Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
You read too much crap from Dr. Conspiracy. I beat the sh*t out of him (and his little flying monkeys) regarding that argument years ago.
George Washington was a Natural born subject of His Majesty King George III. You cannot argue that Washington was a "natural born citizen" of a Non-Nation entity. Such entities can't grant citizenship status. Only a country can do such.
Now you need to shut the f*** up and not say another word about how he is really a "natural born citizen" of a nation which didn't exist for another 44 years. The argument is sophist and asinine.
Once it BECAME the United States, they began training in American Law. As a matter of fact, here is what one legal scholar had to say about their Legal sources. (note the reference to Madison)
And in the same book, next page:
1779? Before the Constitution, eh? And Thomas Jefferson's suggestion too?
And here's a reference for Harvard.
And that is just a small sample of examples.
So to answer your question, Apparently I know more about it than YOU!"
Yup, nothing more meaningless than Ankeny BS and Malihi citing that BS unless your a BOt Flogblower. Not much more meaningless than that.
"Trial on the merits."
LoL. All nonsense mumbo jumbo, and those idiots on Ankeny had the gall to cite (the origin of) an illegal alien lawyer, and then it was regurgitated by a Jimmuuh Carter judge in an immigration case that had nothing to do with being a natural born citizen. BTW, that illegal alien was deported.
Thanks Seizethecarp. I should learn to respond while wide awake. I do wish FR was able to provide the facility for an author to edit his/her own submission. But my editing is too often sloppy.
It is good to see that so many are active and interested. Amend the Constitution, don't ignore it. This first sign of disregard for the Constitution remains the most important; it established the precedent, probably no original, of concealing the law in rhetoric while preparing the public for a new standard guided by public opinion - which progressives feel they can control.
Well....yeah.
The federal government will never admit it has NO authority to directly naturalize citizens and citizens so naturalized are a 3rd type of 'national' citizen never envisioned by the Founders.
Nor will it admit we no longer have 'natural-born' citizens because IT has taken control of every aspect of our lives...including citizenship.
When was the last time any of us were ever asked anything other than -
Are you a US citizen?
§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
“It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual”.
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)
“...there was no such thing as citizen of the United States, except as that condition arose from citizenship of some state
United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, (Case No. 14,459)(1873)
“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)
“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)
“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”.
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)
“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)
“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
-------
No State Citizens....no Natural Rights. No Natural Rights, no right to property, no religious freedom.....no RKBA.
Am I the only one seeing the pattern here?
IMHO, the government has been systematically defrauding us out of our birthright for generations.
Anyone who thinks they'll admit that is just kidding themselves.
Great post!
Red Steel
Do you know what the case was called where they cited Ankeny and the alien was deported? I would like to read it.
Thanks
CCPS
Yeah, I did the research on that about 2 1/2 years ago and that’s what I found, however, the case slips my mind at the moment.
It is the case that Ankeny put in their conclusion for their opinion. It was one of the last paragraphs if not the last paragraph. I’ll find and re-read the Indiana Ankeny and I’ll be back to give it to you.
To clarify, the alien’s lawyer and the parroting Carter judge called the deported alien immigrant’s children as natural born US citizen(s).
Found it.
“Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”), cert. denied 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S. Ct. 3112 (1983).”
When I read the Diaz-Salazar v. INS case, the natural born citizen rubbish dicta was just thrown out there in the opinion without cite. I highly suspect, that it was thrown [throw away line] in the Diaz-Salazar opinion to elicit an emotional response for the pooooor and soon departed illegal immigrant.
And we find some quarter of a century later, it being used to support the usurper Obama in a dingbat Indiana opinion. Heh.
Yeah, that's the part that got me, too.
It's a pretty transparent ploy when you know to look for it.
It is believed by at least 6 hostile attorneys.
I’ll ask you directly:
Why did Onaka mention Honolulu but not any of the other items Bennett specifically requested to be verified in the application? He certified that he obeyed the law; what does the law allow as a reason for the failure to verify those things?
Why did somebody at the HDOH alter the 1960-64 birth index so that it would include SELECTED non-valid records?
Thanks a million. Yea, every Obama supporter I know cites Ankeny as legal authority that makes Obama a natural born Citizen.
An “Obama is ineligible” attorney isn’t as convinced about Justice Scalia’s position on natural born citizenship.
Larry Klayman wrote in World Net Daily: “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.”
