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 ...
“natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents.
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.
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.
You are so wrong!
Did he win that suit against his mother?
>> “Natural born citizen just means an American citizen at birth.” <<
The documents of the time show that to be utterly false.
“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.
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.
“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
“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.”
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
“if a citizen is the same as a NBC”
Because NATURALIZED citizens are NOT NBC.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.