Skip to comments.Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case
Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
click here to read article
“...The revolution will be live.”
It *will* be on the internet though! :)
Really? Listen, you might as well pray for aliens to come to Earth and kidnap Obama so he can't become President, because that's about as likely as the Supreme Court ruling that he isn't eligible.
Not going to happen. But it will be interesting to watch the gnashing of teeth tomorrow morning when the Court denies cert.
Factually incorrect. A natural born citizen is anyone born within the United States. How do I know? Because I'm a natural born citizen and when I was born neither of my parents were citizens. I've done all the legal footwork on this. It's a fact.
This entire “Obama is not a natural born citizen” episode is very silly. Sure he could have stopped it early on but I think he's enjoying the sight of a bunch of people make fools of themselves.
Obama was born in Kenya , as his relatives have repeatedly said. Notice that AFRO says nothing about that.Why?
Our nation is divided now into free patriots and those who wish to abandon our constitution for "socially secure" bondage. Many of us go not quietly into that dark.
Many of us will fight it regardless of cost or consequence.
And the passage from our Constitution reads 'natural born or citizen of the U.S. ...'
However, under current laws and practice, birthright citizenship exists and has existed ever since the 14th amendment was adopted. We have 400,000 anchor babies born each year to illegal alien parents. These anchor babies are treated just like every other US citizen and have the same rights and privileges, including a US passport upon demonstrating they were born here. The only exception is childred born to accredited diplomats to the US.
If a decision ever does come before SCOTUS, current law and practice for more than 100 years will have an impact on any ruling. IMO, if Obama was born in the US, he is a US citizen.
I agree with you. Howver if Obama was born overseas, it is an entirely different matter.
“Perhaps the fact that the state of Hawaii itself does not always recognize the short form COLB to be proof of birth location? Somewhere along this long, torturous epic it has been stated that in order to qualify for some sort of “homestead” status in HI, the short form COLB is insuffecient. If it (COLB) is not good enough for Hawaii, then how can it be for the NJ SoS or SCOTUS? “
Those are all good questions, but if Donofrio is not contending such concerns in his case, then how would they ever be brought up in court?
It first appeared on the 1970 album "Small Talk at 125th and Lenox", on which Scott-Heron recited the piece, accompanied only by congas and bongo drums.
A re-recorded version, this time with a full band, appeared on the 1971 album Pieces of a Man and as the b-side to the single "Home Is Where The Hatred Is".
The Judicial Branch of government is the only branch willing and able to to resolve this matter.
Will they do it as justices of the highest court in the land in an impartial manner or will they play politics with it?
Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided:
1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant's birth;
3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and
4) while the person is under the age of 18 years --
A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile,
B) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
FYI: Only fairly recently, Ireland passed a constitutional amendment ending birthright citizenship, the last country in Europe to have that practice.
God help us! Doesn't any judge or elected representative care about the constitutional requirements for the presidency?
Hope the Supremes understand the difference between citizen of the U.S. and Natural born citizen of the U.S.
How do you know that Obama was born on US soil?
No he wasn't; the United States didn't exist when he was born.
Nonsense. Offspring of illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
The reason they grandfathered themselves in was because there was no United States of America until the Constitution was adopted. When Washington was born, it is was in a British colony and they were considered subjects of the Crown, i.e., they were English citizens. Remember the Boston Tea Party? No taxation without representation.
Clarence Thomas - a Supreme Court Justice just doing his job. We shall see the media attack him soon.
“I find the above passages to be very illuminating. For one, it affirms to me that Leo Donofrio knows his Justices, so picked Justice Thomas to re-file his petition to, as the one Justice most likely to act on the overwhelmingly urgent implications of the issue.”
I agree. I think that Justice Thomas understands that this needs to be dealt with because it just isn’t going to go away. I don’t know if he has any opinion about it....he may think it has no merit...but he (I think) realizes it must be examined and not just pushed to the side.
I do believe that IF the SCOTUS was to examine the facts and documents (i.e. vault BC) they would be able to make an informed decision. I also think that IF the evidence shows that P.E. Obama was indeed born in Kenya or if other circumstances (being an Indonesian citizen) caused his loyalties (as constitutionally intended) to be questioned, I think a majority of the court will rule P.E. Obama to be unqualified. However, the evidence must be clear and compeling.
The hard part is getting them to actually take the time to obtain and examine evidence, which I think is all most of us want them to do.
I'm saying that Indonesian law is irrelevant to the question of U.S. citizenship. From the U.S. State Department:
Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.
HA, so when do you expect Bama to demonstrate a bunch of people made fools of themselves? He is hiding something because the lawyer fees alone are eating up a good chunk of that campaign war chest.
This provides a coherent and succinct argument for what natural born citizen means in the context of 14th amendment.
Except for the children of accredited diplomats, anyone born on US soil is a US citizen, i.e., jus solis. That is the way our laws are written and practiced, which is why we have 400,000 anchor babies born each year who are entitled to such things as US passports and food stamps.
“That is fact and will probably disqualify McCain too, who was born in Panama.
