Skip to comments.JustiaGate
Posted on 10/20/2011 1:12:42 PM PDT by Danae
click here to read article
(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;
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
>Wouldnt have cared and the Law are two different things.
Either the law is the law, or we have total chaos.<
If we do not go by the intent of the law, then we are left with just the words. That is a problem with Orwell working overtime on doublespeak. Intent *is* what matters in law.
I put a link to your article on my Facebook account.
it was something like that but I have been unable to find that statement.
Is this what you're thinking of?
"My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president"
I am not arguing that the phrase “natural born citizen” isn't in the Constitution - that would be as idiotic as insisting it defined a term that did not exist within it.
Natural born or naturalized - the Constitution doesn't mention any third category of citizen.
Thanks for the pings!
You should really read my reply again.
Or not. I am moving on...
The intent of this law was to prevent anyone from assuming the Presidency who was not a Natural Born citizen, and Natural Born citizen was defined in Minor as a person born in the United States to two parents were were it’s citizens.
It really is just that cut and dried.
Bitt: thanks for ping!
Danae: Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention and the hard work you put into writing it. Yes, it must go viral. I understand the science on something going viral is to send the info. you want to go viral to those individuals who have large email lists and who constantly forward things. If FReepers knew such people and quickly acted...
Bluecat6: post 94 Thank you for properly aligning the point. It is important to see all things in their proper perspective.
Brityank: post 140 Actually, this is good, not bad. Those Republicans who might be willing to speak up, now have a way to do so.
The Constitution doesn't mention, let alone define, the term you said it differentiated from natural born citizen.
I would pass it off as an ignorant mistake if it were not incumbent upon birhters to invent a third category of US citizen from the two mentioned in the Constitution.
I’d never advise anyone to pay attention to your agitprop.
Also, Wee do for Us, our Heires, and Successors, declare by these Presents, that all and every the Persons, beinge our Subjects, which shall goe and inhabitt within the said Collony and Plantation, and every of their Children and Posterity, which shall happen to be born within the Limitts thereof, shall have and enjoy all Liberties, and ffranchizes, and Immunities of free Denizens and naturall Subjects within any of our other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abidinge and born within this our Kingdome of England, or any other our Dominions.
Notice how it says that every person being a subject which shall inhabit the colony and each of their children born with the limits shall enjoy all the liberties of free Denizens and natural subjects. This seems to be recognizing two different categories of persons at birth. The so-called "third category" of citizenship is created by the 14th amendment, where it recognizes persons born in the country, subject to the jurisdiction. IOW, it's now for people born there, not just those who are born of ourselves and our posterity.
So in June of 2008 references to NBC were being scrubbed and a COLB was being created for release? Hmmmm
“free Denizens and naturall Subjects”.
As is pointed out by those who claim KWArk doesn't say what it says - subjects are not citizens. ;)
The 14th Amendment doesn't invent a third category - there is not third category - before the 14th and after one was either born a citizen with natural allegiance or one needed to be “naturalized”.
Yes. But the Short Form was already in the public arena at “Fight the smears” and Fact check.
The scrubbing of Minor took place before Obama got the Nimination, but after it was apparent he was gonna win it.
There are AWESOME people at FReep are there not??
>> “Natural born or naturalized - the Constitution doesn’t mention any third category of citizen.” <<
I know that you know that your statement is deceptive.
The 14th ammendment created the third classification, but failed to give it a name. The SCOTUS gave it a name in the WKA decision: “Native Born.”
I know it sounds odd, but I really don’t have that long a list. And I hate promoting myself to friends and family and the parents group at my kids school... They have to deal with me in real life... thats bad enough LOL
Thank you for sending it to whom ever you have. This isn’t about me. I am just a witness and a reporter. I helped some, but the real recognition should go to Leo Donofrio. He is one of the good guys fighting against what I see as pure evil. He gets discouraged, and I can see why... to us it feels very much like we are spitting into the teeth of a hurricane. But as I said to him, we can’t give up, because then evil wins by default. That really isn’t an option. So the flack we take on a personal level in real life is worth it in the end. And yes, there are some repercussions in real life. I have gotten off easy so far. (Knocks on wood and throws salt over shoulder, rubs lucky coin and thanks God for his protection and grace).
>> “The scrubbing of Minor took place before Obama got the Nimination, but after it was apparent he was gonna win it.” <<
Proving that Obama’s people were well aware that he was not elligible before he was nominated.
I made a mistake and in my reply (the one you have failed to grasp) I restated what I meant.
But forget all that. Give me your definition of Natural Born Citizen. Then I’ll know if we have something to argue about.
To be honest, this is above and beyond party politics. I just want to Constitutionally qualified candidates. Those persons are BOUND by the constitution. Obama is NOT bound by the constitution becaue he is breaking it by even being there. THAT is why I am so passionate about this.
I don’t like Hillary, don’t get me wrong, I can’t stand the woman. But she would be BETTER than Obama by a long shot. She is BOUND by the constitution, and that limits her. Barry IS NOT and that means he can push ANYTHING constitutional or not (ahem.. Obamacare) on us and we are just sitting ducks because of it.
These things do matter.
Thank you Bellflower.
I was hoping that others would see the importance of this, pick up the ball and run with it. Leo is a little discouraged today. I can understand why. It was SO MUCH work. We are talking about 16-18 hours a day for 6 days or so for him. It is so time consuming to connect these dots. Then to record them, put them in order, give them context. Its amazing really. The man is brilliant.
We can’t let this slide. I love this nation, and I am so sick to death of what these people are doing to it.
This did not happen at Justia by accident. Not even slightly.
If someone is born a citizen under U.S. law, in recognition of the natural allegiance they have due to conditions of birth, they are a natural born citizen.
Of U.S. citizens, one is either a natural born citizen or one must be “naturalized” into that state of allegiance.
There is no third category.
Like most things people make up, they cannot seem to agree - that is why birthers tend to be all over the map as far as what this third category is.
Well, first, I am a Mam... lol a 42 year old one at that lol
Second, these corrupt bastards don’t need my help for plausable deniablity. There is NONE for Obama anyway. He KNOWS he was never an NBC, he just doesn’t give a $hit. He doesn’t give a crap about the constitution. He never did. He set it up so he could run, and he had the help of lots of progressive liberals who also hate the constitution and the nation.
Bureaucrats don’t have to pay for legal services, they are ALL free to them. Hellfire any member of congress can actually USE the Supreme Court Library, something us peons can’t do.
No, this was directed at the PUBLIC. The 300 million of us who could ahve changed the outcome by knowing that the cretin was an illegal candidate. The press was in his pocket petting the mouse so to speak (and to be somewhat vulgar, but then I find the press’s love affair with the man to be vulgar to begin with), so they were NOT going to tell the truth either.
So between an influential legal resource, barry himself and his team, the Press, and a whole bunch of idiots in love with “hope and Change” America in general got totally screwed.
We can’t undo the past, but MAYBE we can eliminate the possiblity of four more years of an illegal presidency. Personally I would ilke to see the oversized arrogant rat leave office in complete disgrace. But then I am a bit bent out of shape at what he has done.
So you believe it is not necessary for both parents to be US citizens?
Because that is the issue here -- Obama's father was not, and it is not even in dispute.
The "naturalized citizen" issue has nothing to do with this issue. The whole case turns on the definition of NBC.
This new information about the case law being scrubbed seems to suggest there are many others besides me who think Obama has an eligibility issue.
Thanks Interesting Times!
I hope that it makes a difference!
Sorry, but the conjunction is irrelevant, particularly when we look at how denizens were defined (from the William Blackstone commentaries):
A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them.
It's a separate term. This shows that those who are denizens or subjects and going to born denizens or subjects. Since they are separate entities, the "and" is not being used to combine the denizens and subjects as single characteristic.
As is pointed out by those who claim KWArk doesn't say what it says - subjects are not citizens. ;)
Right, and denizens are not subjects, so what exactly is your point?? I'm simply showing that you can be born as part of the dominion and not be natural born.
The 14th Amendment doesn't invent a third category - there is not third category - before the 14th and after one was either born a citizen with natural allegiance or one needed to be naturalized.
Sorry, but it is a third category. Justice Gray called it "citizenship by birth." He had to invent this third category because he admitted at least twice in the WKA decision that NBCs are not defined by the 14th amendment.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
When construing the 14th amendment, it (the Constituton) does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The means that those who are citizens via the birth clause of the 14th amendment are NOT NBCs.
According to the first naturalization act passed by Congress it was not necessary for both parents to be US citizens for a child to be a natural born citizen.
Obviously the view of who is a natural born citizen in 1790 was not an ironclad definition involving the necessity for two citizen parents at the time of birth.
The act says "parents" - PLURAL
Furthermore the act did NOT declare those meeting the criteria (two citizen parents) to BE natural born Citizens. It declared that they are to be 'CONSIDERED AS' natural born Citizens. Basically, it says - we know they are not, but we will call them than any way. And the only reason that would be necessary is for the office of President. So apparently, some members of Congress wanted their offspring to be eligible for President even if they were born visiting family in the old country.
The fact that the passages was dropped 5 years later indicates Congress probably knew they screwed up and just quietly dropped it. But clearly - parentage was the prime driver in viewing citizenship rites. The act basically waived the jus soli requirement, incorrectly. So it was fixed by just removing it.
SR 511 makes the same mistake in that is says the act defines the definition of a natural born Citizen. But interestingly, if SR 511 did have teeth and was accurate Obama could not be eligible.
Under the requirement in the natuarlization act of 1790, the father still needs to be a citizen. This would still exclude Obama from being an NBC, of course.
I left FR to work-out and do some other stuff, and while I was enjoying sweating to “boot camp” my mind freed up a little and I started remembering Obama’s swearing in.
I recall he was sworn in incorrectly, then re-sworn in. But, somewhere in there he and Biden had a meeting with the Supreme Court, and then Biden, in typical Joe fashion, made that bizarre statement about in 6 months... something, something,something... and you will have to get behind this president.
I can’t remember the exact words. But what went on in that meeting? Why did Biden say 6 months, instead of *approximately* six months, or *somewhere in the near future*? Am I even remembering correctly?
Could it be possible that they actually BLACKMAILED the supreme court? Is that why, when Obama had that state of the union address where he essentially humiliated the supreme court, they sat there and took it?
I know none of these questions are pertinent to this thread, exactly, but it relates because there may actually be a time line mapping out using these dates when things were scrubbed from Justia.
Willful intent to over-throw is looking possible to imply at the least. Especially when you factor in F&F and connections with Occupy through Van Jones, Inc./s, and O’s vocal support of the *movement*, which I am now suspecting is plan B if Plan A could not be carried out over a four year period. I am wondering if the Tea Party movement put a kink in Plan A.
All poor memory, speculation and opinion. Worthless, I am sure, but I can’t help contemplating.
Thanks for the ping. This cover-up shows that someone knew in advance of his nomination that zero isn’t eligible.
I am willing to bet, if they could be found, his college records show him as a citizen of Indonesia.
With an unconstitutional POTUS anything is possible. He isn’t bound by the constitution.
>> “U.S. law should always be a reflection of our best understanding of natural law.” <<
A fluffy, irrelevant statement at best.
>> “If someone is born a citizen under U.S. law, in recognition of the natural allegiance they have due to conditions of birth, they are a natural born citizen” <<
That describes the original “Natural Born” citizen, but leaves out many that are scooped up under the 14th amendment, who become citizens merely because their parents are here under a visa, but totally lack any allegiance or reason for allegiance, thus are not in conformance with the intent of the Natural Born requirement for the presidency, and in fact fly in the face of it.
The 14th amendment unquestionably created a third, loophole citizenship category without any allegiance that SCOTUS later named “Native Born.”
>> “I am willing to bet, if they could be found, his college records show him as a citizen of Indonesia.” <<
And, in addition, likely failing in all classes, or even expelled.
Not to mention that the 14th Amendment did not affect or change Minor V. Happersett 88 US 162, nor did it change the definition of Natural Born Citizen it codified into law.
Natural Born citizen = Born in the US or its territory + 2 parents who are citizens. This class of citizen has no other possible citizenship. It was this specific class of citizen which is eligible for POTUS and no other. Fair or not, it is the LAW. The law isn’t supposed to be fair. It is supposed to protect society at large. In this case it protects the entire nation from usurpation by a person with divided loyalties.
It is what it is. Fair is a subjective thing, and the law CANNOT ever be subjective.
That historical information is important!
It says those born of a citizen FATHER overseas.
So clearly the criteria understood in 1790 was not born in country of two citizen parents when a child born of a citizen father (one parent) overseas (not in the USA) was considered as a natural born citizen - thus there was no need to “naturalize” them - and they would be eligible for the Presidency.
That was changed in 1795.
But it is OBVIOUS to all but the deliberately obtuse that the 1790 law showed the supposed requirement of both citizen parents and born in country is a recent invention, not a well known and well understood universally accepted norm during the time of our founders, or subsequently - right up until shortly AFTER the 2008 election.
Part of that is due to the fact of Minor being scrubbed off the internet. I am CERTAIN this was not the only act of obfucation.
I disagree, as do many others, bet we've got it.
Why were the case law records scrubbed?
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.