Posted on 10/06/2012 12:09:40 PM PDT by Kleon
However.....you do seem to have a lot of knowledge on this subject. Have you been kind enough to share it with Sheriff Joe?
Without knowing who wrote that document, I cannot say. The US Supreme Court has use the terms interchangeably, as have other legal sources for hundreds of years.
For example, writing in 1856:
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects — those born out of his allegiance were aliens.”
The normal term used would be Natural Born Subject, not native born.
From Minor:
“These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Elk:
“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
Perkins v Elg cited, with approval, an earlier US AG opinion:
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; ....”
In 1949:
“No such procedures could strip a natural-born citizen of his birthright or lay him open to such a penalty. I have stated heretofore the reasons why I think the Constitution does not countenance either that deprivation or the ensuing liability to such a punishment for naturalized citizens. Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, concurring opinion 320 U.S. 165; Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, dissenting opinion 328 U.S. 675.
***
This case, however, presents squarely the issue whether, beyond any question of burden or weight of proof, the ordinary civil procedures can suffice to take away the naturalized citizen’s status and lay him open to permanent exile, with all the fateful consequences following for himself and his family, often, as in this case, native-born Americans. The question in its narrower aspect is indeed whether those consequences can be inflicted without any proof whatever...
...If, in deference to the Court’s rulings, we are to continue to have two classes of citizens in this country, one secure in their status and the other subject at every moment to its loss by proceedings not applicable to the other class, cf. Schneiderman v. United States, supra, concurring opinion at 320 U.S. 167, Knauer v. United States, supra, dissenting opinion at 328 U.S. 678, I cannot assent to the idea that the ordinary rules of procedure in civil causes afford any standard sufficient to safeguard the status given to naturalized citizens. If citizenship is to be defeasible for naturalized citizens other than by voluntary renunciation or other causes applicable to native-born citizens,”
In 1964:
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
I'm not suggesting that granny was confused as to whether or not she was at his birth, I am saying that a confusing question asked in English and then translated into whatever they speak in Kenya, and then having the answer to the confusing question translated back into English is not good evidence at all.
I listened to the audio of the guy asking the question, and the Granny replying. He intentionally asks the question in a leading way so that any sort of affirmative response can be claimed to have been an admission by her that Barack was born in Kenya. If I recall correctly, he said " Do you remember when Barack was born...(long pause).... Here in Kenya?" The translator had already started translating when he said the "Here in Kenya" part, and the woman would be distracted by having to listen to two voices at the same time. If she answered "Yes" to the first part, before she had time to consider the second part, it would result in the appearance that she was answering "Yes" to the whole question, when she in fact, was not. The question was designed to trick her into giving the questioner the response he wanted, and I utterly reject it as any sort of useful evidence.
When the question was subsequently explained to her more clearly, she said that he was not born in Kenya, but by that time nobody wanted to hear her clarification.
The Granny question is utterly useless as good evidence. It was elicited through a sort of fraud, and honest people ought not not grant it any credence.
However.....you do seem to have a lot of knowledge on this subject. Have you been kind enough to share it with Sheriff Joe?
I'm pretty sure Sheriff Joe has plenty of people volunteering information that know as much and possibly more than do I. Freeper "Advertising Guy" is in contact with Sheriff Joe's posse, and i'm confident he has kept them informed as to any pertinent information discussed on Free Republic of which he is aware.
If Sheriff Joe, or any of his posse want any of my knowledge or opinion on this subject, I am happy to cooperate with them. I just suspect they are deluged with knowledge and opinions that are probably just as good as mine.
About the only thing I could do for them that others can't is to provide them with copies of My Original birth certificate, and my subsequent Adopted birth certificate, to prove that States create false documents for the purpose of Adoptees.
I personally think Obama was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro and as a result, his original birth certificate was sealed by court order, and the only thing Hawaii will release is a cobbled together amended document, similar to my official post-adoption birth certificate.
Lib Media plans to use “Birther” issue to
move voters away from Romney/Ryan ticket
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-media-plans-to-use-birther-issue.html
A summary of the article below (which I absolutely agree with): The Liberal TPM Media folks know that most Tea Party and conservatives are birthers... so they sifted through a ton of old articles to find a Ryan quote that will make conservatives angry with Ryan.
I’m sure Libs are nervous about the pending debate results between Ryan and Biden (the intellect of the Democratic party) after Romney exposed the empty chair that Obama is at the last debate. So TPM found this standard memo letter on the birther topic to a constituent.
And combined with the fact that a recent poll revealed 73% of Republicans and 40 % of ALL Americans doubt Obama’s birhtplace, TPM has decided to marginalize the vote away from Ryan/Romney using the birther issue as a wedge.
As much as I would love every Representative to take on the eligibility issue instead of fearing it... the MOST IMPORTANT GOAL is to get Obama out of Office... and Ryan is CLEARLY INFINITELY more conservative and a far more awesome alternative than any Liberal candidate. To quote the article below: DON’T FALL FOR IT... IGNORE THIS LATEST TRICK... the actual TPM article is titled: Paul Ryan has news for the birthers: He’s not one of them...
Have you read "The Obama Timeline"?
You're welcome. Anything I can do to help clarify this issue is my pleasure.
Have you read "The Obama Timeline"?
No, but I will be glad to. Where can I find it?
I'll check and get back to you.
They aren't used interchageably, although the Minor court comes close, except in that decision, "natives" is defined EXCLUSIVELY as birth in the country to citizen parents.
I didn't say it was "mentioned" in the Constitution. It is described in the 14th amendment. Why did the Supreme Court say the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens??
Where in the Constitution is the power given to invent new categories of citizens?
Where in the Constitution is the power given to invent new categories of citizens?
In Article V.
Ryan thinks we are all stupid that is why he is sending out
the forgery. I used to think he was smart now I don’t know.
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.