Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'US CITIZEN' AND 'NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE
ireport.com ^

Posted on 12/11/2008 8:20:46 AM PST by ckilmer

'US CITIZEN' AND 'NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE

Click to view PatHenry's profile Posted by: PatHenry // 4 hours ago // viewed 62 times
New London, Connecticut // embed media
Last updated: 21 minutes ago

SEPERATING THE FACTS FROM THE FICTION REGARDING LEO DONOFRIO AND SCOTUS LAWSUIT "WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ". WHY THE ISSUES RAISED ARE LEGITIMATE AND FAR FROM THE FRIVILOUS NATURE OF OTHER LEGAL EFFORTS.

The following was initially written as a generic Editorial Reply to the large number of incorrect Editorials and articles I have read in various publications regarding the Supreme Court cases commonly referred to as Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz and Donofrio v. Wells.
I, as any American should, place my faith and loyalty in our Founding Fathers and the Constitution first and our elected and government officials a distant second. We are a Nation of laws and no individual is above the law - not even the President; not even the president-elect.

It is shameful that various news organizations which are allegedly in the business of collecting, verifying and reporting facts attempt to dismiss those of us concerned with Barrack Obama's citizenship status as a lying, unprincipled - even delusional - lot. Admittedly there is, in fact, a fringe element involved in the Obama citizenship issue.

Rather than separating the facts from the fiction, so-called news organizations have instead chosen to further confuse and mislead the public. In effect, many news organization's official editorial positions are no better than the fringe element they attempt to dismiss, often by name calling.

For reasons unbeknownst to me, the fringe element has caught the attention and imagination of mainstream media, while those forwarding factual, legitimate concerns have been obscured and mitigated.

Two such factual, legitimate efforts are the lawsuits filed by New Jersey's Leo Donofrio and Connecticut's Cort Wrotnowski. The fact that three Presidential candidates could get this far into the National Election without being properly exposed is prima fascia evidence that the dominance of the two-party system has been pervasively damaging to our Constitutional Republic. Additionally, there has been extreme confusion; some would say ignorance, pertaining to the differences inherent between being a 'citizen' and a 'natural born citizen'.

Mr. Donofrio, the attorney that filed Donofrio v. Wells with the Supreme Court, filed his initial lawsuit in NJ Appellate Court on October 27th, 2008. This came a month after Donofrio made his initial inquiry to the New Jersey Secretary of the State, Virginia Wells, as to why she had certified the New Jersey ballot which included Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero. Though Mr. Calero had no reasonable chance of winning the election, Mr. Calero has made no secret that he was born in Nicaragua, to two non-United States nationals. In other words, Roger Calero, by his own admission has no business being on the NJ ballot.

Mr. Donofrio had taken note of Calero's inclusion on the non-certified sample ballot that the NJ SOTS had published so that voters could familiarize themselves with it prior to certification. Donofrio called the NJ SOTS office and inquired into what verification process used to vet the Constitutional eligibility of Presidential candidates before publishing and certifying the ballots. The NJ SOTS office admitted that it relied on the various political parties to verify eligibility before submitting the candidacy affidavits, meaning the NJ SOTS doesn't do ANYTHING to independently verify candidate eligibility. Mr. Donofrio, a lawyer, rightly chose to challenge this revelation in court.

During the research he did before filing his initial case, it became apparent to Mr. Donofrio that not only is Mr. Calero Constitutionally ineligible, but so are Mr. Obama and Senator McCain. Why? How could this be the case? Here is the relevant passage from Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The key phrase here is "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President". The Founding Fathers included this phrase because virtually everyone was a British Subject at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. In other words, the passage serves as a grandfather clause conferring 'natural born citizen' status to those who were ALIVE at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

No where else in the Constitution does the phrase 'natural born citizen' appear. The Founding Fathers were very leery of a person with multiple allegiances becoming the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the United States. The only way to ensure this would not happen was to require something else that no other office in this country required . . . the status that our President be a 'natural born citizen'. That is, someone who at birth could claim only one allegiance. Thus a 'natural born citizen' is not the same as being a US born citizen. They are not an interchangeable terms of status.

