Do you believe they intended to allow someone born with British citizenship (post g.f. clause) to be considered eligible?
From: http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/graphic-defining-citizen-vs-natural.html
Posted on 11/12/2009 12:36:30 PM PST by fours
Thanks for the input.
Nothing they did is supported by any SCOTUS decision.
Indiana simply took some editorial from 1 case and made it their decision, while not taking the "editorial" from multiple other cases which describe NBC = born in country to 2 citizen parents.
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
And they didn’t reference the Senate non-binding resolution, either.
Good point! The non-binding resolution and the non-holding commentary carry the same weight. That is, they are opinions without much "weight."
As we know, WKA stated someone born in the country, to alien parents was a “citizen.” They didn’t say he was a “Natural Born” citizen.
You do realize you're proposing two completely different tests for natural-born citizenship between these two posts? One that looks at foreign citizenships of the child, and one that looks at foreign citizenships of the parents?
A person can be born on U.S. soil, to two U.S. citizens, and STILL be born with foreign citizenship. Because whether you're born with a foreign citizenship is entirely the function of other countries' laws. An immigrant might come to America and become a U.S. citizen, and his home country still considers his children to be citizens of that home country too.
On the other hand, a person could also be born on U.S. soil to a non-U.S. citizen and NOT have any foreign citizenships or foreign loyalties. Let's say Cuba, for the sake of illustration, doesn't grant Cuban citizenship to the U.S.-born children of Cuban refugees; so the children are born with only U.S. citizenship. Again, the status of foreign law is the critical factor.
So which definition is it you're saying is the 'real one? Because I have a hard time seeing how the court could be overlooking the 'real' definition of natural-born citizen, when you can't even settle on a single, consistent definition. And in both scenarios, you're suggesting that who is or isn't a U.S. "natural born citizen" ought to hinge not on U.S. law, but on foreign law.
Do you believe they intended to allow someone born with British citizenship (post g.f. clause) to be considered eligible?
From: http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/graphic-defining-citizen-vs-natural.html
So I see you've chosen to favor the 'born with foreign allegiance' definition over the 'two citizen parent' definition. Good; at least that brings some clarity to the discussion. So I take it you'd at least agree that a child born on U.S. soil to a non-U.S.-citizen, if said child does NOT inherit any foreign citizenships, is a natural-born citizen? The child, after all, is imposed with no foreign allegiances.
Do you believe they intended to allow someone born with British citizenship (post g.f. clause) to be considered eligible?
To the extent that dual citizenships at birth are concerned, yes. The child is still born a U.S. citizen under U.S. law, and that's what matters. The alternative, like I wrote before, is to put the control over who is and isn't eligible for the U.S. Presidency in the hands of foreign governments. Can you imagine the Founders putting that power in the hands of Britain? There was nothing stopping Britain from continuing to consider children born in America to be citizens of the British Empire. Their parents, after all, had all been born British subjects.
To illustrate this, consider Vice President Spiro Agnew. The eligibility requirements for VP are the same for President, so the Veep must also be a natural-born citizen. Agnew's father was a Greek immigrant; this was hardly a secret, either. And according to Census records, Agnew's father was still an alien after Agnew was born.
Even if he *had* become a U.S. citizen, there was nothing stopping Greece from saying that Spiro inherited Greek citizenship anyway. I don't know what Greek citizenship law was at the time, and it seems absurd that Agnew's eligibility would hinge on what kind of laws Greece had when he was born.
And how many people accused Agnew of not being a natural-born citizen by virtue of his father's citizenship or immigration status? Zero. How many speculated whether Agnew had inherited Greek citizenship and was thus not a natural born U.S. citizen? Zero. Agnew's father was, Constitutionally, a complete non-issue. All that mattered was that the candidate himself was born here.
exactly...it certainly sounds like some intimidation and Orly surely couldn’t intimidate anyone into lying...it is all a bit absurd.
Why doesn’t he just answer the questions?
By the way, do you have any information that Barry rescinded his (born with) British citizenship? Or, do we currently have a white house resident with dual (triple?) citizenship?
