Posted on 07/23/2009 1:34:50 AM PDT by Red Steel
Senate Resolution S.R. 511 settled it. Knock it off or I’m calling in a mod. I do not agree with you. Case is closed now move on.
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
GET IT?
So a Supreme Court Justice dissenting opinion SHOWS YOU ARE WRONG about the Minor Case..and you tell me Senate Resolution S.R. 511 settled it.
YOU ARE FULL OF WRONG INFORMATION.
IT IS NOT BINDING.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/leg_laws_acts.htm#4
You really make it easier for people to call Birthers Kooks when you pass on BAD info.
Instead of admitting you are wrong, you will just continue to claim a Senate Resolution is law.
Good Grief.
Yes, I know resolutions do not have the binding force of law but they are certainly more binding than a court's dissenting opinion. Senate resolutions being part of our legistative branch lead to policy which lead to the actual drafting of bills which lead to law. Dissenting opinions don't. Unless you're now going to try and tell me that dissenting opinions and courts get to make the laws now??
The fact that you cannot accept is that the traditional definition that 'natural born' means born on native soil to 2 citizen parents has never been changed. Anywhere. Not in the courts, not in Acts of Congress, not in Constitutional Amendments.
But let's get back to S.R. 511. This resolution does not state that a person is a natural born citizen if born abroad to only one citizen parent. Instead this resolution specifically states citizens plural. Why? Why is it important that both parents must be citizens in this resolution? And why did Senator McCaskill seek to get another resolution passed after this one (as if she thought she screwed up or something) that specified one could be natural born with only one citizen parent but failed? In fact why have there been over 30 attempts since the 1870's to re-define the traditional meaning of natural born (born on native soil to two citizen parents) if this definition has 'not' been settled already??? Why bother?
There have been FIVE attempts to re-define the meaning of 'natural born' just since 2001:
- 110th Congress, 2nd Session, S.2678 - 2/28/2008 - To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.
- 109th Congress, 1st Session, H.J. 15 - 2/1/2005 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.
- 108th Congress, 2nd Session, S. 2128 - 2/25/2004 - To define the term `natural born Citizen' as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President. (1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and (2) any person born outside the United States-- (A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or (B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.
- 108th Congress, 2nd Session, H.J. Res. 104 - 9/15/2004 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.
- 107th Congress, 1st Session, H.J. Res. 47 - 5/2/2001 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for twenty years.
If its not been 'settled' why all these attempts to re-define the term since Vattel's day??? Congress apparently does think 'natural born' has been defined at least in some way and so they keep trying to change it. That alone proves you WRONG. If its not been officially 'defined' they don't need to change it now do they?
Some people are just obtuse. As I said earlier we do not agree on this issue. You have shared your arguments and I have given mine. You believe I am FULL OF WRONG INFORMATION and I am convinced YOU ARE FULL OF WRONG INFORMATION not to mention incapable of grasping logic. You see logic would necessarily dictate that if something hasn't been defined you don't need resolutions re-defining it now do you? It is time to start acting like and adult and simply say:
Okay, we agree to disagree and MOVE ON. Capiche?
I refuse to get into a flame war with you. Stop acting like a 2 year throwing a temper tantrum because I don't share your opinion on this subject. Grow up.
Excellent post. You are on the money.
Thank you!
I notice not one was mentioned by name. Constitutional Scholar Johnathan Turley, a top constitutional lawyer on his blog thought Major Cook’s lawsuit raised a serious constitutional issue that needs to be addressed. The truth is going to come out. No wonder his popularity abroad is so high and falling at home. Axelrod and his ilk has taken over the the Democrat Party. The liberals(progessive) are all behind him. This goes back to the Kerry Convention remember. Now its up to to one to step forward and raise the birth certificate issue.