Mr. Donofrio's research revealed that no other President in the history of the United States was born to anything other than two United States citizens and on United States soil, except Chester A. Arthur and history shows he lied and misled his peers and the newspapers of the time about his Father's naturalization. In other words, Chester Arthur intentionally and successfully concealed the fact that he was not born to two US citizen parents. Arthur's mother was a US citizen; his father was a British subject . . . sound familiar?

Mr. Donofrio's and Mr. Wrotnowski's cases acknowledge the fact that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. But Mr. Obama acknowledges on his very own website, FighttheSmears.org that he was born to one US Citizen Parent and one British Citizen Parent. Thus Mr. Obama was born with a dual allegiance and has never been, and can never be a 'natural born citizen'. Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party have knowingly deceived the public and avoided the fact that he is not legally qualified to serve as President. One must assume that Mr. Obama, a Constitutional scholar, has gone to great lengths to avoid the claim that he is a "natural born citizen". On the FightTheSmears.org website, Mr. Obama states that he is a "native born citizen", which, of course, is NOT the same as being a "natural born citizen". The term 'native born citizen' does not appear in Article II.

As you can now see, the concern that I share with millions of others who support the efforts of Mr. Donofrio and Mr. Wrotnowski has NOTHING TO DO WITH A BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

It is true that December 8th, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Donofrio v. Wells without comment however, that very same day the Honorable Justice Antonin Scalia submitted Wrontowski v Bysiewicz to be Distributed for Conference this Friday, December 12, 2008. Mr. Donofrio worked with Mr. Wrotnowski and authored the formal filing with SCOTUS. Donofrio v Wells had some unsettled judicial misconduct issues that raised scrutiny questions if the Justices had elected to take that case on. Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz has a pristine history in its ascension through the courts.

Think about that for a moment folks . . . Donofrio v Wells was dismissed without comment, later that very same day Justice Scalia, the champion of Originalism, distributes Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz - a similar yet stronger case. If Scalia felt that Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz didn't have merit, he wouldn't have wasted the court's time by submitting it for Conference this Friday.

Mr. Obama if finally pressed into defending his qualifications will likely resort to citing the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The problem is the 14th Amendment dealt with equal application of the law to United States Nationals and has no relevance to the specified qualifications needed to serve as President of the United States.

Based on a literal reading of Article II and the historical context of the birth right of 43 preceding Presidents, Chester A. Arthur notwithstanding, it is clear that Barrack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and thus has no legal claim to take the Oath of office. To allow him to do so would be a farce and undoubtedly ignite an endless series of litigation challenging his legitimacy.

NOTES REGARDING THE CONSPIRACY CASES:
Though very little, there is merit to some of the birth certificate claims. Admittedly folks like Andy Martin and Phil Berg appear to have some mental issues.

Hawaiian law most definitely allows foreign births to have a certificate filed:
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

There is also a place on the Hawaiian vault birth certificate to enter data for Hospital, Doctor and "Evidence for delayed filing or alteration".

In light of the ambiguous information that Obama has released and the fact that he unreasonably refuses to allow public inspection of his vault copy certificate it does reasonably raise and beg the question "why not?"

That said, the issues surrounding his birth certificate are irrelevant because of all the reasons I have stated above - Barrack Obama is a US Citizen, but he is NOT a 'natural born citizen' and thus has no authority to assume the office of the President.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911truthers; birthcertificate; blackhelicopters; certifigate; conspiracytheories; conspiracytheory; obama; obamatruthfile; scotus; tinfoilhats
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
Here is Gov (commerce secretary elect)Bill Richardson saying in Spanish that Obama is an "immigrant." (So he understands understands "immigrant" issues.)The context suggests that by "immigrant" bill richardson means "illegal immigrant"



Here in plain English is the Kenyan Ambassador saying that Obama is born in Kenya.



............

from obama's own site factcheck.org by way of fightthesmears on his dual citizenship at birth

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

1 posted on 12/11/2008 8:20:46 AM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucyT

COLB ping


2 posted on 12/11/2008 8:23:26 AM PST by stockpirate (Rush, Sean, Laura, Mark, Ann - MIA concerning COLB, Obama got them scared!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2145963/posts

Price of Apology: Clinton, Obama, and the Hawaiian Quid Pro Quo

The bill to create a Hawaiian Indian reservation is a financial boondoggle. But state bigwigs hope contributions will persuade Obama or Clinton to sign it if elected.

(imho it will lead to the crack up of the USA)


3 posted on 12/11/2008 8:24:48 AM PST by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Nicely described.

Upshot is there IS a very relevant, and largely undefined (legally) phrase, regarding qualification for POTUS. There is also precedent that it is an issue, considering a prior President went to great lengths to conceal the issue.

Without going into tinfoil-hat territory, legal definition of “natural born citizen” is a valid issue which only the Supreme Court can resolve.

Personally I find this a very interesting issue personally, as my US-born daughter’s mother is not a US citizen - so is my little girl eligible to become President of the USA or not?


4 posted on 12/11/2008 8:26:58 AM PST by ctdonath2 (I AM JOE THE PLUMBER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Also, apparently “seperating” literacy from otherwise...


5 posted on 12/11/2008 8:29:15 AM PST by Redbob (W.W.J.B.D.: "What Would Jack Bauer Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; null and void; pissant; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; ...

Thank you, stockpirate.

COLB Ping.


6 posted on 12/11/2008 8:29:51 AM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Yes. Natural born citizen means a U.S. citizen at birth. Your daughter was a citizen at birth for two reasons; birth within the U.S.A., birth to a U.S. citizen (assuming you met the age and residency requirements).


7 posted on 12/11/2008 8:34:41 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Interesting about Chester A. Arthur. I wondered whether any other president born after the adoption of the Constitution had foreign parents.


8 posted on 12/11/2008 8:37:29 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

It’s obvious that the MSM will ignore absolutely any and all issues that could even remotely challenge their newly selected king. And thus far at least, it appears that our court system is willing to punt such an important constitutional issue. We’ve entered some Bizarro America where political correctness is more important than ANYTHING else. By gosh, we elected a black president and nothing can possibly stand in the way of that. This sentiment is obvious not only in Democrats, but also in the GOP power structure.

Assuming this same trend continues, I hope we see thousands upon thousands of challenges over the next four years. I hope every civil litigant whose case could be impacted by some law signed by Obama, sues on the validity of such laws. I hope that every criminal defendant whose case could be impacted by an Obama-signed law, sues on the validity of such laws. If the courts insist on total abandonment of their duty now, I hope they are utterly buried in a mountain of lawsuits for the foreseeable future.

The fact that we’re about to install a foreign national as president is unconscionable and an indicator of just how detached from reality this country has become.

MM


9 posted on 12/11/2008 8:39:34 AM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; NormsRevenge; Dog; Straight Vermonter; G8 Diplomat; Fred Nerks; PhilDragoo; AdmSmith; ...
Thanks for the ping...continuing the broadcast....and it is about National Defense concerns among others....

Related thread:

20th Amendment Sct3: "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify"

10 posted on 12/11/2008 8:41:25 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
Mr. Donofrio's and Mr. Wrotnowski's cases acknowledge the fact that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.

So have they seen that vault copy secreted away in that Hawiian dungeon or what???

11 posted on 12/11/2008 8:43:32 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Thanks for the ping!!!!


12 posted on 12/11/2008 8:44:34 AM PST by IrishPennant (Patriotism is strongest when accompanied by bad politics, loyal FRiends and great whiskey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Thanks for the ping. The title is FReepin’ obvious for those of us who’ve been following this scandal, but unfortunately for 85% of America, it aint obvious. So it’s time to POTO (Point Out The Obvious).


13 posted on 12/11/2008 8:48:08 AM PST by Kevmo (Palin/Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

fyi


14 posted on 12/11/2008 8:50:49 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

fyi


15 posted on 12/11/2008 8:52:16 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All; LucyT; NormsRevenge; Dog; Straight Vermonter; G8 Diplomat; Fred Nerks; PhilDragoo; AdmSmith; ..
Related thread:

Supremes turn down request to stop Electoral vote

16 posted on 12/11/2008 9:00:11 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: All
I think this is different:

APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY OF 2008 NATIONAL ELECTION FILLED IN UNITES STATES SUPREME COURT

17 posted on 12/11/2008 9:02:35 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

BTTT


18 posted on 12/11/2008 9:26:12 AM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

Was this Illinois governor deal timed to take the lime lite off this going on at the supreme court...wondering minds...


19 posted on 12/11/2008 9:42:17 AM PST by JoanneSD (illegals represented without taxation.. Americans taxed without representation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
So have they seen that vault copy secreted away in that Hawiian dungeon or what???

The author misstates the position of Donofrio and Wrotnowski. They actually aren't contesting whether he was born in Hawaii or not, since it's not relevant to their lawsuit(s). That's a far cry from acknowledging that he was born in Hawaii.

20 posted on 12/11/2008 10:07:05 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Yes. Natural born citizen means a U.S. citizen at birth.

The clear language of the Constitution refutes your claim ... "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"

This means that there is a difference between "natural born citizen" and "citizen of the United States." Naturalized citizens have never been eligible for the Presidency, so that does not enter into any discussion of the meaning of the language.

21 posted on 12/11/2008 10:12:09 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

U.S. citizen at birth means a “natural born citizen” i.e. not a “naturalized” citizen.

I never claimed there was no distinction between a “natural born citizen” and a “U.S. citizen”, please engage what I actually said rather than what you thought I said.

My Governor is a U.S. citizen, but he is a naturalized immigrant and not a natural born citizen. In other words (for those of you in Rio Linda) he was not a U.S. citizen AT BIRTH.


22 posted on 12/11/2008 10:15:42 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842
I wondered whether any other president born after the adoption of the Constitution had foreign parents.

Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in Scotland, IIRC.

23 posted on 12/11/2008 10:24:14 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The language from the Constitution, that I provided in my reply to you, cannot refer to naturalized citizens, because naturalized citizens are expressly forbidden under the Constitution.

That the language differentiates between "natural born citizen" and "citizen" in that language means that there is a difference between the two, with "citizen" not being naturalized.

So, "natural born citizen" means something more than a U. S. citizen at birth.

Shall we make you an honorary citizen of Rio Linda?

24 posted on 12/11/2008 10:36:25 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Do you have trouble reading and comprehending simple English?

I never said there was no difference. In fact a gave a specific example of a U.S. citizen who is not a “natural born citizen” and thus would be ineligible to serve as President; namely my Governor.

I repeat to you. Engage what I said, not what you wish I said, wanted me to say or thought I said.

A natural born citizen means a citizen at birth, rather than a naturalized citizen.

25 posted on 12/11/2008 10:41:00 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Can a person be a natural born citizen of the United States AND be a British Subject, citizen of the UK at that same birth?


26 posted on 12/11/2008 10:43:24 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Can a person be a natural born citizen of the United States AND be a British Subject, citizen of the UK at that same birth?

Sure. There's nothing in US law that prevents it.

27 posted on 12/11/2008 10:46:11 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Do you have trouble reading and comprehending simple English?

No, I do not. I sought to explain to you the contention of the article that is the subject of this thread, namely that the language of the Constitution clearly differentiates between the "natural born citizen" and the "citizen," and that, furthermore, the "citizen" referenced in that language cannot be naturalized, therefore there is a difference between the "natural born citizen" and a U. S. citizen at birth.

Now, if you are quite finished with being rude, I'll leave you in your misunderstanding of the matter, never mind whether you agree or disagree.

28 posted on 12/11/2008 10:47:23 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

The only misunderstanding is the one you seem to be laboring under that I was ever in need of any correction on this matter.

My governor is a U.S. citizen, but not a “natural born citizen”. My saying this would make it obvious to anyone with sentience that I recognize that there is a distinction between the two.


29 posted on 12/11/2008 10:50:38 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
The bolded language in "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" deals with a unique situation at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution. At that time (and for 35 years afterwards) there is no one who would have met the test of qualifying as a natural-born citizen of the US, becuase every American citizen at such time had been born either in Europe or in one of the colonies that pre-dated the US. Until 35 years after the adoption of the Constitution, there was no American citizen who qualified as natural-born.

This provision is a historical curiousity, nothing more.

30 posted on 12/11/2008 10:53:14 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

The framers appeared to disagree with your assessment since they worked to prevent divided loyalties with the Constitutional eligibility requirements and discussed it in their letter exchanges which have survived to our day.


31 posted on 12/11/2008 11:02:04 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

That’s what I thought ... until the issue arose around O and I dug into more detail and thought about it more. I’m not convinced, and think it makes for a very legitimate Supreme Court case. Upshot: a parent of a child can greatly sway the child’s loyalties (even if long absent from that child’s life).

One issue is the frequency of “dual citizenship” imparted on a child of divided-citizenship parents. Do you REALLY want a President who is 50% beholden to another nation?


32 posted on 12/11/2008 11:19:31 AM PST by ctdonath2 (I AM JOE THE PLUMBER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

But did she become a naturalized US citzen before his birth?


33 posted on 12/11/2008 11:21:15 AM PST by ctdonath2 (I AM JOE THE PLUMBER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842

“Interesting about Chester A. Arthur. I wondered whether any other president born after the adoption of the Constitution had foreign parents.”

No wonder Arthur changed his records, burned many of his records, and hid most others. He knew he did not Constitutionally qualify to hold office. Sound familiar??


34 posted on 12/11/2008 11:22:26 AM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The framers appeared to disagree with your assessment since they worked to prevent divided loyalties with the Constitutional eligibility requirements

The Constitution makes no mention of dual citizenship being a bar to the Presidency. If the FF wanted to ban dual citizens from the Presidency, they would have so stated in the COTUS.

and discussed it in their letter exchanges which have survived to our day.

The letter exchanges are interesting, but they do not override the plain text of the COTUS.

35 posted on 12/11/2008 11:25:48 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
But did she become a naturalized US citzen before his birth?

I don't know. But it doesn't matter, IMO. There's nothing in COTUS, Federal law or Case law that would disqualify someone born in the US from the Presidency based on their parents' citizenship (unless the parents were diplomats or fell into one of the other unusual exceptions).

36 posted on 12/11/2008 11:28:57 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
My governor is a U.S. citizen, but not a “natural born citizen”. My saying this would make it obvious to anyone with sentience that I recognize that there is a distinction between the two.

Your governor is naturalized. That he is naturalized means that the Constitutional language under discussion does not apply to him, and can never apply to him. He's never been eligible for the office of President, and never will be, barring a Constitutional convention and an amendment that specifically permits a naturalized citizen to become President.

Now, if you're capable of reasonable discourse, without resorting to insulting language, you'll revisit our exchange, and hopefully come away with the information that I have been trying to convey to you. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree; that is what the author of this piece contends. Your definition of natural born citizen carries no more weight than this one, and probably less. The term only applies to the presidency, and so any other legal precedent outside of that does not apply.

To help you out, since you don't want to scroll up to the article with which you disagree:

During the research he did before filing his initial case, it became apparent to Mr. Donofrio that not only is Mr. Calero Constitutionally ineligible, but so are Mr. Obama and Senator McCain. Why? How could this be the case? Here is the relevant passage from Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution: 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The key phrase here is "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President". The Founding Fathers included this phrase because virtually everyone was a British Subject at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. In other words, the passage serves as a grandfather clause conferring 'natural born citizen' status to those who were ALIVE at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

No where else in the Constitution does the phrase 'natural born citizen' appear. The Founding Fathers were very leery of a person with multiple allegiances becoming the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the United States. The only way to ensure this would not happen was to require something else that no other office in this country required . . . the status that our President be a 'natural born citizen'. That is, someone who at birth could claim only one allegiance. Thus a 'natural born citizen' is not the same as being a US born citizen. They are not an interchangeable terms of status.

Do you see where you are at odds, both with what I wrote in reply to you, and what is written in the article that is the topic of this thread?

If you don't, you're being deliberately obtuse.

37 posted on 12/11/2008 11:35:02 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

Yup.


