Posted on 07/03/2011 4:28:11 AM PDT by HMS Surprise
Fact-checkers are welcome to peruse my post titled Natural-born Citizens if they at any time doubt my previous sentiments concerning the “birther” issue…
I have never relished the notion that a sitting President, duly-elected, would ever be bounced from office because of something beyond his or her control, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore facts. Ignoring the facts is exactly what has delivered this nation to the brink of disaster.
Before the release of Obama’s alleged long-form birth certificate I was of the opinion that the President was on much firmer ground legally if such a document was never released.
Why? Because, dear comrade, much more germane to the establishment of “natural-born” bona fides is the citizenship of the parents, not the place of birth. Since Obama’s likely father was Barack Sr., it was probable that the long-form birth certificate would actually establish once and for all that Barack Jr., although still probably a U.S. citizen, was ineligible to be President.
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...
Who would decide what is “bogus” or “fabricated?”
An example in law is the dreaded clause; “and permission to do XXXXX will not be unreasonably withheld.” It's that word “unreasonably” that gets you into (expensive) court every time.
What one side sees as unreasonable, the other sees as highly reasonable.
It's a land mine waiting to explode.
“The fact that so many 5/4 decisions occur is in my mind proof that our highest court functions more as a projection of democracy than a deliberative body. It’s easy to predict which way most of the justices will vote on most issues.”
That’s a very astute observation. I couldn’t agree with you more.
You might find this interesting and confirming. It’s from last Sunday’s LA Times.
2010-11 Supreme Court Justices’ Agreement Rates by pairs:
Roberts-Alito: 96.2%
Sotomayor-Kagan: 94.0%
Bader-Ginsberg-Kagan: 90.4%
Roberts-Scalia: 89.9%
Roberts-Kennedy: 89.9%
Thomas-Alito: 88.8%
Roberts-Thomas: 88.6%
Breyer-Kagan: 88.5%
Kennedy-Alito: 87.5%
Breyer-Sotomayor: 87.2%
Lowest Agreement Rates by Justice Pairs
Bader-Ginsberg-Alito: 62.5%
Roberts-Bader-Ginsberg: 64.6%
Thomas-Bader-Ginsberg: 65%
Scalia-Breyer: 65%
Scalia-Bader-Ginsberg: 65%
Thomas-Kagan: 65.4%
Kennedy-Ginsberg: 66.3%
Scalia-Sotomayor: 66.7%
Alito-Kagan: 67.3%
Thomas-Sotomayor: 67.9%
I agree, and I have already been corrected on his being born in a panama hospital. Apparently it was one of the left's dirty tricks that managed to go viral.
Also, it is correc that Jindal CANNOT be POTUS because is parents WERE NOT U.S. citizens at his birth....potential divided loyalties.
Although I have no concerns about either Jindal or Rubio's allegiance to this nation, My understanding of the principle behind Article II, precludes them from qualifying. I'm not saying the founders were correct in these particular cases, but their admonishment is what it is.
IF what the drafters of the U.S. Constitution intentions were (and IT MATTERS TO ME) John McCain is a NBC whereas Barrack Obama is NOT. However, the SCOTUS refuses to take up the issue. I think they are wrong to do this....even if they were to rule against my views on a NBC. The issue has to be decided by the SCOTUS. OR, congress (or individual States) needs to inact legislation that clearly defines a NBC as a person born with no dividd loyalties (meaning two U.S. Citizen Parents). This would FORCE the SCOTUS to hear the case.
I agree. It is perverse that the citizenship of a child of two Americans fighting in the nation's service would be deprived of his birthright, while an obviously alien minded half citizen would somehow be regarded as legitimate.
At this late stage I will be satisfied with just keeping Mr. Obama from being reelected by electing a conservative NBC.
Me too, but keeping him from getting reelected will be no easy matter. The Media gifts him the equivalent of a billion dollars worth of free advertising. I have long stated that Americans need to spend more time trying to wipe out the liberal influence in media. Buying stock in media companies, bringing lawsuits against them for bias, we need to sink their ships by overwhelming them with trouble due to their liberal bias.
