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

Skip to comments.

Scalia Flummoxed About Natural Born Citizenship (Mr. Constitution claims he doesn't know)
World Net Daily ^ | 8/31/12 | Larry KIayman

Posted on 09/06/2012 12:35:47 PM PDT by kreitzer

The Constitution is as clear as the nose on your face. According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents. The framers, concerned about destructive foreign influences at a time of the founding of the nation, were wary that the foreign biases of parents could tragically influence the country’s leadership, especially during its formative years. Being largely from England themselves, with British parents, the framers also knew and lived among Tories who did not want to see a new nation arise, but who, comfortable in their noble status and wealth under the British Crown, desired to continue to be ruled by King George III. They did their best to prevent the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and sought to undermine and subvert the ensuing Revolutionary War effort. Later, not willing to give up, British of their ilk attempted to retake control of the “colonies” and invaded Washington, D.C., in 1812, only to burn down the White House, among other dastardly deeds.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: nbc; scalia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-187 next last
It's time for new elites. Now.
1 posted on 09/06/2012 12:35:52 PM PDT by kreitzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

I think this was posted several days ago.


2 posted on 09/06/2012 12:40:19 PM PDT by patriotsblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patriotsblood

Natural born citizen just means an American citizen at birth.


3 posted on 09/06/2012 12:41:50 PM PDT by StevenFlorida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

It is clear that we must have our Supreme Court justices pontificating on volatile political matters. What can possibly go wrong?


4 posted on 09/06/2012 12:43:03 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

Scalia is probably reluctant to answer a question that may yet come before the court and one which he hasn’t researched.

Therefore his “I don’t know” may be legit. However, the rest of his response indicates that’s he is leaning toward natural born being the same as native born.

And therefore I conclude that he is somehow unaware of or disagrees with the main argument in the eligibility controversy.


5 posted on 09/06/2012 12:44:57 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents.

So putting aside whether or not Obamma was born in the United States, based on this statement alone, he does not quality to be president, since his dad was not an American citizen.

6 posted on 09/06/2012 12:46:20 PM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
Klayman is merging the voices in his head with old Perry Mason/Hamilton Burger dialog.
7 posted on 09/06/2012 12:49:20 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents.
_________________________________________

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, I had ancestors who fit this requirement...

Not NBC myself, I still am a “birther” because of my family members...

and because it not only makes sense...

Its the right thing to do...


8 posted on 09/06/2012 12:55:13 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents.

Nonsense. A "natural born citizen" is a citizen who was born a citizen, as opposed to one who was naturalized after birth.

9 posted on 09/06/2012 12:55:41 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
“natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents.

It does?

10 posted on 09/06/2012 12:56:26 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StevenFlorida

“Natural born citizen just means an American citizen at birth.”

Huh? Please explain.


11 posted on 09/06/2012 12:57:08 PM PDT by READINABLUESTATE ("We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." - Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: StevenFlorida
Natural born citizen just means an American citizen at birth.

That's not how I understand it. Please cite your source. Thanks.

Oh, and welcome to FR.

12 posted on 09/06/2012 1:02:45 PM PDT by Wingy (Don't blame me. I voted for the chick. I hope to do so again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: StevenFlorida

wrong.

do a bit of homework before spouting off when you know nothing about the subject matter. your feelings on the subject are insufficient


13 posted on 09/06/2012 1:03:02 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
The Constitution says, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

All the Tories people seem to be worried about (citizens of British parents, etc.) were eligible to become President. Several of the Signers of the Constitution were even foreign born and were eligible to become President at the adoption of the Constitution. If King George had a son who was a U.S. citizen at the time would be eligible to become president for pete's sake!

So what is the confusion? The framers would have been more suspicious of those living at the time to not have America's best interests at heart if they were born in England, yet became U.S. citizens, so WHY SHOULD THEY WORRY ABOUT FUTURE GENERATIONS?

Anyone with common sense (and no agenda) can plainly see that natural born means born of the soil (English law). The only time citizen parents is required is if their baby was born in a foreign land, the child took on the citizenship of the parent.

This is SO EASY! There are natural citizens and naturalized citizens. END OF STORY.

There are FReepers who believe otherwise but they are very misguided.

14 posted on 09/06/2012 1:04:00 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patriotsblood

Even if this was posted several days ago I am glad it was posted again. Most of us don’t wire ourselves to this site 24/7 and we tend to miss a few items and are grateful for the repeat.

So what point are you making?


15 posted on 09/06/2012 1:06:55 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

accrding to you, any anchor baby could be president.

and this is simply not the case. at all.


16 posted on 09/06/2012 1:07:11 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sten
"Therefore 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 appertaining to that capacity."-- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1825)
17 posted on 09/06/2012 1:08:42 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: StevenFlorida

I’m afraid it doesn’t.


18 posted on 09/06/2012 1:09:23 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare berry bear formerly known as Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: StevenFlorida
Natural born citizen just means an American citizen at birth.

No it doesn't. Aldo Mario Bellei was a citizen at birth. The Supreme court took away his citizenship because he did not meet the residency requirements. Natural born citizens do not have any residency requirements. Rogers was a citizen at birth by congressional statute. A natural citizen does not require any statute or any amendment to be a citizen, they are a citizen by nature.

19 posted on 09/06/2012 1:09:33 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sten
and this is simply not the case. at all.

According to whom?

20 posted on 09/06/2012 1:10:28 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
I have asked before but never gotten an answere where exactly does it say

“natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents.

21 posted on 09/06/2012 1:11:20 PM PDT by Drill Thrawl (I can haz CW 2 now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten; StevenFlorida

So sten, how do you know that StevenFlorida doesn’t know they are talking about?

You provide zero evidence for your point of view, just insults.

Do you have evidence that would make StevenFlorida’s statement incorrect, if so, show show it.


22 posted on 09/06/2012 1:11:52 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

it is very simple... it’s people like you that attempt to muddy the waters

a “natural born citizen” is a citizen naturally, as there are no alternatives.

for there to be no alternatives, a person must be born on the soil of two citizen parents.


23 posted on 09/06/2012 1:12:27 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sten

You are so wrong!


24 posted on 09/06/2012 1:13:23 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

Did he win that suit against his mother?


25 posted on 09/06/2012 1:13:23 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: StevenFlorida

>> “Natural born citizen just means an American citizen at birth.” <<

The documents of the time show that to be utterly false.


26 posted on 09/06/2012 1:13:58 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

“At the time of the writing of the Constitution, I had ancestors who fit this requirement...”

There were no NBCs at the writting of the Constitution. After the Constitution was adopted any child born in the newly created US of America of the newly created US citizens were NBC.


27 posted on 09/06/2012 1:14:29 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare berry bear formerly known as Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Therefore his “I don’t know” may be legit. However, the rest of his response indicates that’s he is leaning toward natural born being the same as native born.

I'm certain that his expression of ignorance is legitimate. I can say from personal experience that unless someone has actually studied this specific question, they do not understand what the words "natural born citizen" mean.

I very much doubt that ANY Federal judge knows as much about this subject as do I, or others here who have studied it extensively. Even today I have been doing research on this topic, and thanks to freeper rxsid, I think we have a means of blowing the opposition arguments completely out of the water.

28 posted on 09/06/2012 1:15:02 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wingy; StevenFlorida

“In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. 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...

...II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html


29 posted on 09/06/2012 1:15:38 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sten; Lurking Libertarian

“accrding to you, any anchor baby could be president.

and this is simply not the case. at all.”

Hmmm.....

From the DISSENT (losing side):

“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”


30 posted on 09/06/2012 1:17:22 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sten

accrding to you, any anchor baby could be president.

I always thought that until this matter came up. Since the matter seems so convaluted, why not just say you can only be President if you were born in the United States and BOTH parents must be born in the United States. That is it. I mean come on, we have only had 44 Presidents out of trillions of people to begin with. Let’s go on the side of difficulty. If one of your parents were born outside of the United States than too bad for you. You will be like most, you will NEVER be the President of the United States.


31 posted on 09/06/2012 1:17:28 PM PDT by napscoordinator (Paul Ryan/Rick Santorum 2012....That would be the best scenario ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sten; New Jersey Realist

Note that New Jersey Realist is of the “class of ‘08”

Most of that gang was sent here to raise the noise level and defeat the truth.


32 posted on 09/06/2012 1:17:37 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: svcw

the topic has been hashed dozens on times on FR.

meanwhile, if a citizen is the same as a NBC, then why did the founders include the specific wording only for the office of the president? (hint: they discussed it)


33 posted on 09/06/2012 1:17:41 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sten; Lurking Libertarian

So you think someone born on U.S. soil to two non-citizen parents has every right that someone born to two citizen parents has, except eligibility to be President?


34 posted on 09/06/2012 1:19:52 PM PDT by JediJones (Upcoming Democrat Presidential Primary: Tuesday, November 6, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: READINABLUESTATE

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”.

Basically, a child born in the United States , even if the child of illegals, is a natural born citizen. Ot a child born of an American citizen in Kenya is also an American Citizen at birth. If you can prove that Obama didn’t have an American mother and was not born in the USA, you could toss him off the ballot.

As the article says, it hasn’t been adjudicated yet, but that is likely what the Courts would rule.


35 posted on 09/06/2012 1:21:30 PM PDT by StevenFlorida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sten; svcw

“if a citizen is the same as a NBC”

Because NATURALIZED citizens are NOT NBC.


36 posted on 09/06/2012 1:23:12 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sten
The Constitution mentions only three types of U.S. citizens.

Those who were citizens at the adoption of the Constitution, those who were natural born, and those who had to undergo a naturalization process.

When the Constitution says “citizen” it means any of those three types. Nobody is claiming that a citizen (which currently included those who are natural born and those who were naturalized) is the same as a natural born citizen, that is a strawman.

37 posted on 09/06/2012 1:24:36 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
Klayman is merging the voices in his head with old Perry Mason/Hamilton Burger dialog.

You are less than useless. You offer the enemy support and succor. For whatever your reason, you chose to side with the enemy on this issue.

I suspect you or a family member happen to have been born in this country to foreign parents and so therefore your outlook is completely colored by emotion.

38 posted on 09/06/2012 1:26:02 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
I pressed on, asking “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?”

Because there are also naturalized citizens. Everybody knows that -- or should.

How stupid does Larry Klayman think Scalia is? How stupid does he think his own readers are?

And how stupid is Klayman, if he doesn't understand the difference between citizens from birth and naturalized citizens?

If Scalia were this easily "flummoxed" I'd be worried, but I don't think he was.

If you argue and listen to arguments for a living, as a lawyer or judge does, you may not want to waste time in your off-hours arguing with amateurs or cranks or listening to their theories.

Larry Klayman has to clear up the backlog of Clinton scandals before he tries to float any new theories.

What happened with all those Clinton theories? Which are true? Which are not? Which are still worth pursuing? Which aren't?

They all just dried up when Clinton left office.

39 posted on 09/06/2012 1:28:31 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

It means whatever Obama’s lawyers say it means. No one has the balls to do anything about it.

Not one Senator, Not One Representative, Not one Judge.Not even Limp Balls.

He has them all bluffed. So why argue what it means,. It means what Obamas lawyers say it means.

Obama be da man.


40 posted on 09/06/2012 1:28:49 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Nonsense. A "natural born citizen" is a citizen who was born a citizen, as opposed to one who was naturalized after birth.

Born a citizen by nature, not by the act of a statute. Aldo Mario Bellei was born a US Citizen (He was born in Italy) but he lost his citizenship because he failed to meet the requirements of the statute which granted him citizenship. A "natural" citizen has no artificial requirements because they weren't created by the operation of a law.

Being "born a citizen" is not the same thing as being a "natural" citizen.

41 posted on 09/06/2012 1:29:56 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Nobody is claiming that a citizen (which currently included those who are natural born and those who were naturalized) is the same as a natural born citizen, that is a strawman.

I expect you'll eventually realize how your own statement applies to Wong Kim Ark one of these years. You seem like a relatively intelligent human being.

42 posted on 09/06/2012 1:30:51 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

Naural born zealots are just as bad as Paulbots.


43 posted on 09/06/2012 1:31:09 PM PDT by Bayan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten

That’s why I asked you to show the evidence as to why you are correct.
You are correct this issue has been talked about on FR dozens of times, and there is no agreement.


44 posted on 09/06/2012 1:33:06 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

Obama just appointed two liberal hacks of dubious credentials. They are certain to find a rationalle to vote liberal on each issue. However, “moderate” supreme court judges will weigh each issue and then decide which way to rule. Totally unfair.


45 posted on 09/06/2012 1:33:11 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

You can kiss a certain part of my anatomy! You display your own ignorance. If you find my comments objectionable, prove me wrong! You can’t. You know it. All you have is ridicule and insinuation to bring to the table. You are quite an individual. Look up moron in the dictionary.


46 posted on 09/06/2012 1:34:37 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: StevenFlorida
Natural born citizen just means an American citizen at birth.

Not according to the controlling Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett

47 posted on 09/06/2012 1:40:10 PM PDT by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

George Romney was born in Mexico.


48 posted on 09/06/2012 1:44:48 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

The current occupant of the oval office doesn’t qualify even if his ‘daddy’ of record was born in the USA. Joel Gilbert’s “Dreams of my Real Father” identifies a plausible possibility that Frank Marshall Davis is actually the biological father of BHO . . .which would qualify Barry for the oval office under the “natural born” criteria . . .however, BHO’s false identity as the son of BHO Sr., his history of using that false identity for personal gain as well as his undisclosed past identity of ‘Soetero’ during his BAR vetting process still disqualifies him.


49 posted on 09/06/2012 2:01:23 PM PDT by wtd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Oh good. He will need to be replaced. Lol.


50 posted on 09/06/2012 2:03:53 PM PDT by napscoordinator (Paul Ryan/Rick Santorum 2012....That would be the best scenario ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-187 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