38 posted on 12/11/2008 12:30:40 PM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

Flip side: there is nothing in law saying someone is qualified to be POTUS given a non-citizen parent. There has been some obfuscation of this issue, especially as pressed by opponents of “anchor baby” citizenship, and by recent historical scholarship noting that President Chester Arthur went to great lengths to conceal his father’s citizenship in a matter comparable to Obama’s BC issue. It’s reasonable to assume the Founding Fathers made a distinct, if imperfect, effort to prevent those of divided loyalties from becoming President. There’s enough confusion that it’s time for the Supreme Court to weigh in.


39 posted on 12/11/2008 12:31:35 PM PST by ctdonath2 (I AM JOE THE PLUMBER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Yes, as I said, my Governor is a naturalized rather than a natural born citizen.

Thus I acknowledged that there is a distinction between the two right from the beginning.

Thus your continued insistence that there is a difference that I am somehow not acknowledging is rather ludicrous.

My definition of a “natural born citizen” is that one is a citizen AT BIRTH; i.e. not a “naturalized citizen”. Every U.S. citizen is either one or the other.

40 posted on 12/11/2008 12:41:44 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Flip side: there is nothing in law saying someone is qualified to be POTUS given a non-citizen parent.

There is nothing in the law that says someone with red hair is qualified to be POTUS, either. We can't add extra requirements that aren't in the COTUS.

There’s enough confusion that it’s time for the Supreme Court to weigh in.

I agree. I think that this issue needs to be resolved, one way or the other. Especially since we're entering an era where many Americans have one or more parents who are note native-born American citizens. I'm a naturalized US citizen, but also a citizen of two other countries. My son, though born here in DC, is a citizen of the US, plus two other countries. There may be millions of Americans out there with similar statuses.

41 posted on 12/11/2008 12:48:27 PM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

A native born citizen is a natural born citizen.


42 posted on 12/11/2008 12:51:27 PM PST by arrogantsob (Hero vs Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Thus your continued insistence that there is a difference that I am somehow not acknowledging is rather ludicrous.

And your definition is not the author's definition, nor mine.

That is what I have attempted to help you understand, but you clearly do not want to grasp.

It's no threat to acknowledge opposing viewpoints, which is what you're refusing to do.

You will remain completely confused about several of these lawsuits, as a result. But, I'm done trying to elucidate you.

Have a good day.

43 posted on 12/11/2008 1:23:36 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Thanks for the fyi... I already know about that thread because I was the one who posted it.

It looks like you have your own CoLB ping list, so when I ping LucyT & others with ping lists I’ll try to remember yours as well.


44 posted on 12/11/2008 1:27:19 PM PST by Kevmo (Palin/Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Wow. On usconstittuion.net they use the EXACT SAME definition I do.

A U.S. citizen at birth is a “natural born citizen”, a U.S. citizen who was not a citizen at birth is a “naturalized citizen”.

I can acknowledge opposing viewpoints just fine, but your opposition is based on the mistaken notion that I am somehow not acknowledging that there is a difference between a “natural born” and a “naturalized” citizen, and I have kept them distinct, and defined them; correctly, from the beginning.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

45 posted on 12/11/2008 1:29:03 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Also you used the word elucidate incorrectly.


46 posted on 12/11/2008 1:38:36 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
A native born citizen is not a natural born citizen anymore than a citizen of the USA is a natural born citizen of the USA. Article 2 wouldn't have had the reference to "natural born" if native born was all that mattered.

Washington, Adams, Jefferson et al were born in the colony of America under British rule and became citizens with the adoption of the Constitution. They feared for the future when, for example, a British subject born here in the US, might have dual loyalties, hence the strict language which makes it (natural born) -a unique requirement for the POTUS and Vice Potus.

Natural born, i.e., born in the USA to American citizens. McCain and Obama are both not natural born, unless the Supremes rule differently. Could go on but you'll find it all at www.naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com.

47 posted on 12/11/2008 2:12:14 PM PST by masadaman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

A Message to our Electors:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=sX7uuhHXs-0


48 posted on 12/11/2008 3:22:28 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: masadaman
"They feared for the future when, for example, a British subject born here in the US, might have dual loyalties,"

I've never seen any evidence in their words that they were concerned about that.

There is a great amount of evidence that they were concerned about immigrants gaining the office.

49 posted on 12/11/2008 3:45:25 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

See the Jay letter to General Washington...


50 posted on 12/11/2008 4:48:45 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson