Posted on 09/29/2009 4:09:26 AM PDT by Man50D
.. and the fruitloops just keep getting jucier and jucier!
Of course this was posted on an Obot’s website. You can google it if you want. I will not give credence to this website but I will darn sure explain that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is wrong!
Justice Ginsburg:
My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents. I had never considered him a naturalized citizen of the United States.
Justice Ginsburg again:
There is a debate over whether my grandson is a natural born citizen. I think he is.
Ruth, grow up and take your collective head out of you know where! Your grandson was born in Paris, France, not the USA. I am now thinking, how long have the parents lived in France? How old is the child? Does the child consider France home too? Does the child speak French, go to French schools, believe Europe is a nice cushy place to practice the NWO. Just where do the child’s loyalties lie?
I will bet you one thing is for sure. As soon as practical after the child was born Ginsburg’s children (parents of the grandson) ran down to the US Consulate in France to submit the paperwork for US citizenship. Just because the law says the child is a US citizen at birth, that doesn’t mean the US is going to let the child inside the Country legally without a US Passport or formal paperwork.
(Excerpt) Read more at americangrandjury.org ...
Not what his mother and the local English Language newspaper, the Panamanian American said. They said he was born on the submarine base.
Just because there was a new hospital built in 1942, doesn't mean their wasn't some sort of medical facility before then. There was definitely a doctor assigned to the base.
The images of "birth certificates" floating about on the net are no more real than the COLB 'bama had posted.
Besides, Law of Nations, Book II section 217 (212 has the general definition of Natural Born) says children born in the "armies of the state", to include diplomats, are treated as if they were born in the country.
Great reference. Thanks for sharing.
I’m with you.
Mccain was not natural born either by the definition used by some here.
I have always though that if both parents were US citizens that was enough.
Naturalized citizens are those who go thru green card or amnesty and so forth
my only isue with the COLB of Obama is why not show the world the long form actual and why not his various collge admissions records too?
I suspect his father is not listed and he may have claimed foreign status ...lied.
The GOP governor of Hawaii claims his COLB is valid there...after it was state.
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
...
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
I would accept this interpretation granting NBC status to McCain far more easily than I could accept that Obama is an NBC given that his father was a British Subject who transmitted his citizenship to his son.
Private business.
OK I agree that diplomats are a special case. While I did not specifcally say so, I was referring to non-diplomats.
Of course. The court said that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, by virtue of the fact that his parents were legal US residents when he was born in the Unties States.
They did NOT say he was a Natural Born Citizen. They were not asked to rule on such a thing, and they did not.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenous are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
Marshall was using an early translation, by an English translator IIRC, although he probably read the original French as well.
A later translation by Chitty substitutes "natural-born citizens" for "indigenes".
Probably your ranting is for naught.
I have many American friends whose children were born in Paris, mostly at the American Hospital.
When the child ;eaves the hospital, the parents take the baby and go to the American Embassy and register the birth.
Yes it was, but Wong was not asking to be recognized as natural born citizen, just a citizen. And the court found him to be one.
The lamebrained part is where the court blathered on about English Common Law perspectives on citizenship (or should I say SUBJECTHOOD) when those concepts were expressly REJECTED by the Framers and their contemporaries.
I would propose that the concept of Citizenship most widely held in the nascent United States was the one Contained in Vattel’s The Law of Nations and referenced thus by Ben Franklin:
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?
The purpose of the “Natural Born” citizen clause in the Constitution is to prevent some foreign potentate from purchasing the Presidency. It also prevents a domestic faction from importing a President (such was common in Europe at the time). These were big concerns in 1789. They’re still concerns in light of the activities of George Soros. It is not meant to limit the opportunites of a child born to US citizen parents while abroad. Many of our Founding Fathers, including Franklin, Adams and Jefferson spent several years abroad and would well understand the concept that US citizens could very well give birth while abroad.
Natural born citizen means the individual was a citizen by virtue of birthright- either his parents were citizens or (since Reconstruction) he was born wihin the United States. In the case of the former it may take the State Department awhile to complete the paperwork (they need to know that the child the two US Citizens have is really their child).
Complicating this would be the citizenship laws of whatever country the child was born in. If that country has a “born within the boundaries” policy as we do, then the child born to US citizens could posses dual citizenships.
Well - let me put it very clearly - I was born of two american (citizen) parents in Saigon Vietnam (at the embassy where my father worked) in 1956. I have a Vietnamese birth certificate (in Vietnamese), an embassy translation of it and a certificate of Naturalization issued also. Given the thought process that I was born of two american parents - I should not have needed the certificate of Naturalization because your argument would make me a natural born citizen.
I cant explain it or justify it - I am just stating the facts.
BTW I nominate The Judge for the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Restored United States of America.
Sorry, but your jury-rigged definition bears little relation to reality, or to the Framers intent.
As for the Framers or the Founder’s concern for foreign birth, they were diplomats, and I concede with ease that the special case of diplomats on a mission for their country warrants a different treatment. First of all and mainly, no host country would entertain the notion of claiming children of diplomats as their own citizens. If these would not be citizens of their home countries, they would be stateless.
But individuals on commercial travels, or travels for leisure, or for other personal purposes have no such special status and children born in a foreign land could very easily be claimed as citizens by those foreign states.
In fact the United States has provided by statute that under certain specified conditions, children born to US citizens abroad may be considered as US citizens, but this statutory provision is a plenary act by the Congress under the authority of the naturalization clause of the Constitution. It is NOT a form of Natural Born Citizenship.
Well, that's good, since Mr. Wong Kim Ark was not determined to be a natural-born citizen.
Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a citizen, and statute was the determining factor. Ipso facto naturalized.
Justice Gray's bloviating, tangential tour of western civilization notwithstanding, of course.
Check out the majority opinion of Justice Swayne’s opinion in US v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785, “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens.”
That quote, to me, at least seems to be mostly differentiating between resident aliens and citizens. Although it uses “born in the country of parents who are citizens”, he does later mention the plural “rights” I’m not aware of anything other than the presidency that a naturalized citizen would never be eligible for as opposed to a citizen born in the US.
Again, the heart of the issue is this, will 5 justices on the Supreme Court agree with the birthers on what natural born citizen is? Not, will they reach the right decision, not what is the right decision, but what decision will they reach. Being that there is no silver bullet so far as I know expressly adopting Vattel’s view of natural born citizen. There is some innuendo, but nothing more. I don’t think they would be coming up with some odd view if they were to accept the English common law view. Considering the potential heavy implications of siding with Vattel, I cannot see them doing it. It may be outcome based jurisprudence, but that wouldn’t be a first.
Perhaps even more likely than that is they never answer it as non-justiciable. The answer to getting Obama out of office is political. Either Republicans run a better candidate in 2012, or they get a state to adopt a statute requiring Presidential candidates to show a hard copy of their long form birth certificate, or whatever they want to see.
What did I say? Not on point, but close. And discussing the issue. Did he or did he not? In a way you don’t like maybe, but he did.
Do you think if somehow this ends up before the SC the decision will not contain references to Wong Kim Ark?
The question before the court had nothing to do with natural born citizenship. The case for the plaintiff was argued on the basis of particulars contained within the so-called Chinese Exclusion Acts.
As best I can tell, Wong's attorney didn't even pursue the matter under the auspices of the 14th Amendment; that was in dicta, just one facet of Justice Horace Gray's peculiar, multifaceted rambling, and was erroneously contained in the syllabus as a result, by some editor at a law book publisher who didn't understand the case, either.
Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a citizen by operation of statute. Statute law is the enumerated power of the Legislative branch, limited to immigration and naturalization.
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.