To all the people here who are trying to twist the Constitution and the framers intention who can be the C-i-C, - certainly not somebody with a British and other citizenship - is a waste of time, because their ostrich head in the sand and to to use Alinsky tactics is their goals together with the illegal alien and the usurper in the W.H. They need to study post 106 that should explain it on a grade level they can understand???
Trying to stretch Agnew into the exemplar for the issue by characterizing Agnew's parentage status is just the sort of dishonesty/misdirection lovers of lies prefer. You see, the liars of the democrat operation want to focus upon anything except the affirmative action liar-in-chief. If Agnew held the VP spot illegitimately, that doesn't change the requirement for the current affirmative action prick in the oval office.
If that were the standard, anyone has a right to murder since there have been murderers who have gotten away with murder.
But the LorenC type poster wants to change the requirement because someone in the past cheated their way to office. These sorts of un-American people are exactly what has to do the bidding of the cheaters in the DNC in order to usurp we the people. And they are accomplishing that very maneuver, usurping the people by abrogating/cancelling the Constitutional contract between the federal oligarchy and we the people.
The disgusting aspect of these liars soiling FR daily is the protected staus they enjoy at what used to be a functioning conservative website.
But that's not what Jay said. Jay's actual "natural born citizen" letter to Washington read as follows:
"Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen."
The distinction he draws is between natural born citizens and foreigners. "Foreigners," not talk of "entanglements" or vague "allegiances." And Barack Obama is not a foreigner, as Jay would have intended the term to mean. He was born in the United States and is, on his mother's side, a least a 10th-generation American. His American roots are deeper and thicker than Biden's.
You misunderstand the point. The point is not that Agnew was illegitimate; he wasn't. Spiro was born in the U.S., and that made him eligible. His father's Greek origins were very publicly known, but that didn't make a difference.
And the reason it didn't make a difference is because the Constitutional test for eligibility doesn't rely on one's parents citizenship. It didn't in 1789, it didn't in 1968, and it doesn't now. People didn't ask questions about Agnew's father's citizenship, because everyone knew that didn't affect Agnew's Constitutional eligibility one way or another.
It's the same reason no one, anywhere, questioned Bobby Jindal's eligibility when his name first started getting tossed around as a Presidential candidate, even though his parents Indian origins are publicly known. Only Birthers started questioning Jindal's eligibility, and only after the ineligibility argument had already been thrown at Obama.
It's the same reason no one questioned Bill Richardson's eligibility in 2007. It's the same reason no one questioned Colin Powell's eligibility when his name got tossed around as a contender in the 1990s, or even when he was actually in line for the Presidency from 2001 to 2005. Ralph Nader has run for President several times, and HIS parents were immigrants too.
You've lived through a lot of Presidential elections. Prior to 2008, did you ever stop to think "Were both of the parents of this candidate U.S. citizens when the candidate was born?" I'm betting not. Because it's a silly notion that to run for office, you'd have to produce your PARENTS' papers.
And until 2008, it didn't matter. Something about Obama made people want to adopt a new and novel interpretation of "natural born citizen" that would suddenly exclude Obama.
In all your time alleging that Obama is ineligible because of his father's citizenship, have you ever given a second thought to, say, Nancy Pelosi and her parents? Folks have regularly pointed out that she would be in line for the Presidency, without questioning her eligibility. But her grandparents were born in Italy, after all. And her mother? Do you even know her mother's NAME, much less her citizenship? But no one seems to think that's an obstacle for her.
You liberal shills are all alike. You seek to legitimize an illicit act by refocusing on those who have not been charged for their illicit acts. You’re just disgusting. You don’t impress us with your swill, obamanoid. It says a whole lot about your little messiah that you try so hard to absolve him by misdirection.
JB Williams
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
(snip)
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.
(snip)
But not ONE member of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.
(snip)
Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup. The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated only by political self-preservation.
(Snip)
Americans keep asking what they can do because they see that none of their leaders are doing anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. It’s the right question, because those leaders are NOT going to stop this thing.
(Snip)
WHO WILL SAVE FREEDOM?
