Scalia Flummoxed About Natural Born Citizenship (Mr. Constitution claims he doesn't know)

World Net Daily ^ | 8/31/12 | Larry KIayman

[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.

[DiogenesLamp]

Seems you ought to get your facts straight. He WAS held to be a US citizen. And no, having spent 5 minutes finding out you are wrong on that rather important point, I don’t plan on wading thru birther crappola on the internet.

Good try. You don't plan on discussing this because you know it doesn't fit your theory. It is a "born on the soil" theory killer. This is the evidence we have long been looking for to prove that the meaning of "natural citizen" required a Father who was a citizen. This is the smoking gun.

The fact remains, The US Ambassador to France, General John Armstrong, Congressional Delegate and personal friend of George Washington said the man was NOT a US citizen just because he was born in South Carolina. Had YOUR theory been correct, the proper response would have been "Of COURSE he is a US Citizen." That did not happen. It took another year and some months for South Carolina officials to provide the legal underpinnings for his claim.

Bottom Line: US citizen by birth. Sworn to by the US Government.

Sworn to by the South Carolina Government, and passively accepted only as a result of it by the US Government. The US government failed to act prior to proof being provided by South Carolina.

The point remains, had YOUR theory been correct, Ambassador Armstrong would never have regarded him as a British Subject. Bottom Line: US citizen by birth. Sworn to by the US Government.

[DiogenesLamp]

You people persist in attempting to foist your crazy theories on us here. Here’s an idea, convince ONE judge. Convince ONE Secretary of State. Convince ONE congressman or Senator of your point of view. You couldn’t even convince Scalia for pete’s sake! You know you can’t do it so what does that make you — the ONLY true patriots? What a joke!

You cannot answer my point, so you resort to this bit of subterfuge above. That's what I thought. You know the McClure case is Kryptonite for your theory. It is a blatant example of your theory breaking down when tested.

Armstrong, and Madison both were present at the Constitutional debates, and both of them were in agreement as to this man's citizenship status. They both rejected the theory that he was automatically a citizen because he was born here.

The truth will eventually out. Eventually, even the slow witted and precedent laden Judiciary will figure out the truth.

[DiogenesLamp]

Eloquent as ever.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Constitution does not distinguish "anchor baby" from "natural born citizen". It would have to be amended to draw such a distinction. If you were born here, not of diplomats or foreign occupying forces, you are a natural born citizen.

You are mistaken. Your error is from relying on bad judicial precedent rather than an actual understanding of the correct meaning of the 14th amendment. If you will read the debate on the 14th amendment, you will discover that they EXPLICITLY rejected the children of Transient Aliens.

[Mr Rogers]

“...but on the other hand they make no effort to secure the release of James McClure until November 27, 1811, and only after testimony from South Carolina officials claiming him as a citizen under South Carolina law.”

Gee...maybe in the early 1800s there were not a lot of folks with birth certificates? You DO realize that was common back then? And that in the days of letters, news traveled slowly? And that we were about to go to war with one of the issues being potentially false claims of citizenship?

Yes, it would take time for a case to be noticed, researched, and answered...but the ANSWER is critical - he WAS a US citizen by birth although his father was not naturalized at the time.

[bmwcyle]

Not a backbone or balls in their bodies.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don’t understand the simplicity definition for ‘natural born’. If I take one view then the children of the Muslim President of Egypt could be POTUSA because they were born in the USA when the father was college prof in the USA. Also under that simple correlation any anchor baby could come back in later years to the USA and be POTUSA. In another take the reason/basis for the Founders at their time for being explicit as to ‘natural’ shows a judgement of concern that applies even today.

And this is something these idiots simply cannot grasp. Their theory completely contradicts the PURPOSE for which article II was created. If they are correct, article two cannot prevent foreign influence in the Presidency; an absurd result, as you pointed out above.

[DiogenesLamp]

Gee...maybe in the early 1800s there were not a lot of folks with birth certificates? You DO realize that was common back then? And that in the days of letters, news traveled slowly? And that we were about to go to war with one of the issues being potentially false claims of citizenship?

You are being intentionally Dense. Ambassador Armstrong did not dispute James McClure's place of birth. He disagreed that that alone made James McClure a citizen of the United States. Again, if your theory were correct, James McClure would never have been arrested.

Yes, it would take time for a case to be noticed, researched, and answered...but the ANSWER is critical - he WAS a US citizen by birth although his father was not naturalized at the time.

It would take no time at all. James McClure was in possession of a US Passport issued by the US Minister in England. If the US Ambassador to France was "Mr. Rogers", you would say "He was born in the United States, therefore he is automatically a citizen." It would have taken all of a minute.

However, The American Ambassador to France was someone who knew what he was talking about, and he rejected the man's claim of citizenship based solely on his birth in the United States. Again, if YOUR theory were correct, the man would never have been arrested.

[Mr Rogers]

“The American Ambassador to France was someone who knew what he was talking about, and he rejected the man’s claim of citizenship based solely on his birth in the United States. Again, if YOUR theory were correct, the man would never have been arrested.”

If your theory was correct, he would not have been released.

He was arrested on suspicion of being British. He admitted he was born to a British father, and under British law that made him British - notice a parallel? He openly admitted having lived in England most of his life. A year later, we went to war with England in part over what was or was not a US citizen. The British tried to enforce THEIR definition, and we REJECTED their definition - a definition you now want to restore.

Golly. The Ambassador didn’t demand his release without first INVESTIGATING. And when the investigation showed he was born in the US, the PRESIDENT of the US directed a response which the French obeyed.

He was found to be a US citizen by right of birth - born of a British father, but on US soil.

Obama was born in the US (if born in Hawaii) of a British father - so Obama was born a US citizen IAW this case. That is why all 50 states allowed Obama on the ballot. That is why 0 of 535 members of Congress objected. That is why Obama was sworn in. And that is why you lose EVERY CASE! Because even with a map & flashlight, you can’t find your own butthole with both hands and an audible GPS!

[editor-surveyor]

The judges were already convinced in four cases, two of them while some of the framers were still alive.

The judges said Two citizen parents required.

The fact was taught in school since the end of the civil war, and understanding it was a requirement for passing the eigth grade.

You’re a stubborn fool at best.

[New Jersey Realist]

Only a fool would present evidence without citing a reference. If you’re referring to Minor, then we know who the fool is.

[New Jersey Realist]

Mr. Rogers proved you don’t know what you are talking about regarding your kryptonite.

[noinfringers2]

I believe that no SC judge including Ginsburg has the power to erase from the Constitution the explicit and specifically directed requirement that the POTUSA be a ‘natural’ born citizen. I also believe that the qualification/meaning of ‘natural’ has roots firmly grounded in the Founding Fathers record of debates and that Ginsburg or any other SC justice cannot erase such records even if there was another pow-wow with Obama. I also believe that many justices ,bottom to top, are political lap dogs without the common sense for good government of every day citizens.

[editor-surveyor]

I’ve posted the links and text nomerous times.

You lack the cognition to understand them anyway, so I’ll refrain from reposting. See my page if you wish to learn.

[DiogenesLamp]

If your theory was correct, he would not have been released..

One has no need to be released if one is not captured in the first place.

In any case, No, that is YOUR erroneous understanding of my theory. My theory, (Pretty much what James Madison stated in his letter to the Alexandria Herald) is that South Carolina had to first prove he was a citizen of that state under THEIR naturalization laws, in order for him to qualify as a US Citizen.

The letter from Madison is pretty self explanatory, unless you are an idiot.

He was arrested on suspicion of being British. He admitted he was born to a British father, and under British law that made him British - notice a parallel? He openly admitted having lived in England most of his life. A year later, we went to war with England in part over what was or was not a US citizen. The British tried to enforce THEIR definition, and we REJECTED their definition - a definition you now want to restore.

The single loudest voice on Free Republic for the Adoption of British Common law as the basis of US Citizenship is telling *ME* that I'm an advocate of British law? Project much?

Sorry, Partus Sequitur Patrem was the standard of citizenship law in every country OTHER than England, and even in England, a British Subject child could not inherit property from their parents unless those parents were British. Kind of a double standard you see. The Children of Alien Parents were second class citizens even in England.

Golly. The Ambassador didn’t demand his release without first INVESTIGATING. And when the investigation showed he was born in the US, the PRESIDENT of the US directed a response which the French obeyed.

Golly, you act like you haven't even READ the facts of the case. That he was BORN in South Carolina was NEVER DISPUTED! Read the above excerpt again. The Ambassador acknowledged that he had seen his certificates of birth and baptism. He concluded that they were insufficient to establish his status as a US Citizen.

He was found to be a US citizen by right of birth - born of a British father, but on US soil.

Unless you have copies of those affidavits submitted by Judge Williams, you are just speculatively pushing your stupid theory. I suspect those affidavits included a copy of South Carolina's naturalization laws for that time period, as were asked for in the above excerpt.

It belies the point. They had proof he was born in South Carolina back when he was arrested. That fact alone was insufficient to have him judged as an American citizen by one of the Delegates to Congress who debated the US Constitution and knew exactly what it was supposed to mean.

Obama was born in the US (if born in Hawaii) of a British father - so Obama was born a US citizen IAW this case.

*IF* he was born in Hawaii, he achieves citizenship under the 14th amendment, (Which is not the same thing as "natural" citizenship which existed prior to the 14th) but even achieving 14th amendment citizenship does not make him a "natural citizen". He is therefore unqualified to be President due to Article II.

That is why all 50 states allowed Obama on the ballot.

No, they allowed him on the ballot because that was SOP for Candidate of a National party, and because they were too stupid to check, and too ignorant to understand he wasn't qualified.

That is why 0 of 535 members of Congress objected.

They were ignorant and incompetent too.

That is why Obama was sworn in.

Ignorance again. Even Justice Scalia admitted he didn't know what that term meant.

And that is why you lose EVERY CASE!

Ignorant misled judges will cause that to happen. I don't find it remarkable at all. I find it remarkable when courts ever get anything right.

Because even with a map & flashlight, you can’t find your own butthole with both hands and an audible GPS!

And yet I am still correct and you are wrong. The above case proves you are wrong, and you simply won't address it. You keep trying to dodge and weave the salient point. A KNOWN member of the 1787 Congress who debated the US Constitution and knew exactly what they meant by "natural born citizen" refused to accept your theory that being born in the US makes you a citizen. He was backed up in his actions by James Madison until proof was forthcoming that the Laws of South Carolina accepted the Children of a Naturalized father as citizens, even though born prior to the fact of naturalization.

This case is going to burn you. I have no doubt that there are further details in the Diplomatic dispatches between Armstrong and Madison et al, and I am trying to ferret them out. You are afraid of this case because it spells the end of your ability to lie to yourself about what is the truth.

[DiogenesLamp]

Mr. Rogers proved you don’t know what you are talking about regarding your kryptonite.

You strike me as serving the same purpose as that of a ratty little chihuahua attempting to bite someone's ankles, and I perceive you are just as intelligent.

You obviously do not understand anything about the issue being discussed, so you just go ahead and yap at us from the sidelines while you cheer your village idiot getting his ass handed to him.

Mr Rogers is a legend in his own mind, and I have seen his stupid arguments taken apart so many times it's no longer worthy of comment.

The Fact that a Constitutional Delegate refused to accept born on the soil as proof of citizenship tells any sensible person that the citizenship theory which is currently in fashion is just dead wrong. One would think "Anchor Babies" would have been sufficient to realize that, but the stupid is strong in some people.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Mr. Rogers proved you don’t know what you are talking about regarding your kryptonite.” <<

.
Like you, Mr Rogers posts gibberish and demands that the truth speakers prove him wrong. Freerepublic just doesn’t work that way. It’s now an accepted fact here that whatever Rogers posts is nonsense.

[truth_seeker]

“According to whom?”

Emerich de Vattel, Dr. Jerome Corsi, Joseph Farrah, Dr. Orly Taitz Esq.

The last three of which are still living, and earning a living to some extent by furthering that opinion/interpretation.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “The letter from Madison is pretty self explanatory, unless you are an idiot.” <<

.
It is an accepted fact that Rogers is either an idiot, or a deliberate disinformer.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “According to whom?” <<

You left out “all of the American Government textbooks in use in the US prior to 1970.”

They are still accessible through the Library of Congress.