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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg says her grandson born in Paris is a “natural born” citizen
American Grand Jury ^ | September 28th, 2009

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: baderginsburg; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; ginsberg; naturalborn; scotus; stevens
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last
To: Mr. Blonde

I agree that there seems to be no “smoking gun” quote. There are quotes that imply agreement with the Vattel view on citizenship, and there are other quotes that extoll Vattel in general.

But, if not the Vattel view, then what? The English Common Law view? I think not. There is overwhelming evidence that the Framers held the English position on citizenship to be absurd and not worthy of emulation.

And, it is clear from the unadorned usage of the phrase “natural born citizen” that the Framers felt that it needed no further elaboration.

I think that applied reason leaves no other conclusion than that the Framers meant what Vattel meant by the phrase.


101 posted on 09/29/2009 7:49:20 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
And, it is clear from the unadorned usage of the phrase “natural born citizen” that the Framers felt that it needed no further elaboration.

Nothing in the Constitution gets much elaboration actually in the Constitution. I'm speaking of there is no elaboration anywhere. It passed at the convention with no discussion, the federalist papers don't touch on it. I think for them to make a departure from what most people at the time would be familiar with at the time they would discuss it at some point. And it would seem that when citizenship has come before the SC in the past, they have accepted that absent some statute, the common law will govern. Since we don't have a statutory definition of natural born citizen, I think it likely that is where they go back to.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, I cannot see 5 of the current justices taking a position that causes a constitutional crisis. The position that natural born means born in the US wouldn't be out of left field by any means, and when in doubt maintain the status quo. And that is assuming any case can make it passed a motion to dismiss.

I would think the best move would be to have a proposition (or equivalent) on a state ballot in 2010 requiring presidential candidates to show a physical copy of their birth certificate, or whatever documents are most desired. It would only take one state passing it to get it out in the open.
102 posted on 09/29/2009 8:16:03 PM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
Under Sec. 1992 of the revised statutes, the same Congress confirmed and adopted as law the principle in regards to determining citizenship at the time of birth:

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be “citizens” of the United States.”[note the word citizen, not “natural born citizen”]

Rep. Bingham(a framer of the 14th Amendment) commenting on Sec. 1992 said during debate on the difference between ‘natural born” and ‘born” citizenships under the 14th Amendment:

“It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of “parents” [emphasis plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a “natural born” citizen.”

Natural born citizen is ONLY mentioned in "1" place in the constitution, in the qualifications for President! also...

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible for the Office of President,”

c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”.

The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.103,104) provided that, “…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born … out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.

103 posted on 09/29/2009 8:37:55 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: holden
holden, here is what you were looking for, however it does disprove those who still claim Obama's mother was old enough to confer citizenship to her newborn son had he been born abroad:

FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301

Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.

The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “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.(this correction, however, was not retroactive to the time Obama was born)

104 posted on 09/29/2009 8:46:14 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
R.G., this will help you in your efforts to educate the obots:

ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?

The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins

105 posted on 09/29/2009 8:57:02 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde; holden

I highly recommend the discussion of the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” at the link:

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html


106 posted on 09/29/2009 9:20:11 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
"I wish you and others would stop dragging Wong Kim Ark into the debate. The case is NOT on point. Moreover, the dicta in this case is often lamebrained, wrongheaded, untrue as to facts cited."

The cite is exactly on point, which is the point.

Of course, the birthers would think it was "lamebrained". They don't like it. Too bad.

"The HOLDING of the case does not support your views in any case. Wong Kim Ark was not trying to establish that he was a Natural Born Citizen, and the court did not reach that conclusion, either."

The holding certainly does support my view. What do you think the court held? You do know what the result was for Wong don't you?

107 posted on 09/29/2009 9:39:15 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

obumpa


108 posted on 09/29/2009 9:47:17 PM PDT by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
She doesn't say what her child and it's spouse were doing in Paris. If they were in the diplomatic service, then she may very well be correct. Also if they were in the military (stranger things have happened), but if they were just there on their own hook, the grandchildren are citizens because of a statute passed by Congress, which means they cannot be natural born as the term is used in the Constitution, which predates any statute, and which does not give any power to Congress to redefine its terms. Her grandchildren, could become Speaker of the House, or Senate majority leader, or even Chief Justice, but not President.
109 posted on 09/29/2009 10:43:44 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
Ref; US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, section 1401.

You can quote the section of 8 USC 1401 that uses the term "natural born" or even the word "natural" ... can't you?