A brave few… This is how it was in the beginning, how it has always been and how it will be.
(Snip)
DR. ORLY TAITZ, Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, ALL OF WHOM HAVE MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP.
(Snip)
A PRECIOUS FEW, BUT THEY EXIST… and the walls are indeed closing in on Obama and his evil cabal. IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FAIL TO GET BEHIND THESE BRAVE FEW WHO ARE SEEKING PEACEFUL REDRESS, ALL THE PEACEFUL OPTIONS WILL EVAPORATE AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED. WE WILL RETURN TO A PRE-1776 AMERICA OVERNIGHT..
Do YOU fear Obama?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
___________________________________
A precious few, indeed. Lets get behind those few brave patriots who are out there in the trenches every day working to prove Obama’s inelgibility:
Dr. Orly has put her life’s blood into this fight. SHE HAS MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP FROM COWARDLY REPUBLICANS AND THE SCOTUS.
Dr. Orly is the ONLY one out there in the trenches EVERY day hitting Obama on multiple fronts and trying to bring him down. It is reported that she is more than $8,000 in debt from using her own funds for expenses in her flights across the U.S for interviews, speeches, serving papers and meeting with officials.
She has even gone to Isreal and Russia to spread the message about Obama’s inelgibility!
She states the case expertly, including the bc and natural born citizen aspect, when not abused by the U.S. state-controlled media. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132880
Sure, Dr. Orly makes mistakes. We all do. But Dr. Orly is no dummy. How many of us could go to a foreign country, learn 5 languages, establish a successful dental practice, a successful real estate business AND pass the California state bar- one of the hardest in the U.S. to pass?
She may be a ‘mail order’ attorney and not a Harvard lawyer, but she IS an attorney with all the rights and privilages of a Harvard lawyer nevertheless!
The point is; she has the passion, the zeal, the courage of her convictions and the love of America and its freedoms (unlike many of our ‘great’ attorneys and ‘patriots’ who criticize her) that will not let her give up!
She is exhausted. She is nervous. She is frustrated. It is reported that she gets by on 4-5 hours of sleep per night, and her family is very worried about her health- as well as her safety.
She makes mistakes. But she will NOT give up. She will keep on until she gets it right.
So let’s get behind this great little Russian refugee and great American patriot.
Stop tearing her apart. The Obots don’t need our help.
The obots are scared to death of this little lady and her determination. That’s why they come out in droves all over the net on forums, chat rooms and even the national news to attack and ridicule.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcChG5pRTOE&feature=player_embedded
Please visit Dr. Orly’s website. Don’t be influenced by the Obots here..
Do what you can to help her.
Resort to not only insults, but false insults. Apparently you think that if you can just pretend that I'm a liberal, you can ignore my points.
You seek to legitimize an illicit act by refocusing on those who have not been charged for their illicit acts.
Again, you're missing the point. Agnew committed NO illicit act. He became Vice President over 40 years ago, and there has been no new information to come to light about his personal life since then. The facts we know now about Agnew are the same facts we knew in 1968. He was legitimately and Constitutionally Vice President, and nobody ever alleged he was illegitimate until, well, you did. And the only reason you're alleging it is because it's the only way you can be consistent with your made-up Constitutional test that you want to apply to Obama.
Remember, no one took this 'two-citizen-parent' requirement seriously until summer 2008. When it was conveniently discovered and thrown at Obama. So which is more likely: that the entire American public and legal system failed to apply or consider the proper test for more than four decades, or that you've simply bought into a bogus interpretation?
You’re just disgusting.
And now your insults get truly personal. Good show.
You don’t impress us with your swill, obamanoid.
Again, you pretend that I'm in league with the Democrats, throw around some slurs, and let that take the place of responding with actual logic or reasoning.
It says a whole lot about your little messiah that you try so hard to absolve him by misdirection.
I see. Because avoiding the use of reason, failing to make targeted arguments, resorting to personal insults, and accusing others of being something they're not is apparently NOT misdirection.
Stay classy, MHG.
Sinclair is also a convicted forger.
Appreciate you keeping us up to date on the talking points. See you in another week.
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.