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

Skip to comments.

Bret explains "natural born citizen" requirements for president and vice president
Fox News ^ | 5/1/2012 | Bret Baier

Posted on 05/01/2012 9:32:22 AM PDT by GregNH

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-358 next last
To: Larry - Moe and Curly
And to pose my other standard question, do you seriously believe that after 8 years of revolutionary war against "Britain, that the Founders would put a requirement in the Constitution that would allow the son of a British subject to become President of the US and Commander-in-Chief of the US Military? If there’s a “misunderstanding” of a definition, it’s our misunderstanding, not the Founders’ failure to “define” a term in the Constitution. The Founders knew exactly what they were writing. But, they were counting on an educated populace to enforce the Constitution. They didn’t realize how much we could be dumbed down."

EXACTLY! Case closed.

I've given this example myself. I often use a head of the communist party in China is hear visiting. Wife, has a child while here on a two week visit. Takes the kid home and raises him as a loyal communist. According to BRET and others on this board that kid can come back to the US, live here for 14 years and be elected president at age 35.

If you believe that was the intent of the founders then you are beyond hope.

101 posted on 05/01/2012 11:35:56 AM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Larry - Moe and Curly

“to pose my other standard question, do you seriously believe that after 8 years of revolutionary war against Britain, that the Founders would put a requirement in the Constitution that would allow the son of a British subject to become President of the US and Commander-in-Chief of the US Military?”

Yes, I do seriously believe that. I don’t just believe it, I know it for an absolute fact. For that is the clear and uncontroversial meaning of the Grandfather Clause.


102 posted on 05/01/2012 11:37:38 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

Birthers persist in swimming upstream against political reality. The defenders of the proper interpretation of the 2nd amendment are the blueprint for the NBC birthers. As long as they make it about Obama, the SCOTUS will never do anything to undo an election. Period. And if by some bizarre series of events, a case ended up in front of SCOTUS, NBC birthers will not get the answer they're looking for. They're better off taking a long term approach, and taking Obama out of the equation.
103 posted on 05/01/2012 11:38:10 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“That’s why the clause was written the way it was. Loyalty was considered and easily proven.”

But that only applied to those who fit under the grandfather clause, correct?


104 posted on 05/01/2012 11:39:26 AM PDT by Larry - Moe and Curly (Loose lips sink ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: GregNH; LucyT; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; Nepeta; ...
oh, good grief Ping!

"Bret explains "natural born citizen" requirements for president and vice president"


105 posted on 05/01/2012 11:45:46 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Yes, like I said, you have a natural right to bear arms.
This is what you said...
You can have the natural right to bear arms without the Constitution, but not the right to be the citizen of the U.S.
People are never without citizenship as you readily admit...Before the Continental Congress, you were a British subject.
And you can't be a member (citizen) of something before its creation.

What didn’t exist prior to the establishment of the Constitution was the U.S.
Speaking more of what you don't know?

The U.S. and the nation that existed under the Articles of the Confederation—which was called what, the American Confederacy?—are not one.
No, dumb ass, 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.

I love how birthers so casually and regularly appeal to natural versus positive law, and then when you try and actually parse what qualifies for each they can’t condescend to respond. it’s as if even to shoot me down, if they can, would be to sully the good name of nature.
I love how after-birthers try and manipulate the conversation and go about crying "I won" when they've done no such thing.

106 posted on 05/01/2012 11:48:21 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
"The brouhaha over President Obama's birth certificate"

Hey Bret, what about the brouhaha over President Obama's forged birth certificate and selective service record?

107 posted on 05/01/2012 11:49:51 AM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

“So Madison, et. al., didn’t know what they were doing when they specified ‘natural born’ for president and in no other instance? That just slipped by them when they really meant ‘just plain ol’ citizen’”

Ugh, I do so hate having to repeat arguments over and over, ad nauseum. I never said they didn’t know what they were doing. They meant to specify that only born citizens shall be president, and they did. No, they did not mean “plain ol’ citizen.” That would include naturalized citizens, and since they aren’t born citizens they cannot be natural born citizens.


108 posted on 05/01/2012 11:51:09 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

“If you believe that was the intent of the founders then you are beyond hope.”

Bingo. They are beyond hope. To them, being a Natural Born US Citizen is a magical pixie dust phenomena conferred by a certain type of dirt. The idea that being raised by US citizens creates a different type of citizen than being raised by non-US citizens is incomprehensible to them.

After all, what does it matter if a candidate thinks there are 58 states or a hundred? Why should a candidate know enough about the US Marines to avoid calling them ‘corpsemen’? Why would a POTUS need even a rudimentary grasp of our Memorial Day celebration [during which Obama saw ghosts in the audience]? The very idea that a candidate should cover his heart during the National Anthem—as opposed to making an uber-creepy crouch cradle w his fingers—is stupid. As long as the candidate assures us he’s a Citizen of the World, that should be enough.

Right?

‘Beyond hope’ is the only possible explanation. Sad but true.

PS: Before anyone says Obama was raised by a US citizen, explain what country his Indonesian tranny nanny swore loyalty to. Also, which US citizen was it who gave Obama that dog meat he took such care to tell us about? Yeah, he was raised by US citizens all right. After all, he dedicated his autobiography to the American side of his family, didn’t he? That alone tells us how undying his loyalty to his adoptive country [he himself even admitted he was a Brit citizen at birth] he is.


109 posted on 05/01/2012 11:52:09 AM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; Tublecane
Are you too stupid to understand that?

Philman, you are disgracefully rude. What brings you to this forum when you can't display even a minimal level of respect for another freeper?

110 posted on 05/01/2012 11:52:43 AM PDT by Lady Lucky (Fleece, tallow, and get out to be weighed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Look at how many times Politicians tried to alter or change the Natural Born Citizen clause from the time BO was first a candidate in Chicago to the time he was elected to the White House....


111 posted on 05/01/2012 11:54:36 AM PDT by rxtn41
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
What does that have to do with anything?
Do you even know what positive law and natural law are?
If you did you wouldn't be asking the question.

When is someone who's a "citizen of the United States at birth" ever an alien? In the womb?
Ummm...key words there...at birth.
If that child in the womb is aborted were they ever even a citizen or an alien?

112 posted on 05/01/2012 11:54:49 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Larry - Moe and Curly
But that only applied to those who fit under the grandfather clause, correct?
In my understanding, yes. Once those people passed away it no longer applied. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President...

Those running for office themselves couldn't have been "natural born" citizens as their parents were not US citizens at their births.

113 posted on 05/01/2012 12:01:29 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
Why didn't you just leave my name in the "To" box since it's my reply that you responded to?
If you've got something to say to me then say it directly.
114 posted on 05/01/2012 12:04:05 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: GregNH; All
Anyone who cares about this issue should contact them. Provide them the documentation that shows them how so very wrong they are.

Email: katyricalde@yahoo.com (Katy Ricalde @ Fox News. From the ORYR site)

https://twitter.com/#!/BretBaier (Bret Baier's twitter account)

https://twitter.com/#!/SRGrapevine (Bret Baier's Special Report Grapevine)

http://www.bretbaier.com/contact/index.php

Email: special@foxnews.com (Special Report with Bret Baier. From fair.org)

 

Some suggestions to give them:

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)
Synopsis: Even though the Fourteenth Amendment had already been passed, Minor did not rely upon that amendment to define either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen.” Rather, it applied the American “common-law” definition of those terms. Providing Vattel’s law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, it laid down the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as follows:

“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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., at 167-68.

In the House of Representatives

John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians."
(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.
(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.

Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

Being born with two (or more) allegiances contradicts the known definition and the intent for the "natural born Citizen" requirement for the commander of the armed forces.

Or, simply asked them:

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

115 posted on 05/01/2012 12:07:59 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #116 Removed by Moderator

To: philman_36

“And the children are made citizens through that section of naturalization law!”

Yes, and therefore the law applies to them. What about that could possibly be confusing you?

“The children weren’t citizens until they were born and the parents never were citizens to begin with else they wouldn’t be called aliens!”

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.

“It can’t apply to citizens because it’s about aliens!”

Are you schizoid? 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. How can you argue now somehow that it’s about aliens and doesn’t apply to citizens? You just said it does. I don’t get it.

“It doesn’t say “Citizens and Nationality” does it?”

We’ve established the particular section is called “nationals and citizens from birth,” or something. You’re referring to that section falling under the larger title “Aliens and Nationality,” I believe. What’s the point, here? That it says “aliens,” therefore it must apply only to aliens, case closed? As if what comes under the title “Aliens and Nationality” couldn’t possibly concern citizenship.

Well, might I remind you that the U.S. is a nation, and if you are born a citizen of the U.S. that is your nationality. So the “nationality” part, at least, means it can apply to citizens.


117 posted on 05/01/2012 12:11:04 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
....now and forever more.

Or at least as long as the Constitution lasts. Which may not be a hell of a lot longer.

118 posted on 05/01/2012 12:11:15 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (I will not comply. I will NEVER submit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Ummm...key words there...at birth.

Just answer the question. You claim that anyone whose status is governed by 8 USC is an alien first. Yet § 1401 describes who is a citizen at birth. So: when--for what period of their life--is someone who's a "citizen at birth" an alien?

119 posted on 05/01/2012 12:17:45 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
Birther /börthör/ n1. A person who exhibits the audacity to read the U.S. Constitution, and then demands that his/her government actually obeys it.  2. A derogatory term developed and used by Leftists and Neo-Cons in a lame attempt to marginalize those who harbor the silly notions that Truth matters, and that Republics perish who refuse to uphold the Rule of Law.
120 posted on 05/01/2012 12:19:04 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Larry - Moe and Curly

“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.


121 posted on 05/01/2012 12:22:20 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

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.


122 posted on 05/01/2012 12:26:39 PM PDT by Hodar ( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
crouch = crotch

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.

123 posted on 05/01/2012 12:27:21 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

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.


124 posted on 05/01/2012 12:27:58 PM PDT by Waryone (Remember your ABCS (anybody but commie socialists) = ABM (anybody but Mitt), ABO (anybody but Obama))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: melancholy

YEP


125 posted on 05/01/2012 12:29:42 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

That’s a great chart.


126 posted on 05/01/2012 12:35:36 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

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.


127 posted on 05/01/2012 12:36:08 PM PDT by Hodar ( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Why didn't you just leave my name in the "To" box since it's my reply that you responded to?
If you've got something to say to me then say it directly.

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.

128 posted on 05/01/2012 12:43:28 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
And the children are made citizens through that section of naturalization law!
Yes, and therefore the law applies to them. What about that could possibly be confusing you?
I'm not the one who is confused. You're the one who believes that USC 8 applies to citizens when it doesn't.

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.

129 posted on 05/01/2012 12:44:07 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; Fantasywriter

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.


130 posted on 05/01/2012 12:44:07 PM PDT by melancholy (Professor Alinsky, Enslavement Specialist, Ph.D in L0w and H0lder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
"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."

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.

The 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.

...

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
131 posted on 05/01/2012 12:45:18 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

Maybe it was the 7-year itch, a la the 5-year plan?


132 posted on 05/01/2012 12:49:03 PM PDT by melancholy (Professor Alinsky, Enslavement Specialist, Ph.D in L0w and H0lder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Here is the question you're asking to have answered...

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?

133 posted on 05/01/2012 12:49:38 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
BIRTHER SUMMIT

...or has Dean Haskins suffered an official birther rebuke?

134 posted on 05/01/2012 12:50:28 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

Just checking. I know you’re an after-birther and behind the back comments are nothing new to the ilk.


135 posted on 05/01/2012 12:51:08 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“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.


136 posted on 05/01/2012 12:53:13 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane; Larry - Moe and Curly
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.

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 .

137 posted on 05/01/2012 12:54:37 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

“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.


138 posted on 05/01/2012 12:55:13 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

“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.


139 posted on 05/01/2012 12:56:55 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: melancholy; Fantasywriter
I thought you might be interested in this.
I saw the Farmer reply.
A well turned phrase isn't Fantasywriter's sole interest.
140 posted on 05/01/2012 12:59:40 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

“The idea that being raised by US citizens creates a different type of citizen than being raised by non-US citizens is incomprehensible to them.”

You are aware, I trust, that the children of two citizen parents can be raised by non-citizens, too. Many people are raised by people other than their parents. They could be raised overseas, even, and still qualify to be president, assuming they come back for the residency standard.

So, yes, that being raised by non-US citizens would disqualify someone for the presidency is incomprehensible to me.


141 posted on 05/01/2012 1:00:44 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“Ummm...key words there...at birth.
If that child in the womb is aborted were they ever even a citizen or an alien?”

Ah, I see I was right, and that somehow you would bring up the limbo between birth and conception. Well, what would the fetus be? Who cares? Once they are born, the law applies to them and they are citizens. Therefore the law applies to citizens, and you were wrong to say it doesn’t.


142 posted on 05/01/2012 1:03:37 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Did I ever say the child was an alien? (specific reply, please)

Yes. In #4, you wrote, "8 U.S. Code is titled 'Aliens and Nationality'....You have to be an Alien first for anything therein to apply."

The section under discussion applies to children who are born a citizen. Therefore, it seemed that you must think that somehow a child born a citizen--someone to whom § 1401 applies--is "an Alien first."

I've been trying to figure out just when that is. Seems like a simple enough question.

143 posted on 05/01/2012 1:04:18 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky

“Philman, you are disgracefully rude. What brings you to this forum when you can’t display even a minimal level of respect for another freeper?”

To be fair, I sorta started it, at least between the Freepers. But only because they called the author of the article stupid, and turnabout is fairplay. Since then they’ve rather runaway with the childishness.


144 posted on 05/01/2012 1:05:50 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; GregNH; rxsid; LucyT; melancholy
“When is someone who's a ‘citizen of the United States at birth’ ever an alien?”

Any foreign born child prior to meeting the statutory requirements for retroactive “citizen at birth” status is an alien until processed under the statute.

John McCain was an alien at birth in the Panama Canal Zone. IIRC, within about two years of his birth, Congress passed a law deeming that Panama Canal Zone births to two US citizen parents were retroactively citizens at birth.

The US Senate tried to create the appearance of amending the Constitution with ludicrous nonbinding resolution 501 which declared that McCain was a retroactive Natural Born Citizen as well. I don't believe that McCain had to naturalize to be a US citizen.

IIRC until recently children of US military on foreign bases excluding the Canal Zone had to have naturalization papers filed for them to convert from alien to retroactive statutory US citizen at birth and many were dual citizens until they affirmatively dropped the second citizenship on majority for that country.

Barry's legal team has gone off the deep end in their latest filing in defense of his ballot eligibility in several states including NJ by citing to 9th Circuit case, US v Marguet-Pillado, with Barry's legal team claiming that even if Barry was born in a foreign country with only a biological (unwed) relationship to a US citizen he would still be a natural born citizen.

See my FR thread for the latest legal action:

“Obama cites US v Marguet-Pillado. Dicta implies Obama eligible even if born in Kenya (vanity)”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2857598/posts?q=1&;page=1#1

BTW, the State Department used to state that SCOTUS had not yet ruled on whether a statutory “natural born citizen” (statutory citizen at birth) was POTUS eligible.

145 posted on 05/01/2012 1:10:36 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

“2. A derogatory term developed and used by Leftists and Neo-Cons in a lame attempt to marginalize those who harbor the silly notions that Truth matters, and that Republics perish who refuse to uphold the Rule of Law”

Funny thing you mention “Truth.” The appelation “birther” is a carryover from “truther,” which itself derives, I believe, from “bircher.” All three deserve derogation, as they are kooky crank movements. So I don’t mind using the same nomenclature as leftists and neo-cons to describe them.


146 posted on 05/01/2012 1:11:28 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
the law, which came well after the Constitution does not use the term "natural born." Show me the words - or should I look in the penumbra of that statute. What I have seen is a Supreme Court decision that tangentially addresses the issue and it does NOT equate natural born as simply being a person born within these United States.

I would be astonished to think one of our Founding Fathers would agree that post-Constitutional adoption, a son born to a British Subject father would be considered "natural born" and eligible to become the President. Along that line, did you know that for a time a female American citizen upon marrying a foreign national lost her citizenship as a result? Mull that one over for a while. And while this is no longer the case it puts an interesting twist when considering Original Intent.

The issue of citizenship, let alone Presidential qualifications, has never been as simple as "there are only two types" after the Republic was formed.

147 posted on 05/01/2012 1:18:40 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (SpaceX Dragon launch to ISS, Cape Canaveral AFS, May 7, 9:38 AM EDT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
People are never without citizenship as you readily admit.
I don’t admit that.
You already have admitted that.

Before the Constitution you were a citizen of the Confederacy or the state in which you lived. Before the Articles of Confederation, you were a citizen of your state and informally I guess of the quasi-nation under the Continental Congress. Before the Continental Congress, you were a British subject.

Or did you not realize what you were saying?

Firstly, you can be born where no government rules...
Where has that ever existed? Even something so small as a tribe has a leader and, henceforth, government.

You cannot have been a U.S. citizen before ratification of the positive law that is U.S. Constitution.
Partly right. Articles of Confederation, but we've been over that. And, precedent that, as a member of a British colony people had British citizenship as you noted earlier.
And the positive law Constitution recognized natural law as you well know,
that being your recognition of the natural law to keep and bear arms.

But what does that matter, for our purposes?
To illustrate that natural law existed before any law was written. I thought you understood that.

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.?
I'll take that as rhetorical. Nobody was forced to sign the Constitution just like nobody was forced to sign the Articles of Confederation. Coercion isn't principled and nothing based upon coercion is legal.

148 posted on 05/01/2012 1:18:40 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“You’re the one who believes that USC 8 applies to citizens when it doesn’t”

It applies to the children of aliens who qualify to be citizens, therefore it applies to citizens. You know it does, and are carrying on I don’t know why. I suppose by now it’s a matter of pride, and the argument must be won by endless delaying tactics.

“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.”

Huh? When did I say they were children before they’re born? I don’t believe in my life I’ve ever considered the citizenship status of the unborn before today, and upon consideration I say “Who cares?” Their status prior to birth is not the issue. Obviously the law applies to them at birth, which is when they become citizens. Therefore, the law applies to citizens, specifically citizens who born to aliens who become citizens at birth by meeting certain qualifications.

“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.”

You’re seriously beyond me now. I have no idea what you’re getting at, unless it’s, like, you become a citizen at birth, but the law can’t apply to you until a couple seconds after your born. But since by that time you’re a citizen and everyone knows it, the law somehow doesn’t apply to you because it’s about aliens and their chidren.

What?!?! We’re in cloud cuckoo land. The law applies to you at birth when, bam!, you’re a citizen. The law and your citizenship apply to you at the same time, as it were. There’s no lacuna between your birth and when the law can apply to you that excludes you from consideration under the law.

“Aliens, and the children of aliens, are the subject, not citizens or the children of citizens.”

But, as I’ve said about 47 times now, the children of aliens can be citizens. Therefore, the law applies to citizens.

“Are aliens citizens of this nation? No!”

No. Once again, though, their children can be.

“The children are naturalized at birth”

There’s no such thing, but for the limited purposes of this argument, okay. let’s say they are. They’re naturalized by this law, and are citizens. Therefore, this law applies to citizens.

“not before birth, via positive laws and under the proper uniform rules of naturalization Congress was empowered to create.”

Actually, if they’re born after the passage of the law, yes, before birth. Not that they are citizens before birth; you have to be born to be a citizen, as everyone agrees. But the groundwork for you being a citizen automatically at birth has been established before your birth.

Whatever, what relevance does this have to our disagreement? Before birth or after birth, it’s about people getting to be a born citizens according to a few qualifications. Therefore, it applies to citizens: the citizens who are born according to its qualifications.


149 posted on 05/01/2012 1:27:32 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Ah, I see I was right, and that somehow you would bring up the limbo between birth and conception.
Perhaps you should go back and read this.
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?

Can you not recognize when someone is having sport with a rhetorical question?

Once they are born, the law applies to them and they are citizens. Therefore the law applies to citizens, and you were wrong to say it doesn’t.
No, I'm not wrong.
The law applies to the parents, aka aliens. It tells them, and everyone else, that once the child of that alien is born they are a citizen of the U.S. You can't put the cart before the horse.
Why can't you grasp that?

150 posted on 05/01/2012 1:28:05 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-358 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