Posted on 07/23/2009 1:34:50 AM PDT by Red Steel
The SCOTUS has already decided:
• Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830)
• Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)
• Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394
• United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890)
S.R. 511 - 110th Congress - 2nd Session - April 24, 2008:
Excerpt: "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:...." Read more here
Our founding fathers drew from Vattel's Law of Nations in drawing up the Constitution. Within this book is described the definition of Natural Born in Book 1; Chapter 19 to wit...."The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Notice the plurals the same as S.R. 511 - PARENTS, CITIZENS....et. al. Natural Born status has always been defined this way. In 2008 that definition was upheld by the 110th Congress.
In the SCOTUS cases referenced above that definition was also upheld and the bottom two cases Vattel was actually cited as the source reference for the decision.
To be a 'Natural Born' citizen the definition has always been defined as born in the country of TWO citizen parents.
The problem isn't lack of definition or court decisions - the problem is refusal to recognize or agree with those decisions in modern times by the bulk of the American people who continue to confuse 'native born' with 'natural born'.
That is the bottom line. There is something politically that he is VERY worried about, else he'd just go ahead and "humor them."
And you bring up some very relevant points about his mother's residency. With the law as it was at the time of his birth (10 / 4), those disparities in her record could prove HUGE.
IMHO, the folks who are doing the microscopic analysis of JPEGs of his "certification" should start devoting energies to HER whereabouts in that level of detail. If it could be shown that she wasn't resident for the requisite amount of time, that would bring a LOT more pressure to bear on the subject.
In my opinion we’re going after this the wrong way in pursuit of ‘the birth certificate’.
What we should be doing is #1 - Go after the Obama Administration/Campaign and FactCheck for committing felony document fraud and hit them with an indictment. Force them to prove or disprove the COLB that keeps getting waved around as authentic when there is a great deal of proof it is not.
#2 - See my post #41. Obama isn’t eligible because he has a non-citizen Father. That has been proven. Launch an investigation into why the constitution is not being upheld when Obama is not a natural born citizen as S.R. 511 demands - TWO CITIZEN PARENTS.
All those enabling and abetting Obama’s fraudulent takeover should all be equally indicted for fraud and treason as well. They may produce or claim forged documents as authentic if we only pursue ‘the birth certificate’ but they have no defense against #1 & #2 above.
Yes, when Obama’s mother dropped out of the University of Hawaii during the fall of 1960, I’ve heard no witnesses or evidence to her wherabouts aside from Obama’s grandmother stating being present when Obama was born in Kenya.
The COLB could prove felony forgery of a government document.
Here's the bottom line. The part of Title 8 of the US Code that applies to parents out of wedlock (8 USC §1409) talks about him inheriting nationality from his mother.
The part that I cited earlier (8 USC §1401) talks about inheriting citizenship.
There is a difference between citizenship and nationality; i.e., you can be a U.S. national without being a citizen, while all U.S. citizens are considered nationals. Green card holders are considered U.S. nationals (at least for the purpose of the US Export Control laws), but they are not considered citizens.
8 USC §1409(c), which talks about inheriting nationality is the section you are citing (if I'm wrong, please provide me the section number) in your discussion. It says, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’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. Note: it does NOT say the citizenship status of his mother, just the nationality status. Remember: all citizens are nationals, not all nationals are citizens.
8 USC §1401, which is the one I'm citing, talks about inheriting US citizenship. It says, The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:…(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years
In other words, if she didn't meet the residency requirements of §1401(g), but did meet the residency requirements of §1409(c), then he would be a U.S. national at birth, but not a citizen (i.e., essentially a green card holder).
Hopefully that expressed the same thought a little clearer than before.
And considering it is just a form printed out based upon the contents of a government database (not a facsimile of the live document), that is not at all beyond the realm of possibility.
Yes, when Obama’s mother dropped out of the University of Hawaii during the fall of 1960, I’ve heard no witnesses or evidence to her wherabouts aside from Obama’s grandmother stating being present when Obama was born in Kenya.
And in which case, the folks tracking this need to determine travel dates. If she left prior to her 18th Birthday and didn't return until after his birth, she wouldn't meet the residency requirements of 8 U.S.C. §1401(g) to pass on citizenship, in the event that it can be proven that bam-bam wasn't born in Hawaii.
One other off-the-wall question, do you know if anybody on the "birther" side has looked for the microfilm for the Honolulu papers to confirm or disprove the statements by the MSM that there were birth announcements?
YOu are talking about Strict Constructionism and I am not sure that is the way the courts would rule.
As I said, a matter for the courts.
If Obama was born in the US, with no UK citizenship because it couldn’t be conferred without legal marriage - then it is possible that the courts would decide he is eligible.
If born in Kenya then he has does have UK citizenship and US citizenship.
The Birthers should be digging into whether Hawaii would recognize that marriage in Kenya or not. If it was deemed a common law marriage - I don’t think it would be recognized and Ann Obama’s marriage legal.
If hawaii recognized it as a legal marriage - Ann Obama marriage ILLEGAL, VOID, and punishable by prison.
It is a legal entanglement in many different areas that would have taken years to sort out - which he evaded as scooted his way into the White House.
You're not doing your research. Read my post again. The courts HAVE ALREADY RULED.