McCain's eligibility was an issue in this regard. I believe, had he been born in the States proper, he would have had less compunction about bringing up the issue of being a "Natural Born Citizen." I wonder how many primary voters knew that McCain was not born in the States? I know I didn't. As it is, I believe McCain, because he had concerns about the public impression of his own status, chose not to throw rocks at Barack about his. Had we chosen another candidate, I believe Barack's eligibility would have been questioned in court, and the court of public opinion.
It’s a land mine waiting to explode.
I cannot fathom how requiring candidates for President to provide proof that they were born to two American Parents, ostensibly on American soil should be subjectable to tampering. It's seems to have d@mn little wiggle room.
Lowest Agreement Rates by Justice Pairs Bader-Ginsberg-Alito: 62.5% Roberts-Bader-Ginsberg: 64.6% Thomas-Bader-Ginsberg: 65% Scalia-Breyer: 65% Scalia-Bader-Ginsberg: 65% Thomas-Kagan: 65.4% Kennedy-Ginsberg: 66.3% Scalia-Sotomayor: 66.7% Alito-Kagan: 67.3% Thomas-Sotomayor: 67.9%
Exactly. The Supreme court, and Federal Courts in general have become nothing more than political extensions of the parties into the Judiciary. Democrat appointed judges are nitwits/saboteurs and Republican appointed judges range from Rinos to reasonable. The notion that Democrat appointed judges are "interpreting" anything is just stupid. They are "activist" judges making up crap as they go along.
Exactly. The Supreme court, and Federal Courts in general have become nothing more than political extensions of the parties into the Judiciary. Democrat appointed judges are nitwits/saboteurs and Republican appointed judges range from Rinos to reasonable. The notion that Democrat appointed judges are “interpreting” anything is just stupid. They are “activist” judges making up crap as they go along.
McCain’s eligibility was an issue in this regard. I believe, had he been born in the States proper, he would have had less compunction about bringing up the issue of being a “Natural Born Citizen.” I wonder how many primary voters knew that McCain was not born in the States? I know I didn’t. As it is, I believe McCain, because he had concerns about the public impression of his own status, chose not to throw rocks at Barack about his. Had we chosen another candidate, I believe Barack’s eligibility would have been questioned in court, and the court of public opinion.
First, the law does not require parents to be American citizens, just not persons overwhom the US has no jurisdiction, i.e. diplomats, etc.
For example, friend here is daughter of former Russian General Contractor who built the big Sov. Embassy in Washington back in the Cold War days. He had diplomatic immunity, but his wife was there in Washington with him, and a Soviet citizen, she never went to the process of becoming a declared diplomat with the appropriate immunity, etc.
When the wife got pregnant and about two weeks away from delivering, out of courtesy to her, the State Department gave her a choice of either flying back to Moscow and delivering in a Russian hospital, or staying in Washington and when the baby came, going up to Bethesda Naval Hospital and delivering their. Mama is no dummy, and already having had one child in a Russian hospital, she immediately chose Bethesda as where she wanted to deliver Irena.
Much later, at age 14, Irena and the rest of the family returned to Moscow. At about 16, one evening she said her mother “Mama, you always told me we were going home to Moscow to the Workers Paradise. There are many workers.. But where’s the Paradise?
Having grown up in Washington, Irena knew what it was like to live under the two competing systems. So, on her 18th birthday she presented herself at the US Embassy in Moscow along with her birth certificate and proudly announced “I am an American citizen and I want to go home!”
Luckily, the officials at Bethesda had footprinted her when she was born, so she had no difficulty proving her identity. She now lives here and is married to a former senior member of the Polish anti-Communist group “Solidarity”, hates communists, and thinks Ronald Reagan was the greatest man who ever walked on the face of the earth!
Secondly, the problem is to define “proof” A birth certificate? Obama and his supporters say he has one of them....
I certainly agree with your intentions here, and wish there was a way to make it work. Unfortunately, from a purely legal and practical standpoint, I see of leading us down a very slippery slope where serious Democrat party-infected legislatures could make life hell for Republican candidates.
It is now. People don't criticize the Emperor's new clothes in polite company. To do so would be to admit they were fooled in the first place.
Luckily, the officials at Bethesda had footprinted her when she was born, so she had no difficulty proving her identity. She now lives here and is married to a former senior member of the Polish anti-Communist group “Solidarity”, hates communists, and thinks Ronald Reagan was the greatest man who ever walked on the face of the earth!
Secondly, the problem is to define “proof” A birth certificate? Obama and his supporters say he has one of them....
I certainly agree with your intentions here, and wish there was a way to make it work. Unfortunately, from a purely legal and practical standpoint, I see of leading us down a very slippery slope where serious Democrat party-infected legislatures could make life hell for Republican candidates.
A heart warming story, but besides the point. We are not discussing "citizenship." we are discussing "Natural Born Citizen" status. Citizens by statute are still citizens with all the amenities and privileges that brings but one. They cannot be President.
It is fortunate for the Girl that the Russians recognized her claim to U.S. citizenship, because they didn't have to. In any case her claim of citizenship rests on what I believe is a misapplication of the 14th amendment. She is, in effect, an "anchor baby", and probably would not have been recognized as a citizen if the 14th Amendment was understood correctly.
But it sounds like she is a welcome addition to our nation.
On a related note, I have been perusing the archives of the Senate and the House to read about the debates in Congress regarding the “naturalization act of 1790.” It may surprise people to learn that the congress was VERY INTERESTED in getting foreigners to come to America and become Citizens. Some argued that the requirements should be very loose, and even nonexistent. Others argued that we didn’t want criminals, neer-do-wells, riff-raff and Merchants. (Yes, they actually didn’t want merchants. :) ) They wanted Farmers, Machinists, manufacturers, and productive members of society.
The eagerness with which they sought new citizens is quite in contrast with their specific exclusion of the children of foreign fathers as citizens.
If you want to peruse the debates yourself, here is the index to the page numbers for the debates in the house regarding the “Naturalization act of 1790.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=650
Just look under “Naturalization, a bill establishing...”
There are two classes of citizenship now recognized by the courts, Natural and Naturalized. A Natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen at the moment of birth, without any additional operation of law or legal application or proceeding.
Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401 of the United States Code defines such Natural citizens as
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) 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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
The second category is “Naturalized” that means “to be made as if natural (subject to certain restrictions.)” These are the citizens who were NOT “Natural” citizens at the moment of their birth, but were later made citizens by an operation of law, such as applying for citizenship.
BTW, the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not relate to a parent's citizenship, but rather to the rare situation where the parents would not be subject to US laws, such as a parent with diplomatic immunity or a POW.
Finally, it the most foolish of assumptions that a 21st Century court is going to separate “native born” from “natural-born” and somehow declare that a 1401 qualified citizen is not Constitutionally qualified to be president.
All these postings that "so and so claims that" or "in 1875, some court held," are simply the product of mental masturbation. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not playing with a full deck. 1401 is the law. amd any change from prior law or decisions inures to Obama's benefit.
This BS reminds me of the tax protester who claimed that the judge had no authority to sentence him after a guilty verdict because the American flag flying in the courtroom had gold fringe around the edges of it, and that made it an Admiralty flag, and the US District Court was not an Admiralty Court, so he could not be sentenced in that court.
The Judge said, "Son, you are sentenced to 4 years for tax evasion, and regarding the flag, you may be right. It's something you can think about for those 4 years!"
IF OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII, we are wasting our time on the eligibility issue, and losing time and effort on the other real issues.
Your use of the term “natural citizen” when referring to Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401 is deceptive. The term used in the US Code is “Citizen of the United States at birth.” Nowhere in that section of the US Code does the word “natural” appear. However the word “NATIONAL” does appear in that section.
It would be great to get a definitive Supreme Court ruling on whether there is any difference between an Article II, Section 1 “natural born citizen” and a Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401 “Citizen of the United States at Birth.”
It is the debate over that difference or if there is no difference that fuels the Obama eligibility debate.
Fallacy of False choice:----- There are THREE classes of Citizens. "Natural Born Citizens",(Sole allegiance) Citizens of two or more nationalities,(divided allegiance) and Citizens by Statute. (uncertain allegiance.)
Fallacy of Authority:----- Just because the courts do not recognize it does not mean that it isn't valid. The founders had no conception of a child born to divided allegiance. In 1787 the citizenship of the child always followed the father. (So did that of the wife.) It wasn't until Congress (by statute) gave women the right to pass on citizenship did divided allegiances even become possible.
Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401 of the United States Code defines such Natural citizens as..."
Every time someone tries to trot out US Statutes, I ask the same question. How can a statute override an ARTICLE? The US Constitution trumps any and all statutes. It's meaning CANNOT be modified by statute.
Finally, it the most foolish of assumptions that a 21st Century court is going to separate “native born” from “natural-born” and somehow declare that a 1401 qualified citizen is not Constitutionally qualified to be president.
I am well familiar with the phenomenon of courts ignoring reality in favor of whichever way the popular winds are blowing. To acknowledge that the courts often enforce ridiculous rulings is not to agree that those rulings are just or lawful. They are simply the result of letting ignorant and foolish people don the black robes and preside over others. I have long thought the courts needed some comeuppance, and I hope some day they receive it.
IF OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII, we are wasting our time on the eligibility issue, and losing time and effort on the other real issues.
I disagree. I think the founders would have regarded him as completely ineligible because his father was a visiting British subject. I think any tolerance of foreign allegiance is anathema to the principles they espoused, but I see how you think people's time would be better spent in other efforts.
A few items. First, just because you don't a law, it doesn't mean it is not operative. 1401 is law, whether you like it or not.
Secondly, again, sorry, but your personal interpretation of everything from the Constitution to law is at huge divergence from legal thought, and the whole system of law we have all agreed to as a civil society to be governed by. You want to have the right to interpret every law as you see fit. Go ahead. That's called anarchy.
Your fictional classification of citizenship are just that, fictional. They are also impractical. For example, you define natural born citizens as having “sole allegiance” and naturalized citizens as having “uncertain allegiance.”
Besides having no foundation in law or Constitution, that does not work in the real world. Place of birth is no guarantee of allegiance and loyalty, as demonstrated by American-born Al-Quida and Taliban operatives. On the other hand, it could be well argued that naturalized citizens have chosen who and what to be loyal to, rather than simply having it given to them, as a sometimes un-valued gift.
The sole fact that Obama’s father was a British subject certainly does not BY ITSELF disqualify him. Unless your DNA somehow is rooted 1,000,000 years ago in Kansas, your relatives came from somewhere too. Also, are we so blind that we cast the “sins of the father upon the son?”
Please, the issue of Obama’s citizenship IF HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII is settled law. It's called reality. Try it.
Plus, wouldn't we all love a ruling on “well-ordered Militia!”
Every operative decision of the USSC and every piece of legislation points to those two classifications. Yes it would be great if USSC said once and for all that Natural Born and Native Born are the same thing.
Plus, wouldn’t we all love a ruling on “well-ordered Militia!”
Justice Scalia: “But has not been called natural born citizenship? I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England? They did not want that.They wanted natural born Americans.”
Mr. Davis: “Yes, by the same token…”
Justice Scalia: “That is jus soli, isn’t it?”
…
Justice Scalia: “Well, maybe.
I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?”
Nary a mention of Jus Sanguinis or two citizen parents being required for natural born citizen status.
Scalia is asking questions, not giving an opinion.
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.