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/scalia-flummoxed-about-natural-born-citizenship/#zFrMiOi6sQfOsSV9.99
Justice Scalia had two opportunities in 2008 to grant application for stays or injunctions in Obama ineligibility related appeals. He punted both times ( Berg v Obama and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz).
Justice Scalia has also advocated for “jus soli” to be the requirement for being natural born in oral arguments in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (No. 99-2071).
Scalia was honestly (and conservatively) responding that he hadn’t performed the necessary comprehensive legal research to arrive at a proper conclusion.
“I don’t know” doesn’t sound like support for “jus soli” to me.
Failure to grant injunctions on eligibility cases could be based on a long list of legal technicalities, such as lack of jurisdiction, lack of standing, lack of remedy, issue is moot, etc., all of which had been the basis for a lower court dismissal prior to reaching SCOTUS.
And none of the cases Scalia and SCOTUS refused to hear came after a trial on the merits that included full discovery of the contemporaneous evidence and witness and document custodian testimony with cross-examination.
Just as the Liar-in-chief has run the most dishonest, opaque administration ever, Barry legal team has obstructed transparency at every opportunity. An honest, ethical patriot with nothing to hide and welcoming the chance to remove all doubts about his eligibility would have:
1. signed legal releases and insisted on forensic inspection and validation by independent experts of all of his HI birth vital records and hospital records
2. authorized release and validation of all INS and passport records
3. authorized release and validation of his social security file
4. authorized release and validation of his selective service file
5. authorized release and validation of his college and financial aid applications
Barry has evaded and stonewalled all of the above showing anyone not invested in his usurpation that he is most likely ineligible.
You really do sound like a loon when you say stuff like this. I have lost count of the number of Authorities throughout history who adhered to the view that "natural citizens" are born to citizen parents. That you keep repeating ad infinitum ad absurdum that there are none, reminds me of Baghdad bob.
That may be. But I don't think anchor babies or birth tourism were problems that the Framers of the Constitution could have foreseen in 1787, since it took weeks for people to get from one country to another.
Yes, the founders were known for their short sightedness and stupidity. And of course it's a lot more plausible that the FOUNDERS were incredibly stupid than it is that later Americans were incredibly stupid.
The Founders only had to deal with about 100,000 British loyalist children who were born within our borders after the Declaration of Independence. The founders stupidly did not make them citizens, but we know better than that now.
Indians were not citizens because they were members of other nations.
I cannot believe how many times i've heard that as a response to the status of Indians. It is a consistent misunderstanding of the point that is ubiquitous amongst your type. It is seemingly impossible to get your type to even understand the question, let alone give a reasonable answer. I'll try again.
You claim Foreigners ("members of other nations") get automatic citizenship from being born here. You also claim Indians are "members of other nations". If the standard citizenship doctrine of the United States is that "members of other nations" get automatic citizenship when they are born here, why do not Indian "members of other nations" get citizenship when they are born here?
Indian tribes were regarded as separate nations that we had no control over, just as we had no control over the governments of England or France, and that we made treaties with, just as we made treaties with England and France.
This is pretty elementary. I'm surprised you don't know it.
I don't know it because it is so childishly nonsensical, i'm surprised you can proffer the theory. In a nutshell, you say Indians cannot be treated like other nations because they are exactly like other nations.(England, France) It is a Non Sequitur.
As for the children of British Loyalists, we dealt with that issue as well.
Yes we did. We refused to regard them as American citizens despite the fact that they met EXACTLY the criteria *YOU* specify is the sole criteria for citizenship. Here is an example of James Monroe noting someone is British despite the fact he was born in the United States. Letter of 1795.
A Mr Eldred was lately apprehended at Marseilles and sent here under guard upon a charge of having given intelligence to the British of some movement in the French fleet. Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since. From what I hear of him, he is not a person of mischevious disposition nor one who would be apt to commit the offence charged upon him, but yet I do not see how I can officially interfere in his behalf, for when once a principle is departed from, it ceases to be a principle.
This had nothing to do with the birth of children to immigrants. It had to do with dividing Americans up after the Revolution into US citizens, or British.
You use the word "immigrant" as if it is meant to imply someone was actually coming here to be an American, yet your criteria says nothing of their intentions. Indeed, "Anchor Babies" and "Birth Tourism" can come here with no intention of being an "immigrant" and yet get American Citizenship by your foolish standard.
No. If your standard can make people citizens accidentally, it can certainly make people citizens against their will! In 1776 you weren't permitted to chose to be an English Citizen. If you met the criteria, IT WAS FORCED UPON YOU WHETHER YOU LIKED IT OR NOT!!!! If we are, as you say, following British Common law, then we must follow THIS aspect of it too. Subjectship is non-elective.