....

Of course, I know you can't.

110 posted on 09/29/2009 10:49:42 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: libbylu
Two American parents, child born anywhere is still an American.

Yes, but not a natural born citizen unless born in the country, or as it turns out, if he parent was "in the service of the country" at the time. Could be military, could be diplomatic. Diplomatic is well recognized, but in "Law of Nations" there is an "exemption" for children born "in the armies of the state". Section 217 , while the basic rule is in section 212.

111 posted on 09/29/2009 10:57:49 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

You are correct.


112 posted on 09/29/2009 10:59:14 PM PDT by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Being born on a military base doesn’t constitute U.S. soil, either. Unfair as it sounds, children born abroad, even to U.S. citizen parents serving in the military, are not natural born.

Actually they may be. If one is using Vattel's rule in "law of nations" for what a natural born citizen is, one should also use the exception for children born in the armies of the state, which also includes the diplomatic service.

Book II

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.

For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

So while a military base in a foreign land is not US territory, and a child born of a non-citizen on such a base is not a citizen of the US, children born to parents "in the service of the state" are natural born.

113 posted on 09/29/2009 11:09:23 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Over 100 years of legal precedent since the 13th and 14th have effectively conferred citizenship on ANYONE born in our borders (ie birthright citizenship).

That's true, but not natural born citizenship. Natural born citizenship requires more than being born in the country. The parents must be citizens as well. Under some circumstances birth in the country isn't even required. But in general it is.

114 posted on 09/29/2009 11:17:05 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Sorry, but all Americans born abroad have statute law to thank for their citizenship status,

Not quite all. Children of diplomats have long been recognized as natural born citizens, or subjects as the case may be. Under the rules laid out in the "Law of Nations", that exception applies to the children "born in the armies of the state" but outside its boundaries.

115 posted on 09/29/2009 11:19:25 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Bump what you said re: your son....And neither are my nephews born in Britain, though my Sister and Husband are both American citizens.


116 posted on 09/29/2009 11:23:31 PM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” and neither is my son, born in Jakarta, Indonesia to US citizen parents.

What were the circumstances that caused the birth to be in Indonesia? Diplomatic corps? or private business? Makes a difference.

117 posted on 09/29/2009 11:23:43 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Thanking you for the blinding clarity! Keyword: blinding....which has occurred repeatedly in this issue.


118 posted on 09/29/2009 11:25:47 PM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: holden


US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, paragraph g

Please cite the revision history to which you make reference.

HF

Go to your link, click on "Notes" look under Amendments and find:

1986—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653 substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”.

119 posted on 09/29/2009 11:26:57 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Pot meet kettle... ; ~ )


120 posted on 09/29/2009 11:28:31 PM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
He was born in the Republic of Panama

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.

121 posted on 09/29/2009 11:31:32 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Great reference. Thanks for sharing.


122 posted on 09/29/2009 11:31:43 PM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: mlo

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.


123 posted on 09/29/2009 11:33:32 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mlo
That's dicta. The case did not concern natural born citizenship, only citizenship. Here is the Question, and the Decision.

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.

124 posted on 09/29/2009 11:40:56 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

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.


125 posted on 09/29/2009 11:48:20 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Private business.


126 posted on 09/29/2009 11:51:01 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

OK I agree that diplomats are a special case. While I did not specifcally say so, I was referring to non-diplomats.


127 posted on 09/29/2009 11:52:27 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: mlo

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.


128 posted on 09/29/2009 11:54:54 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
Check out the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, in "The Venus" 12 U.S. 253 (1814)

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".

129 posted on 09/29/2009 11:56:31 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

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.


130 posted on 09/29/2009 11:57:35 PM PDT by Cincinna (TIME TO REBUILD * PALIN * JINDAL * CANTOR 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo
What do you think the court held? You do know what the result was for Wong don't you?

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.

131 posted on 09/30/2009 12:01:36 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: mlo

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”?


132 posted on 09/30/2009 12:27:29 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine; Patrsup

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.


133 posted on 09/30/2009 4:58:10 AM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

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.


134 posted on 09/30/2009 5:05:14 AM PDT by Patrsup (To stubborn to change now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Wow! FR knows more about the law than a Supreme Court Justice.

BTW I nominate The Judge for the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Restored United States of America.

135 posted on 09/30/2009 5:07:43 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof. V for victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

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.


