Posted on 10/27/2011 8:22:46 AM PDT by GregNH
Tight logic.
“Up Twinkles” :)
If the Father was truly Unknown, there would be no tie or influence to any foreign country. So I suspect that would be a NBC.... and a bastard.
Nature makes Natural born Citizenship. Two citizens having a baby in their home country is Natural citizenship for the baby.
A Kenyan Citizen having a baby in the USA is not a Natural birth of citizenship. It needs to be decided by law. When Obama was 21 he had to decide what his citizenship was. By law he had a legal choice. Kenyan or American. He chose to be American when he declined his birth right to Kenyan citizenship, even while calling Kenya his home country. In effect, He naturalized himself at age 21.
Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, as amended, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning "declaration of renunciation" at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,” there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any "declaration of renunciation" of his British citizenship.What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya's 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of Obama’s and his father’s birth. Obama’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite Kenya’s independence and new constitution.
Obama, the Putative President of the U.S., was Born a British Subject
“The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”
You have got to be kidding.
“That’s not the Constitution. It’s the Declaration that created the US.”
One might say the Declaration created an independent American nation, but not the U.S., which did not exist until 1788. Go ahead and say we are “citizens” of the abstract union of various anglo-derived, North American states birthed in 1776. But you would be using the term metaphorically. One cannot be a citizen of a lowercase “u” union, rather only of an actually existing government.
There is room for argument over the continuity from the Continental Congress through the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. Meaning there was a single nation of which to be a citizen, with slightly altered legal form. I’d argue the states are what was continuous, and the nation a ideal construct. Certainly there was no continuity between the AofC and the Constitution, since ratification of the latter violated the AofC’s amendment process.
“The Constitution created the republican form of government within which the states agreed to operate.”
Yes, and it is that form of government, namely the U.S., of which now we are citizens.
“The United States existed by the signing of the Declaration of Independence.”
No, a certain union of states under the Continental Congress existed by the signing of the Declaration. When people say “the United States,” in caps like that, they are referring specifically to the system of government coming into existence upon the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. It is under that document, and no other, that you (presumably), me, and Obama are citizens.
“You said ‘How could they be, when the U.S. didn’t yet exist?’ in your response to my quoting the Preamble.”
Yes. One cannot be a citizen of a country which doesn’t yet exist.
“If the Father was truly Unknown, there would be no tie or influence to any foreign country.”
I’m confused. Do you mean God the Father (hence the capitalization)?
“once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21”
So what? it wouldn’t alter his U.S. status, which is his inalienable birthright to claim.
“Obama continues to be a British citizen”
Let’s say he does. So what? Nothing says an NBC can’t be born a dual citizen, despite birthers’ fever dreams.
Si se pueda
Do you mean Allah?
Now, what if a child is born in the USA to a Kenyan citizen, yet is adopted and raised in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen. Then returns to the USA and is stripped of his Indonesian citizenship. Then calls Kenya his home Country, as an adult. Then run for US president.
Would this be called a Natural Born Traitor or a Hopelessly Confused SOB?
“the anti-birthers/anti-Constitutionalists constantly repeat their claim that any anchor baby could be president.”
Nonsense. Babies can’t be president. “Attained to the Age of thirty-five Years,” the Constitution requires.
“You said that ‘natural born citizen’ meant ‘citizen at birth’. It doesn’t, because the former is a subset of the latter.”
Your set theory is almost as bad as your law. Any set is a subset of itself.
If you want to show that the two sets are not equal, just show one case where a U.S. court held some person is both in one of the sets and not in the other. If you think this class of citizens from birth that are not natal-born citizens is non-empty, show one clear member.
The definition of NBC as offered by the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett is self-limiting ... “as distinguished from foreigners and aliens.” Even under the errant common-law theory of NBC, dual citizenship is precluded from the concept of natural born ... “And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.”
Mine too. I am very nervous about some groups trying to push Rubio or Jindal as POTUS material. I think Jindal is doing great as Louisiana's governor. Keep him there.
“Per your definition, yes, a Mexican national citizen can become president after picking tomatoes here for 14 seasons, and then securing the democrat nomination.”
Huh?
“as distinguished from foreigners and aliens”
But persons born on U.S. soil are not aliens, as
“The definition of NBC as offered by the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett is self-limiting”
Says who? Show me the part where it says persons born on U.S. soil to citizen parents and *only* such persons are NBCs. Or, failing that, show me where it says native born citizens are not NBCs. You can’t, because it doesn’t, because that was not at issue. Just so happens that native born citizens are also natural born citizens, because there is no such thing as a citizen from birth who is not a natural born citizen, since to be a natural born citizen means to be a citizen from birth.
“The reason for the NBC clause is very simple...Since the president is also the Commander in Chief of the US military, the founders determined it to be wise to restrict the office of President to those who did not have any form of allegiance with another country.
If you were born in another country, or one or both of your parents are not only citizens of another country, but have not become citizens of the US - would all your loyalties lie with the US? The founders were simply trying to put in a small safegaurd that whomever became Commander in Chief of the entire US military had only one loyalty - and that was to the US.”
Let’s say that’s all true. Too bad for the Framers, as we’ve added a 14th amendment. I’m willing to believe they thought as you say. But they didn’t write down that they president couldn’t be born a dual citizen, just that they had to be born a citizen. There are born dual citizens, and they are qualified to be president, even if it doesn’t fit the Framers’ and your perfect vision.
They are aliens if they are NOT born to citizen parents. That what the "distinguished from foreigners and aliens" phrase means. That's what makes it self-limiting. Under the Treaty of 1783, people born in this country of British parents were British subjects, not U.S. citizens. Those born to U.S. citizens in this country were natural-born citizens.
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.