As I said, a matter for the courts.
Which they HAVE ALREADY DECIDED. I can't help it if you won't read or research the cases cited.
Your problem is you cannot accept already settled case history. Why I don't know.
For those who cannot accept these rulings you have 3 options: 1) reverse the previous court decisions, 2) get an amendment to the constitution re-defining 'natural born', 3) or simply ignore the constitution and previous court rulings. Unfortunately #3 appears to be the way most Americans want to go.
But bear in mind even when conservatives start to throw out the constitution because you don't like the 'strict constructionism' our founders set up, then anything else may be re-written, re-defined, thrown out if you will, and then you are no better than Obama and his cronies.
In your quoting of Minor v. Happersett what should have been highlighted is this phrase: "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also." It goes on to conclude, "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
Under Happersett, a natural born citizen is clarified to mean natural born citizen without a doubt. Whenever someone is born to a non-citizen parent there will always be doubt! Therefore, it is settled law that a child born to TWO citizen parents leaves NO DOUBT as to being natural born.
This definition was re-affirmed under the 110th Congress Senate Resolution 511 regarding John Sidney McCain. Therefore, it is settled law.
I strongly disgree with your assessment of his words.
Never any doubt to the first.
Doubts as to the second class BUT
For his case, HE ELECTED NOT TO GET INTO THE SECOND, JUDGE IT OR RESOLVE IT.
That happens all the time.
He elected not to decide that because it was’t relevant to the case.
He said:
“
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. “
It involved a woman born in the US who was denied her right to vote because she was not a male.
You are misrepresenting the case to claim it settled the law about children born in the US when one parent is foreign born.
Nope. Going to have to agree to disagree.
You are absolutely misrepresenting that case. So it is either because you don’t understand what you are reading OR you are doing it intentionally.
Since you left out
United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
which has a pretty strong DISSENTING opinion about natural born citizenship ...and a majority opinion about natural born citizens and allegience...
I am going to assume you are misleading on purpose to support your agenda.
I don’t do that.
I try to look at all sides.
Sigh. Nope. As I said we're going to have to agree to disagree because I happen to believe YOU are the one misrepresenting these various cases in your zeal to discount the TWO parents requirement. Minor v. Happersett was just one case, Wong Kim Ark was just one case, I cited more than just those and there is STILL last year's S.R. 511 which reaffirmed that John Sidney McCain was eligible based upon having been born to TWO CITIZENS (PLURAL) on a military base. That was the conclusion of S.R. 511 which OBAMA SIGNED.
So don't start with me about 'misleading' anything. YOU are the one who doesn't look at everything.
Furthermore if you had bothered to read "Kerchner v. Obama: Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss" you would notice that Mario Apuzzo cited the various cases I gave you and then some as to WHY its settled law and precedent that to be natural born requires TWO citizen parents.
It is absolutely absurd that anyone claiming fealty to the constitution would agree to allow anyone to be President who has a non-American Father!
Well, that appears to be 2 strikes against Obama.
I’m not sure on the microfilm. You might want to read some of the more recent articles from WND.
You wrote-
“If she left prior to her 18th Birthday and didn’t return until after his birth, she wouldn’t meet the residency requirements of 8 U.S.C. §1401(g) to pass on citizenship, in the event that it can be proven that bam-bam wasn’t born in Hawaii.
One other off-the-wall question, do you know if anybody on the “birther” side has looked for the microfilm for the Honolulu papers to confirm or disprove the statements by the MSM that there were birth announcements?”
“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. “
Again BOTH of you are wrong. ABSOLUTELY.
The Judge said for the purposes OF THIS CASE..he didnt need to go into the second definition. It was not relevant to the case. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE IN HIS CASE THEREFORE NO DECISION THAT IS PRECEDENT.
How hard is that for you to understand?
In any event, HE DECLINED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT ALL BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RELEVANT.
If you do not understand this concept- try this case
“Despite the problematic aspects of the ordinance, we cannot say that the ordinance is unconstitutional in every application, primarily because the ordinance did not have an unconstitutional effect in the test case that led to the instant suit”
GET IT.
Btw, the Wong case IS AFTER the cases you listed. Surely you know what that means.
The stuff about Mccain is irrelevant.
If you can’t understand the concept of Precedent..then I am not even going to bother with the stuff you are citing about Mccain.
I seem to recall reading a freeper thread at one point where this microfilm ad was also a forgery along with the COLB. With all the supporting data to confirm it. I can't find it now. Arggh!
Still searching............
Yes, I recall something like that as well. I’ll try to search too!
You wrote-
“I seem to recall reading a freeper thread at one point where this microfilm ad was also a forgery along with the COLB. With all the supporting data to confirm it. I can’t find it now. Arggh!
Still searching............”
All of your, shall we say loosely - 'arguments'- sound like liberal talking points right out of a liberal playbook who believe in a 'living and breathing' constitution. (barf)
If you want to take the LIBERAL viewpoint that our Constitution is a LIVING and BREATHING document to be re-interpreted AT WHIM instead of being strictly interpreted AS WRITTEN have at it. I do not think that way, I am an originalist who believes in the constitution as orginally written and is not to be tampered with. Defining Natural Born Citizen
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.