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]
birtherreport.com/You Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,401-1,4501,451-1,5001,501-1,5501,551-1,578 next last
To: Jeff Winston
Yes, I created it.

Well duh.

And do you know why I made it look that way?

Because you wanted to point at it to prove yourself correct? Again, well duh.

So you're not even insulting my artwork. You're insulting birther artwork, because that's what I reproduced.

Stealing it AND making fun of it? You are such a childish person.

1,451 posted on 03/14/2013 1:24:04 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 903 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Enlighten us with your wisdom.

You cannot be enlightened. As Reagan said:

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so"

1,452 posted on 03/14/2013 1:28:11 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 905 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Sorry, but the original diagram simply and absolutely misrepresented the entire legal and historical understanding of what the term means.

That dubious distinction is your stock in trade.

It really amazes me, so many people claiming to value the Constitution. And they come on here and argue against Founding Fathers like James Madison, the Father of the Constitution.

Again you misstate. No one is arguing against Madison. What is being argued is that you are misrepresenting him, and overemphasizing his statement in support of your theory.

They ignore and revile the close associate of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.

You mean Rawle, whom you apparently didn't realize was a British Loyalist during the War, and who received his legal training in London. This is not revilement, it is merely stating the facts accurately. Also, the fact that he associated with Washington and Franklin does not establish that he was of the same mind as they on this topic.

But now that you brought it up, I am beginning to suspect that Rawle may be Patient Zero in this whole twisted mess. I suspect many of the subsequent legal authorities were the victim of his British Law interpretation of American citizenship. The error in his manuscript very likely influenced countless subsequent legal authorities in their own understanding.

They try to make the Constitution say something that no court case has ever said it meant in the entire history of the United States.

And this is just wrong. Justice Marshall clearly stated the principle in "The Venus", and Justice Waite clearly stated the exact same principle in "Minor v Happersett." You just don't like these cases, so you refuse to acknowledge them.

And those of us who've actually read the Constitution, and read the court cases, and read the debates of the Constitutional Convention, and read the historical quotes, and who are representing them 100% ACCURATELY... well, we're "dipsh!t trolls."

Those of you who read it with a lazy eye.

Yes, dipsh!t pretty much sums it up.

1,453 posted on 03/14/2013 1:45:45 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 909 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
I love the ad hominem attacks, by the way.

By launching the stupid ad hominem attacks, you broadcast loud and clear that you don't have a single substantive argument to make.

I'm going to quote you on that. You already regard yourself as proof of your own correctness, so when I quote you back at yourself telling yourself that your ad hominem attacks are the result of your not having a "single substantive argument to make", you will then BELIEVE YOURSELF!

Thanks for that. It will save much time in the future.

1,454 posted on 03/14/2013 1:49:10 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 912 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Here I am, arguing that yes, TED CRUZ, one of the brightest and most promising conservatives out there, is eligible to be President of the United States.

Strict constructionists do not change the meaning of the law to favor them when it is convenient. Doing so is a characteristic of the Other side.

And since day one, you have argued an interpretation of that Constitution that has no significant authority in the whole of US history behind it. Past, present or future. Conservative or otherwise.

And here you simply repeat your previous false claims. Why do you gotta act like Bagdad Bob?

Justice Marshall, Justice Washington, Justice Waite, James Monroe, Possibly even James Madison, if "Publius" can be established as him. Justice Waite, Congressman Bingham, Senator Trumbull, Breckenridge Long, and h3ll, while we're at it:

George Will

Ann Coulter

John M. Yinger

Lawrence B. Solum

Notre Dame President Charles E Rice.

Alexander Porter Morse

Dr. David Ramsey

Ambassador Breckenridge Long

George D. Collins

John Greshack

Aristotle.

Arthur Hinman

There's this opinion in this Harvard Law book from 1929.

The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).

And more still for which I have to hunt up the links again. Yeah, we got nothing.

1,455 posted on 03/14/2013 2:14:03 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
and is therefore deemed to be a “natural born”

Actually, they say: and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges OF natural born citizens.

It doesn't say they ARE natural born citizens

1,456 posted on 03/14/2013 4:04:03 AM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1436 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You mean Rawle, whom you apparently didn't realize was a British Loyalist during the War, and who received his legal training in London.

I don't get his whole focus on Rawle. Kent came before him, and St. George Tucker came before that.

Tucker annotated Blackstone's Commentaries (of which his View of the Constitution is part), fought in the Revolutionary War, became a professor of William and Mary College and was appointed by Madison to the Virginia District Court.

Why would someone go all the way to Rawle?

Unless, of course, they aren't trying to find a conclusion to the facts so much as they're trying to find facts to fit a conclusion.

1,457 posted on 03/14/2013 4:42:15 AM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1453 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I don't get his whole focus on Rawle. Kent came before him, and St. George Tucker came before that.

I find his constant lauding of Rawle to be peculiar as well. The only reason for this of which I can think is that Rawle says what Jeff wants to hear.

Tucker annotated Blackstone's Commentaries (of which his View of the Constitution is part), fought in the Revolutionary War, became a professor of William and Mary College and was appointed by Madison to the Virginia District Court.

Unless i'm mistaken, i've seen statements from Tucker which can be regarded as supporting either side.

Why would someone go all the way to Rawle?

It's not just that he goes straight to Rawle, he simply ignores anyone else, including Supreme Court Justices.

