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 ...
“Get your facts straight.”
Hmmm...you claimed, “James McClure, who though having been born in South Carolina in 1785, was rejected as an American citizen by his government because his English father did not naturalize until two months AFTER he was born. “
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.
Bottom Line: US citizen by birth. Sworn to by the US Government.
Later. I have to go. Everybody research James McClure and explain why our government allowed him to be held for 3+ years while our official position was that he was NOT a citizen.
They are not subject to US jurisiction, and, hence, any children they may have while residing the US are not anchor babies
______________________________________
Nobody said that the children of foreign diplomats born in the US were anchor babies...
but the children of illegal aliens are anchor babies...
BTW those children of foreign diplomats born in the US are not American citizens...
Maybe he doesn’t know Monroe is.
“Wrong. He was arrested April 12, 1807. Get your facts straight. “
Feeling generous, I spent another 2 minutes researching James McClure. According to Mario Apuzzo:
“Even though McClure had a U.S. passport issued tohim by the “American minister in London,” showing that he was a “native citizen of the United States,” the French Minister of War, based on information that hereceived from the French police and the “Minister plenipotentiary of the U. States,”issued an order on April 12, 1810 directing that McClure be detained in France as an “English” prisoner of France (emphasis in the original). Pursuant to that order,McClure was “placed under surveillance at Tours” (emphasis in the original).”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/95113318/Apuzzo-re-McClure-Rodman-Publius-citizenship-Obama
Without a valid birth certificate which proves eligibility, the only possible ruling is that we have a usurper. Cite for me please what proof was provided, as well as when, where, and to whom this proof of eligibility was presented.
Other foreigners in the US are subject to US jurisdiction, which is why, under the 14th Amendment, children born here to them are anchor babies.
_________________________________________
Ah no kid...
I was a foreigner in the US but my son is NOT an anchor baby...
His parents were not illegal aliens...
Although I was not yet an American citizen when he was born, I was here LEGALLY, a registered Alien with a Greeen card...
Therefore he is an American citizen but not NBC...
But because when he was few months old I became a naturalized American citizen, his younger sister born a few years later IS an NBC....
See the difference ???
Under the Constitution shes eligible to be POTUS, he is not...
The Hon. Joseph Story addressed this in his book "A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States ..." (1840, Commentary Section 271, discussing the Executive):
The other qualifications respect citizenship and inhabitancy. It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution. But even a native citizen might, from long absence, and voluntary residence abroad, becom alienated from, or indifferent to his country; and, therefore, a residence for fourteen years within the United States is made indispensable, as a qualfication to the office."
So, I think you are incorrect that recognizing the extraordinary value of those non-native (i.e., non-natural born) patriots of the Revolution applies to "future generations". The Founders were clear to address their concern that non-native born Americans, with this one-time exception, were not to be "intrusted" with the Office of the Executive.
Now heres a question...
My 3rd great grandfather was born in Canada in 1797...
Both his parents and both sets of grandparets were born in the US before the Constitution..
However both sets of parents were also Loyalists and chose to flee to Canada from where they never chose to return and so were not “under the jurisdiction of” at the time of his birth..
Was my 3rd great an American citizen ...and a NBC
and eligible to come back to the US and be POTUS ???
He married a woman born in the US but their children were all born in Canada ...
Were those children Americans or Canadians ???
You see where it gets murky ???
Either the children of US citizens are also American citizens regardless of where they are born or they are not...
Thats where the 14th Amendment part of “under the jurisdiction comes into play and CANNOT be ignored...
Or one day we will have for our president the anchor baby of an illegal alien woman who laughed along with her relatives as they rolled her across the border from Mexico into Texas as she was in the final minutes of labor so that the child could be born in the US...
Local LE can only stand there helpless as this goes on and have to put the females in an ambulance and take them to an American hospital..
Now is that mother “under the jurisdiction of” ???
And yet the child cannot be prevented from being one day president of the US..
This issue stirs old Obots like Mr. Rogers and Allmendream, and inspires a few new ones, as it should, since truth will eventually be understood, even if the Constitution is no longer deemed relevent.
The Constitution doesn't include definitions - by design. James Madison, among several framers and many founders explained that to preserve ideas, hopefully eternally, required fixing definitions of words to the time of the authors. Over time the meanings of words change. It was the intent to create a document clear and readable to every literate citizen (and literacy was amazingly high in 1787), not depending upon interpretation of terms by a titled aristocracy or the protectors of their privilege.
The common law was cited by Chief Justice John Marshall, referring to the interpretation of “natural law” which was designated as our new nation's first law book by Thomas Jefferson in 1779, for our first law school, carved out of William and Mary by the Swiss legal philosopher whose volume “Law of Nations” was read by Ben Franklin when released in the French, its publisher providing Franklin three copies of the first English translation in the 1770s. Those copies, according to Franklin, were in constant use by our founders during the Continental Congress. Washington had three copies, but had to borrow one on his first day as President from the New York Public library. Hamilton and Jefferson's copies were cataloged in their private libraries, and legal historians show that no legal source was more cited by in US jurisprudence between 1790 and 1821 than Law of Nations.
Thomas Paine explained in “Rights of Man”: &ldquo:
"The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured.”
Chief Justice Morrison Waite, establishing the principle referenced at least thirty times in Supreme Court Cases, as precedent in Minor v. Happersett clarified both the nonsense that the US has no common-law, as well as the clear common-law definition of who are natural born citizens, the same definition explained to the full house by 14th Amendment author John Bingham. From Waite's decisions, and cited by Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark, the case resulting in anchor babies, which decided that San Francisco-born Wong Kim was not a natural born, but was a naturalized citizen, as Barack has described himself:
“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.”
Every US Senator agreed, in April of 2008, during Senate Judiciary testimony over Resolution 511, sponsored by Barack’s campaign co-chair Clair McCaskil, Barack, Hillary;, and others:
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,=d>” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”
Why did Clair initiate a resolution to imply (resolutions are not legally binding) that John McCain should be considered a natural born citizen? Her earlier action, S. 2678, a law, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’, to make McCain eligible, failed to pass. McCain's problem was a technicality which the Senate claimed was an oversight, and should be ignored. McCain is why Republicans were silent, though they will likely claim the political turmoil with the economy failing was not in the nation's interest. There are probably lots of other explanations, like their plans to make Rubio, ineligible for the same reason Obama is ineligible, vice president to court the Hispanic vote. It is about money and power.
These issues have be thoroughly examined here at Free Republic, but many hadn't the time or interest in digging into the details. There is much much more, but here is the clarification to the House in 1866 by Congressman, judge-advocate in the Lincoln conspiracy trials, abolitionist, John Bingham, arguing for his Naturalization Amendment, the 14th, explaining who are natural born citizens, and why his amendment doesn't change that definition:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, thatevery human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…."
Barack Obama never once claimed to be a natural born citizen. He told us, using the legalize with which he was familiar, and careful, that “I am a native-born citizen of the US”. That is the definition of a naturalized citizen, naturalized at birth to make slaves, born on our soil, citizens at birth, but not natural born citizen. Their children, born on our soil, were then natural born. American Indians, born on our soil, were not made citizens, because they were born with allegiance to another form of government. Obama was born with the eligibility to be a Member of Parliament, and he told us the truth. Our political classes found this truth inconvenient, and the media concurred, clouding the legal truth of his ineligibility, just as internet operatives like Mr. Rogers attempt to confuse those here at FR.
Why did our founders and framers make the distinction between natural-born and naturalized? In 1776 estimates range from three to thirty percent for those willing to fight Britain for independence. Those first decades were fraught with danger from secret Royalists, the majority. The most critical role in our survival was held by our Chief Executive and Commander in Chief. How can his allegiance by ferreted? Our framers, with committees from each state, required that the president have been a citizen, a term defined differently in the Constitutions and legislatures of each sovereign state at the time of the signing of the Constitution, 1787. They required that our President be thirty five or older, and have been resident for three years before 1776, meaning he was eighteen three years before the Declaration. He thus fought in or lived through the suffering of the fight for independence.
After the “grandfather” period, presidents were born to those who fought for freedom, born to those with sole allegiance, and on our soil. The first president not born before 1787 was James Buchanan. The Constitution only specifies who are natural born citizens, since each state had its own citizenship rules. To address this non-uniformity, since citizens could move freely from state to state, Article 1 Section 8 chartered Congress with creating “A Uniform rule for Naturalization”, which it is still doing. Only the President must be natural born. Over twenty six attempt to amend Article II have been attempted, seven alone between 2002 and 2007, two by John Conyers to make Obama eligible and one by Orrin Hatch to make Scharzenegger eligible. None have passed.
