Posted on 04/29/2010 11:38:41 AM PDT by K-oneTexas
Were ANY of the Founding Fathers “natural born citizens” of the United States?
No… they were not. Not even one of the Founding Fathers was a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, even though some of them had indeed been (native) born on what would become U.S. soil.
None of them were “natural born citizens” because all of the Founding Fathers were born prior to the existence of the United States of America. No one could be the “natural born citizen” of a nation that did not yet exist.
America declared its independent status as a sovereign nation on July 4, 1776, breaking away from England and British rule. But the United States of America was not formed until September of 1787, with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Founders had no choice but to exempt themselves from Article II—Section I—Clause V of the Constitution they wrote and ratified. But there would be no other exemptions or exceptions from that moment forward.
American citizens had better wake up and take action fast, as there is little time left to right their ship!
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
I think you mean US. vs Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
But it was indeed a pisser. But the decision wasn't written by Hughes, it was written by Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS, who usually did better work.
If you have a source where he, or "his people" claim he is natural born, post a link to it, or otherwise provide the source.
AFAIK, B.H. Obama Jr. and his people claim he is native born, not natural born. He might be,but they also claim his father was a subject of the UK, and became a citizen of Kenya after that country gained its independence. Thus BHO Jr, even if native born(born in the US), is not natural born(born in the US of parents who were its citizens at the time)
|
I think you mean US. vs Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Thank you, I stand corrected. Yes, McReynolds wrote it, but it was from the Hughes Court, that was overturned by the Roberts Court in 2008. By a 8-0 decision declaring that a sawed-off shotgun had no reasonable relation to the terms of the Second Amendment, the unanimous Hughes Court unwittingly set a precedent that denied millions of Americans firearms for DECADES that they had a CONSTITUTIONAL right to have for hunting, recreation and personal protection. That's pretty messed up. |
The Constitution was passed by the Convention in September of 1787, but was not ratified by the required 9 states until June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire ratified it. Followed in 4 days by Virginia and in just over a month by New York. NC and RI were holdouts until Nov. 1789 and May 1790 respectively.
But, the United States Of America, by that name, came into existance in March 1781 when the Articles of Confederation were ratified. (They had been sent out to the states in 1777, but there was other pressing business, plus a few state's legislatures were in hiding, or operating far from their normal venues. From the AofC:
Article I.The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
Although one could argue that the United States came into existence on July 4, 1776, with the passage "in Congress assembled" of the Declaration of Independence, since that document was subtitled "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America"
Here’s my rebuttal to your Post 12, broken down by Subpoint:
1) Stop being a douchebag.
2) The Hughes SCOTUS Court was NOT talking about the Constitutional definition of “natural-born Citizen” as it pertains to the President and CinC. NO OTHER OFFICE IN THE LAND as specified in the Constitution or elsewhere has the UNIQUE “natural-born Citizen” requirement in Art II, § 1, Clause 5. Deconstruction of the Constitutional definition of “natural-born Citizen” was NOT the charge of the Hughes Court in Perkins v. Elg (1939), and you know it.
3) The Hughes Court gave us all kinds of crappy rulings, INCLUDING the poorly-written US v. Heller (1939) opinion ... which gave us nearly 70 years of bad Local, State and Federal laws relating to “to keep and bear arms”, until it was overturned by the DC v. Heller opinion (2008).
4) As Minor v. Happersett (1874) CLEARLY instructs: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”
This Court STANDARD of deducing ANY Constitutional-meaning and definition refers to the texts used by the Framers at the time in 1787. In this case, it would refer to Vattel’s Law of Nations, Blackstone’s Commentaries and perhaps Locke ... NEITHER a 1869 Naturalization Treaty with Sweden, NOR a smattering of various 20th Century Immigration Laws.
If you’re lost on any of these four major arguments, just refer back to Subpoint 1 as it addresses the impetus of your confusion and motivation on this issue.
If you’re lost on any of these facts, I can’t help you.
Chief US District Judge for the District of Columbia Royce Lamberth in rejecting Orly Taitz’s quo warranto suit in “Taitz v Obama:” “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”
—April 14, 2010
Actually, not. But it is different from a Certification of Live Birth, a purported image of which was posted by the Obama campaign organization to the daily KOS and their own website.
It's most likely a forgery, but even taken at face value, it doesn't prove Obama is a natural born citizen. In fact if one assumes that BHO Sr was a subject of the UK, then taking the CoLB at face value proved that BHO is not a natural born citizen. Native born, but not natural born.
That of course assumes the CoLB is legit.
They did not even really declare that. They said "in the abense of any evidence" The Supreme Court hears arguments, it does not take evidence. They sent the case back to the trial court for "futher proceedings".
But by that time, Miller was dead, his co-defendant (in the original case) copped a plea and the original district court judge, who had ruled the law Unconstitutional based on violation of the Second Amendment, gave him probation, which he successfully served and was discharged from. Miller was shot with a .38, but he had fired several rounds from his own .45. Guess he wasn't a very good shot. or more likely faced multiple assailants.
