Posted on 09/30/2011 12:35:26 AM PDT by Yosemitest
Consider as well that in 1868, the year the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress passed the Expatriation Act. This act permitted American citizens to renounce their allegiance and alienate their citizenship. This piece of legislation was supported by Senator Howard and other leading architects of the Fourteenth Amendment, and characterized the right of expatriation as “a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatible with the common law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship. One member of the House expressed the general sense of the Congress when he proclaimed: “The old feudal doctrine stated by Blackstone and adopted as part of the common law of England . . . is not only at war with the theory of our institutions, but is equally at war with every principle of justice and of sound public policy.” The common law established what was characterized as an “indefensible doctrine of indefeasible allegiance,” a feudal doctrine wholly at odds with republican government.
In sum, this legacy of feudalism - which we today call birthright citizenship - was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868...
The same kind of confusion that has led us to accept birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens has led us to tolerate dual citizenship. We recall that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specified that those who are naturalized must owe exclusive allegiance to the U.S. to be included within its jurisdiction. And the citizenship oath taken today still requires a pledge of such allegiance. But in practice dual citizenship - and dual allegiance - is allowed. This is a sign of the decline of American citizenship and of America as a nation-state.
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=12508
Again, the subject matter at hand is Mark's unethical abuse of the law by misquoteing it to suit his personal political beliefs.
It does beg the question; If your intention was to be an American, why wait 20 years? It certainly seems as if he held out hope for a "free Cuba" to which he intended to return. More's the pity for his son; Sunk on a technicality.
Exactly, loyalty to ones home country runs deep as was shown during the revolution when children were pitted against parents & husband against wives. That is the entire crux of feudalism, to pit families against each other for the sake of an all powerful government.
This is a critical issue that needs to be resolved. But it will not be settled in the courts, rather it needs to be settled in Congress where the SCOTUS just correctly ruled that according to the US Constitution Congress has full plenary power over all aspects if immigration including that of children born to aliens on US soil. Plenary power of Congress is the only truth of birthright citizenship that Levin has actually spoken the truth on. Thank goodness I have the audio of his words archived & saved through Carbonite.
don't give me diatribe from a liberal left leaning website that was created to support the notion that obama was always eligible.
For the record, I have read the entire 1967 record & what is posted is edited to fit the views of the website. Any true conservative freeper knows that any site that purports anything written by “FOGGY” has been proven to twist the truth. So much for your credibility OBOT!!!
You see the trap that Obots always fall into is the fact that at the time George Romney was born, Mexico did not recognize children born in Mexico to resident aliens in as citizens of Mexico. The were listede as citizens of the country of the parents. Thus George Romney was born an American citizen & nothing else. Knowing the law is critical if you are going to spout off & paste info that you have no clue what it pertains to. Especially propaganda from an established OBOT website.
Mr Dowdy: I have recently read an unpublished essay or brief on the meaning of the phrase as it may apply to a current prominent possible candidate for the office of President (names the person). As it is not otherwise available, and may be of interest to the Members of this Congress and others, I would incorporate in the Record as a part of my remarks, that it might MY BE EASILY AVAILABLE FOR CONSIDERATION WITH OTHER DISSERTATIONS ON THE SUBJECT, TO SHED WHATEVER LIGHT IT MERITS.
Then the writer of the UNPUBLISHED paper goes on to say that the US adopted in whole, English feudal law as the definition of citizen when in fact the very 1st Supreme court case after the adoption of the US Constitution says otherwise. Then the most unhonorable judge who wrote the UNPUBLISHED essay went on to misquote Mexican law from information furnished to him, rather than actually looking up the law himself. It is no wonder that this essay was never published and only made it into the archives of Congress to die a slow death.
Interesting as I have it in print & it has always read just fine. One could say that that entire bogus UNPUBLISHED essay was written specifically for the one that proffered it for congressional review. The same as Obama uing Tribe to write the dissertation for S.Res.511 in which Tribe interjects Obama at the end as if to sanitize Obama’ eligibility by using quotes from dissenting Supreme Court opinions as well as English law that the founders clearly had rejected. Like Christianity who only reads the back of the book, politically bias people and their posse of detractors only read the front of St George Tucker's Blackstone & disregard the back wherein Tucker tears apart Blackstone & English law and then corrects it with the proper use of natural law used by the founders. Thus the problem Mark has, he obviously was taught during the liberal parts of his legal education to quote only the front of the book when personal politics are involved, Constitution be damned!
