Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg says her grandson born in Paris is a “natural born” citizen

American Grand Jury ^ | September 28th, 2009

[RegulatorCountry]

So who gets to decide what qualifies as Natural Born Citizen?

It was decided long ago, when our Constitution was ratified.

The question now, is whether Constitutional originalists or transnational citizens of the world win out, as far as enforcement of the Constitution, or relegating it to the ash heap of history.

Barack Hussein Obama serving a full term of office unchallenged will create precedent. The Presidency of our nation will be opened to the world. We will no longer be self-governing, and will no longer be in control of our own destinies, or able to affect change in our own self interest. We'll be beholden to ... what?

Who knows.

[mlo]

"It's only nonsense to you because you are in the tank for your hero Barry Soetoro."

You got that backwards. It only makes sense to you because you use this issue to marginalize your conservative opponents because you are in the tank for your hero Barry Soetoro.

[Man50D]

Contrary to what you said, Barry Soetero's citizenship and potential NBC status would be judged entirely without regard to Buzzy's progeny being any kind of citizen, except perhaps in Buzzy's mind.

I didn't mention BO in my previous post to Condor 51.

With this distraction in his hip pocket, I believe the info on his Hawaiian COLB will show Barry to have been lying fraud for many years prior to his presidency, most likely as to his having been born in Kenya, but certainly not to a degree that will get him impeached in this session of Congress.

Only a President can be impeached. BO could not be impeached since he has not proven he is eligible to be President.

[Patrsup]

And I have the certificate of naturalization to prove it..

[mlo]

"Really. That statement is absolute horse manure. Where do you get this crap?"

Sorry, but the horse manure is the way the birthers try to distort the constitution and the law in order to overturn an election. My statement is correct.

[mlo]

"Natural Born? I think not. Look at this exchange in the arguments in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS:"

You understand that the justice only *asked a question*, right? And one of the lawyers answered it, with his opinion, right?

This is the root problem the birthers have. They latch on to any fragment they can find that sounds like it backs up what they *already want to believe*, whether it is actually meaningful or not. That is not how you find the truth. That's just how you convince yourself that you were right to begin with. Whether you really were or not.

[Patrsup]

You are so wrong on this - two american parents born overseas prior to 1967 when the code was changed is ineligible to run for president (as I am - born of two american parents at the embassy in Saigon Vietnam in 1956)

[mlo]

BTW, the proof of my statement above (”They latch on to any fragment they can find that sounds like it backs up what they *already want to believe*...”), is that they expect everyone else to think like they do. That everyone decides first what they want to believe, then only presents those facts. That’s why they accuse everyone that tells them they’re wrong of being a troll or an obot. Every time they do that you know you are dealing with someone that can’t think objectively.

[mlo]

"You are so wrong on this - two american parents born overseas prior to 1967 when the code was changed is ineligible to run for president (as I am - born of two american parents at the embassy in Saigon Vietnam in 1956)"

I'm not wrong. Show me the law.

[thecraw]

So who gets to decide what qualifies as Natural Born Citizen? Do you think the “deciders” are going to disqualify Obama? Or is it much more likely if they even hear the case that whatever Natural Born Citizen meant in the past will become equivalent to the statutory definition of citizen.

Only the good Lord knows how this will turn out. One thing for sure is that the deciding factor in Constitutional issues should ALWAYS be the "original intent". No subsequent court ruling should ever override what was intended by the Founders. Ideally we should have either a Supreme Court decision or a Constitutional Amendment to define the unique American citizenship of Natural Born.

Too many folks are unwilling to accept the fact that eligibility to be President of the United States is NOT a civil rights issue.

[Danae]

Ruth - how is it that such a blatant liar got into the SCOTUS.

You CLEARLY by previous SCOTUS decision have to be born in the US or its territories, and have TWO US citizens in order to be considered Natural Born. Your Grandson is NOT a Natural Born Citizen and thankfully can NEVER run for POTUS.

[thecraw]

You got that backwards. It only makes sense to you because you use this issue to marginalize your conservative opponents because you are in the tank for your hero Barry Soetoro.

LOL, Obots such as yourself continually refuse to differentiate between a natural born American citizen and an American citizen made so by an act of law. Presidential eligilibity is, and never has been not a civil right.

[Mr. Blonde]

So far as I know, the Constitution does not define terms.

The courts have given definition and meaning to many of the clauses of the Constitution. So far as I know they have not directly tackled the meaning of natural born citizen.

Absent some writing from the Framers as to the meaning of Natural Born in the Constitution, I would assume we then look to English Common Law at the time. It is my understanding that anyone born in the empire was a British citizen, unless they were born to a foreign diplomat.

[ops33]

I agree. Both of my children were born in Germany when I was stationed there. It would be hard to imagine that the children born to US service members, while stationed overseas, are not Natural Born citizens.

[thecraw]

"Presidential eligilibity is, and never has been not a civil right." = Presidential eligilibity is not, and never has been a civil right.

Whoops!

[mlo]

"You CLEARLY by previous SCOTUS decision have to be born in the US or its territories, and have TWO US citizens in order to be considered Natural Born."

That is utterly false. In fact, the previous SCOTUS decisions have made it clear that a person born within the US, *regardless of the citizenship of the parents*, is natural born.

[Danae]

BS

Point to the SPECIFIC decision. You can’t it doesn’t exist.

Not Natural born, they are citizens, but NOT natural Born. that is entirely different.

[RegulatorCountry]

Why would a group of men, who had risked everything for their Revolution against the British monarchy, give any credence whatsoever to laws pertaining to subjects of the King Of England? American citizens, sailors and soldiers were subject to arrest by the British, right up to the War of 1812. They certainly were not going to continue right on recognizing that particular definition.

This is just the most astonishing claim that I've heard in association with this issue. Not that you're the only one to have made it; you're not. But, it's just nonsensical.

It's Vattel who laid out the requirements for natural born citizenship in a constitutional republic. Samuel Adams, John Quincy Adams and James Otis are recorded as having cited Vattel's Law Of Nations as early as 1764. Benjamin Franklin held Vattel in very high esteem. Our first Chief Justice John Jay likewise.

The meaning of the Constitutional term of art "natural born citizen" was clearly known and understood by the framers; they had a copy of Vattel with them at the original Constitutional Convention.

[RegulatorCountry]

In fact, the previous SCOTUS decisions have made it clear that a person born within the US, *regardless of the citizenship of the parents*, is natural born.

You are deliberately misstating facts. There has never been such a decision.

[Mr. Blonde]

Because many of our legal traditions are based in English common law. United States common law has its basis in English common law. As the country was very young at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, most of the concepts would be directly borrowed from the English.

It is in no way nonsensical to claim that we have a common law system, we do. It is in no way nonsensical to claim that it is based on the English common law system, it is.

I can’t imagine the Framers were setting out to reinvent the wheel in regards to our common law. It is from the English. Like it or not.

You say they have quoted Vattel, OK, did they quote him on this specific subject saying that is where they got the meaning. I would presume there were a number of books at the convention. Madison asked Jefferson to send him many books from Paris.