No other additional proceedings were ever held, proceeding where such evidence, and there was plenty, of the usefulness in a militia/military situation of short shotguns could have been introduced. (They are useful in a Naval boarding or anti-boarding role, for cavalry, or in a modern context, vehicle crews. Although that role has been somewhat supplanted by Short stocked Carbines, with what would be illegally short barrels under the National Firearms Act, but in 1939 they had not been. Even the sub-machine gun had not yet really replaced them. Although the WW-II "M3 Grease gun" and the M1 Carbine finally began to do so.
“Natural born citizen cannot be changed or amended it is a natural law.”
“That’s true”
The parents..have to be citizens..in order for the child to
be..natural born..
Please strike the parents being natural born..that is not what I meant..they have to be citizens..
They could be naturalized... citizens.
When the Founders placed the words natural born citizen..do u agree it is a natural law?
If it is a natural law....how..can man change it?
If man can change natural law..how?
Please bear with me..
Justanian said natural law cannot be changed..it is fixed. Man can only change his laws..
Thanks for the info.
A “Certification of Live Birth” is a short form birth certificate. The information included in the document may differ from state to state.
A “Certificate of Live Birth,” is the long form birth certificate and contains more detailed information, including signatures of doctor(s), witnesses, vital statistics (length and weight), etc.
Frankly without a court of competent jurisdiction resolving the issue or stating it is a forgery ... they can continue to stonewall till the end of time and as such others opinions do not matter. Except at the ballot box.
Excellent information. Thanks very much!
Even the name of the form changes from state to state. But in all cases, it is an abstract, containing only part of the information on the original. It's not a copy of anything, but just an abstract prepared on demand.
Most offical birth certificates do not contain height and weight or footprints. Although one wonders why they don't have a foot or handprint to tie the child to the piece of paper. The real problem is that they contain insufficient information for independent verification. For example w/o the hospital name, hospital records can't be checked. Ditto the doctor's name. Or if there even are a hospital and doctor's name listed. Could have been filed as a "home birth", but if so there would still be a "witness" in lieu of a doctor's name.
Another and even larger problem, at for Hawaiian CoLBs, is that they do not reflect the type of original certificate, "normal", "delayed", or even "Certificate of Hawaiian birth. (although in BHO Jr's case it would have been a regular certificate, since there is less than a year between the birth date shown and the date filed shown.) Still another problem is that the computer printout is much easier to forge than a copy of an old doctument with signatures, stamps and so forth.
They were very specific. I just pointed out that one could be both "A natural born citizen of the United States and a citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption" of the Constitution. And two Presidents were.
But there has been no binding ruling on the subject. There can't have been, since it only comes up in regards to Presidential eligibility.
But what is "accepted in the latter half of the 20th century" matters not. What matters is what was accepted as the meaning of "natural born citizen" in 1787.
The Constitution is a contract, it means what it meant when written, unless changed by the procedures specified therein. There is no amendment changing the meaning of "natural born citizen", therefore it means what it did when the Constitution was written, passed and ratified.
Not what the Constitution says. It says:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
So, you must believe that someone who is ineligible to the Office of President, can actually be President, since that doesn't mention "ineligible usurper" as being impeachable and removable under that process.
II. Natural, Common, and Civil Law.Natural law belongs to all animals. Yet there is no such thing as natural born citizenship for animals, only men. So natural born citizen cannot be a natural law. Therefore it has to be common or civil law according to the source you cited.The law of nature is that law which nature teaches to all animals. For this law does not belong exclusively to the human race, but belongs to all animals, whether of the earth, the air, or the water. Hence comes the union of the male and female, which we term matrimony; hence the procreation and bringing up of children. We see, indeed, that all the other animals besides men are considered as having knowledge of this law.
It could be an unwritten law.
9. The unwritten law is that which usage has established; for ancient customs, being sanctioned by the consent of those who adopt them, are like laws.You left out the important part of the following quote.
11. The laws of nature, which all nations observe alike, being established by a divine providence, remain ever fixed and immutable. But the laws which every state has enacted, undergo frequent changes, either by the tacit consent of the people, or by a new law being subsequently passed.God says who is a natural man. Man says who is a natural born citizen.
The person whose electoral college votes are certified and who is sworn in is the president and that person can only be removed from the presidency by death, resignation or conviction under a bill of impeachment.
Not what the Constitution says. It says:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
So, you must believe that someone who is ineligible to the Office of President, can actually be President, since that doesn’t mention “ineligible usurper” as being impeachable and removable under that process.
On the issue of usurpation and removal by a Writ of Quo Warranto: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Court for the District of Columbia in rejecting Orly Taitz’s quo warranto attempt.
“God says who is a natural man. Man says who is a natural born citizen.”
Please show me where the Founders said who is a 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.