Read for yourselves. Remember that even FR, perhaps especially FR, has active propagandists. Read original sources. Read Paine's Rights of Man, Part 2, On The Constitution; read Chief Justice Marshall's short explanation in The Venus, 12 US 253 (1814), which is about inherited allegiance, made relevent by the War of 1812; read Continental Congress President Dr. David Ramsay's pamphlet, “A Dissertation on Citizenship...”. Ramsay was our first Congressional Historian; read Minor v. Happersett; read the 14th Amendment, which never mentions, and thus never modifies the definition of who were natural born citizens.
These are truths that probably involve too much careful reading to have effect. We now know that our current Chief Justice is not interested, and doesn't have the character to preserve, honor, and defend the Constitution. The Constitution can only protect those who honor it. Let's hope more citizens learn its value before we reach the point of no return. We are close to no return when Soro’s cadre at Center for American Progress, having penetrated our most prestigious law schools, edits some twenty five Supreme Court Cases to scrub citations to Minor v. Happersett from the most widely used reference, Justia.com, for Constitutional law, and is not reprimanded. The law schools, at Berkeley, Cornell, Yale, Georgetown,... say nothing, probably because they depend upon the government for grants, and to employ their graduates. These are not unverifiable rumors. While Google scrubbed their archives, many of us captured the editied cases, editied during the Summer of 2008, before they were replaced with corrected versions. Tim Stanley, CEO of Justia admitted the corruption, but said it was a programming error!
Authors make a good living exposing the political associates of Obama, as if it is news. Pundits ar paid to chatter about political ideology which was never in question, given the Acorn activist's background, and his funding from Alwaleed bin-Talal, Giuliani's and Harvard's benefactor (Rudy refused but Harvard eagerly accepted twenty million dollars and the Alwaleed bin-Talal Center for Islamic Studies. The chattering class produces nothing, but stands testing the wind while a socialist, honest about his naturalized citizenship and British birth crushes productivity with non-productive bureaucrats - czars - whose talent is running the lives of others and redistributing the wealth that remains.
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!
I’m still waiting for someone to show the law that requires citizen parents to children born on U.S. soil to qualify as NBC. No such thing exists.
I’d be willing to bet the farm that if Romney had picked Rubio as his VP there would not have been the slightest problem or squawk except from a very small group in this forum and I don’t care how much study you’ve put into it; some students just never get the lesson.
I agree with you that Obama is not NBC though but not for the reasons you postulate. I believe he was born in Kenya and I’m waiting for that to be proven and I’m sure it will.
The United States recognizes TWO categories of citizens, those born here (natural) and those born elsewhere and naturalized by law. NATURAL and NATURALIZED. PERIOD! No proof of anything different.
The Constitution itself PLAINLY shows us that we do not have a legal President without having to cite the natural born citizen requirement at all. It's all there in the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three. This is why I asked you to provide proof that a legitimate birth certificate had EVER been presented to anyone, much less Congress. If no one has seen it, we do not have a legal President. period.
I know there is a possibility that my interpretation of their thinking may be incorrect ... then again, perhaps not (after all, it's clear that my interpretation is given substantial credibility by the actions of the arguably "foreign" president since January 2009). But either way I will avoid characterizing your interpretation (not, "theory") as "crazy" no matter how extra-Constitutional it appears to be.
As far as convincing ONE (sic) judge, ONE (sic) secretary of state, ONE (sic) congressman or Senator -- well that, unfortunately, has little to do with the Constitution. Rather (and this is the "theory" part), it has to do with no ONE in a position of power desiring to be to go down in history as the person who exposed the first muslim/mulatto/negro/Kenyan/Communist (you pick) president as a Constitutionally ineligible fraud.
Unfortunately, to many of our political leaders defending the Constitution is more a matter of convenience than a commitment to our republican form of government.
Cheers!
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.
“Ah no...”
Read my responce again. There were no citizens until the USA was established. Once it was any children born to the “new” citizens in the new country were NBCs.....
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.
