Posted on 01/04/2010 9:37:42 AM PST by May31st
FOX News has included a posting called "Top Stories Mainstream Media Missed in '09" about half-way down their page.
See thefoxnation.com
Here you go - They've opened the door for you to sound off!
The Biggest Story of both 2008 & 2009 is the one that FOX News has utterly FAILED to report - along with the rest of the lame-stream media:
Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States because he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, as required by our Constitution.
Natural Born Citizenship = 1) PLACE: Born on U.S. soil and 2) PARENTAGE: Born to U.S. citizens. You must qualify on BOTH counts to be eligible. Obama fails the first test because his father was Kenyan. And he very likely fails on the second test as well. Release the Hawaiian long-form birth certificate... if it even exists!
I blame FOX for the egregious cover-up of this Constitutional violation. In this instance, FOX is no better than CNN or MSNBC.
I agree, release the original birth certificate. I want any and all information about anyone running for President, or in the office, or married to the President to be public knowledge. This secrecy is getting old fast.
Correction - should read:
“Obama fails the SECOND test because his father was Kenyan. And he very likely fails on the FIRST test as well.”
Or possibly that understanding of the definition of Natural Born Citizen is incorrect or not well supported legally?
Just sayin...
your points are dead on the money. besides the long form BC issue but also the fact that ALL of his records since childhood are not available for American citizens to view.
is there a link?
can’t find where to post opinion.
is there a link?
can’t find where to post opinion.
I found a slideshow on FoxNews.com, but don’t see anywhere to post or read comments.
FOX just moved the thread off their page. It’s neatly tucked away now.
But here it is: http://www.thefoxnation.com/2009-year-review/2009/12/31/top-stories-mainstream-media-missed-09
The legal precedent for the Constitutional understanding of “Natural Born Citizenship” is formidable.
Source: (Culled from Mario Apuzzo’s site one of the attorneys pursuing action against Obama.)
Article II “natural born Citizen” status must be shown as of the time of birth for a person to be eligible to be President.
The meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” has been addressed by various United States Supreme Court and other court cases. These cases show that the Framers did not use English common law to define what a “natural born Citizen” was but rather natural law and the law of nations which became federal common law. English common law continued to be used in the several states to provide the law on property, contracts, torts, inheritance, criminal substance and procedure, and other areas, but not the law on federal matters such as national citizenship. In defining a “natural born citizen,” these cases made specific reference to the citizenship of the child’s parents at the time of the child’s birth. These cases have defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents which is the definition provided by Emer de Vattel in his influential and celebrated treatise, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758 French edition) (1759 first English translation).
These cases are:
The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring)
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel);
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (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);
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (favorably citing Minor v. Happersett).
The Court was very specific in defining “natives, or natural born citizens” as requiring not only birth in the country but also citizen parents and in stating that the Framers would have defined the terms as such.
Gentlemen, might you have a moment to illuminate this new arrival?
Maybe it's because FOX is not blessed with your imaginative definition of what a natural born citizen is?
Nah. You can tell a Birther...but you can’t tell ‘em much.
“imaginative definition”???
I posted historical citations. I didn’t make them up.
It’s not clear to me what your beef is? Surely you’ve got something more substantive than “nanny nanny boo boo.”
If you wish to pull my head out of the clouds with my wild imaginations, then please do educate me - and the rest of the blogging world - on what the legal definition of a “natural born citizen” is, if it’s not what I have cited above.
Unless you can, this issue is not going away.
Apparently you didn't read them.
It’s not clear to me what your beef is? Surely you’ve got something more substantive than “nanny nanny boo boo.”
It's you who are lacking in substance. Those cases don't say what you claim they say.
If you wish to pull my head out of the clouds with my wild imaginations, then please do educate me - and the rest of the blogging world - on what the legal definition of a “natural born citizen” is, if it’s not what I have cited above.
None of those decisions provided a definitive legal definition of natural-born citizen so they don't support your claim. But feel free to post quotes from them if you like. Especially the Ex Parte Reynolds and the U.S. v Ward decisions.
bump
Again, Non-Sequitur, please give the definition of a natural born citizen...
The cases I cited above favorably cite Vattel, as his definition informed the Framer’s original intent.
A natural-born U.S. citizen is defined by Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part 1 > § 1401 of the U.S. Code. Your requirement that both parents be citizens is not in there. Neither is it in the Constitution or included in any Supreme Court decision, including the ones you have listed.
The cases I cited above favorably cite Vattel, as his definition informed the Framer’s original intent.
Then you should have no problem providing the quotes from those decisions showing that. Especially Dred Scott, that one has me puzzled.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), did not directly deal with Article II “natural born Citizen.” But there are parts of the Dred Scott decision that are relevant to the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” The case clearly defines “natural born citizen.” While as repugnant as slavery was and still is, no court or amendment has over turned the meaning of “natural born citizen” from Dred Scott. The main point is that in deciding what a “citizen” was in 1817, both the majority and dissent went back to 1787 to examine what the Framers and the people of that time considered a “citizen” to be. The Court said that the Constitution must be understood now as it was understood at the time it was written. The judges did not disagree that one had to look back to the Founding Fathers. What they disagreed on is what the public opinion was at that time as to whether a freed slave was a citizen. In this regard, we know that the case was overruled by the Thirteenth Amendment. As to the “natural born Citizen” clause, the Court said: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights. Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .” Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857).
As can be seen from the quoted language, the Court actually removed from the Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” thus showing that it is not just one parent (the father) that needs to be a citizen, but the “parents,” i.e., both mother and father. Also, both Vattel and the Court state that “if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” The controlling language is “a foreigner.” In the English language, the letter “a” is an indefinite article meaning one. Hence, the use of the word “a” shows that only one is required. We know that a child has both a mother and father and the “a” would necessarily refer to either the mother or father. Surely, if the child were born of one parent who was not a citizen, he would be “born there of a foreigner,” who would be either his foreign mother or father. As can be seen, it is our United States Supreme Court that has made this reading and interpretation of Vattel. This understanding of Vattel is not only correct but also binding upon us.
Source: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
Your quote is from Justice Daniel's seriatim opinion, and not from the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Taney. Seriatim opinions and concurring opinions, like dissenting opinions, are the opinion of the single justice only and are not binding precedent. So it is inaccurate to quote Scott v Sanford as a Supreme Court decision defining natural-born citizenship.
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.