered all of the candidates' qualifications. And, there will be people who will bitch and moan that the people made another mistake without ever coming to terms with the reality that the people and their electors will undoubtedly make some mistakes. But, we'll get by like we always have gotten by.

I don't think it will require so much in the way of presenting ancient documents. I would simply present the 1960s Supreme court ruling regarding Aldo Mario Bellei, and argue that Ted Cruz shares exactly the same characteristics of birth as does this man who was stripped of his citizenship. I would further argue that it is ridiculous to believe that a "natural citizen" can be stripped of his citizenship short of committing treason.

If the Characteristics of your birth do not make you a "natural born citizen" then subsequent acts cannot make you one either. Ted Cruz's residency in this nation after the age of four is irrelevant to his status at birth.

1,046 posted on 03/11/2013 8:40:09 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]


I agree. It doesn’t matter what is the truth, they will redefine it until it means what THEY want it to mean.

1,047 posted on 03/11/2013 8:41:44 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
From the time he was 4 years old until the time he was 8 years old, Woodrow Wilson did not consider himself a citizen of the United States and had no intention of being a citizen of the US in the future.

I wish he had gotten his wish. Much damage to the nation stems from his Presidency.

1,048 posted on 03/11/2013 8:44:41 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]


Well said. Schmeegle salutes you!

1,049 posted on 03/11/2013 8:47:02 AM PDT by MWestMom ( "I will not sit quietly and let [the president] shed the constitution." Senator Rand Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
1. The earliest reference is to Noah Webster's 1806 book "Elements of Useful Knowledge." In his section on the Constitution, he refers to the president's qualifications as "The executive power of the United States is vested in a president, who holds his office for four years. To qualify a man for president, he must have been a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, or must be a native of the United States; he must have attained to the age of thirty-fire years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States..."

In those days, "native" (derived from "Natal" meaning birth) was interchangeable with natural-born as demonstrated by the Minor v Happersett 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.

In the Founders' and Framers' days, I can only assume that travel from afar was rare, the few sailing ships of the time used for commerce or warfare between England and France, and that people assumed that native citizens (people born here) were, by definition, born to parents who were already here, and not some border-crosser who arrived within days of producing a child. Any infidelity that produced a child would still have been between two existing citizens of the country, and not a temporary already-married student visiting for a few years.

I've made this point as well. In those days, if a child is born in the United States, the vast majority of the time it is because the parents have made the decision to immigrate here and become American Citizens. The occasions where they might be here only temporarily and with intent to return to another country were exceedingly rare during the era of sailing ships.

For all practical purposes, the term "natural born" and "native" (meaning "born here" in modern parlance") are the exact same group of people. The exceptions are so rare as to be dismissed in conversation on the topic. And that is how we arrived at the current confusion.

People came to regard the two terms to mean exactly the same thing, when in fact, they do not. It just became a shorthand way of speaking, rather then specifying the tedious distinction.

1,050 posted on 03/11/2013 8:57:28 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 951-1,0001,001-1,0501,051-1,100 ... 1,551-1,579 next last

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.

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

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