Posted on 05/01/2012 9:32:22 AM PDT by GregNH
Here's the deal...
Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take-- and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:
The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born citizen," but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father's nationality.
The brouhaha over President Obama's birth certificate -- has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a "natural born citizen," but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“But that only applied to those who fit under the grandfather clause, correct?”
yes, but according to the logic of the argument your “only” is inapt. A previous poster was trying to argue that since we know the Framers were motivated by preventing people with questionable loyalty from being president they’d surely never allow eligibility for the sons of British subjects. Except we happen to know the sons of British subjects and men themselves born British subjects were eligible under the Grandfather Clause. Which, when you think about it, casts doubt on this whole question of intent.
For if supposed intent leads you to believe something that’s clearly false, e.g. that the Framers disallowed the sons of British subjects from being presidential eligibility, perhaps your wrong about other conclusions prompted from intent, e.g. that any but the children of two citizen parents can be natural born citizens.
So we wouldn’t have had either Presidential candidate Fremont nor President Arthur. I’m not sure that Fremont would have made a good president, as he had a habit of making rash decisions, then acting on them. Like being in command of the Armies, and taking it upon himself to free the slaves without consulting Congress (for which he was fired, court martialed then pardoned). Not a lot of forethought on that one.
President Arthur, while appearing to be solid - was not known as one of the ‘greats’ by any standard.
However, if my interpretation of “Natural Born Citizen” (and one shared by many others) was upheld - we’d not have had 1 Presidential candidate and 1 mediocure President. But, we wouldn’t be where we are today either.
I think it would be a great trade.
On the plus side, ‘crotch’ is not a word I have to type often. Only when, in fact, referring to Obama’s disgusting disrespect of the National Anthem. Maybe putting your fingers across your genitalia during the US National Anthem is an Indonesian custom. Maybe even Kenyan? All we know for sure is, it's not traditional US behavior.
You are correct. Chester A. Arthur was not eligible. But Chester A. did not make that information available to the public. Just like Obama, he too hid the fact that his father’s citizenship at his birth kept him from qualifying. He burned his papers and hid the truth. If he had been honest, he would not have been able to become president.
YEP
That’s a great chart.
So we wouldn’t have had either Presidential candidate Fremont nor President Arthur. I’m not sure that Fremont would have made a good president, as he had a habit of making rash decisions, then acting on them. Like being in command of the Armies, and taking it upon himself to free the slaves without consulting Congress (for which he was fired, court martialed then pardoned). Not a lot of forethought on that one.
President Arthur, while appearing to be solid - was not known as one of the ‘greats’ by any standard.
However, if my interpretation of “Natural Born Citizen” (and one shared by many others) was upheld - we’d not have had 1 Presidential candidate and 1 mediocure President. But, we wouldn’t be where we are today either.
I think it would be a great trade.
I wasn't responding to you or your post. I was just using the "last in line" post to facilitate my post. It was a general statement intended for everyone. I have absolutely no problem posting to you directly if I thought it worthwhile. Unwad your panties.
Your point being? Are you trying to say something about the status of the children between conception and birth, or what? When they’re born is when it becomes of interest to us. At that point, if they qualify the law applies to them and they are citizens. Therefore, the law applies to citizens, and your arguments to the contrary are null.
No, my arguments are not "null". You're the one saying the children are citizens before they're born when the law says "at birth", not before birth. Therefore, the children can't be naturalized citizens, via that particular section of USC 8, until they are born so no citizens are covered by the law. Aliens, and the children of aliens, are the subject, not citizens or the children of citizens. Are aliens citizens of this nation? No! The children are naturalized at birth, not before birth, via positive laws and under the proper uniform rules of naturalization Congress was empowered to create.
Are you schizoid?
No, but I believe you are.
This is a law about when the children of aliens can be considered citizens, and you just said the children are citizens when they’re born.
Yes, the children are naturalized citizens when they're born, not before they're born. The children aren't citizens until they're born. The parents are still aliens. The law doesn't govern citizens.
I'll give you a partial victory here...The only instance where I would say that the law might govern a citizen is when you have the situation we have here with an alien and a citizen parent. The child is still the child of an alien and falls under USC 8 as both parents aren't citizens.
Until the child is born the child is not a citizen. Either way, only one parent is a citizen and the child is naturalized at birth under positive law and can't be a natural born citizen as resort to USC 8 must be taken for citizenship.
We’ve established the particular section is called “nationals and citizens from birth,” or something.
All we've established is that it still falls under USC 8.
philman_36,
The message was quite clear to what the liberals/progressives/communists call “birthers,” STAY AWAY FROM 0B0Z0, LEAVE HIM ALONE, WE CAN’T TOUCH HIM!
After the’12 election, I’m absolutely sure that any Republican, Black or White, mind you, will never be allowed on any ballot without showing ALL his original papers to the media and forensic experts!
The threat of riots, blood in the streets, CW II, etc. if you dare come near Dear Leader is holding many people hostage. Moreover, of course, direct intimidation to highly placed people in every walk of life!
0b0z0, you dumb coward, where are your education records?
fantasywriter,
I enjoyed your farmers’ post, quite an imagination from a writer!
I thought you might be interested in this.
Which, when you think about it, casts doubt on this whole question of intent."
1811.
Without the grandfather clause to exempt those that gave their blood, treasure and honor in fighting the Revolutionary War, that would have been the earliest an eligible candidate would have meet the age requirement (assuming 1776 as the begining of the country, and meeting residancy requirements).
Clearly, their intent was looking past their generation, those former British subjects (and citizens from other country's) who became U.S. citizens during that summer of 1776.
The founding document:
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.htmlThe unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
...
Maybe it was the 7-year itch, a la the 5-year plan?
When is someone who's a "citizen of the United States at birth" ever an alien? In the womb?
Did I ever say the child was an alien? (specific reply, please)
Or did I only say that the parent, or parents, were aliens?
...or has Dean Haskins suffered an official birther rebuke?
Just checking. I know you’re an after-birther and behind the back comments are nothing new to the ilk.
“People are never without citizenship as you readily admit”
I don’t admit that. Firstly, you can be born where no government rules and to parents who have no citizenship. Cavemen, for instance, were never citizens of anything.
More importantly, people are without citizenship of nations that don’t yet exist.
“And you can’t be a member (citizen) of something before its creation.”
Yes, that’s exactly my point, right there. You cannot have been a U.S. citizen before ratification of the positive law that is U.S. Constitution.
“No, dumb ass,”
I know you are, but what am I?
“the U.S. existed prior to the current Constitution.
And if you knew what you were talking about you would know this...The Stile of this Confederacy shall be “The United States of America”.
And they are the same. The new Constitution was undertaken, and written, to address the deficiencies of the Articles.”
If the nation under the Articles of Confederation was also called the U.S., that’s good to know but unimportant for the current argument. When I say there were no U.S. citizens before the ratification of the Constitution, obviously I mean there were no citizens of the U.S. under the Constitution. If the union under the Articles of Confederation was also called the U.S., that’s hardly to the point. You are not a citizen of a country’s name; you are a citizen of whatever entity governs you.
I realize the Constitution speaks of “a more perfect union,” meaning that it is a continuation of a preexisting union. But the thing you are a citizen of is not the theoretically unbroken national entity running from the first continental congress to the U.S. as it stands today. You are a citizen of the nation created by the Constitution, as well as of the state in which you live. I know this because had there not been a Constitution, you could not have been a citizen under it.
Yes, the Constitution was written to address deficiencies in the Articles. But what does that matter, for our purposes? That doesn’t mean the nation created by the Constitution is the same nation as existed under the Articles. Certainly there was no legal continuity between the Constitution and the Articles, except that both were adopted by the same preexisting states. The Constitution’s ratification requirements clearly violated the Articles’ amendment process, and the Constitution was therefore illegal under the Articles. If there was a coup tomorrow and Obama wrote a new compact and held guns to the heads of governors to sign it, would you call the resulting entity the same thing as the constitutional U.S.?
But who cares. One, two unions, what’s the difference for our purposes? Say, for argument’s sake, that the Articles’ U.S. and the constitutional U.S. are the same, and that citizens of one are citizens of the other. What does that portend? Nothing, except that we push the intrusion of positive law back a few years.
That is to say, no one is a citizen of the Articles of Confederation/Constitution U.S. by nature. No one could have been a citizen of this nation before the positive law that was the Articles of Confederation aqcuired the force of law. It is not possible, again, to be a citizen of a nation that does not exist.
“I love how after-birthers try and manipulate the conversation and go about crying ‘I won’ when they’ve done no such thing.”
It’s a well established rule of the internet, at least, that when an arguer refuses to respond to something for reasons unprovided, it’s a pretty fair chance that they can’t respond. You’ve now responded, and not very well. We can nitpick all day on whether the Articles’ U.S. and the constitutional U.S. are the same, but since the Articles are also positive law that doesn’t speak to the disctinction between positive and natural law that you so recently averred was of primary importance.
Notice, Larry - Moe and Curly, that Tublecane completely left out the loyalty aspect.
Under his design Benedict Arnold could have become POTUS if he had been allowed to become a citizen and stay here .
“If you believe that was the intent of the founders then you are beyond hope.”
Only if you live on a faraway planet that has yet to hear of the difficulties of “original intent.” Intent is one thing, what the Constitution says another. Original meaning, my friend, is where it’s at.
“To them, being a Natural Born US Citizen is a magical pixie dust phenomena conferred by a certain type of dirt.”
As opposed to what, a magical pixie dust phenomena conferred by a certain type of blood? One doesn’t seem more prima facie ridiculous than the other.
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.