American citizenship was also non-elective in those days. This wasn't changed until the Expatriation Act of 1868.
Slaves were not citizens because they were legally regarded as property, not people. Again, this is pretty elementary and I'm surprised you don't know it.
I do not know it because it is not knowable, meaning it isn't correct. Again, I hear this same old saw repeated back at me every time this topic is mentioned. Slaves were both people and property. I know of no writers or historical figures who will claim that slaves were not people. Manumitted slaves became American citizens, then passed on citizenship the same as anyone else. You can google examples. I've posted them often enough already.
So how is it that the children of Free blacks were citizens but the children of bound blacks were not? Why does the "born on the soil" not apply to slaves, but applied to free Blacks? It's because people cannot pass on a characteristic of citizenship which they do not possess themselves. As Slaves were never permitted to naturalize, they could not be citizens, nor could their children.
Even if they were born on the soil, as your sole criteria states.
The Supreme Court was clear that if a person was born in America before or immediately after the Revolution, he or she had the right to choose American citizenship upon reaching adulthood.
And what Supreme court decision was this? My understanding is that expatriation was not legal until the expatriation act of july 27,1868. Someone is misinformed. Prior to this time, Expatriation was NOT ELECTIVE. You were REQUIRED to be a citizen of the nation with the stronger claim to you. Check your English law! Ask the King!
So your claim that the COMPLETELY HISTORICAL AND ACCEPTED UNDERSTANDING of natural born citizen fails to account for these various groups of people is simply and completely false.
There you go again, repeating the claim that just because you think so (or more accurately don't understand something) the opposing argument is false.
Just like your claim that it ever took two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen.
And once more you repeat the assertion that people are wrong because *YOU* say so.
"There you go again."
Those 6 attorneys. Who are they and where’s your evidence?
Onaka verified Obama’s birth in Hawaii to Bennett. There’s only one person on the planet who thinks otherwise.
The Hawaii DOH hasn’t falsified the 1960-64 birth index.
You could ask the mods to delete to comment, and then repost it with the correction...
It is a very good comment but it made my head spin when I started reading it as your words, which they were not at the beginning!
Up to you. This thread is turning into a masochistic head-banging exercise, but at least we can ID some new Fogblower and GOP-e commenters who will now defend the ineligible GOP candidates all the way to 2016.
Wow. Those are so rare. Thank you.
1 Has anyone ever run for president (general election or his party’s primaries) that did not meet the two citizen parent requirement?
First, Chester A Arthur ran for Vice-President. His father was born in Ireland, and had not naturalized at the time that Arthur ran for VP.
A better example is John Charles Fremont, the very first REPUBLICAN candidate for President. Before Lincoln. Lincoln was second.
Fremont was the US-born son of a Frenchman who never naturalized, never had any intention of naturalizing, and was doing his best to leave the US and take his family to France when he died, leaving them permanently resident here.
And he ran VERY, VERY OPENLY as the son of an unnaturalized Frenchman.
2 Were any of them challenged on those grounds?
NO.
Arthur was in fact challenged on the supposed grounds that he was not a natural born citizen. He was accused first of having been born in Ireland. When that was shown to be bogus, he was then accused of having been born in Canada.
It doesn't seem to have even OCCURRED to his enemies to try and claim he was ineligible because of a non-citizen father. And they were digging as hard as they could.
As for Fremont, absolutely no challenge that I could find any record of. After reading about him, I looked.
He ran for President, and lost. But there is no sign anyone ever cared that he was the son of an obvious Frenchman who only wanted to leave the United States and get back to France. Or that anyone ever had the slightest idea that he was thereby ineligible to the Presidency.
The history and law are all consistent. You see birthers blowing enough smoke that they make it look like there's inconsistency, but in spite of all the cases that they twist and misinterpret, there REALLY IS NOT.
The claim that it EVER took citizen parents to make a natural born citizen is simply and absolutely false.
Oh. And contrary to what some will tell you, Chester A. Arthur did NOT skip running for reelection because he “feared being exposed as ineligible.”
He declined to run for reelection because he was exhausted and dying. He completed his term in March of 1885. On many days after that, he was too ill to leave his house, but he did manage to at least make a few public appearances that year. But by the end of the year, even those had ended.
He managed to survive through the next summer. He died in November, about a year and 8 months after leaving the White House.
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.