Posted on 11/12/2009 3:55:21 PM PST by Sibre Fan
Excerpt:
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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
(Excerpt) Read more at in.gov ...
Because guaranteed they are going to look at it if they ever take this case. The laws of citizenship that most people in America at the time the constitution was written would have been familiar with are certainly something worth considering.
And with the likelihood they would practice a little bit of ends based jurisprudence, they are definitely going to consider the laws which most help them achieve their ends. Its all well and good that yall think Vattel is the intended definition, but with no explicit evidence of it, I can’t see them using it.
You are arguing that it is best for the USSC to not follow the Law. That is desperate, and wrong.
I’m arguing that they will go with the reading of the Constitution that doesn’t upset the status quo. It isn’t desperate or wrong. I just think they will be very pragmatic on this point. Since NBC has not been defined by the court before they don’t even have any precedent to deal with. They wouldn’t be not following the law, they would be giving it definition.
That’s an interesting point.
Law of Nations is twice mentioned in the U.S.Constitution, English Common Law never. Also, and I was surprised to discover this, ‘democracy’ is never mentioned either.
This decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals is terrible, and as Leo Donofrio points out on his website, full of glaring discrepancies, omissions, and outright falsehoods.
He, for one, hopes publicity shines fully on Indiana’s Appeal Court decision because it is awful and amateursih vis a vis the Constitution.
Just in time, as a couple big rulings happen. Hope your project went well...
A quick command + F of the Constitution only found “law of nations” once, and I’m somewhat skeptical that it is reference to the book. Certain words never being mentioned doesn’t mean the things they represent aren’t an influence on the document.
So far as we know the clause passed without any discussion and it isn’t explained in the Federalist Papers. I have been told that the Framers were all very familiar with Vattel. They may have been, but certainly not everyone in the US would have been. And I think they would have been more explicit if they were going to reject the definition everyone would be familiar with.
And, again, strictly from a pragmatic view considering the potential repercussions of agreeing with Vattel, I don’t think the court will. They have enough leeway here that siding with the common law definitions isn’t a huge stretch.
The common law definition, which I don’t buy, is a red herring.
A natural born citizen is born of citizen parents. Note: two parents, both citizens. Because it is based on natural law, there is no statute. Any other type of citizenship is either, 1) citizenship by statute or, 2) citizenship by 14th Amendment. Neither are natural born citizenship. Note: there is no right to be president. So the Constitution’s Article 2 Presidential requirements are not discriminatory. If that were to be the case then anyone at any age or duration of residency could run for President. Since there exist instances of potential candidates being removed from state ballots because they didn’t meet one or more of the Article 2 requirements, this discriminatory claim is invalid.
I personally hope some enterprising group takes this Indiana Appeals Court decision up to higher courts - it is an invalid decision based on politics and NOT based on historical precedence. There exist documents in the custody of the Lee Family of Virginia, and descendents of the Adams Family of Massechusetts, that explain the role of Vattel in creating the U.S.Constitution. Both families insist that English Common Law played no role in the creation of our constitution. They’ve posted opinions here on Free Republic that those documents will soon be made public, and especially made available to lawyers challenging Obama’s eligibility before SCOTUS.
The Indiana Appeals Court furthermore lied about the circumstances surrounding Chester Arthur’s background. Barack Obama II has admitted to having been born a British subject. Chester Arthur hid the fact that his father was British when Chester was born in the USA; in fact, it was Leo Donofrio who uncovered that fact in December, 2008. Arthur burned his private papers to cover up the truth of his ineligibility for the Presidency as he was, in truth, a British subject.
It just demonstrates how desperate Democrats are to keep Obama in the White House that Indiana’s Appeal Court Justices must LIE concerning President Arthur being known as a British subject at the time of his Presidency. How outrageous! This is a feeble attempt to create precedence by rewriting history, something Liberals do all the time.
“The Indiana court also pointed to dicta in a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case which labeled two children of an illegal alien as natural born. That case stated:
The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
But nothing about the issue was discussed. The children were mentioned in passing dicta. Whether the children were natural born was not an issue in that case. And it was a mistake for the court to say they were natural born.
The Indiana Court of Appeals acknowledges that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark did not hold that the man was a natural born citizen. Essentially, the Indiana court acknowledges that the US Supreme Court exercised judicial restraint, but the Indiana Court of Appeals here doesn’t feel that they are restrained in that regard. How brave of them.
Furthermore, the Indiana Court chose to ignore the most relevant aspect of Wong Kim Ark where the SCOTUS clearly indicated that Wong Kim Ark was not natural born:
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 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…’
That tells you right there that the child of the citizen and the child of the alien are not both natural born.
“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
The Indiana Court conveniently ignored this analysis. And that comes as no surprise to me. They had to ignore it because there was no possible way for them to distinguish it.”
Leo C. Donofrio
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/indian-court-of-appeals-trips-over-natural-born-citizen-issue/
Yes, to mean what we call today "international law." It's not a citation or endorsement of Vattel's book.
English Common Law never
Try reading the Seventh Amendment, which mentions it twice.
What’s the difference betwen a US Citizen, a Naturalised Citizen, and a Natural Born Citizen? They have to be different because they are all used as separate terms in US Statute Law, and in the Constitution.
Actually, they don’t have to mean something different. It’s not uncommon in laws and regulations to use differing terms interchangeably, particularly when the usages occur over time. You can even find laws and regulations which subsequently specify that certain historical terms are equivalent.
So the framers invented “Natural Born Citizen” for the Presidential qualification, even though in your estimation it has the same meaning as “Citizen”?
I don’t think you really believe that do you?
Whether you personally think what the Indiana court did is right or not, they didn't just make it up. There's a pretty straight forward path to arrive at the conclusion they did. I strongly suspect no other court will arrive at a different conclusion.
“Naturalized citizens” didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was framed. There were only Citizens, and Natural Born Citizen for President. A new term thought necessary by the framers, but not by you as you wrongly consider it to mean the same thing. See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/indian-court-of-appeals-trips-over-natural-born-citizen-issue/
Since when is the Indiana Appellate Court the FINAL SAY in the matter of a FEDERAL election?
This seems ripe for appeal(s) to higher court(s)... maybe it could be on the road to SCOTUS?
It’s insane .. more background here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2040486/posts?page=8693#8693
Maybe, maybe not; but that has nothing to do with Constitutional requirements for Presidential eligibility
~~~~
True .. Wong Kim Ark wasn’t a candidate for potus;
therefore, that consideration was never a basis for
the ruling for his citizenship issue.
Poll Ping. Poll claims 52% of Americans think the issue of Obama's citizenship has merit.
Wong Kim Ark was not about natural born citizenship. The court acknowledges this in footnote 14. Thus they have relied on dicta for "guidance". Dicta is not precident, AFAIK.
At least this is an appealable case. The Indiana Appellate Court erred in taking dicta as settled law.
Also duly noted is the fact that Wong was not about Natural Born Citizenship, and no determination of Wong's NBC status was required or made.
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.