Wrong. Armed forces members married to US citizens on orders to be overseas are always considered as having US natural born children regardless of where the child is born.
Thanks for that clarification!
CLANG>>>CLANG...NOW HEAR THIS....The Supremes will order the electors to verify the candidates qualifications before they vote yea or nae....this will stop the process and force the electors to do the job that created the positions they now hold....it is not a ceremonial job but one of substance and if they certify any candidate who later proves to be unqualified ,they are subject to the laws of treason . This crap has been going on far to long and it will stop on Friday 12/5/2008 Obama bin Biden will have to put up or step down. Tomorrow is his last chance...and I for one hope to color him gone so I don’t have to listen to all the dimoctrats who suffer from constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth along with the absence of ideas.
Well said John Valentine!!!!
The same holds true for any child born to American citizen parents overseas. It is not confined to the Armed Forces.
...by SCOTUS requiring the NJ SoS to present whatever documentation (if any) it used to vet the candidates. The COLB that has been published seems to be no better than a note from his mother so I doubt SCOTUS will accept that as proof now or in the future. This is what I believe will lead us back to the long form BC.
BTW, I'm not a lawyer and I have never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express!
Actually I post on these threads for the benefit of lurkers or other interested parties so they don't go away thinking all of FR are a rabid pack of lunatics, many who now tout a document, our Constitution, that they obviously never once read. Though now, because some hack lawyer wants to become famous the Constitution is the hot topic with the boys gathering outside WaWa or AllParts stores.
“What is the definition of natural born? There are three ways to become a US citizen, birth thru blood, jus sanguinis; birth on US soil, jus solis; and naturalization. The first two are, IMO, natural born. If Obama was born in the US, he is a natural born US citizen. If he was born in Kenya, then he has a problem.
Birth on US soil=native-born. But this is NOT, as some here seem to think, equivalent to “natural born.” If the framers had wanted to simply tie eligibility to being native-born, they would have used that term. In reality, at the time of the Constitution, native-born children were NOT automatically citizens. http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
Whoever suggested natural born is restricted to a person who is a US citizen both jus sanguis and jus solis has a good idea. But if that were the intent of the framers it’s hard to understand why the first Immigration statute labelled those born abroad of 2 US citzens “natural born.” Admittedly, this was repealed 5 years later with identical language that still accorded such individuals automatic citizenship, but removed the term “natural born.” The point is IF the framers believed the jus sanguis + jus solis definition of natural born, this statute would not make sense.
However, this does not preclude viewing “natural born” as being restricted to individuals whose allegiance is undivided.
So what's your point? He's disqualified because of a C Section? Stop wasting our time posting this crap. Never going to happen.
“The same holds true for any child born to American citizen parents overseas. “
Except there are conditions about those non-military parents and none on military parents on orders.
No person, (except a natural born citizen), (or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution), shall be eligible to the office of President
If I am understanding this correctly, a Natural born citizen, is a person who was born on U.S. soil by parents who both were born on U.S. soil.
A U.S. citizen who was born on U.S. soil but one of his parents was born in another country could have become President only during the time that the Constitution was being adopted. After the Constitution was adopted, this person would not be qulified. And the reason he would not qualify is 1) He doesn’t fall under the definition of a Natural Born citizen and 2). He was not a U.S. citizen during the period when the Constitution was being adopted.
Is this correct?
Case 1: The Case Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S> 325 (1939) this expands and refers on the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's case definition of nationality.
Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, NY on October 2, 1907. Her parents who were natives of Sweden emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939)
Elg is a Citizen of the United States. Perkins v Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 328 (1939) Citizenship Matrix = 1 foreigner parent (Sweden) and 1 U.S. citizen parent (naturalized by US statute) and born in Brooklyn, NY.
Case 2: The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939).
Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939). Citizenship Matrix = 2 US Citizen parents (at least one naturalized by US statute) AND Born in St. Louis, MO (USA)
THANKS -- IT DOES HELP !!!
No, what I am saying is that actual practice will have a major impact on whatever ruling, if any, SCOTUS makes in this case. Our current laws imbue anyone born on our soil, except for the children born to accredited diplomats, full citizens of this country entitled to all of the rights and privileges that entails. You may consider the 14th amendment to be “misread,” but it is being misread by our own government.
It has not been read that way by SCOTUS. They may address it now.
Bump to ya’
Aside from the current contretemps over whether Obama is eligible for the Presidency or not, this is a distinction without a difference. Can you cite any differences between the citizenship of a native born and natural born citizen under existing law and practice? How is birthright citizenship, jus solis, any different from jus sanguinis citizenship under law?
The point is IF the framers believed the jus sanguis + jus solis definition of natural born, this statute would not make sense.
It makes sense because we were a new nation whose residents were formerly citizens of other countries. For very real and practical reasons, we recognized two forms of natural born citizenship, jus sanguinis and jus solis. They are different for very obvious reasons.
“pretty sure” and “solid tradtion” do not apply when interpreting the Constitution.
See my post #164.
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.