136 posted on 09/30/2009 5:14:52 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
They discuss it at length in one of the closest cases to the issue at hand, Wong Kim Ark.

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.

137 posted on 09/30/2009 5:34:46 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

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.


138 posted on 09/30/2009 5:56:46 AM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

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?


139 posted on 09/30/2009 5:58:23 AM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
Honestly, I don't see the helpfulness, nor even the applicability of any reference to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in any attempt at determining Presidential eligibility, which requires natural born citizenship. Mr. Wong Kim Ark was not determined to possess that form of citizenship.

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.

140 posted on 09/30/2009 6:19:00 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
...and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens.”

And just what do you think this means? Do you think that all persons simply born in the soverign territory of the United States is same thing as "born in the allegiance of the United States"?

Of course this quotation means no such thing. What is said here is essentially the Vattel view, and the view of every "birther" who has thought the issue through. The issue IS allegiance, it has ALWAYS been allegiance, and NOTHING BUT allegiance. The Framers sought to eliminate those of questionable allegiance by making it a requirement that the President (and uniquely the President) must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, that is someone born in exclusively owing alleignace to the Untied States and to no other nation. This is patently a more stringent requirement than mere territoriality, as hase been pointed out so many times I grow weary of it. Yet, this point seems to be lost on so many.

Forget the "Birth Certificate". I don't care if he comes up with a birth certificate signed in blood by the Pope of Rome. His father was a Kenyan, a British Subject, and at birth so was his son.

Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, despite his territorial birth, was not, is not, and never will be a natural born citizen and he remains and will remain for all his days ineligible to the office of President of the United States.

141 posted on 09/30/2009 7:23:05 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
I presume she also believes that a person born of French citizens on US soil is a natural born US citizen as well as a natural born French citizen, just as she believes her grandchild has dual natural born citizenship.

Dual citizenship is a bad enough concept but dual natural born citizenship status is insane. She would also need to believe that this grandchild of hers could marry someone with the same dual US-French natural born citizenship and give birth to a child in a third nation and that child would be a natural born citizen of three different nations. Theoretically, a new nation could be added to the natural born status for every subsequent generation.

142 posted on 09/30/2009 7:29:10 AM PDT by Perchant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perchant

A very good point I had not considered before.


143 posted on 09/30/2009 7:35:35 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde

Lets look again at the ENTIRE qoute from 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.”

Here we have the unambiguous statement that “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects (of the King)”. That includes Barack H. Obama, does it not, or are you saying that Obama is lying when he says he was a British Subject at birth due to the birthright nationality status he inherited from his father?

Or do you deny that the operation of British law and tradition recognizes birthright nationality? Or are you saying that Barack H. Obama could not have availed himself of his British/Kenyan nationality?

Because if you hold to these things you would be wrong indeed.

Ant then to the second part of the quotation, which you seem to think, against all logic and against the very language of Justice Swaine, that Justive Swaine is extending natural born citizenship to every infant whelped on US soil.

To come to that astonishing conclusion you have to hold that every infant whelped on US soil is born in the allegiance of the United States. Do you REALLY believe that?

Is it not far more likely that Justice Swaine meant what he actually said, and that natural born citizenship is reverved for those ACTUALLY born in the allegiance of the United States. Moreover, I am sure that he meant in the EXCLUSIVE allegiance of the United States.

If you are attracted to Justice Swaine’s line of reasoning, you may be a closet birther.

I suspect that this line of thought would be upheld by at least five of the current justices of the Supreme Court, and maybe more. It might even be unanimous. The force of reason is very powerful.


144 posted on 09/30/2009 7:53:20 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

"Johnny Appleseed"

145 posted on 09/30/2009 7:55:39 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

And now for his very next sentence, “Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”

Seems to me that says allegiance is a product of the land you were born on unless under very specific circumstances you retain allegiance to another country. Otherwise, why the exception for diplomats? If allegiance is solely based on parentage than location doesn’t matter.

I don’t particularly believe that anyone is born with any allegiance to anyone or anything. Unless you have proof of babies born to two US citizen parents born on US soil coming out waving American flags. It is the language he used in the case though. In this instance, I would say allegiance is a recognition that you have to be born a citizen of somewhere. That somewhere is the place of your birth unless you happen to be the child of an ambassador. No one at birth is a citizen of the world. And yes I think everyone born in the US is a citizen of the US.

I believe the court will find, like you by a convincing majority, that natural born citizen is a line between naturalized and citizens born in the US. The common law would lend credence to that conclusion. Other than in general terms that the Framers were influenced by Vattel and absent any specific citation of them using his definition for natural born citizen, I think it likely the SC follows the common law on this issue. It would be the general understanding at the time and protect the executive office from foreign citizens (I understand the fear of importing a king was present at the time), and from those who are potentially working for their old country still. The protection given by Vattel’s higher standard seems very slight, and unnecessary. That it aids them in avoiding a Constitutional crisis is just icing on the cake.


146 posted on 09/30/2009 8:30:13 AM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
El Gato, I am curious as to where you got your version of Vattel's 'Laws of Nations' as the copy I use, the one that Leo Donofrio uses states somethjing quite differrent:

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.

For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

147 posted on 09/30/2009 8:35:56 AM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: patlin

No where does Vattel use the words “natural born citizen” in section 217 of Book II.

I refer you to again to the foreign afaird manual:

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.state.gov%2Fm%2Fa%2Fdir%2Fregs%2Ffam%2Fc22712.htm

Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual at 7FAM1116.1-4(c)

“Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

and the current foreign affairs manual also states this:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible for the Office of President,”

c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”.

The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.103,104) provided that, “…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born … out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.


148 posted on 09/30/2009 8:46:46 AM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde

Mr. Blonde, maybe this law review artcle will clear things up for you:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins


149 posted on 09/30/2009 8:50:42 AM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde

Let me introduce you to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:

I thought I had the smoking gun here when I first quoted this back in March, but the liberal legal minds kept quoting that naturalization at the time, meant the same thing as natural born citizen per the 1790 Naturalization Act that was repealed. They like to quote John McCain as being naturalized under the 14th Amendment; however, McCain is a citizen by codified statute cited in the Foreign Affairs manual under children born to US citizens abroad. What I have uncovered will blast S. Res. 511, a Senate Resolution declaring John Sidney McCain to be a ‘natural born’ citizen right into outer space where it belongs, because it is filled with nothing but hot air opinions of corrupt politicians. All their ‘whereas’ are nothing more than particles of a political solar system, waiting to disintegrate upon entry into the realm of constitutional law.

During Story’s tenure at Harvard and until his death, there were 12 published Commentaries on wide ranging aspects of American law. Three of these volumes were on the constitution and his works won him an international reputation as one of the most renowned constitutional scholars of the time.

It was in reading his works of Volume 3, Section 1472-73 of ‘The Founders Constitution: Commentaries on the Constitution’ originally published in 1833 and now provided online by none other than the University of Chicago (how fitting), Story writes of the qualifications of those who wish to attain election into the executive branch as laid out in A2 S1 C5 of the constitution.

§ 1472. Considering the nature of the duties, the extent of the information, and the solid wisdom and experience required in the executive department, no one can reasonably doubt the propriety of some qualification of age. That, which has been selected, is the middle age of life, by which period the character and talents of individuals are generally known, and fully developed; and opportunities have usually been afforded for public service, and for experience in the public councils. The faculties of the mind, if they have not then attained to their highest maturity, are in full vigor, and hastening towards their ripest state. The judgment, acting upon large materials, has, by that time, attained a solid cast; and the principles, which form the character, and the integrity, which gives lustre to the virtues of life, must then, if ever, have acquired public confidence and approbation.

§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicile in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicile, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.

Here Story clearly defines the difference between the 2 types of citizenship when he went into detail about the grandfather clause in which the original founding fathers relied on to attain election to the executive branch, a clause that would soon become obsolete and extinct.

(snip) or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.

Did you catch the pertinent words here? Those stubborn words ‘naturalized‘, ’exception‘ and ‘extinct‘? Remember, Obama himself, claims that ‘words have meaning’.

(snip) This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct)

Now, permit me to reiterate that to this date, Justice Joseph Story remains one of THE MOST cited justices and his ‘Commentaries’ are main stays in the teaching of constitutional law worldwide since their original publications began in 1832.

Obama studied law at Harvard, he was the president of Harvard Law Review during his time there, yet we are not allowed to read any of his writings and none thus far have shown to have been published. More importantly is the fact that Story is the founder of Harvard Law School and Obama surely would have been very familiar with Story’s works, especially the 3 volumes on ‘The Founders Constitution’.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/constitutional-nuclear-bomb-blasts-obamas-eligibilty-to-smithereens/


150 posted on 09/30/2009 8:57:55 AM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 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