Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

JustiaGate
The Examiner ^ | 10-20-2011 | Dianna Cotter

Posted on 10/20/2011 1:12:42 PM PDT by Danae

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-289 next last
To: afraidfortherepublic; MS from the OC
As I understand it, he was born in a US territory, on a US Armed Forces base, in a US Armed Forces hospital.

No. As I understand it he was born in another hospital in Panama City -- not the military hospital. That was the whole problem.

John Sidney McCain III was born at the Colon Hospital, located at Avenida Melendez and 2nd Street, Manzanillo Island, City of Colon, Republic of Panama.  The time of birth on the birth certificate issued by Panama Railroad Company (that owned the Colon Hospital) was 5:25 PM and the day and date of birth was Saturday, August 29, 1936.

John McCain's father, John S. McCain Jr., was a US Naval officer serving in the Panama Canal Zone.  His mother was Roberta Wright.  Both were American citizens.
    
McCain gets his citizenship via the Immigration and Nationality Act -- "by statute."
     

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

 

(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;

    

Sec. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403] Persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

 

(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.

    
This case fails the test of jus soli -- NOT born in the USA
This case meets the test of jus sanguinis -- parents are US citizens
"At birth," this person was subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States and Panama,  This person has "dual citizenship" via his birthplace. He is NOT a "natural born" citizen, and is NOT eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

151 posted on 10/21/2011 5:15:44 AM PDT by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Danae

>Wouldn’t 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.


152 posted on 10/21/2011 5:15:44 AM PDT by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Danae

I put a link to your article on my Facebook account.


153 posted on 10/21/2011 5:26:49 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Bump


154 posted on 10/21/2011 6:20:57 AM PDT by BulletBobCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome; PA-RIVER
My recollection is that she said “Barrack will be President. You need to accept it”.

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"

155 posted on 10/21/2011 6:28:31 AM PDT by Vickery2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
To put it plainly and simply, I'm convinced that the closer we get to the next presidential election, the more will come out on Obama...deadly stuff revealed by hitherto unknown, perhaps fearful, persons who will soon be ready to spring traps on the usurper...or who will be emboldened to reveal dark secrets to those who stand readiy to spring the traps.

Leni

156 posted on 10/21/2011 6:41:27 AM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Semper911
Yes, of citizens the Constitution mentions ONLY “natural born” or “naturalized” - it most certainly does not differentiate between “native born” and “natural born” because the phrase “native born” does NOT exist in our Constitution.

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.

157 posted on 10/21/2011 7:39:01 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: bitt; Interesting Times

Thanks for the pings!


158 posted on 10/21/2011 8:01:47 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

You should really read my reply again.

Or not. I am moving on...


159 posted on 10/21/2011 8:11:11 AM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Munz

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.


160 posted on 10/21/2011 8:16:00 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: bitt; Danae; bluecat6; brityank

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.


161 posted on 10/21/2011 8:27:17 AM PDT by daisy mae for the usa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Semper911
People usually want to move on without discussing their mistakes.

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.

162 posted on 10/21/2011 8:31:58 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

I’d never advise anyone to pay attention to your agitprop.


163 posted on 10/21/2011 8:36:32 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The Constution contains the phrase "ourselves and our posterity." It's very similar to a phrase that is used in the Constitutions/Charters of the original states/colonies, where it mentions "us, our heirs and successors" and their children shall be natural-born subjects OR free denizens.
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.

164 posted on 10/21/2011 8:43:12 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Danae

So in June of 2008 references to NBC were being scrubbed and a COLB was being created for release? Hmmmm


165 posted on 10/21/2011 8:48:08 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Interesting that YOU say and even emphasize “OR” but the section you quote from Colonial charter says “and”.

“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”.

166 posted on 10/21/2011 8:49:14 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
A hospital as US Territory.... um ok.

The point is we should not have to even ask these questions. It was meant to be cut and dried. If we have to try and squeeze something, or stretch it to make it fit then there is a problem!!

The simple fact is, McCain was born in Colon Panama, outside the canal zone, off base. I dont think the canal zone was American territory legally speaking, I would have to research that (but it is irrelevant anyway... that being said, I would have campaigned AGAINST McCain had I known about this in 08 - and NO that doesn't mean I would have voted for Obama, I would have gone 3rd party and that IS NOT a vote for Obama). The base was American territory. He wasn't born on base. He is a citizen, but he isn't a Natural Born one. The founders intent was to eliminate ANY potential candidate with ANY uncertanty about their citizenship. McCain has some uncertanty about his. Sorry, but in survivor terms, that votes him off the island.

We wondered extensively why McCain didn't nail Obama on the fact he was an illegal candidate. He never had the LEGAL status to even run for the office!!! McCain didn't call him on it because he had similar problems of his own! That is the problem when you start down the slippery slope of "Making exceptions"... where do you stop drawing the line? Exactly.

Now either we stand on principles when it comes to the Constitution and major laws like Minor v. Happersett, or we don't. Supporting the constitution means that sometimes it doesn't go in your political direction. But damnit, some things are MORE important than politics, and this is one of them. It isn't nice or pretty and it doesn't give me a warm happy feeling. It is what it is.

Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio BOTH are not Natural Born Citizens. I suspect Rubio is well aware of it, because he refuses to seek out such a position. It means he and Jindal BOTH cannot ever run for POTUS or Veep, and I will campaign against both men on that basis. They are great conservatives and I love them both, but they aren't legally qualified to run for POTUS. I have blasted Obama for the fact he isn't an NBC, I can't go and turn myself into a hypocrite for the sake ofpolitical expediency. Neither should ANYONE else.
167 posted on 10/21/2011 8:49:20 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

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.


168 posted on 10/21/2011 8:51:57 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: bitt

:)

There are AWESOME people at FReep are there not??


169 posted on 10/21/2011 8:53:38 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Semper911

>> “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.”


170 posted on 10/21/2011 8:55:14 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa

Thanks Daisy!

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).


171 posted on 10/21/2011 9:03:35 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Danae

>> “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.


172 posted on 10/21/2011 9:04:55 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

Thank you!


173 posted on 10/21/2011 9:05:04 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

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.


174 posted on 10/21/2011 9:07:50 AM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

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.


175 posted on 10/21/2011 9:08:58 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]


Click to Talk to the Hand

You have the right to chatter your little head off.
Anything you say will be laughed at hysterically.
Requests for an attorney will be ignored.
No one's paying for a dang thing for you.
I don't care whether you understand or not.


Prevent this kind of abuse
Abolish FReepathons!   Go Monthly

176 posted on 10/21/2011 9:09:03 AM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

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.


177 posted on 10/21/2011 9:13:13 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Yes indeed.

This did not happen at Justia by accident. Not even slightly.


178 posted on 10/21/2011 9:15:00 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Semper911
U.S. law should always be a reflection of our best understanding of natural law.

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.

179 posted on 10/21/2011 9:15:52 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: brityank

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.


180 posted on 10/21/2011 9:23:22 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
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.

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.

181 posted on 10/21/2011 9:26:17 AM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

Thanks Interesting Times!

I hope that it makes a difference!


182 posted on 10/21/2011 9:37:31 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Interesting that YOU say and even emphasize “OR” but the section you quote from Colonial charter says “and”.

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.

183 posted on 10/21/2011 9:43:00 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Semper911

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.


184 posted on 10/21/2011 9:44:42 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
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.

BS

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.

185 posted on 10/21/2011 10:15:39 AM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

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.


186 posted on 10/21/2011 10:16:10 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Danae

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.


187 posted on 10/21/2011 10:23:07 AM PDT by daisy mae for the usa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

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.


188 posted on 10/21/2011 10:41:38 AM PDT by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa

With an unconstitutional POTUS anything is possible. He isn’t bound by the constitution.


189 posted on 10/21/2011 10:45:19 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Semper911

>> “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.”


190 posted on 10/21/2011 10:51:27 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: zot

>> “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.


191 posted on 10/21/2011 10:55:23 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Vickery2010
What Van Devanter held in Luria was that a naturalized citizen was not on an "equal footing" with the "native citizen" in respect to the issue of eligibility to be President. Van Devanter was an extremely careful and conservative strict constructionist. He carefully used the words "native citizen," not "natural born citizen." In doing so he cited the well known opinion of Marshall in Osborn v. Bank where Marshall makes the point that a "naturalized citizen" is a "creature of the law" as opposed to one of the Constitution. Marshall, in his concurring opinion in the Venus, where Marshall was joined by Livingston, made clear that the phrase "natural born citizen" differs from "native citizen" as the former is used in Art II and that as used in Article II the phrase was taken by the Framers from Vattel and in fact Marshall gives the exact translation from Vattel in the Venus. Thus, it is evident that in carefully adhering to Marshall's opinion in Luria Van Devanter was not holding that "native citizen" as a phrase is not the same as the phrase "natural born citizen" as that phrase describes presidential eligibility. It is necessary to be a "native citizen" to be eligible to be President, but neither Van Devanter in Luria or Marshall in Osborn v. Bank held that being "native born" was sufficient to be President.
192 posted on 10/21/2011 10:55:59 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

That’s interesting.


193 posted on 10/21/2011 10:57:42 AM PDT by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; allmendream; Semper911

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.


194 posted on 10/21/2011 10:58:14 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith

Thanks Beckwith!

That historical information is important!


195 posted on 10/21/2011 11:00:13 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

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.


196 posted on 10/21/2011 11:12:32 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

That was changed in 1795.


197 posted on 10/21/2011 11:14:24 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Indeed, under the provisions of the 1790 law 0bama would most certainly not be eligible.

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.

198 posted on 10/21/2011 11:16:22 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

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.


199 posted on 10/21/2011 11:24:53 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So you believe that a person born in the US of a citizen mother and a non-citizen father is a natural born citizen. We got it.

I disagree, as do many others, bet we've got it.

Why were the case law records scrubbed?

200 posted on 10/21/2011 11:25:29 AM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-289 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson