Help yourself.
Posted on 07/31/2012 2:58:34 PM PDT by Perdogg
I would like to address an issue that is apparently of concern to a significant number of people. In my “Ask Fred” column, several people have expressed concern (some have been adamant and angry) that Marco Rubio should not be selected as the Vice Presidential nominee because he would not be eligible to be President, if the need arose. They contend that at least one of his parents were required at the time of his birth to have been a citizen for him to fulfill the constitutional requirement of eligibility, even though he was born on American soil.
(Excerpt) Read more at fredthompsonsamerica.com ...
Since some ignorantly and falsely hold that birth in a US Territory or on a US Military base, by itself, would not qualify for automatic citizenship -— It was necessary to stop that argument by bringing up the fact that McCain qualified due to the valid citizenship claims of both of his parents, at the time of John McCains birth.
Wrong and Wrong.
First, being born on a US military installation overseas did not give one citizenship or natural born status...prior to 1965. I know this for a fact, for I was born on US military installation overseas before 1965....and I have Naturalization papers...and both parents were US citizens at the time. After 1965, the “Naturalization” certificate was no longer needed...however, such births still do not connotate “natural born” births
Second....John McCain is actually “ineligible”. The Senate passed a RESOLUTION, not a BILL, that the Senate recognized that McCain was eligible to run for President. A RESOLUTION is not a BILL...so its is not law...McCain was not and never was eligible. He was actually was born in a civilian hospital in Panama, not in the Canal Zone (which at the time was US territory). The McCain “Inaccurate Conception” could be the reason why the GOP and “conservative” media has been supporting Obama all along on the Eligibility Issue.
I see too many “False Canards” pushed by the Obama Supporters to try and attack those who bring up Obama Eligibility. Obama is not eligible to be President...neither is Rubio, Jindal...or even McCain...or even me ;)
Since some ignorantly and falsely hold that birth in a US Territory or on a US Military base, by itself, would not qualify for automatic citizenship -— It was necessary to stop that argument by bringing up the fact that McCain qualified due to the valid citizenship claims of both of his parents, at the time of John McCains birth.
Wrong and Wrong.
First, being born on a US military installation overseas did not give one citizenship or natural born status...prior to 1965. I know this for a fact, for I was born on US military installation overseas before 1965....and I have Naturalization papers...and both parents were US citizens at the time. After 1965, the “Naturalization” certificate was no longer needed...however, such births still do not connotate “natural born” births
Second....John McCain is actually “ineligible”. The Senate passed a RESOLUTION, not a BILL, that the Senate recognized that McCain was eligible to run for President. A RESOLUTION is not a BILL...so its is not law...McCain was not and never was eligible. He was actually was born in a civilian hospital in Panama, not in the Canal Zone (which at the time was US territory). The McCain “Inaccurate Conception” could be the reason why the GOP and “conservative” media has been supporting Obama all along on the Eligibility Issue.
I see too many “False Canards” pushed by the Obama Supporters to try and attack those who bring up Obama Eligibility. Obama is not eligible to be President...neither is Rubio, Jindal...or even McCain...or even me ;)
According to Vattel’s vision of natural law McCain would be eligible.
Additionaly McCain was never naturalized under US law.
Help yourself.
Thank you for your service. I'm eligible, but my child, having been born of myself and my non-naturalized alien spouse is not, so I can empathize with you to a certain degree, and also accept the situation.
There are over 300 million citizens to choose from. Surely finding a suitable and eligible candidate for the Executive from such a pool can't be too hard.
The following was taken from here
|
SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)
It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "natural born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.
The point is that up until relatively recently, the SCOTUS, the Congress, Presidents and the country were well acquainted with the law of nations and Vattel's edition in particular. It is also that, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "natural born Citizen" (of the U.S.) has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country and who often then pass that foreign citizenship & allegiance owed on to their child - by birthright).
This compilation has been added to and improved with the help, hard work and comments of many FReepers (including, but not limited to: Spaulding, bushpilot1, Red Steel, BP2, El Gato, patlin) and many of the "eligibility" lawyers and/or their clients and law students (including, but not limited to: Leo Donfrio, Mario Apuzzo and the folks at UR).
To belittle or ignore the significance of Vattel's legal treatise, "Law of Nations" is to ignore the clear historical record that his work on natural law was very influential to our Independence and, latter, to our founding.
|
Last Update: 05/09/2011. |
|
This is a common fallacy. Being born in a barn will not make you a horse. Likewise, being born in the United States does not make you an American. This mistaken notion has been repeated endlessly since the 14th amendment because simple minded people cannot understand the distinction between "Citizen" and "Natural Citizen."
The difference is whether another nation has a legitimate claim on your loyalty. A "natural citizen" is someone who cannot be regarded as a citizen of any other country under any application of international law. The principle of law known as Jus Sanguinus is recognized among many countries, and is indeed the sole basis for citizenship in those countries.
Here in the United States, we have had an endless parade of exceptions to the "born here makes you a citizen" theory. First of all, Indians who were born here were not citizens. Slaves who were born here were also not citizens. Colonists who were born here, yet chose to remain loyal to the British Crown during the Revolutionary war (Called Loyalists) were also not American citizens. Women who were born here but married foreign citizens were also not citizens. (Till the Cable act of 1924) And lastly, any child born here from the staff of a foreign embassy was NOT an American citizen.
That is 5 (five) exceptions to the theory that being born here makes you a "natural citizen." I would point out that it took an act of Congress to change the citizenship status of Indians, Slaves, and Women. How could the status of "natural citizen" be dependent upon a subsequent legislative act of congress? If it requires a special law to make it occur, how is it "natural"? Obviously in 1787 they didn't have such a law, so those who are citizens only on the basis of a subsequent law cannot be those "natural citizens" of which the U.S. Constitution speaks. They could not have existed prior to the law which makes their citizenship possible.
One last thing. James Madison (The father of the U.S. Constitution) wrote under the pen name Publius. Here is an excerpt from a letter he sent to two Virginia newspapers in 1811. In this letter he full out says that being born here may make you a citizen of a state, but it WILL NOT make you a citizen of the United States.
Here is a link to the ENTIRE page of that Newspaper where you can see the entire letter. (Scroll down to page two.)
Possibly the result of attempting to wrap a tiny mind around a simple concept. Loyalty is imparted by Loyal parents, not lines on a map.
I do not think it is a good idea to put this issue before the Supreme Court at the present time. They are currently defective. Just as the National Rifle Association refrained from bringing any Second Amendment cases before the Supreme court for fear of idiot liberals permanently damaging the protection guaranteed by the Second Amendment, We should also wait until we can insure we've gotten rid of the idiots on the court. The fiction that being born here makes you a "natural citizen" is so widespread that most people simply accept it as a fact. This ignorance is not confined to laymen, it is also prevalent amongst supposedly educated jurists. Until the public and the Judiciary have been educated to the correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen" we should not be asking them to make any decisions on this issue because we will obtain a decision which is tailor made by their ignorance.
The best way to proceed is to compile our evidence and our arguments and slowly put them before the public. Get enough of the public informed, and eventually the legal system will follow. There is no other way to accomplish this task.
You are off on the wrong foot here. It is not possible for Congress to modify or re-define ANY constitutional term by a subsequent action of Congress. To put it another way, Congress CANNOT change the meaning of words or terms written in the U.S. Constitution. It is beyond their power to make changes to our governing document.
The only thing they can do is initiate an Amendment process, and even that cannot be completed without the consent of 3/4ths of the state legislatures. To my knowledge, Article II has not been repealed by any subsequent Amendment, and therefore is still in force with the same meaning it possessed in 1787.
The constitution expressly says that the Congress only has the power to "naturalize." (Which means to make "like natural.") Congress cannot Make something natural. It must either BE natural, or it is not. Any citizenship status which REQUIRES an act by Congress is an artificial status. It is a created condition, not a natural one.
Hope that clears things up for you a bit.
I think Rubio is a loyal American, and I think he Might be a "natural born citizen." It is my understanding that his mother had already become a citizen prior to his birth, and that his father had already gone before a Judge and indicated his intention to become an American prior to his son's birth.
Given the way the matter was handled during the founding era, I think this might be sufficient to overlook the fact that his father had not completed the process prior to his son's birth, but it is not something of which I am certain.
I personally am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is certainly more of a citizen than this current moron in the White House.
I never said that Congress modified the meaning of a natural born citizen. The Congesional Research Service doe not make law, they do research. Their research indicates that the 14 th Amendment and cases before the Supreme Court indicate that the definition of NBC is born in the US. That is their opinion and the opinion of many others including Mark Levin. Your opinion may differ and that is your right. I disagree with you and that is my right. The only way to settle it would be a case to go to the Supreme Court and we all know even they can be wrong and would also surely be split in their opinions as are we.
If you want to change the rules, the process is called “ratifiying a Constitutional Amendment.”
Anwar al-Awlaki was born in 1971 to Yemeni citizens in Las Cruces, New Mexico. US Intelligence reports that, from the age of seven, al-Awlaki was raised abroad, becoming an enemy of America, indoctrinated by the highest powers of Al-Qaida and studying under the same teachers as Osama bin Laden. He eventually influenced various terrorists such as the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, and helped plan the thwarted attack of the “Underwear Bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Al-Awlaki’s phone number was found among the contact information of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the man known as “the 20th hijacker” in the 9/11 attacks.
Those who suggest that there is no distinction between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” would have us believe and accept that such a person might have been eligible to run for President of the US simply because he was born in America. According to defenders of the alleged eligibility of Barack Obama (or Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal), any person born on US soil to one or more alien citizens could be the leader of the free world. At some point, according to that path of logic, this should have included Anwar al-Awlaki.
So, to say that every child born in America is a natural born citizen is also to say that any foreign interest whose child was born in the US could be allowed to raise that child abroad as an enemy of the US and return that child to this country in time to meet the Constitution’s 14-year residency requirement for President.
Considering that Islam has been at war with itself and the rest of the world at least since the death of Muhammad almost 1400 years ago, it takes very little imagination to project how a powerful enemy of the US might take the necessary 35 years and other resources to groom a “Manchurian Candidate” for the US Presidency. If we accept the premise that every person born in the US is a natural born citizen, we allow the establishment of a flawed precedent permitting a family such as that of Anwar al-Awlaki (or a communist government, or a Mexican drug cartel, etc.) to gain control of our country through an orchestrated, long-term attack on the Presidency.
This is precisely what the Framers were trying to prevent with the natural born citizen requirement. A note from John Jay to George Washington explains to us why the Framer’s included the natural born citizen requirement for POTUS. It was not, as some would have us believe, to discriminate against any particular race or to keep white men in power. Jay stated outright that the goal was “to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.” This is not a proscription against any ethnic heritage. It was the Framer’s best effort, within the framework of a free society, to restrict the trust of our highest office only to persons with the greatest likelihood of being reared with an abiding love of American values.
The Constitution itself argues against the assertion that every child born in America is also a natural born citizen. Constitutional eligibility requirements for members of the House and Senate include that they be “citizens,” with progressively tighter restrictions on length of residency for Senators and the President. Following that same pattern of progressively increased restrictions, the Constitution also requires that the President must be, not just a citizen, but a “natural born Citizen.”
The natural born citizen requirement is not an incidental flourish of language, but a national security provision of the supreme law of our land. It is not a “big tent” invitation but an intentionally restrictive, but not racist, prohibition. It serves as a foundation on which to permanently secure and preserve the rights and freedoms which are the heritage of all Americans. Its purpose is to ensure, to the greatest possible extent, that every American President has sole allegiance to the USA by virtue of a childhood steeped in the richness of American culture, anchored in a respect for freedom, emboldened by the spirit of independence and innovation, and committed to the continuation of the noble experiment of a republic created and protected by free men and women and their progeny.
http://www.art2superpac.com/blog/?viewDetailed=00011
There is a difference between Naturalized Citizens and Natural Born or Birthright Citizens!
You do not know what you are talking about.
Besides, you do not know how to argue or debate. You tell us what you want or what you fear, and then you say we must have a law to prevent what you do not want.
That does not prove anything, it certainly does not prove that the law you want already exists.
Wrong
Go to the State Department website and look.
Then the TX GOP big dawgs are not paying attention and had better read the tea leaves in the Ted Cruz/Tea Party victory last night.
If they want this to go away, they'd better get their big dawg asses in gear and see this thing resolved with a proper Congressional investigation instead of trying to bury it in the back yard and forget about it.
SURVEYS PERSISTENTLY SHOW 44% OF ALL VOTERS AND 66% OF RANK & FILE REPUBLICANS DOUBT OR REFUTE OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY. THIS ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA. IT'S ABOUT THE US CONSTITUTION AND IT IS NOT "GOING AWAY."
“Yeah, I think one of the Founding Fathers wrote that they should have spent more time on the judicial branch. That’s one of the very weak parts of the system of accountability.”
I’d almost call it a fraud or deceit upon the American people it is so ridiculous. But until the “civil war” these same federal employees were not regarded as having the final word on the Federal Constitution. Instead the people & their States had that final word.
But your right they screwed up big time. The very idea that 5 Federal employees can dictate the Federal Constitution is the idea of an Oligarchy not a Constitutional republic.
The only rights besides, life, liberty, and the presuit of happiness that the Declaration of Independence declares or demonstrats “unalienable” is the right of revolution/secession.
While arms seem an obvious prerequisite to defend theses rights against tyrants disinclined to respect any rights are nether listed nor demonstrated perhaps merely because they were not in contest.
“you say we must have a law to prevent what you do not want.”
Please pay closer attention. I say we ALREADY have a law to prevent foreign influence on the Presidency. You refute that with ... nothing.
Natural-born citizen: Both parents were citizens (NBC or naturalized, and you were born on American soil.
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.