An officer graduating from west point in June know risking his life and those of his men in Iraq. All may die under BHO. What is the the US going to say to the parents. The Democrats are now in a on the conspiracy. You thought madoff did the unthinkable. Remember a liberal Democrat, Leon Panetta, from the Clinton administration white house is in charge of the CIA. It’s up to our military to bring this up the chain of command. The Democrat Party and BHO have committed high treason. It’s not a matter of impeachment. It’s not a matter of being reelected. It’s a matter of Democrats going to prison or the gallows. This is going to be a military bloodless “coup”. America still loves our military and law enforcers.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!! Preach it. And don't forget the media. They have been aiders and abetters themselves. And anyone else going around defending this illegal administration even if they happen to be GOP, DOD, Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Secret Service.
Cite me a court case that refutes what the dissenting opinion in Wong said about the Minor case since you say you can do it.
SHOW ME YOU AREN”T WRONG.
The MINOR case did NOT RESOLVE the issue. Mentioning the issue does not mean they resolved it. THAT COURT REFUSED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE because they DID NOT NEED TO FOR THAT CASE.
Really, this refusal to accept what is staring you in the face is one of the reasons birthers are called KOOKS.
If you are a lawyer THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MINOR CASE.
ARE YOU A LAWYER?
The law is not settled and citing a non binding resolution doesn’t make it so as you claimed.
ARE YOU A LAWYER?
Can you provide a link to that..because I think you are mischaracterizing his article.
He does state the they should have fought the lawsuit on the merits instead of trying to make it moot. He also stated - to paraphrase - that the addition of the litigants gives them a better chance at standing.
Very interesting discussion but lawyers and some people who aren’t lawyers..that indicates that the definition of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is FAR FROM BEING SETTLED.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/19/retired-major-general-joins-litigation-over-obamas-birth-status/#more-12895
Interesting law review article pertaining to Natural born citizenship and the Presidency
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
This is For those that still don’t understand the importance of Wong..and refuse to put it in posts with a dismissive -it’s only one case.
Let me remind you of this quote I saw on Turley’s page in the comments:
“The Opinion of the Court is the law and by virtue of the Supremeacy Clause is binding on all federal and state courts and on federal and state legislatures, until reversed or changed by a later decision, or by an Amendment.”
So that would mean that WONG settles the law because it is binding. I have not read Wong in depth to know all the facts in the case but I know that a Senate Resolution doesn’t mean anything and no doubt will be ignored by the Supreme Court as it should be . IT IS NOT THE LAW.
I submit that if Obama’s BC issue makes it to the court..there will be differing opinions, an attempt to show differences in the facts, and a lot of debate..and will have to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Certainly, there are out of wedlock issues, adoption issues, etc.
Here is another interesting report for Congress in 2006
Thanks for the link. That, in practice, really should shoot down any of the positions of the "birthers"
However, there is a disparity between what is said in this web page and what is said in the law.
As I said in my previous posts, the term "national" and "citizen" are not synonymous. 8 U.S.C. §1101 defines a "national of the united states" as follows:
The term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
8 U.S.C. §1409(c) speaks about an illegitimate child acquiring "nationality" through his mother.
8 U.S.C. §1401(g) speaks about a child acquiring "citizenship" through a parent without regards to the marital status of the parent (nowhere in §1401 does it mention the marital status of the parents at all).
The web page states:
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.
But the law doesn't say that.
So the webpage shows how the State Department does its business. But the law says what it says.
It sure would be easier if he just released his birth certificate from Hawaii, wouldn't it?
Alright..let’s back up a minute and rethink.
I think that those laws are presumed to talk about married people because there is a specific out of wedlock provision.
In otherwords, out of wedlock - this section
if not out of wedlock meaning married - another section
They don’t state the word married..but you gather that from the provision specifically addressing out of wedlock.
You have to read the statutes as a whole.
No, this idea doesn’t make sense..it was NATIONALITY that I linked to.
Still don’t have an answer.
No, I am not an attorney - I happen to have relatives, friends, and associates who are - who do you think I got my ideas and thinking from????? Are you so dense that you don't understand there are thousands of attorneys across the U.S. who share my viewpoint????? Who is Mario Apuzzo - chopped liver? No, he's an attorney who's brief you should read sometime. And guess what??? HE AGREES WITH ME THAT NATURAL BORN = BORN ON US SOIL OF TWO CITIZENS!! For Pete's sake there are freepers who are attorneys who have been on top of this for over a year now who are saying and writing the exact same things I have been! Shall I start naming names so you can go after them too?
So since you've reposted fine - I'll respond. I already cited court cases for you, none of which you will respond to. The only ones you will bring up is Minor and Wong Kim Ark. Wonder why that is? Could it be because those are the cases the Obamabots have put out talking points for????Well guess what? I'm not doing your research for you -- go to a law library and look them up.
Now answer the fricken questions I posed. Why is it important that both parents must be citizens in S.R. 511? And why did Senator McCaskill seek to get another resolution passed after this one that specified one could be natural born with only one citizen parent but failed? Why have there been over 30 attempts since the 1870's to re-define the traditional meaning of natural born if this definition has 'not' been settled already??? Why bother? If its not been 'settled' why all these attempts to re-define the term???
Why does the U.S. State Department tell its pregnant employees to have their babies on U.S. soil so there will be no doubt (exactly as stated in Minor) of their children being 'natural born'???? This policy is so encouraged that the govt. PAYS FOR their stateside hotel room and board 90 days pre and post partum here in the U.S. so they will COME HOME and not have any children overseas! THIS IS FACT. MY DAUGHTER IS ONE OF THOSE EMPLOYEES so I know first hand this is happening! Now if this 'natural born' issue hasn't been settled or clarified why do they do this??? Hmmmmmm????
Why do you keep going back to one case - MINOR - and IGNORING the others I cited????? Those don't matter or you haven't received the Obama talking points on those???? I'm guessing the latter because the obamabots have put out the talking points on Minor and you keep regurgitating those same talking points. Well here's a quote for you that I referenced in a previous post and got criticized for my efforts, "Under Happersett, a natural born citizen is clarified to mean born citizen without a doubt. Doubt entered the picture due to Obama being born a British citizen under The British Nationality Act of 1948, in effect at the time of his birth. He cannot be, as a state of nature, considered a born citizen of the United States, when he was born British." This is a QUOTE written by attorneys btw. Guess they don't know anything either huh? They should know better huh? Because they don't agree with YOUR sainted knowledge from on high I'm guessing.
From yet another attorney, Mario Apuzzo:
“Neither the Fourteenth Amendment, nor any U.S. Supreme Court decision, nor any Act of Congress has changed the original common law definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” (to be distinguished from a “citizen of the United States”) which is that the natives or idigenes or “natural born citizens” are those children “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, bk 1, c. 19, sec 212 (1758) (1759 first English translation); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. , concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens); 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) (only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born citizen” and Fuller, C.J., dissenting confirming Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”); Keith v. U.S., 8 Okla. 446; 58 p. 507 (Okla. 1899) (common law rule that the offspring of free persons followed the condition of the father was applied to determine the citizenship status of a child born to a white father, a citizen of the United States, and half-breed Indian mother, with the court not even mentioning the Fourteenth Amendment as being applicable probably because of the Indian status of the child); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866); Sen. Jacob Howard (the framer who co-wrote the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause stating in 1866 that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment excluded persons born in the United States who were foreigners, aliens, or who belonged to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p. 2895, 2nd. Col.) Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court enforce the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and not allow Obama to amend the Constitution by usurpation. U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2; George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.” Source: Kerchner v. Obama & Congress DOC 34 Plaintiffs Brief Opposing Defendants Motion to Dismiss – Case 1:09-cv-00253-JBS-JS – Filed 720/209 - pp. 8-10
Seems to me Apuzzo is citing Minor in his brief as precedent as well as clarified law isn't he???? Guess he should know better huh???? Wonder what his excuse is for not AGREEING WITH YOU???? So now my question to you is.....
ARE YOU A CHILD?
ARE YOU A CHILD?
Throwing a temper tantrum are we that you aren't getting you way and I won't agree with you????? Well grow up. You just might be the reason the GOP is filled with pathetic RINOS.
P.S. I'd rather be called a KOOK upholding and defending the constitution, than be lumped in with a bunch of treasonous buttwipes.
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.