Unless, of course, they aren't trying to find a conclusion to the facts so much as they're trying to find facts to fit a conclusion.

Bingo. I suspect Jeff has a personal reason for wanting "natural born" to mean anyone who was born here. He may have foreign parents who didn't naturalize before he was born, or perhaps someone close to him is in that situation. Rarely does one find such emotional attachment to an issue that has no personal bearing on themselves.

1,458 posted on 03/14/2013 7:00:49 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1457 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Actually, they say: and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges OF natural born citizens.

It doesn't say they ARE natural born citizens

And that is a distinction which I noticed in his post as well. Saying something is similar is not saying it is the same. His quotes refer to "naturalizing" someone, which even THEIR side will concede is not "natural born." I cannot grasp why he thinks those quotes are relevant to discussion.

1,459 posted on 03/14/2013 7:04:39 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1456 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
" Someone needs to tell Chief Justice Waite. He claims to have looked at the 14th amendment, and couldn't find that definition in there anywhere.

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens

Your statement REQUIRES Justice Waite to be an idiot."

No. It required the courts to examine English common law, because:

"There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

1,460 posted on 03/14/2013 7:39:14 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1446 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; MamaTexan

“It doesn’t say they ARE natural born citizens... /
And that is a distinction which I noticed in his post as well.”

Actually, the point was that a ratifying legislature used NBS & NBC interchangeably during the time the Constitution was written, and during the time when they voted to ratify the Constitution. That doesn’t leave much doubt but that NBS = NBC.

Of course, comprehending a point that extends over several sentences is something birthers are not good at - as I’ve said before: If birthers could read, they wouldn’t be birthers.


1,461 posted on 03/14/2013 7:45:20 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1459 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
That doesn’t leave much doubt but that NBS = NBC.

I never said they weren't.

If birthers could read, they wouldn’t be birthers.

Puerile statements are both insulting and demeaning to civil discourse.

1,462 posted on 03/14/2013 8:08:52 AM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1461 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“Puerile statements are both insulting and demeaning to civil discourse.”

Birthers spend half of the threads calling others trolls, and YOU want ME to worry about my “puerile” comments?


1,463 posted on 03/14/2013 8:34:07 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1462 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Birthers spend half of the threads calling others trolls, and YOU want ME to worry about my “puerile” comments?

Are YOU responsible for what everyone who agrees with you says to someone who doesn't?. No?

Guess what?

Neither am I.

1,464 posted on 03/14/2013 8:37:23 AM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1463 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; MamaTexan; Jeff Winston

“I cannot grasp why he thinks those quotes are relevant to discussion.”

The Massachusetts legislature uses the term “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably from 1785 through 1791.

Remember what Justice Scalia wrote in District of Columbia v. Heller,

“...we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.”

So what would the ordinary citizen of Massachusetts understand the term “natural born citizen” to mean?

The same as they understood the term “natural born subject” to mean?

Here is what Blackstone said about natural born subjects,

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

And what Zephaniah Swift said was the law of Connecticut,

“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.”

And what William Rawle said,

“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.”


1,465 posted on 03/14/2013 9:13:00 AM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1459 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I am not promulgating fallacies.

Of course you are. Whether you recognize it or not.

The great joke here is that if a person actually understands the history and law, it is completely obvious that your whole theory goes dead-set against both the history and the laws of the United States.

And yet you make these solemn pronouncements of what you think the law is, and act as if you know, and as if you're an expert, and it's all a complete fairy tale.

It is downright FUNNY. It is FUNNY to watch you act as if you think you're an expert in Constitutional law, when your entire theory is the most enormous load of horse manure.

And it's equally funny to watch you defend that load of horse manure to the death, apparently believing sincerely that it's a pile of "brown gold."

Let's take just one small example here.

I've produced a list of quotes of what the very best early authorities in America thought natural born citizenship was all about. Last I counted, I had more than 30 of those quotes.

Now there are a FEW of those quotes (although it's a small minority) that one could say probably reflect less of the expert legal opinion, and more of the popular understanding of what "natural born citizen" meant.

That, by the way, is NOT an irrelevant "argumentum ad populum" or "appeal to public opinion."

Another funny thing here is that you appear too damn stupid to understand that it's not really possible to have an "appeal to public opinion" fallacy when the topic of what you're discussing is THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A PHRASE MEANT.

Which, to some fair degree, is the case here. Now I haven't majored on what the public understanding was. But the public understanding of what natural born citizen meant is entirely relevant to the discussion for one simple reason.

The Framers weren't writing a document intended primarily for lawyers. They were writing a document THAT THEY INTENDED THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND.

So is what ordinary people would have understood "natural born citizen" to mean relevant? Of course it is.

Or do you, in seeking to defend your pile of "brown gold," now claim that the Framers of the Constitution, in establishing a new government in which the People rule, intended to write a document that could only be understood by lawyers and Swiss philosophers?

If you make such a claim, it's idiotic. Whether you recognize it or not.

In any event, as noted, the vast majority of my list of quotes comes from the BEST EXPERTS AND TOP AUTHORITIES in the early United States.

And the people on that list are all pretty much unanimous in their opinions. They are perhaps most clearly represented by William Rawle, an absolute legal expert, a literal COLLEAGUE of two of our very most important Framers, and the man who founded our nation's oldest existing law firm. But others, such as Chancellor Sandford, are quite equally adamant.

Against this enormous lineup of REAL, WORLD-CLASS AUTHORITY, you are able to produce ONE GUY, who was not a lawyer at all, and whose theories on citizenship were SMACKED DOWN by the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION and virtually every other one of our early leaders who heard and evaluated them.

THIRTY-FREAKING-SIX TO ONE.

And yet here you are, the "expert" who bandies about the Latin names of logical fallacies while clearly not understanding them, brandishing the utterly discredited little paper from David Ramsay as if it were a pronouncement from God, while baldly asserting that the entire weight of early American legal opinion doesn't mean jack.

It is really too funny.

1,466 posted on 03/14/2013 9:48:13 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1449 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
“...we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.”

Wow. What a timely post.

DL has accused me of "argumentum ad populum." As I just pointed out (see post 1466, which I think you will find interesting), such an accusation is just silly.

And you have brought the actual authority of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT to that point.

1,467 posted on 03/14/2013 9:51:24 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1465 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
The Massachusetts legislature uses the term “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably from 1785 through 1791.

So me where I said they didn't.

-----

“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.”

Rawle ALSO said;

Until these rights are attained, the alien resident is under some disadvantages which are not exactly the same throughout the Union. The United States do not intermeddle with the local regulations of the states in those respects. Thus an alien may be admitted to hold lands in some states, and be incapable of doing so in others. On the other hand, there are certain incidents to the character of a citizen of the United States, with which the separate states cannot interfere.
William Rawle

How do you think the States could keep track of all that? Oh yeah!

He's talking about REGISTERED resident aliens.... you know - People who filled out paperwork acknowledging their Residency here which implied their Intent to stay.

Not someone who ran across the border and squatted or overstayed a Visa.

1,468 posted on 03/14/2013 9:58:30 AM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1465 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
So = Show
1,469 posted on 03/14/2013 9:59:25 AM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1468 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; 4Zoltan
Again you misstate. No one is arguing against Madison. What is being argued is that you are misrepresenting him, and overemphasizing his statement in support of your theory.

Of course you are. Madison acknowledged both jus soli and jus sanguinis, but said that when one was talking about citizenship, jus soli was WHAT APPLIED IN THE UNITED STATES.

In other words, he quite explicitly said that OUR NATION HAD ADOPTED THE BASIC JUS SOLI RULE FOR CITIZENSHIP.

This was an entirely explicit statement on his part. ANd you just brush it off as if it were nothing.

And this is just wrong. Justice Marshall clearly stated the principle in "The Venus", and Justice Waite clearly stated the exact same principle in "Minor v Happersett." You just don't like these cases, so you refuse to acknowledge them.

I've never refused to acknowledge either.

The Venus was clearly about DOMICILE, not citizenship, and certainly not natural born citizenship.

AND DOMICILE IS THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH VATTEL WAS QUOTED IN THAT CASE.

So you take a case in which Marshall produced a passage from Vattel because he found Vattel's opinion ON DOMICILE relevant. And you extrapolate from that, that Marshall must have also found Vattel's supposed opinion on citizenship relevant.

But Marshall himself NEVER QUOTED THE PASSAGE BECAUSE HE AGREED WITH VATTEL ON CITIZENSHIP, OR EVEN FOUND THAT OPINION RELEVANT.

In fact, Justice Marshall was a bit careless in this instance, because he used a badly-translated version of Vattel that silly birthers could pull up nearly 200 years later, to justify a pile of horse manure that Marshall himself almost certainly would have TOLD you was horse manure.

As for Minor v. Happersett, it doesn't matter how many times rational people point out: 1) the 2 or 3 sentences you quote were the very definition of "dicta," 2) they never said children of aliens weren't natural born citizens anyway, they said they didn't know and frankly didn't care, and 3) it would have all been overruled by Wong Kim Ark anyway.

Legally speaking, this is a piece of tissue paper. It is literally difficult to imagine a case with any less substance to it.

And as noted a few days ago by another poster here, AT LEAST ONE JUDGE HAS SPECIFICALLY RULED THAT THE CLAIM IS A PILE OF HORSE****.

Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon:

“Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012

So you've even had at least one official judge tell you your pile of horse manure from Minor is horse manure.

That won't stop you, of course. Because you've got a wagon-load of Brown Gold.

Yeee-ha, boys! We got us some BROWN GOLD!!

1,470 posted on 03/14/2013 10:11:34 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1453 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; DiogenesLamp

“And you extrapolate from that, that Marshall must have also found Vattel’s supposed opinion on citizenship relevant.”

Since we are extrapolating how about we extrapolate this:

“The constitution gives to the president, in general terms, “the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States.”

“As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it.” Chief Justice Marshall, in United States v. Wilson 1833


1,471 posted on 03/14/2013 10:32:19 AM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1470 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

So you agree that Governor Jindal and Senators Rubio and Santorum are natural born citizens because their parents didn’t run “across the border and squatted or overstayed a Visa.”


1,472 posted on 03/14/2013 10:37:03 AM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1468 | View Replies]

To: GBA
That was fun. As theories go, I like it.

Yes, I agree. The Frank Marshall Davis theory is certainly as good as any of the other theories being discussed.

I can just picture the Supreme Court trying to sort all this out:

The Chief Justice: Well, based on the only evidence available, I think we have to find that he was probably born in Hawaii, but depending on how we define "natural born citizen," the father's citizenship might be relevant. What do you think, Justice Breyer?

Justice Breyer:. I think he looks like Obama, Sr. Same name, too.

The Chief Justice: Justice Kagan?

Justice Kagan: Based on the pictures, I gotta go with that Davis guy. Call it my woman's intuition, if you want, but Davis is the dad.

The Chief Justice: Justice Kennedy?

Justice Kennedy:. Well, you know, honestly, they all look alike to me.

The Chief Justice: Justice Thomas, what say you?

Justice Thomas:. Geez, who knows?. Don't we have any more donuts?

1,473 posted on 03/14/2013 10:45:50 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1435 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
So you agree that Governor Jindal and Senators Rubio and Santorum are natural born citizens because their parents didn’t run “across the border and squatted or overstayed a Visa.”

Please show me the legal trail all the way from your original statement concerning Rawle to the laws governing the residency papers of the parents of Jindal and Rubio WITHOUT the type of citizen changing from natural born citizen to 'citizen of the United States'......

and I'll consider it.

-----

BTW - You're skipping past a big chunk of American Law to use the jurist THIRD in line and the one most saturated in pure English Law.

There are differences, you know.

1,474 posted on 03/14/2013 10:47:24 AM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1472 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

That’s amazing. The fact that some were creating “natural born citizens” makes you wonder how crystal clear all this might have been back then.


1,475 posted on 03/14/2013 11:02:51 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1436 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
No. It required the courts to examine English common law, because:

So you just ignore the point. Yup. Figured as much.

You simply cannot respond intelligently to the fact that Justice Waite specifically says that natural born citizenship isn't defined by the 14th amendment.

1,476 posted on 03/14/2013 11:04:08 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1460 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Actually, the point was that a ratifying legislature used NBS & NBC interchangeably during the time the Constitution was written, and during the time when they voted to ratify the Constitution. That doesn’t leave much doubt but that NBS = NBC.

It doesn't leave much doubt that they are the closest analogous terms from one Political Philosophy (Monarchy) to a Different Political Philosophy which doesn't recognize the term "Subject." (Free Republic.)

The distinction is to subtle for you to grasp, I think. It isn't the mindless equating of one thing with another.

1,477 posted on 03/14/2013 11:07:37 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1461 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
The Massachusetts legislature uses the term “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably from 1785 through 1791.

As this is the transition period from Monarchy to Free Republic, it is not even noteworthy that they were transitioning terms as well. Natural born Subject, and Natural born citizen are the closes analogous terms between the very different forms of government, but the requirements of the one was very different for the requirements of the other. The principle of someone claiming ownership or you merely because you were born on their Land, is incompatible with the foundation of American Government. Our Federal existence is based on Natural Law, not the enforced servitude to a King.

1,478 posted on 03/14/2013 11:13:59 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1465 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“Justice Waite specifically says that natural born citizenship isn’t defined by the 14th amendment”

And he was correct. It was defined by English common law at the time of Independence. That was the language of the law then.


1,479 posted on 03/14/2013 11:20:16 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1476 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
"the legal trail"

The legal trail starts in 1527 when John Rastell wrote:

"Alyon is he of whome the fader is born and he hymselfe also borne out of the elegiance of our lord the kyng, but yf an alyon come and dwell in England whyche is not of the kynges enemyes and here ad issu this issu is not alion but englysh, also if an englysh man go over the see with the kyngs lycence and ther ad issu this isu is not alyon.”

Through Chief Justice Coke in 1608:

"Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joined with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, and the indictment concluded (f) contraligeant’ suæ debitum, for he owed to the King local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection; which local obedience being but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject; a fortiori he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which, as it hath been said, is alia ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject”

Through the 1732 Chart of Georgia:

"Also we do, for ourselves and successors, declare, by these presents, that all and every the persons which shall happen to be born within the said province, and every of their children and posterity, shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects, within any of our dominions, to all intents and purposes, as if abiding and born within this our kingdom of Great-Britain, or any other of our dominions"

And continues through Justice William Blackstone:

"The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

Through the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress.:

Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England.

Resolved, N.C.D. 3. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy.

Through the Massachusetts Acts of Naturalization that say the "natural born citizen" is the same as "natural born subject".

Through the words of James Madison,

"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.”

And throught the words of Zephaniah Swift,

"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.”

Through Rawle,

"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."

Through Justice Gray in Wong Kim ArK,

"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

“The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides”

Through Chief Justice Taft in Ex Parte Grossman:

“The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.”

Through the following:

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: "Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency"

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Voeltz v. Obama (Voeltz I) (Florida 2012) ruling: "However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.",

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: "Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, ...(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, ...(1874), does not hold otherwise"

Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: "In 2009, … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive."

Voeltz v. Obama (Voeltz II) (Florida 2012), "In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born within the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section I purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649"

Fair v. Obama (Maryland, 2012) ruling, “The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the prior United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [Wong Kim Ark], and as this Court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. …this Court does not believe that it has the discretion to simply disregard a holding which clearly applies to the definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to President Obama."

1,480 posted on 03/14/2013 11:42:40 AM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1474 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
The great joke here is that if a person actually understands the history and law, it is completely obvious that your whole theory goes dead-set against both the history and the laws of the United States.

You keep repeating this like an incantation. Like it will magically make you correct or something. It is just a variation of "I'm right, and You're wrong" assertion. It is, in fact, a waste of time, because your claim is exactly what is currently being argued.

And yet you make these solemn pronouncements of what you think the law is, and act as if you know, and as if you're an expert, and it's all a complete fairy tale.

And you describe exactly how you look to others.

It is downright FUNNY. It is FUNNY to watch you act as if you think you're an expert in Constitutional law, when your entire theory is the most enormous load of horse manure.

And again, this is exactly how you look to others.

I've produced a list of quotes of what the very best early authorities in America thought natural born citizenship was all about. Last I counted, I had more than 30 of those quotes.

And for some reason you seem to think that each one has equal weight with every other one, as if by their sheer numbers, they prove something. You seem to live and breath the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum", but apart from that, your quotes run the gamut of irrelevant to barely relevant, and very little attention is paid to the value or quality of the quote as with the person making it.

Again, My Chief Justice Marshall, and Associate Justice Washington, beat the ever living dog-sh*t out of your Attorney General Rawle, both in authoritative status, AND in proximity to the deliberations making up the theory of American government. They specifically cite Vattel, even so far as to laboriously write his words in their own handwriting!

Again, My pair of Supreme Justices beats your Jack.

That, by the way, is NOT an irrelevant "argumentum ad populum" or "appeal to public opinion."

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Another funny thing here is that you appear too damn stupid to understand that it's not really possible to have an "appeal to public opinion" fallacy when the topic of what you're discussing is THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A PHRASE MEANT.

You clod. The reference to populum does not mean "the public." It means appealing to any bunch of people. It puts forth the notion that you must be correct because a lot of people agree that you are correct. It is "correctness by majority vote", which is not the same thing as actually being correct. Another name for it is argumentum ad numerum. Here is a link to variations on the same theme.

"Facts decided by consensus." For some reason you think this is logical. Galileo was correct. The Majority was wrong.

In any event, as noted, the vast majority of my list of quotes comes from the BEST EXPERTS AND TOP AUTHORITIES in the early United States.

No they doen't. As I have pointed out, the best contemporary expert you've got is Rawle, and Justices Marshall and Washington beat him soundly as a top authority. There is no authority higher in law than a Supreme court Judge. You just don't like what they say, so you don't count them.

Against this enormous lineup of REAL, WORLD-CLASS AUTHORITY, you are able to produce ONE GUY, who was not a lawyer at all, and whose theories on citizenship were SMACKED DOWN by the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION and virtually every other one of our early leaders who heard and evaluated them.

I am beginning to think you are a psychotic. You have been presented numerous times with other authorities, by myself and others, yet you assert that only one has been presented to you? You need to get some mental help son.

THIRTY-FREAKING-SIX TO ONE.

And you keep obsessing about numbers. "Argumentum ad numerum."

Now do your little stampy foot dance, and whine that you are "NOT using a fallacy!" I'll wait.

And yet here you are, the "expert" who bandies about the Latin names of logical fallacies while clearly not understanding them, brandishing the utterly discredited little paper from David Ramsay as if it were a pronouncement from God, while baldly asserting that the entire weight of early American legal opinion doesn't mean jack.

And this is an example of the "straw man fallacy." That various authorities were confused as to the correct meaning was pointed out by Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett. Not only are you misstating my position, (hence the straw man) you are not even attributing any role to those American legal Authorities that don't follow your theory.

Alexander Porter Morse, for example.

1,481 posted on 03/14/2013 11:50:39 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1466 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
Through Justice Gray in Wong Kim ArK,

Nope.

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 [169 U.S. 649, 680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

The final determination of the court?

becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Wong Kim Ark was dtermined to be a citizen of the United States. The court NEVER said he was a natural born citizen.

1,482 posted on 03/14/2013 11:57:52 AM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1480 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
“...we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.”

Yeah, ask any ordinary citizen if they think the founders intended that "Anchor Babies" be regarded as "natural born citizens" of the United States, and see what they say.

DL has accused me of "argumentum ad populum." As I just pointed out (see post 1466, which I think you will find interesting), such an accusation is just silly.

As far as you're concerned, any criticism of you is silly. That's why I regard you as an expert at "silly."

And you have brought the actual authority of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT to that point.

A nonsensical assertion. Quoting the Supreme court does not establish them as being on your side. It is furthermore ridiculous to assume that one Supreme Court forever binds the findings of another Supreme Court. The overturning of Prior court's Precedent has occurred many times.

1,483 posted on 03/14/2013 11:59:04 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1467 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
Whoops!

Forgot the courtesy link: Wong Kim Ark

1,484 posted on 03/14/2013 12:09:30 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1480 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

Maybe. It would fit Obama’s psyche. It would make him 100% eligible though.


1,485 posted on 03/14/2013 12:21:40 PM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1388 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
It's irrelevant because, as per Hawaii law, a verification of birth (that would be the document titled VERIFICATION OF BIRTH sent by Onaka to Bennett) "shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant".

The applicant being Bennett and the facts being the information requested by Bennett.

Onaka doesn't need to parrot back each and every item requested by Bennett.

Hawaii has verified Obama's birth there. It really is that simple and that's why no-one believes your conspiracy theory.

1,486 posted on 03/14/2013 12:40:41 PM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1383 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Of course you are. Madison acknowledged both jus soli and jus sanguinis, but said that when one was talking about citizenship, jus soli was WHAT APPLIED IN THE UNITED STATES.

"In General." He also said that South Carolina could have made a law which said something different. In fact, other states DID make such laws. California for example:

241. The citizens of the State are:
(a) All persons born in the State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls.
(b) All persons born out of the State who are citizens of the United States and residing within the State.

And you've also seen the law from the State of New York.

“The citizens of the state are:

1.All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls; 

And Connecticut.

“Sec. 1. (1857) All persons born in this State, all persons born without its limits, if children of citizens of this State, who are temporarily absent therefrom, and all other persons being in, or coming into, and locating in this State, with intent to remain and reside permanently as citizens, except aliens, paupers, and fugitives from justice or service, are and shall be deemed to be citizens of this State, owing it allegiance and entitled to receive its protection, until they shall have voluntarily withdrawn from its limits, and become incorporated into some other State or sovereignty as members thereof.” Title II, Chapter 1, Section 1 of The General Statutes of the State of Connecticut, revision of 1875, page 4.

How do you like State Legislatures as a "Legal Authority?"

This was an entirely explicit statement on his part. ANd you just brush it off as if it were nothing.

I don't brush it off as nothing, I acknowledge it as a point mostly on your side of the equation. What Madison said mostly favors your argument, but he also said things which do not. The One Statement by Madison simply doesn't make all the statements by other people go away. I personally think the statement is taken out of context, and that by way of explanation, Madison went on to imply that birth in a certain place was a proxy for meaning birth within a community. Indeed, his entire argument was that Smith was a child of Long Established and Highly esteemed members of the South Carolina community.

I've never refused to acknowledge either.

The Venus was clearly about DOMICILE, not citizenship, and certainly not natural born citizenship.

As that is the salient point as to where the parties loyalties lay, it is the determining factor as to whether or not they possessed American Citizenship. It is irrelevant to the point. On the question of citizenship, Marshall quotes the exact definition by Vattel, and pronounces it to be the best available definition. Washington likewise quotes Vattel. You cannot reasonably suggest that they Specifically quote him, and Specifically say his is the best definition around, and then try to assert that they really didn't believe his definition.

So you take a case in which Marshall produced a passage from Vattel because he found Vattel's opinion ON DOMICILE relevant. And you extrapolate from that, that Marshall must have also found Vattel's supposed opinion on citizenship relevant.

You behave as though you haven't even read Marshall's opinion. He specifically quotes what Vattel had to say about citizenship. It demonstrates conclusively that he knew what it said, and he further said that it is the best definition of which he was aware. You simply cannot spin that into a win for you.

As for Minor v. Happersett, it doesn't matter how many times rational people point out: 1) the 2 or 3 sentences you quote were the very definition of "dicta," 2) they never said children of aliens weren't natural born citizens anyway, they said they didn't know and frankly didn't care, and 3) it would have all been overruled by Wong Kim Ark anyway.

Calling it "Dicta" does not make it go away. Presumably Justice Waite's opinion reflects what Justice Waite believed, regardless of whether it is Dicta or Holding. "Dicta" is not a magic word which means "Oh, they were just joking and unserious", it still reflects the best understanding of the Judge who writes it.

Beyond what Justice Waite says about Children born to parents etc, There is simply no getting around this statement by Justice Waite.

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens."

This statement Obliterates any claim that the 14th amendment definition creates "natural citizens." If it were the Opinion of Justice Waite that the 14th amendment created "natural citizens", he would have said:

The Fourteenth Amendment clearly says who shall be "natural born citizen."

He did not. He explicitly said that no part of the constitution defines "natural born citizen, and in a case replete with references to the 14th amendment.

And as noted a few days ago by another poster here, AT LEAST ONE JUDGE HAS SPECIFICALLY RULED THAT THE CLAIM IS A PILE OF HORSE****.

Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon:

I put no stock in contemporary court rulings on this issue. Too many people in the legal system have been corrupted by the widespread misreading of the Wong Kim Ark precedent. They are, like Rawle, contaminated with false doctrine. (And whom I suspect may have triggered the whole body of false understanding.) The Ankeny decision is an example of a particularly incompetent ruling. Such rulings are no different from the Roe court deciding that the 14th amendment legalizes abortion. It's just bad legal reasoning based on a twisted understanding.

Yeee-ha, boys! We got us some BROWN GOLD!!

Everything coming from you has the consistency of brown gold.

1,487 posted on 03/14/2013 12:46:47 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1470 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
It's really easy to sort out, or maybe unravel...if you know which string to pull, and as you noted, FMD or Malcolm X unravels the entire tapestry of that tangled web that has trapped both parties and we, the people.

Seriously, with either man as bio-dad there's no constitutional issue. Whatever illegal things obama's done can be found by uncovering and following the papertrail of activities related to hiding BO's past and documentation.

Butterdezillion knows how to follow that trail. Sheriff Joe and the CC Posse found some of it as well. It's actually kinda obvious.

Anywho, I'm sure the SCC would find it all very interesting, but there are plenty of remedies long before they would be required to put their popcorn down and write something.

You brought it up here, but your false modesty is underselling it. It's not just a "good as any" theory. When I think about it from every angle, it's more like the single unifying theory that explains everything and everyone's actions or lack there of.

It definitely accounts for suddenly pushing the idea of running Rubio and Cruz and accounts for the long-term usual players on these threads for all these years. I can go on and on.

The more inputs I come up with to add to this logic diagram, I began to realize that it's the only one where all the odd inputs taken together come up true.

And it's easy math, too. All real numbers, nothing irrational, no algebraic proofs needed or calculus to simplify it. It's just basic math.

Yep, you're underselling the "he's the natural born son of an American radical" theory, when it's the one theory that accounts for everything.

1,488 posted on 03/14/2013 12:49:24 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1473 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Jeff Winston

“this is the transition period”

Did the transition period continue until June, 1798?

“Resolve Requesting the Senators and Representatives in Congress to Propose an Amendment to the Constitution Providing, that None but Natural Born Subjects be Eligible to Certain Offices”

http://books.google.com/books?id=rnYQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA211&dq=massachusetts+natural+born+subject+amendments&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mxOpUI3PN83rigLNmYGgAw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=massachusetts%20natural%20born%20subject%20amendments&f=false

In the body of the resolve it uses the term “natural born citizen”.

During the transition period what would have been the definition of “natural born citizen”?

BTW, the English considered their legal system to be based on Natural Law.


1,489 posted on 03/14/2013 12:50:38 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1478 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“The final determination of the court?”

And what is the final determination in the Minor decision?

“We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power, to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman’s need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a State to withhold.”

“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”

Nothing about citizenship much less natural born citizenship.


1,490 posted on 03/14/2013 12:54:16 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1482 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
“As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it.” Chief Justice Marshall, in United States v. Wilson 1833

All this says is most of our Legal system mostly bears a close resemblance to that of England. It says nothing of the particular instances in which the US legal Doctrine deviates greatly from British Law. Among these areas, citizenship vs servitude is one of the most pronounced. We fought two wars in order to establish the distinction between citizenship and subjectude.

In a Monarchy, it is very much in the interest of a King to force allegiance on anyone upon whom you can throw the yoke. They are, after all, your servants. Why would you want to exclude anyone? An expansive definition of whom can be claimed as a "subject" suits the best interest of the Crown.

A Free Republic operates under a different premise. You are not born into the service of the King, you are free and independent while being able to chose to whom you wish to give your allegiance. It does not use any and all pretexts to throw a perpetual commitment upon you.

1,491 posted on 03/14/2013 12:57:23 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1471 | View Replies]

To: Natufian; Mr Rogers

Then why did Onaka mention Honolulu?

The statute says that the existence of a BC has to be verified, with no exceptions for non-valid BC’s. So if they have a non-valid BC they STILL have to verify that they have a BC. Pretend (in your mind) that Obama’s BC is non-valid and Bennett submitted this same request. What would a lawful verification from Onaka look like? Keep in mind what Bennett asked to be verified and the fact that Onaka has to verify the existence of the non-valid BC and anything else he can lawfully verify but CAN’T verify anything that he can’t certify as having happened (IOW, he can’t verify the truth of any particular birth claims).

Tell me what that verification would look like.


1,492 posted on 03/14/2013 1:00:06 PM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1486 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
“Justice Waite specifically says that natural born citizenship isn’t defined by the 14th amendment”

And he was correct. It was defined by English common law at the time of Independence. That was the language of the law then.

And the fact that the 14th amendment definition for citizenship exactly corresponds to what you claim is the English law to which you are referring does not provoke a logical paradox in your mind?

To put it another way, The definition of "citizen" in the 14th amendment is exactly the same as that of the English law you to which you are referring.

For Justice Waite to reject the 14th amendment definition for "natural born" is to reject the English law definition for "natural born", because they are identical in the particulars.

I don't think you are capable of acknowledging this. It will blow a fuse in you I think.

1,493 posted on 03/14/2013 1:04:31 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1479 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
No, the statute says that the verification confirms that the vital event did take place AND that the facts about the event are as stated in the applicants request.

IOW Hawaii have confirmed not only that Obama's BC contains all the information that Bennett asked about but it happened the way the BC describes.

It really is that simple.

1,494 posted on 03/14/2013 1:12:10 PM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1492 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
And what is the final determination in the Minor decision?

We were not discussing the Minor decision YET.

We are discussing Wong Kim Ark.

Until I have your response on that subject, the discussion of court cases will proceed no further.

-----

BTW - Did it ever occur to you that all the quotes from the States proclaiming subjects have the same rights, privileges and immunities as natural-born citizens occurred at the same time the Constitution was coming into effect?

Did it ever occur to you that these State proclamations, were intended to function just like Article II, Section I, clause 5?
or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

Did it ever occur to you these State legislative acts MIGHT have sunset clauses?

Do you have any proof....whatsoever, that these 'born within the State are natural born citizens' laws were meant to operate in perpetuity?

If you do, I'd certainly like to see it.

1,495 posted on 03/14/2013 1:13:15 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1490 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
Did the transition period continue until June, 1798?

“Resolve Requesting the Senators and Representatives in Congress to Propose an Amendment to the Constitution Providing, that None but Natural Born Subjects be Eligible to Certain Offices”

I do not find it objectionable to believe it did. I think you mistake habit of language for endorsement of principle. Having newly departed a Monarchy (for the first time in History) it is not peculiar to see examples of people still speaking with Monarchistic terms.

During the transition period what would have been the definition of “natural born citizen”?

The only definition that mattered to Federal law is what the term was accepted to mean by the Constitutional Delegates and by the Ratifying State Legislators. It is quite plausible that they were not all of the same mind, but also weren't aware that they were not unanimous in their understanding of the term.

BTW, the English considered their legal system to be based on Natural Law.

This argument is a fallacy. You are saying that since one part of what you say is true, the whole thing must also be true. My understanding of the Origin of the Jus Soli aspect of English Common law has to do with the Need to legitimize the ascent of James I to the Throne of England, but because he was born in Scotland of Scottish Parents, the use of Jus Sanguinus would have disallowed it.

Lord Coke cobbled together the arguments necessary to rationalize what they wanted to do anyway, and it was the law of England thereafter. The prior Roman law was "Jus Sanguinus." (As the name ought to imply.)

At least that is my current understanding.

1,496 posted on 03/14/2013 1:23:25 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1489 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
Nothing about citizenship much less natural born citizenship.

What does the verdict have to do with the understanding of the Justices on a point of law? Dicta or Holding, the Judge is still stating the understanding of the court. Making it part of a verdict does not make the opinion of a judge any more or any less correct.

Again, I point out that Justice Waite Looked square at the 14th amendment, and did not find "natural born citizen" in it. I regard it as his informed opinion that the 14th amendment did not define the term "natural born citizen."

1,497 posted on 03/14/2013 1:29:33 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1490 | View Replies]

To: Natufian
Maybe. It would fit Obama’s psyche. It would make him 100% eligible though.

Eligibility has been resolved anyway. We've now had approximately 57 presidential elections and in each of those elections, the qualifications of the presidential candidates has been determined by the voters and their electors. The Constitution empowers the voters and their electors to select our presidents (without any candidate approval or screening by the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court will never dare try to sneak its nose under that tent to try to disqualify a candidate. In America, the people are the masters and the Supreme Court their servant.

1,498 posted on 03/14/2013 2:59:53 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1485 | View Replies]

To: GBA
And it's easy math, too. All real numbers, nothing irrational, no algebraic proofs needed or calculus to simplify it. It's just basic math.

I think you're right. While armies of researchers are are snipe hunting in Kenya, the media have been distracted from seeing the obvious - Obama is the son of Frank Marshall Davis, a notorious American Communist!

And now, anyone who points out what appears to be an obvious fact will be treated by the media as just another pack of obsessed, deranged snipe hunters. Obama displayed a capacity for real evil when he concocted this diabolical "birther" hunt.

1,499 posted on 03/14/2013 3:14:07 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1488 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
Obama displayed a capacity for real evil when he concocted this diabolical "birther" hunt.

I don't think obama did that. Ordinary citizens did, but with regard to obama at a national level, Hillary started it.

The "birther hunt"is not diabolical, but rather what happens when people like me, who grew up learning that's the way the eligibility is defined, encounter someone who isn't eligible running for POTUS.

Like I said, Hillary brought it up the first time, as did Alan Keyes, as did obama supposedly, in a response to Keyes in a debate, IIRC, which I have heard and wish I'd saved.

There used to be lots about him being born in Kenya or being Kenyan, including what's written on the jacket to "his" book, I think. I've seen it posted many times.

Hiding behind NBC eligibility makes sense, since it's been historically misunderstood and/or not accepted by everyone, and is very similar to the Electoral college in that regard. The posts here on NBC are similar to threads during the Bush/Gore regarding the popular vote vs electoral college vote.

In 2007-8, both sides took advantage of this when they ran obama and McCain, then using McCain's own pedigree to clear them both and provide cover.

Once that was done, they went back to business as usual, more or less safe within the limits of their Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) pact of silence.

Any problems that came up regarding ineligibility had both teams laying down the suppression fire and fog of their Alinsky/Chicago Way styled birther attacks and intimidation.

On this one issue, the demonrats and the GOPe old guard are in it together,...especially when the Tea Party newbies were elected!

This theory also helps to account for the GOPe's hostility to the newbie TEA partiers who gave them control of the House. The newbies didn't have the guilt the 2008 bunch did and no real loyalty yet one way or the other with McCain and his coalitions within the GOPe. Whatever that might be has a very, very limited shelf life and Rand Paul's actions suggest it has expired.

Whether FMD or Malcolm X or some other American that might have been involved with that crowd and his mama at that time to be bio-dad, obama is still a NBC, no matter how you define it. But regardless of whatever the demonrats might have done running obama, McCain is NOT eligible. And the GOPe ran him anyway.

IF we can get whatever the truth is out in the open, clean up the messes made by all involved, including whatever the hell he/they/we are doing in Libya, Syria and elsewhere in the M.E., we can also deal with the NBC confusion out in the open, just like the FFs set things up.

George Washington was extremely wise regarding his distaste for political parties and most everything else. Looking around, I see he was right on the money.

"Parties will destroy the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion [the committeeman process],
Parties are destructive to the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities,
Parties open the door to foreign influence and corruption, thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
Parties serve to organize division,
will ruin public liberty,
stifles, control’s, represses,
foment occasional riots & insurrection,
kindle animosity of one part against another,
puts in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party,
agitates the community with ill founded jealousies & false alarms,
works to undermine the Constitution which could not be directly overthrown,
serves to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration,
drives the spirit of revenge
leads to despotism."
"Parties are truly your worst enemy."
~George Washington

1,500 posted on 03/14/2013 4:23:45 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1499 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,401-1,4501,451-1,5001,501-1,5501,551-1,578 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
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson