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

Skip to comments.

Gingrich’s VP Candidate Choices for Romney
CNBC ^ | 7/27/2012 | Bruno J. Navarro

Posted on 07/30/2012 7:49:02 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-102 next last
To: goseminoles
Obama didn’t do shit with welfare work requirements. That was clinton with a republican congress in the 90s. It needs to be reformed again..

Uh... it was Clinton & Republicans in Congress who reformed it the first time and put in the work requirements that Obama's undone.

51 posted on 07/30/2012 10:31:16 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Pontius Pilate 'voters' are arrogant, delusional, lilly-livered collaborators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
Newt didn't offer any new names which is disappointing. I imagine this might mean the Romney camp is looking at this slate.

I've heard some good things about Ayotte.

52 posted on 07/30/2012 10:39:54 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Pontius Pilate 'voters' are arrogant, delusional, lilly-livered collaborators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Only contemporaries at the time of ratification agree.

-PJ

53 posted on 07/30/2012 10:42:05 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It doesn't come naturally when you're not natural born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
He's pulling your chain because it's Gov. Bob McDonnell, not McDonald.

-PJ

54 posted on 07/30/2012 10:50:13 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It doesn't come naturally when you're not natural born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: M-cubed

If obama is eligible - then so are Rubio and Jindal. At least they love this country. That’s more than I can say for the squatter-in-chief.


55 posted on 07/30/2012 10:56:42 PM PDT by Catsrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus

Obama is NOT eligible. His father was never a U.S. citizen. The Democratic Party, among whom were Nancy Pelosi, committed fraud when they verified his eligibility.

BHO2 never claimed to be a natural born Citizen, just a native born citizen.

Just because Democrats ignore the U.S. Constitution and are lawless, doesn’t mean we Republicans should do the same. We start down that road, everything, even our liberty, is jeopardized.


56 posted on 07/31/2012 12:09:34 AM PDT by SatinDoll (Natural Born Citizen - born in the USA of citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: M-cubed
Hey Newt....Jindel and Rubino aren’t eligible under our Constitution....So I'm a little offended by you!

Wrong. Both Jindal and Rubio (and let's throw in the not-guilty Nikki Haley while we're at it) are natural born American citizens over the age of 35. Read it. That's all it says.

Natural born simply means entitled to be an American by birth. As opposed to immigrating and applying for naturalization.

57 posted on 07/31/2012 12:22:18 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Since Obama is finishing his 1st term as president and about to run for 2nd term, and because his father (according to birth certificate) was a Kenyan who was never a US citizen, obviously no one cares if both parents were US citizens at the time of birth. Looks like if you have a US birth certificate even if it is from Hawaii, is sufficient eligibility to run for president, as Obama has proved. Anything else is irrelevant. But I will grant you it is a hot air topic on FR.


58 posted on 07/31/2012 12:46:14 AM PDT by entropy12 (Hate is the most insidious emotion, it will encourage cancer cells in your body.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: entropy12; SatinDoll
Looks like if you have a US birth certificate even if it is from Hawaii, is sufficient eligibility to run for president, as Obama has proved. Anything else is irrelevant.

He has never proven his Article II Constitutional eligibility for the office. He has never proven he is a natural born citizen, born on American soil of two American citizen parents.

59 posted on 07/31/2012 12:53:32 AM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: M-cubed

>> Hey Newt....Jindel and Rubino arent eligible under our Constitution....So I’m a little offended by you!

Cite the law that supports the little offense.


60 posted on 07/31/2012 12:58:00 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
“The president of the United States does not have the power to personally revise the law,” he said. “This is not Venezuela. He’s not Hugo Chavez, and he can’t run around and do stuff like this. He’s done it on welfare. He’s done it on the whole issue of immigration. He’s done it with No Child Left Behind.”

Obama does not have the constitutional or legal authority to take these unconstitutional actions but he obviously DOES have the raw power as he has demonstrated by doing exactly that without meaningful opposition.


61 posted on 07/31/2012 1:01:16 AM PDT by Iron Munro ("Jiggle the Handle for Barry!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

I hate to break the news to you, but, our liberty has been jeopardized for many, many years. Its too bad, that we have been asleep at the wheel.

Rubio and Jindal were both born in this country - which makes them as eligible as the aquatter-in-chief - maybe more so. They are after all - born as American citizens. I’m also sure that both of their parents became citizens. We don’t have any proof that zero was even born on American soil.

Our liberty has been comprised, jeopardized and traumatized for many, many years. Your argument doesn’t hold water. we’ve been on the slippery slope to tyranny at a rapid pace since 2009. Its like Woodrow Wilson and FDR on steroids.

Yeah, the Republican party has always tried to play nice with the Dems. Where has that gotten us? It has given us a bunch of mealy-mouthed RINOs afraid to grow a spine.


62 posted on 07/31/2012 2:08:27 AM PDT by Catsrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

Your reply is so full of errors as to be impossible to answer fully, but in the main.....

..... you state that the Minor decision...

“...specifically stated that the constitution does not specifically define it...”

The text of the decision says that the Constitution does not say who shall be a CITIZEN (YOU added Natural Born to the text in an attempt to deceive the readers of your post and change the meaning of the quote, shame on ya troll), but goes on to say it was never doubted that children born in a country to parents who were its citizens were citizens also...... Now here’s the kicker.... These are the Natives or Natural Born Citizens....that is the money part of the quote.

Sorry pal it don’t get much plainer than that now does it?????

Born in a country to parents who are it’s citizens = Natural Born Citizen. Pretty easy isn’t it????????

In seeking to determine citizenship of Liz Minor the court defined the term Natural Born Citizen and it has been consistent in using this definition of NBC in all of it’s decisions since. All NBCs are citizens by definition.....the reverse is not always true.......

What the decision didn’t address, since the plaintif, suing over a citizen’s right to vote, was judged to be the gold standard of citizenship, a NBC, is what other circumstances of birth resulted in citizenship.....not Natural Born Citizenship, that was defined and is settled law, but simple born citizenship (no need to naturalize). It did note that various authorities were at odds as to who, besides a NBC, should be considered a citizen at birth.

A few years later, the court in WKA, held that persons born in the US of legally residing but foreign parents, were citizens ( note; NOT Natural Born, but simply born/citizens at birth.) by applying the 14th Amendment, and using the European custom/tradition of jus solis citizenship.

Besides WKA here are other laws and regulations that provide for citizenship at birth for circumstances of birth other than being a NBC.

Again from your post quoting Minor.....

“...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....”

Case closed. You lose by way of your own posted quote!

BTW Highlighting the text that you did reveals that your comprehension of the case and the issues involved totally escaped you. ( I suspect that you copied it somewhere from the post of another troll.)

Take a course in reading comprehension, and read the decision again, not the butchered copy you have, but the original text.......


63 posted on 07/31/2012 2:43:48 AM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

“Cite the law that supports the little offense.”

Article II of the Constitution.


64 posted on 07/31/2012 2:46:52 AM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Baloney!
You are wrong.
There are TWO types of citizen:

Natural Born
Naturalized

If you became a citizen at the exact moment of birth, you are a “Natural Born Citizen”

Otherwise, you are “Naturalized”

You are wrong in your interpretations, on nearly every count.

More to the point: Nobody with any authority agrees with you, either!

That is how the Founders wished to protect us, by making sure nobody who became a Citizen at some point AFTER being born could become President.

You are stating what you WANT the law to mean, but you are way off base on what it does mean.

Your interpretation is a crack-pot theory put together by people who have no authority, no understanding and an inability to learn.

BTW, John McCain was a CITIZEN AT BIRTH and therefore John McCain is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

65 posted on 07/31/2012 3:06:33 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

John Adams said, clearly, that Congress needed to do more to define Citizenship, and that statement was even AFTER Ratification.

You are wrong.

Our Founders only wanted to insure that any future President was a Citizen at the Moment of Birth.

Since Congress has said that you can be a Citizen at Birth if born on foreign soil, if born by a Citizen Parent(s) of certain age, and changed said requirement a few times, there are many Natural Born Citizens who were born on foreign soil.

CONGRESS has the power to decide Citizenship, PERIOD! All forms of Citizenship.

Congress could not declare that a citizen of a foreign country, at birth, was a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States, retroactively, by statute. Congress is restrained by the Constitution from doing that.

However, Congress is free to determine the rules for “Natural Born Citizen” -— the rules for how to obtain BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP are within the powers of Congress. Birthright Citizenship is all “Natural Born Citizen” implies.


66 posted on 07/31/2012 3:13:55 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

John Adams said, clearly, that Congress needed to do more to define Citizenship, and that statement was even AFTER Ratification.

You are wrong.

Our Founders only wanted to insure that any future President was a Citizen at the Moment of Birth.

Since Congress has said that you can be a Citizen at Birth if born on foreign soil, if born by a Citizen Parent(s) of certain age, and changed said requirement a few times, there are many Natural Born Citizens who were born on foreign soil.

CONGRESS has the power to decide Citizenship, PERIOD! All forms of Citizenship.

Congress could not declare that a citizen of a foreign country, at birth, was a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States, retroactively, by statute. Congress is restrained by the Constitution from doing that.

However, Congress is free to determine the rules for “Natural Born Citizen” -— the rules for how to obtain BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP are within the powers of Congress. Birthright Citizenship is all “Natural Born Citizen” implies.


67 posted on 07/31/2012 3:14:03 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

So sorry you didn’t go to the government’s own online site about statutory citizenship. You definitely would have learned something useful.

As for Sen. John McCain, he is not now, nor has he ever been, eligible to be President of the U.S.A. Children born in the Panama Canal Zone, only have statutory U.S. citizenship, nothing else. See the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone#Citizenship

For your general edification, since you obviously have NOT done research on this issue, is the following information about the Supreme Court of the United State’s precedent setting decision in Minor v. Happersett (1874). Oh, and please read before trying to refute it.

US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.
Posted June 21, 2011
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

The title of this article is correct. After having completed a more thorough review of the relevant US Supreme Court cases discussing the Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause, I have discovered precedent which states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens. Read that again. I said precedent, not dicta. The precedent holds that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.

Up until the publication of this report today, all discussion of the natural-born citizen issue (from both sides of the argument) agreed there had never been a precedent established by the US Supreme Court, and that the various cases which mentioned the clause did so in “dicta”.

Dicta are authoritative statements made by a court which are not binding legal precedent.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases“.

Precedent that must be followed is known as binding precedent. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court. On questions as to the meaning of federal law including the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and regulations, the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents must be followed.

It can no longer be denied that there is controlling US Supreme Court precedent concerning the definition of a natural-born citizen according to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution. I predict satori will overcome those of you who have labored over this issue. This is not a remote obscure reading. It is, when revealed, a clear undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our nation which specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens.

Therefore, Obama – according to US Supreme Court precedent – is not eligible to be President.

PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED BY MINOR V. HAPPERSETT

The direct US Supreme Court precedent is stated in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Furthermore, the precedent stated in Minor is consistent with other US Supreme Court cases – both before and after Minor – which discuss the natural born citizen issue. While that part of the holding in Minor regarding woman’s suffrage was superseded by the 19th Amendment - which Constitutionally established a woman’s right to vote – the rest of the case is good law. [UPDATED Dec. 15, 2011 - The voting rights issue was not superseded by the 19th Amendment, and it remains good law today. Please see JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION. ]And the remaining precedent stated regarding the definition of “natural-born citizen” – with regard to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution – is still binding upon all lower courts.

Therefore, lower court decisions – such as the holding in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana – which have misconstrued the US Supreme Court’s holding in Minor v. Happersett are wrong. Below, we will review what the Indiana Court of Appeals had to say and explain why they got it wrong. But first we must revisit Minor v. Happersett.

THE SUPREME COURT IN MINOR V. HAPPERSETT DIRECTLY CONSTRUED THE US CONSTITUTION’S ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE

Before revisiting Minor, we must revisit Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) to review a clearly erroneous statement made by Justice Gray concerning the prior holding in the Minor case:

“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.’ “ (Wong Kim Ark at 655.)

This unfortunate remark by Justice Gray contains a clearly erroneous statement. The Supreme Court in Minor did not construe the 14th Amendment as to the issue of citizenship. Gray is absolutely wrong. The Court in Minor construed Article 2 Section 1, not the 14th Amendment. For over a century, it has been wrongly assumed that the Court in Minor did construe the 14th Amendment, and that the holding of Minor was later superseded by Wong Kim Ark. This is not correct.

A more careful reading of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Minor makes it clear that it did not construe the 14th Amendment with regard to the citizenship of the woman who wished to vote. The question presented was whether, since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, women had gained the right to vote. The Supreme Court in Minor held that nowhere in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, was anyone, man or woman, granted a right to vote. And it was only this part of the Minor case which was superseded by the 19th Amendment.

The other issue decided by the Court in Minor required the Supreme Court to determine if the woman was, in fact, a US citizen. As to this determination, the Court did not construe the 14th Amendment. In fact, the Court specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment with regard to her citizenship. Instead, the Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1:

“There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ‘ are expressly declared to be ‘citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position …

“The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption. If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters. (Emphasis added.)

There you have it. The Court stops short of construing the 14th Amendment as to whether the woman in question was a US citizen. The Court made a certain, direct determination that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen before the adoption of the 14th Amendment and that she did not need the 14th Amendment to be a US citizen.

The Court then, having determined that she was a US citizen, avoided any construction of the 14th Amendment as to her citizenship status. Therefore, the holding in Minor is in no way superseded by Wong Kim Ark.

The Court in Minor went on to decide the issue of whether citizens are granted a right to vote by the Constitution, holding that it did not. Again, this part of the holding was superseded by the 19th Amendment, but the determination that Mrs. Minor was a “natural-born citizen” is still controlling precedent.

Since the Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to citizenship, it is clear that Justice Gray’s statement – concerning the citizenship passage by Justice Waite in Minor – was clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1 instead of the 14th Amendment. As such, Minor is the only US Supreme Court case which has directly construed the Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen clause. Therefore, Minor’s construction below creates binding legal precedent:

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,‘ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

“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.“ (Emphasis added.)

Whether the holding here was influenced by Vattel is not truly important. Sure, it looks just like Vattel’s definition, but Vattel does not make legal precedent – the US Supreme Court does. All that matters here is what the Supreme court held. So we must carefully examine the actual words stated by the Supreme Court. We must not allow ourselves to be guided by what the Supreme Court did not say. What the Court actually said is what makes law.

In the above passage, the Court noted that Mrs. Minor was born in the US to parents who were citizens. The Court stated that such persons were “natural-born citizens”. The Court also stated – as to such persons – that their “citizenship” was never in doubt.

By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of the class of persons who were natural-born citizens, they established her citizenship. Establishing her citizenship was required before they could get to the issue of whether she had the right to vote. In doing so, the Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.

The Court also noted that some authorities include as “citizens” those born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. The Court refers to these people as a different “class”. The Court in Minor refused to comment on the “citizenship” of such persons since Mrs. Minor was not in that class. They didn’t need to reach the 14th Amendment to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen since the Court previously established that she was a “natural-born citizen”. Read the following again:

“It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“

This class is specifically defined as “natural-born citizens” by the Court. The other class – those born in the US without citizen “parents” – may or may not be “citizens”. But the Minor Court never suggested that this other class might also be natural-born citizens.

It’s quite the opposite. The Minor Court makes clear that this class are not Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizens. If this other class were natural-born there would be no doubt as to their citizenship.

The Minor Court refrained from making a “citizenship” determination as to that class, but the Court did note that they were a different class. Later, in 1898, the Court in Wong Kim Ark took the question on directly as to who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but that case did not directly construe Article 2 Section 1, whereas Minor did.

In order to avoid construing the 14th Amendment, the Court in Minor had to define those who fit into the class of “natural-born citizens”. Mrs. Minor fit into that class. Mr. Obama does not.

This is so very evident by the fact that the Minor Court specifically states that the “citizenship” of those who have non-citizen parents was historically subject to doubt. Whether the 14th Amendment nullified those doubts was irrelevant to the Court in Minor, since Mrs. Minor was a natural-born citizen.

The 14th Amendment specifically confers only “citizenship”. In Minor, the US Supreme Court directly recognized that natural-born citizens were a class of citizens who did not need the 14th Amendment to establish citizenship. The class of natural-born citizens was perfectly defined in the Minor case.

Therefore, we have a direct determination by the US Supreme Court which defines a natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens. The citizenship of this class has never been in doubt. The citizenship of the other class was in doubt. But even if that doubt was erased – as to their citizenship – that they are not natural-born citizens was established as precedent by the Supreme Court in Minor. In order for that precedent to be reversed, one of two things are necessary:

- a Constitutional amendment which specifically defines “natural-born Citizen” more inclusively than Minor did , or;

- a Supreme Court case which overrules the definition of natural-born citizen in the Minor case

We have neither.

Minor was decided seven years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court in Minor did not consider anyone but those born of citizen parents on US soil to be natural-born citizens. Later, in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court stated that persons born on US soil to (some) alien parents were “citizens”, but that case specifically construed only the 14th Amendment.

Read again Justice Gray’s statement as to Minor, “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…“ Nope. Not true. Gray was wrong in that Justice Waite did not construe the 14th Amendment in the quoted passage. Chief Justice Waite construed Article 2 Section 1. Whereas, Justice Gray construed the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the two cases are not in conflict.

ANKENY V. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA

The Minor case has been severely misconstrued in the Ankeny opinion issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court quoted Minor’s natural-born citizen language, then stated:

“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

False. The Minor Court did not leave that question open. Nowhere in the Minor opinion does it state that the class of persons who are natural-born citizens is an open question. The Ankeny Court has it backwards.

The Supreme Court in Minor stated that the “citizenship” of persons who were not natural born citizens was an open question.

That is the most important sentence I’ve ever written at this blog. So please read it again.

The “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was a question that the Minor Court avoided. But they avoided that question by directly construing Article 2 Section 1. In doing so, the Supreme Court in Minor defined the class of persons who were born in the US to citizen parents as “natural-born citizens”.

Since Minor, no Amendment has been adopted which changes that definition, and no other Supreme Court case has directly construed Article 2 Section 1.

The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark only construed the question of who was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, it did not construe Article 2 Section 1. Therefore, Minor and Wong Kim Ark do not compete with each other at all. Minor is the standing precedent for construction of the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1, and Wong Kim Ark is the standing precedent as to “citizenship” under the 14th Amendment.

WONG KIM ARK SPECIFICALLY DEFERRED TO PRIOR PRECEDENT REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

That the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark limited its holding strictly to the issue of 14th Amendment citizenship – and did not make any new determination as to Article 2 Section 1 – is evident from the following statement by Gray regarding the dissent by Justice Curtis in the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford:

“In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

‘The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.’

19 How. 60 U. S. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.”

At first glance, Gray’s reliance upon the dissent’s passage in the Dred Scott case would appear to contradict everything I have written above. But it doesn’t. It actually confirms my analysis.

Justice Gray chooses his words carefully and so we must examine them carefully. Note where Gray says, “And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.” Well, if we are talking only about “citizenship”, then – to this extent – Justice Gray is correct. But if we are talking about the definition of a “natural-born citizen”, then Gray is grossly mistaken.

The Dred Scott majority may not have expressed a different opinion as to “citizenship”, but the majority’s definition of a natural-born citizen is vastly different than that of Justice Curtis in his dissent. The majority opinion in Dred Scott, citing Vattel directly, stated:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”

Again:

“I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.”

Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.

From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable…”

Unexceptionable is defined as; ” not open to any objection or criticism.” The Supreme Court majority, in the Dred Scott case, clearly states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the US to parents who are citizens. Therefore, Justice Gray’s reliance upon the dissent in the Dred Scott case is strictly limited to its discussion of “citizenship” by Gray’s very choice of the words, “to this extent”.

Since Gray stated that none of the other justices in the Dred Scott case expressed a different opinion than Curtis did in his dissent, it is obvious that Gray’s statement only applies to general citizenship, and not to the definition of those who fall into the class of natural-born citizens. The majority in Dred Scott did, in fact, express a completely different opinion than Curtis on the issue of who was an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen.

Gray’s use of the words, “to this extent” – with regard to the dissent by Curtis – indicates that the extent to which the holding in Wong Kim Ark applies is to the definition of “citizenship”, not to the definition of who is a natural-born citizen eligible to be President. The precedent stated by the Court in Minor still stands to this day.

THE US SUPREME COURT DEFINITION OF PRECEDENT

In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain “…reason as an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision”, then that reasoning is not simply dictum:

“Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”

The Supreme Court in Minor specifically construed Article 2 Section 1 by defining – as natural-born citizens – those persons born in the US to parents who were citizens.

Again, the Supreme Court specifically avoided the 14th Amendment, by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.

In order to determine whether Mrs. Minor had the right to vote, the Court first needed to determine if she was a US citizen. They determined that she was a citizen because she was in the class of “natural-born citizens”. And, in doing so, they made it clear that persons born of non-citizen parents were not natural-born citizens.

The Court left open the question of whether those born of non-citizen parents were “citizens”. But the Court did not leave open their specific construction of Article 2 Section 1. Their definition of a “natural-born citizen” was the core reason they found Mrs. Minor to be a citizen. Therefore, the Minor Court established binding precedent as follows:

“…[A]ll 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...”

Please also note that the Court here makes specific reference to both aliens and foreigners as distinguished from natural-born citizens. Aliens are just that, aliens. They are not citizens. But we have always had many foreigners in this country who were citizens. Those who came here from foreign lands were foreigners naturalized as citizens. Some who were born in the US with dual citizenship – like Obama – were also citizens of the nation of their parents. These are citizens, but also foreigners. The Court in Minor made the careful distinction that a natural-born citizen is not an alien or a foreigner.

CITIZENS MAY BE BORN OR NATURALIZED

A common misconception of those who argue in favor of Obama’s eligibility is that if one is, at the time of their birth, a US citizen, then that person is also a natural-born citizen. False. This was unequivocally established by the majority holding in Minor, which states:

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it providesthat ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

Again, at first glance this appears to provide a neat little soundbite for Obama supporters. But it doesn’t. The quote above is taken out of context. The Court’s opinion goes on to state:

“Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided…that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.”

Here, the Minor Court cites the first naturalization act of 1790 to the effect that persons born of US citizen parents – outside the jurisdiction of the US – are “considered as natural-born citizens”. So, here we can see that while the Minor Court only recognizes two paths to citizenship, birth and naturalization… it is clear that some persons who, at the time of their birth, are US citizens, require naturalization for such status.

So, it’s clear that while there are only two paths to US citizenship, birth and naturalization, those two paths sometimes merge. But naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President. (The Minor Court failed to mention that the words “natural-born” were repealed from the naturalization act of 1795.)

Additionally, the current US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, at “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency“, comments on the 1790 act as follows:

“This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”

This is most likely because the statute did not actually deem such a person to be a natural-born citizen, the act simply stated that such a person was to be “considered as” a natural-born citizen.

The Minor Court also noted that the “substance” of the 1790 act, which granted US citizenship at birth via naturalization, had remained as law up until 1875 when the Minor case was decided. So, clearly, while citizens may either be born or naturalized, some born citizens are simultaneously naturalized at birth. Naturalized citizens are not natural-born citizens. Therefore, they are not eligible to be President.

I am not arguing that Obama was naturalized. But Minor does establish that not all “born citizens” are “natural-born”. Minor also gives an unequivocal definition of who fits into the class of natural-born citizens. Obama does not fit into that class. Born in the US to a citizen mother and a British/Kenyan father, Obama was born with dual nationality and dual allegiance, part US citizen, part foreigner. Minor makes a clear distinction between natural-born citizens and aliens or foreigners.

No Constitutional amendment supersedes Minor by defining natural-born citizen in a more inclusive way. No US Supreme Court case has overruled it. Justice Gray’s statement that the Court in Minor construed the 14th Amendment in the passage quoted is wrong. The Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 while directly avoiding construction of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark directly construed the 14th Amendment and specifically avoided construction of Article 2 Section 1. The two cases are not in contradiction. They are consistent.

Wong Kim Ark is specifically limited to determining who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

Minor is specifically limited to determining who is a US citizen, natural-born.

According to the US Supreme Court precedent established by Minor, Obama is not eligible to the office of President of the United States.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.


68 posted on 07/31/2012 4:03:50 AM PDT by SatinDoll (Natural Born Citizen - born in the USA of citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus

Sorry to break the news to you, but Rubio is one of those mealy-mouthed Rinos you disparage.

Jindal is still trying to figure out how to be a governor.

Neither man is eligible. Too bad, so sad.

Furthermore, just because everything seems to going to Hell in a hand basket, doesn’t mean we emulate the Democratic Party.

A great many Democrats committed fraud, maybe even treason, getting an ineligible and communist BHO2 into the White House. He’s trashing the nation, and we must get him out of there, but we should do it legally and cleanly.

And don’t think I haven’t seriously thought about what I would do in the event of an insurrection. I’m really pissed at the whole embroglio.


69 posted on 07/31/2012 4:12:00 AM PDT by SatinDoll (Natural Born Citizen - born in the USA of citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: marygonzo
"Gov. Bob McDonnell is the governor of VA. not McDONALD, btw.
70 posted on 07/31/2012 4:16:46 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

” Uh... it was Clinton & Republicans in Congress who reformed it the first time and put in the work requirements that Obama’s undone.”

Obama hasn’t “undone” any work requirements. Quit spouting nonsense.


71 posted on 07/31/2012 7:05:35 AM PDT by goseminoles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
“Well, I think the people who would do the best job is somebody like either Sen. Rob Portman, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, maybe Gov. Bobby Jindal,”

Great idea, Newt! Why put fears to rest with your VP choice? Come on out of that closet.

You GOPe types should make the election a two front war against the demonrat party on one side and against the Constitutionalists on the other and choose Rubio or Jindal for VP.

GOPe against the world!

72 posted on 07/31/2012 7:21:07 AM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
And Thomas Paine wrote that foreigners and half-foreigners were excluded from the presidency, so what I wrote is not wrong, no matter how many caps or periods you use.

-PJ

73 posted on 07/31/2012 8:43:21 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It doesn't come naturally when you're not natural born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

As for me a a lot of my veteran friends, your opinion is worthless and we will refuse to vote for any ticket that has a person on it that is NOT a Natural Born Citizen which means a person born with 2 American citizen parents and born in the United States.

All you have to do is use some common sense to understand that our Founding Fathers put a grandfather clause in the Constitution because none of them had American citizen parents at the time of their birth. They did all become citizens though when the Constitution was ratified, so more than being a citizen was required.

Sen McCain, Mr. obama, Sen Rubio, and Gov jindel and not Natural Born Citizens and are NOT eligible under the Constitution to be President.

You can spout all the liberal nonsense you want to but, the facts don’t change.


74 posted on 07/31/2012 10:45:45 AM PDT by Crazy ole coot (Mr. obama and Sen. Rubio are NOT Natural Born Citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Crazy ole coot
On this issue, YOU are the liberal, in that you want to force your opinion on a public, and a legal community, which has NEVER agreed with you.

You are presumptuous, in your assumption that I am a “liberal” on any issue.

You are a misguided “conservative” who has fallen for a crackpot legal theory which NOBODY of any stature, on the Right, shares with you.

I am a Veteran too, so you are also a bit defensive to bring up that point, and also VERY arrogant to assume that I do not hold the SAME status as YOU in that regard.

You are wrong, you look foolish, you have NOBODY of any stature on your side, and you should find another argument if you don't wish to come off like a raving loon.

Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH and that is all it has EVER meant. (However, Congress does have the duty and the right to define the requirements for Citizenship, at any time.)

75 posted on 07/31/2012 11:55:41 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Thomas Paine was ONE person. Why did we have a Congress, in the days of our founding, if EVERYONE agreed with Thomas Paine?

Also, what I am stating is not at odds, at all, with what Paine said.

Show me that Rubio is a Citizen of ANY other country but the United States and you might have a small, minor point of agreement with Thomas Paine, even though your biased interpretation of his statement is not at all controlling in the matter at hand.

76 posted on 07/31/2012 11:59:38 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Nobody agrees with your interpretation.

That is a FACT!

No Judge
No Elected Official
No Immigration Attorney
No Historian
Not Limbaugh
Not Levin
Not Hannity
Not Jay Sekulow
Not the American Center for Law and Justice
Not the Heritage Foundation
Not Landmark Legal Foundation

You can copy and paste all you want, but the law is about OPINIONS and NOBODY with any stature agrees with you.

You are alone.

You are wrong.

77 posted on 07/31/2012 12:05:03 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Natural Born Citizen requires two American citizen parents at birth and to be born on American soil. Being a citizen is NOT enough to be a Natural Born Citizen as has been proven by the SCOTUS opinions previously published.

I never said anything about your service or lack of service. Don’t put words in my mouth. I said that a lot of my veteran friends will not vote for anyone that is not eligible under the Constitution and that includes obama, rubio, and jindel.

You may not be a liberal, but you sure try to shove their talking points down everyone else’s throat. I’m not buying you BS and will not respond to your wild opinions again.

I know what the Constitution says and to be President requires a higher standard than just being a citizen.

Have a good day and learn some history!!


78 posted on 07/31/2012 12:48:32 PM PDT by Crazy ole coot (Mr. obama and Sen. Rubio are NOT Natural Born Citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Crazy ole coot
Natural Born Citizen requires two American citizen parents at birth and to be born on American soil. Being a citizen is NOT enough to be a Natural Born Citizen as has been proven by the SCOTUS opinions previously published.

I never said anything about your service or lack of service. Don’t put words in my mouth. I said that a lot of my veteran friends will not vote for anyone that is not eligible under the Constitution and that includes obama, rubio, and jindel.

“You may not be a liberal, but you sure try to shove their talking points down everyone else’s throat. I’m not buying you BS and will not respond to your wild opinions again.”


My Opinion, is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of conservative legal authority. YOUR opinion is on the lunatic fringe, unsupported by fact or history or law.

“I know what the Constitution says and to be President requires a higher standard than just being a citizen.”

Agreed, you can not be a NATURALIZED Citizen and become President. You must be a Citizen at the moment of birth, which is the very definition of Natural Born Citizen.


“Have a good day and learn some history!!”

Am I right, you are pathetically wrong and unsupported by any existing legal authority.

You may also have a good day. History is on my side.

79 posted on 07/31/2012 1:04:37 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Thomas Paine was ONE person.

So was John Adams, your single cite. So we're 1-1, right? Are there other contemporaries of ratification whose words survive, or do we have to rely on the words of 14th amendment writers from 100 years later?

It's not about sole citizenship, it's about being raised by citizens to embrace the nationality of the home country. It's why the Preamble says "We the People of the United States, in Order to... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

As I've said many times, the Preamble defines who the Natural born Citizens are. It logically flows from the Preamble.

"We the People" are citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children.

Whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children?

How else would the Founders attempt to secure the United States of America if not by limiting the qualifications for the highest office to the People and their Posterity that was the reason for establishing the Constitution in the first place?

That language seems plain enough to me. The whole Constitution must be read within the context of the purpose as stated by the Framers in the Preamble: the Constitution was framed specifically to ensure the country to its people and their children - the natural born of the country.

If you are an alien who becomes a naturalized citizen, you become one of We the People, and then your children that follow become the nation's posterity.

Natural-born citizens are the nation's "posterity" that the Constitution was ordained and established to secure.

...your biased interpretation of his statement is not at all controlling in the matter at hand.

Regarding controlling the matter at hand, it is interesting that Thomas Jefferson was not a Framer either (he was in France at the time), but his letter to the Danbury Baptist Minister's Association of 1801 is considered controlling on the matter of separation of church and state, even though he wrote it 12 years after ratification.

I don't think I have a biased interpretation of Paine's words. He refers to "half a foreigner." What do you think "half a foreigner" means? I think it means a person who has one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. Can you think of a different interpretation. Please show me how my interpretation is biased. Paine further writes that this person (foreigner or half a foreigner) is "never in full natural or political connection with the country." Why do you think he says that? Is it because the person is raised by a parent who is a citizen of another country, or is it something else? Again, please show me where my interpretation of Paine's writing is biased.

-PJ

80 posted on 07/31/2012 1:38:44 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It doesn't come naturally when you're not natural born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

First, Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists is NOT “controlling” as you state, on 1st Amendment or Church/State issues. Next? You are making a HUGE leap, with your weak arguments. Your citations do not come close to supporting your wild claims. Try these: —— “ “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789) ———————————————————————————————————————— “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795) ———————————————————————————————————————— “that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.” Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805) ———————————————————————————————————————— “The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.” Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806) ———————————————————————————————————————— “Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth ; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.” “This claim of the commonwealth to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories, may subject some persons who, adhering to their former sovereign and residing within his dominions, are recognized by him as his subjects, to great inconvenience, especially in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns may claim their allegiance. But the inconvenience cannot alter the law of the land. If they return to the country of their birth, they will be protected as subjects.” Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813). ———————————————————————————————————————— “And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826) ———————————————————————————————————————— “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826) ———————————————————————————————————————— “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803) ———————————————————————————————————————— “Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.” Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830) ———————————————————————————————————————— “The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.” Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822) ———————————————————————————————————————— “The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.” Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829) ———————————————————————————————————————— “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829) ———————————————————————————————————————— “From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.” American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834 ———————————————————————————————————————— “Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.” State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838) ———————————————————————————————————————— “It requires all senators to be thirty years old, and prohibits any but a natural born subject from being president.” State v. Foreman, 16 Tenn. 256, 335–36 (1835). ———————————————————————————————————————— “and that no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.” The Law Library, Vol. 84, pg. 50 (1854) ———————————————————————————————————————— “The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States. The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle…. But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…” Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204, 206, 208 (February 1854). ———————————————————————————————————————— “Alligience”: It is natural, acquired, or local. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the United States; acquired allegiance is that which is due by a naturalized citizen. It has never been decided whether a citizen can, by expatriation, divest himself absolutely of that character. Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843) ———————————————————————————————————————— “That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…” January 28, 1838, Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838) ———————————————————————————————————————— “The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ” Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844) ———————————————————————————————————————— “Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.” Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845) ———————————————————————————————————————— “It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.” The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845) ———————————————————————————————————————— “This is called becoming naturalized; that is, becoming entitled to all the rights and privileges of natural born citizens, or citizens born in this country.” Andrew White Young, First lessons in Civil Government, pg. 82 (1856). ———————————————————————————————————————— “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” Justice Curtis, dissenting, Dredd Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). ———————————————————————————————————————— “The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …” ‘ Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862) ———————————————————————————————————————— “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866) ———————————————————————————————————————— “in like manner every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born citizen ; but the power of naturalization, which, under the king, each colony had claimed to regulate by its own laws, remained under the confederacy with the separate states.” George Bancroft, History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent: The American Revolution., pg. 439 (1866) ———————————————————————————————————————— “Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.” ‘ Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866) ———————————————————————————————————————— “By the common law of England, which is in force in this country, and which may be assumed as also the law of all the European states, persons within the jurisdiction of the government, or limits of the territory, are either natives, or aliens. Natives are those born within the national jurisdiction; aliens are born without that jurisdiction. The exception to this almost universal rule, are the foreign-born children of ambassadors, who are assumed to carry with them the jurisdiction of the nation which they represent. As a general principle of the English and American law, all native-born, free persons, of whatever age, sex, and parentage, are citizens.” John Norton Pomeroy, Introduction to Municipal Law, pg. 419 (1865) ———————————————————————————————————————— “As matter of law, does anybody deny here, or anywhere, that the native-born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone ?” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866). ———————————————————————————————————————— “Mr. Thayer, of Pennsylvania, said that the bill was an enactment simply declaring that all men born upon the soil of the United States shall enjoy the fundamental rights of citizenship.” Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 1151 (1866). ———————————————————————————————————————— “What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?” Congressman Broomall, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 1262 (1866). ———————————————————————————————————————— “A Natural Born Citizen.” — Not made by law or otherwise, but born… “Natural Born Citizen” recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born to a country do constitute the nation, and, as individual, are natural members of the body politic…Every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen.” George Washington Paschal, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DEFINED AND CAREFULLY ANNOTATED, (1868) ———————————————————————————————————————— “By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866), April 11, 1871, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872) ———————————————————————————————————————— “All persons born in the limits and under the actual obedience of the United States were its “natural-born citizens”; and it is in this sense that the phrase is used in section one of article two of the constitution.” John Joseph Lalor, Cyclopædia of political science, political economy, and of the political history of the United States, Volume 2, pg. 948 (1883) ———————————————————————————————————————— “So, also, any person born of a foreign father in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, may be a natural- born American citizen, if he choose. In these doubtful cases the person may choose the country of his father or the country of his birth. So that a person may be a natural-born citizen of the United States, without being a native of the United States.” Albert Orville Wright, An Exposition on the Constitution of the United States, (31st Ed.) (1888). ———————————————————————————————————————— “There is no uniform rule among nations by which the nationality of effect of birth a person may be determined from the place of his birth. England and America claim all who are born within their dominions as natural-born subjects or citizens, whatever may have been the parents’ nationality.” Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 1889 edition. ———————————————————————————————————————— “Natural-born Citizens, those that are born within the jurisdiction of a national government; i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens, temporarily residing abroad.” William Cox Cochran, The student’s law lexicon: a dictionary of legal words and phrases : with appendices, Pg. 185 (1888) ———————————————————————————————————————— “Citizens are either natural-born or naturalized. One who is born in the United States or under its jurisdiction is a natural-born citizen without reference to the nationality of his parents. Their presence here constitutes a temporary allegiance, sufficient to make a child a citizen.” Theodore Dwight, Edward Dwight, Commentaries on the law of persons and personal property, pg. 125 (1894) ———————————————————————————————————————— “Citizens may be divided into two classes : natural born and alien born. Natural-born citizens are of two kinds: native born—those born of either American or alien parents within the jurisdiction of the United Slates, and foreign born—those born of American parents without the Jurisdiction of the United States.” John Clark Ridpath, The standard American encyclopedia of arts, sciences, history, biography, geography, statistics, and general knowledge, Volume 8, pg 3058 (1897). ———————————————————————————————————————— “The children of aliens, born in America or in England, are entitled to all the privileges of natural-born citizens.” William Story, Edmund Bennett, A treatise on the law of sales of personal property, pg. 17 (1871) ———————————————————————————————————————— “The common law rule upon the subject of citizenship by birth was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards under the articles of confederation, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally adopted;8 with this qualification, however, that, prior to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, neither the negroes of the African race, who, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, had been imported into this country and sold and held as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were embraced within the rule.” Chrisenberry Lee Bates, Federal Procedure at Law: A Treatise on the Procedure in Suits at Common Law, pg. 195 (1908). ———————————————————————————————————————— “[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States…the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words….in this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution…The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,654 (1898) ———————————————————————————————————————— “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898) ———————————————————————————————————————— “The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle. Binney on Alienigenae, 14, 20; 2 Amer.Law Reg.199, 203…Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,671,673 (1898) ———————————————————————————————————————— “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,693 (1898) ———————————————————————————————————————— “It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations….There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion….Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty…..So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649, 666, 668, 673, 674 (1898). ———————————————————————————————————————— “Every person born -within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen, within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity. Town of New Hartford v. Town of Canaan, 5 Atl. SCO, 3(!4, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle, Const. U. S. p. 86). See also. Lynch v. Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comni. (9th Ed.): McKay v. Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field, Int Code, 132; Morse, Citizenship, 203).” Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases, pg. 4664 (1904) ———————————————————————————————————————— “As anyone born in the dominion of the king was ipso facto the king’s subject, so anyone born on American soil now became a natural born American citizen.” Samuel Macclintock, Alienage And Citizenship, Illinios Law review, pg.503 (1908) ———————————————————————————————————————— “The rule of the common law is that citizenship turns upon the place of birth, and that one born within the jurisdiction, even though of alien parents, is a citizen by birth, or, as the Constitution expresses it, a natural-born citizen; and this rule has been very generally recognized and enforced by all the departments of the government.” Raleigh C. Minor, Address on the Citizenship of Individuals …, PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW (1910) ———————————————————————————————————————— “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. A natural-born citizen of the United States is one who is a citizen by reason of his place of birth or the citizenship of his father. The two classes of naturalized and natural born citizens are thus mutually exclusive, and together constitute the entire citizen body of the United States. ” Andrew C. McLaughlin & Albert Bushnell Hart ( Ed.), CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT Vol. 2 (1914). ———————————————————————————————————————— “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. A person whose citizenship derives from the nation where he or she was born.” Kenneth Robert Redden, Enid Veron, Modern Legal Glossary, pg. 263 (1980) ———————————————————————————————————————— “Natural-born citizens can acquire that status by being born in the United States, on the basis of jus soli…” William Carroll, Norman Smith, American Constitutional Rights: cases, documents, and commentary, pg. 130 (1991) ———————————————————————————————————————— “The requirement that the president be a “natural born” citizen implies that the framers recognized the principle of jus soli. According to this doctrine – literally meaning the “right to land or ground” – citizenship results from birth within a national territory.” Kermit Hall, The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, pg. 24 (1992) ———————————————————————————————————————— “Americans are accustomed to the concept of automatic citizenship granted to persons born in the United States, who are called “natural-born citizens…” Joseph M. Bessette, American Justice, Volume 1‎ – Page 129 (1996) ———————————————————————————————————————— “Natural-born citizens are people born in the United States.” David Heath, the Presidency of the United States, pg. 8 (1999) ———————————————————————————————————————— “Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.” Black’s Law Dictionary, eigth edition (1999) ———————————————————————————————————————— “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of “citizen” in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born-citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship through jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. ” Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) ———————————————————————————————————————— “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born in the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen. ? Statement of Senator Orrin Hatch, United States Senate Judiciary Committee, October 5, 2004. ———————————————————————————————————————— “It is clear that a child born within the physical borders of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is eligible to run for President.” Statement of Senator Nickles, United sates Senate Judiciary Commitee, October 5, 2004. ———————————————————————————————————————— “If the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a “natural born” citizen under the well-established principle that “natural born” citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States…” Letter by Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe, reported in 154 Cong. Rec. S3645-46 (Apr. 30, 2008). ———————————————————————————————————————— “United States citizens born to parents subject to United States jurisdiction in one of the fifty states are unquestionably natural born citizens. Even the narrowest reading of the Fourteenth Amendment dictates that all current states are in the United States. This is true regardless of parental citizenship, unless a child’s parents are protected by the full immunity extended to foreign diplomats and their families, or they are enemy combatants.” Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005). ———————————————————————————————————————— “United States citizens born to parents subject to United States jurisdiction in one of the fifty states are unquestionably natural born citizens. Even the narrowest reading of the Fourteenth Amendment dictates that all current states are in the United States. This is true regardless of parental citizenship, unless a child’s parents are protected by the full immunity extended to foreign diplomats and their families, or they are enemy combatants.” Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005) ———————————————————————————————————————— “It is now generally assumed that the term “natural born” is synonymous with “native born.” “It [therefore] is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible [for the presidency] and that naturalized citizens are not.” There is a general agreement among commentators, whether or not they are advocates of an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation, that “whether someone born of American parents abroad would be considered a natural born citizen” is an open question.” Lawrence Freedman, An Idea Whose Time Has Come–The Curious History, Uncertain Effect, and Need for Amendment of the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement for the Presidency, 52 St. Louis U. L.J. 137, 143 (2007) ———————————————————————————————————————— “The most straightforward argument is that “natural born” was a well recognized term of art, based upon the most commonly applied principle of traditional British common law dating from the 16th century. These distinguished between citizenship by birth and being “natural born” for purposes of such questions as the right to inherit and the right to hold certain offices. Under those common law rules children of British citizens born anywhere other than on English soil generally were eligible for birthright citizenship; however, they didn’t generally inherit their English parents own “natural-born” status. Because of these disabilities, Parliament made occasional exceptions, granting some (but not all) of the rights of “natural born” citizens to persons born overseas. If we applied the common law rules in force at the time of the Founding, McCain fails to meet the “natural born” requirement for the Presidency. John McCain was not born on American soil; rather, he was born at a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone.” J. Rebekka Bonner, “Why John McCain Needs The Living Constitution” on Balkinization, May 15, 2008 ———————————————————————————————————————— “The undebated provision that the President be “natural born” was, however, again ambiguous. As Madison observed in 1789, there were two conceptions of citizenship by birth available to the framers. Birth derived its “force” as a “criterian of allegiance … sometimes from place,” as in the common-law tradition of jus soli expounded by Coke and Blackstone, and “sometimes from parentage,” from birth to one or more citizens, a position known as the jus sanguinis and endorsed by Vattel and Burlamaqui…..But in keeping with the nativistic tone of the debate over these clauses, and not with the Constitution’s predominant liberal republicanism, it was almost certainly the common-law criterion of place of birth that the delegates meant to install, as Madison later asserted. It thus perpetuated the older view of “natural” civic membership in a way that conformed to xenophobic sentiments.” Rogers M. Smith, CIVIC IDEALS: CONFLICTING VISIONS OF CITIZENSHIP IN U.S. HISTORY (Yale University Press, 1999) ———————————————————————————————————————— “It is clear that under the English common law this term ‘natural born’ meant ‘native born.’… It was this genuine ‘native-born’ citizen … to which the framers of the Constitution referred when they used the term ‘natural-born citizens’ as one of the qualifications for the President” McElwee, unpublished article reprinted in 113 Cong. Rec. 15,875 at 15,876 (1967) ———————————————————————————————————————— “Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Addition (1994). ———————————————————————————————————————— “Throughout this country’s history, the fundamental legal principle governing citizenship has been that birth within the territorial limits of the United States confers United States citizenship. The Constitution itself rests on this principle of the common law. …The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to reflect the existing common law exception for discrete sets of persons who were deemed subject to a foreign sovereign and immune from U.S. laws, principally children born in the United States of foreign diplomats, with the single additional exception of children of members of Indian tribes. Apart from these extremely limited exceptions, there can be no question that children born in the United States of aliens are subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. And, as consistently recognized by courts and Attorneys General for over a century, most notably by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, (6) there is no question that they possess constitutional citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Walter Dellinger (AAG), Statement before the Subcommittees on Immigration and Claims and on the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary (Dec. 13, 1995) http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/


81 posted on 07/31/2012 1:56:02 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Crazy ole coot; All

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/

I do not agree with all of these citations, but the vast majority of them DO support my arguments, and destroy any argument you might think that you have.

Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth, or Birthright Citizen.


82 posted on 07/31/2012 2:09:12 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th; marygonzo
Choosing Governor McDonald could help bring in Virginia’s electoral votes.

Virginia's Governor is Bob McDonnell

83 posted on 07/31/2012 2:23:55 PM PDT by TheRightGuy (I want MY BAILOUT ... a billion or two should do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Thanks for the citations. I will have to spend some time reading them.

At first glance, it strikes me that I will have to understand where the writer substitutes the words "native" for "natural" and then proceeds as if "native" were the word that was used. Also, the same for "subject" vs. "citizen." If the writer substitutes one word for another, and then proceeds as if the latter were the word used, would that not be bias when trying to defend the former?

I will say that you have provided what appears to be, if not comprehensive, at least representative, opinion. It will also be interesting to observe how the debate proceeds over the centuries.

Thank you for this.

-PJ

84 posted on 07/31/2012 2:30:21 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It doesn't come naturally when you're not natural born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too; All

http://fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

another one for you to look at! :)


85 posted on 07/31/2012 3:49:10 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Crazy ole coot

Would someone please tell me what two US citizens where Barack Hussein Obama’s parents?

What a crazy world where we argue about Jindal and Rubio yet the clearest violator sits in Washington like a Greek god (in his mind) before us!


86 posted on 07/31/2012 5:01:44 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Most of those in the media you cite in your list have had their own or their children’s lives threatened, as have some on FR looking into this issue.

I tell you, if we don’t start holding up our Constitutional rights and national laws now, this nation will be ripped to an extent irrepairable.

We will be a nation of tyranny, and no longer a nation of laws under God.

Only the U.S.Congress can remove a sitting President, and that body has delegated the removal of a usurper, to be tried via Quo warranto, to the District Court of Washington, D.C.

The fact it hasn’t happened says more about the fear and cowardice among Americans today, than about YOUR opinion that laws no longer matter.

You, like the people you mention, are pissing on the U.S.Constitution, and deserve the anarchy to come.


87 posted on 07/31/2012 5:50:59 PM PDT by SatinDoll (Natural Born Citizen - born in the USA of citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
You are wrong.
There are, indeed, several violations of the Constitution under Obama.

However, that does not mean that your interpretation of the Constitution is always correct.

You have nobody on your side, nobody at all.

To claim that this is all due to “death threats” is absurd. I, personally, have fought the Federal Government, in Court, and WON! Do not preach to me, I could give you and all of the radical birthers lessons.

You are fighting for the wrong hill.

Your strategy will not win, it will not even gain any ground for the Conservative cause.

Rubio is qualified.

And? I also think Obama’s real daddy might be Communist Frank Marshal Davis, so the argument is a waste of time, in his case.

88 posted on 07/31/2012 5:56:12 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

The proof is in the pudding. Zero is living in the White House as commander-in-chief. Any other comments are irrelevant. Neither the SCOTUS or the congress have the slightest objections so far. You might be very well be right about his ineligibility. But does it matter when he is the reigning president and about to run for 2nd term. With half the voters getting government checks, do not be surprised if we wins again. Ineligibility be damned. Precedents are being set with every passing day.


89 posted on 07/31/2012 6:02:45 PM PDT by entropy12 (Hate is the most insidious emotion, it will encourage cancer cells in your body.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

I take it you don’t care about the eligibility issue?


90 posted on 07/31/2012 7:29:24 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

I care only about actual results. That comes from practicing engineering for 37 years. Ignore the theory and pay attention to actual results. Actual result is that president Zero is reigning as C-in-C and living in the White House for 3 years and 8 months.

Your theory that Obama is ineligible is only your theory. It is not backed up by the ONLY official constitutional powers which are the SCOTUS and the US Congress. Therefore what you may think as eligibility issue is purely irrelevant.

If you want my personal opinion, it is that Obama is a fake, and one of the most incompetent presidents in a century. I am not convinced he was born in Hawaii. But my opinion is irrelevant since the powers that be do not agree with me.


91 posted on 07/31/2012 8:37:46 PM PDT by entropy12 (Hate is the most insidious emotion, it will encourage cancer cells in your body.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

I care only about actual results. That comes from practicing engineering for 37 years. Ignore the theory and pay attention to actual results. Actual result is that president Zero is reigning as C-in-C and living in the White House for 3 years and 8 months.

Your theory that Obama is ineligible is only your theory. It is not backed up by the ONLY official constitutional powers which are the SCOTUS and the US Congress. Therefore what you may think as eligibility issue is purely irrelevant.

If you want my personal opinion, it is that Obama is a fake, and one of the most incompetent presidents in a century. I am not convinced he was born in Hawaii. But my opinion is irrelevant since the powers that be do not agree with me.


92 posted on 07/31/2012 8:38:10 PM PDT by entropy12 (Hate is the most insidious emotion, it will encourage cancer cells in your body.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

My, my...you’ve now outed yourself as a Rino.


93 posted on 07/31/2012 11:37:41 PM PDT by SatinDoll (Natural Born Citizen - born in the USA of citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: TheRightGuy

RE: “Virginia’s Governor is Bob McDonnell”

*************

Yes, and he would be my choice for VP — I’ve been watching him for awhile and he’s also got good credentials. No problems with eligibility, not too in-your-face like Christie, not so boring as Pawlenty or Portman, and McDonnell is a governor. Plus, many of the other candidates are Senators and who wants to lose an ‘R’ Senator?

I like Thune, too, but he’s a senator. I’m hoping for McDonnell.......


94 posted on 08/01/2012 2:44:11 AM PDT by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: CaliforniaCon
I’m hoping for McDonnell.......

... me too, if he can skate past his Macaca Moment.

95 posted on 08/01/2012 7:43:08 AM PDT by TheRightGuy (I want MY BAILOUT ... a billion or two should do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
In your book, “Rino” obviously means anyone who does not want to wear the tin-foil-hats you are passing out.
96 posted on 08/01/2012 9:08:25 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
In 2008 I didn't believe in conspiracies and just did what I always do when a national election rolls around.

Every national election I research the presidential candidates. I began researching Obama in March of 2008 and posting discoveries on FR. By the end of April that year my computer had been hacked and all files erased. My nephew, an ethical hacker (don't laugh! They do exist), traced the hack’s origin to a Senate Office building in Washington, D.C. It was only the first.

That summer, I began answering the front door with a fully loaded shotgun, either in-hand, or nearby.

Three more times during the next 9 months my computer was hacked: twice from Chicago, and once more from Washington after the inauguration. And I wasn't the only person being targeted with harassment.

Two freepers, butterdezillion and Miss Tickley, experienced death threats leveled against their children, and butterdezillion's family has endured repeated vandalism against their vehicles. Butter has been very active in her state of Nebraska, attempting to pass legislation that would require the Article II natural born Citizen eligibility requirement be incorporated into her state's constitution.

I don't know what you mean by tin-foil-hat, but I now know that international communism, George Soros and Leo Gerard leading the way, plus the Global Social Justice movement, is behind BHO2.

I believe a person submitting to the evil actively undermining our Constitutional government is a RINO. Without law and order, without trust in God and the courage to pursue the truth, this nation is finished.

So, Kansas, are you giving up your struggles against folks like Stiller the Baby Killer?

I'm a Christian. We don't give up. As you stated, I evidently have no “stature”. That is OK by me; the title, “Citizen of the United States”, satisfies me. Your haughty comment, however, paints you in a very sad way.

I will continue to speak the truth no matter how it plays out, and will leave you with a quote from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

“You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”

“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.”

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”

May God bless you, Kansas58, and that the rest of your day is pleasant.

97 posted on 08/01/2012 1:41:48 PM PDT by SatinDoll (Natural Born Citizen - born in the USA of citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
I can admire your courage and doubt your wisdom at the same time.

I fought BOTH Randall Terry of Operation Rescue, who thought it was OK to send kids into the busy streets to protest, AND I fought George Tiller and Judge Kelly, who thought it was OK to kill babies, AT THE SAME TIME!

I got lots of religious arguments from Randall and his friends too, but on the issue of sending kids into the streets, Randy Terry eventually admitted he was wrong.

Leadership requires the ability to tell your own side that they are in error.

Birthers are in error, frequently.

Yes, I doubt most of what Obama says. That does not mean that I am foolish enough to jump aboard any wild-eyed idea that the rest of you come up with.

98 posted on 08/01/2012 2:25:44 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

I am a constitutionalist. Tell me where I am wrong to support the U.S.Constitution.


99 posted on 08/01/2012 5:09:01 PM PDT by SatinDoll (Natural Born Citizen - born in the USA of citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
You are wrong to arrogantly presume that you know what the Constitution means, to the exclusion of all other voices on the matter.

You are wrong to ignore the interpretations of James Madison, who WROTE the very document you hold in such high regard.

You are wrong to ignore the members of Congress who debated these issues at length, when crafting the 14th Amendment.

100 posted on 08/01/2012 5:15:24 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-102 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