OK, I'll give you the benefit of doubt. The best & fastest way to ruin your credibility is to cite from a known OBOT site. Any site that links to anyone named FOGGY, PJ FOGGY, DrConspiracy or obamaconspiracy, etc, etc is nothing but a site to detract from the truth. They take quotes then edit & parse them to fit their delusion that feudal birthright citizenship is equal to Article natural born citizenship. If you want to be taken with credibility, I wouldn't be quoting anything from any website that supports & claims Obama is eligible.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 14, 1967 pg 15875, column 2, paragraph 3
Putting words in my mouth does not help your cause the same as citing propaganda from an OBOT website will not merit you any credibility as it has been proven to be taken out of context, i.e. the quote you prove, as nowhere IN ANY SCOTUS decision is a child born to aliens called “natural born”. This UNPUBLISHED essay states that WKA was deemed a natural born citizen, when in fact the opposite IS true, WKA was deemed “as much a citizen” (in the sense of rights) as the “natural born”. WKA claimed to be natural born, but the court refused to uphold that by stating fictitiously that according to statute, WKA was a citizen using English law instead of 100 years of settled US law to make the decision, the most current one at the time being a the courts decision written by Gray himself that upheld the 14th as meaning birth on soil alone constitutes citizenship & in that case he did cite 100 yrs of US law. The Elk case upheld the 14th as being constitutional in rejecting citizenship based purely on birth on US soil. Being president is not a right as the politically biased people claim, it is a privilege and right & privilege have never held the same meaning in any society.
citing propaganda from an OBOT website will not merit you any credibility as it has been proven to be taken out of context (i.e. the quote you give) as nowhere IN ANY SCOTUS decision is a child born to aliens called “natural born”. This UNPUBLISHED essay states that WKA was deemed a natural born citizen. In fact the opposite IS true, WKA was deemed “as much a citizen” (in the sense of rights) as the “natural born”. WKA claimed to be natural born, but the court refused to uphold that by stating fictitiously that according to statute, WKA was a citizen using English law instead of 100 years of settled US law to make the decision. The most current SCOTUS decision at the time was written by Gray himself and that decision upheld the US Govt policy of the 14th denying birth on soil alone as an avenue to citizenship & in that case Gray did cite 100 yrs of US law never touching English law. The Elk case upheld the 14th as being constitutional in rejecting citizenship based purely on birth on US soil. Being president is not a right as the politically biased people claim, it is a privilege and right & privilege have never held the same meaning in any society. But when the legitimacy of a judges appointment comes into question as did Gray's, politics breeds corruption & thus the raping of 14th Amendment citizenship since 1898.
Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen Rush, thats why.
It takes a person naturally being a citizen because both their parents were citizens and you were born here. Naturally you can have no other citizenship -just that one. Thats what Natural Born citizen means.
Rubio’s parents were un-naturalized citizens of another country. Rubio inherited his parents citizenship. That means he was BORN a dual citizen, not naturally born with just American Citizenship.
Any ticket with Rubio is just as unconstitutional as Barack Obama and I will stick to my principles on this.
The ending of this unpublished essay is quite telling because Pinckney claims that both WKA & Minor v Happersett use English law to define NBC, when in fact Minor v Happersett conclusively uses natural and almost quote Vattel verbatim in saying that a NBC is one born of citizen parents, both parents must be US citizens at the time of the child's birth.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
OTOH, if one goes to the founding era & brings up the congressional archives of a Mr Pinckney, he is very clear that a natural born is of 2 US citizen parents, all others even though they may be native to the soil are naturalized citizens or native citizens at the founding as they were Brits before the revolution, thus the reason for the grandfather clause in Article II: “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
From one of my earliest articles:
Historical Fact #3: Additionally, in 1800, Charles Pinckney (Continental Congress (1777-78 and 1784-87) and S.C. state legislature (1779-80, 1786-89, and 1792-96) said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure…attachment to the country”:
“What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.”
So it is quite ironic that the obots chose to use an unpublished opinion of a man who has the same surname as that of one of our founding fathers who actually signed the US Constitution.
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.