It is not that some people stupid, it is that they know so many things that are just not so.<Ronald Reagan paraphrased>
Of course that is the implication noinfringers2, and a good indication that those, Obots or not, who claim that a natural born citizen is a “jus soli”, citizen or a citizen made so by birthplace, are wrong. The popular term “anchor baby” is rooted in a case called Wong Kim Ark, addressing whether a San Francisco born man, born to domiciled non-citizen parents is a citizen. The decision was interpreted to make children born on our soil, not to visiting officials of another country, naturalized citizens. Being naturalized in our society means being made a citizen by an act of Congress. Such laws have the 14th Amendment as their foundation - the “Naturalization Amendment.” Natural citizens, common law from which the definitions of our Constitution were drawn, are “born on our soil to citizen parents.” The Obots will simply lie about the dozens of statements in Supreme Court case law repeating what I just said. Even the justice who wrote Wong Kim Ark, resulting in Anchor Babies, made Wong Kim, born on our soil, a naturalized citizen. Justice Gray both cited and quoted the passage I quoted earlier in this thread from Minor v. Happersett, which made the definition into positive, or decided law.
Being born anywhere to US citizens makes a child a naturalizable citizen, though such citizenship established by law can be forefit. Being born a citizen, a citizen by by nature, of citizen parents on our soil, cannot be denied by man. That was part of a decision from a case, Perkins v. Elg, decided by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in 1939. Marie Elg was born in New York to naturalized Swedish parents. Her father got a job opportunity in Sweden, and returned, eventually repudiating his US Citizenship. Her mother and Marie followed after a year or two, mom also renewing her sole allegiance to Sweden and repudiating US citizenship. Marie wanted to return to the US at her majority, 19 or 20, but was rejected by our State Department. The case ended up in the Supreme Court.
Even though Marie was raised in Sweden, by Swedish parents, she was a natural born citizen of the US, a form of citizenship that cannot be revoked. It is the only class of citizen defined in our Constitution, since each sovereign state had its own rule for who were citizens. Justice Hughes opined that Marie, if she chose, could run for president after 14 years residence and reaching the age of 35 years. All those acts of congress, being born to one citizen overseas, two citizens overseas, no citizens on our soil, come from the 14th Amendment, and constitute naturalization at birth, but not natural born citizenship, relevant for those seeking the presidency. NBC was handy for Marie Elg as well as for a German boy, Steinkuler, taken back to Germany after being born to naturalized parents.
If we ignore those for whom the Constitution “won't let me do what I believe our country needs, and enforce the law of our founders, presidents will be “born on our soil to parents who are its citizens”. Only two, Barack Obama and Chester Arthur have violated Article II Section 1. Arthur too hid his birth certificate, but that was to distract from his father's British citizenship. Arthur's ineligiblity was only discovered in 2008, by an attorney, Leo Donofrio, pursuing the issue of Obamas's eligibilty, as he fought for the rights of auto dealers denied their franchises because they donated to Republicans.
Barack/Barry probably has a birth certificate, but he has told us who his father was, again and again. If we take him at his word, and the words he has used to describe himself, Barack is a naturalized citizen, because his mother was a citizen when he was born. Barack told us he was born a British Subject. There is no argument about that. He has said, in effect, that we have lived by old rules, and an old and irrelevant historical document. We have allowed him to ignore the Constitution. The media have helped protect him, while they were quite lucid in reporting for ten years about the rules which made John McCain ineligible.
You can create any number of scenarios which show the wisdom of our founders and framers, including the work of state ratification teams working furiously during the late 1780s. Sudanese Jihadists cross the border into Arizona. They live on welfare, their children attending schools for which we pay, and attending college using federal funding for illegal immigrant students, The Dream Act. They attend the Wahhabi Mosque (one of four) in Scotsdale, and attend Harvard Law on a grant from Harvard's Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Islamic Studies, Bin Talal being Obama's patron during his Harvard days, according to Malcolm X's attorney, Percy Sutton. One child runs for president, the other for Attorney General. No law prevents siblings from holding simultaneous offices in The Executive Branch. They succeed in making our military and federal courts Sharia compliant.
That is why so many Mexican illegals come to America to have their babies. If the baby is born in an American hospital, the 14th Amendment declares them American citizens and yes they are eligible to be President.
Now if you get a good lawyer and can convince Ruth Bader Ginsburg otherwise, well you have yourself a real chance to get that overturned! Good luck.
“Even though McClure had a U.S. passport issued tohim by the “American minister in London,” showing that he was a “native citizen of the United States,” the French Minister of War, based on information that hereceived from the French police and the “Minister plenipotentiary of the U. States,”issued an order on April 12, 1810 directing that McClure be detained in France as an “English” prisoner of France (emphasis in the original). Pursuant to that order,McClure was “placed under surveillance at Tours” (emphasis in the original).”
You are correct. I am wrong. Too many dates to keep up with. It was 1807 when the "Horizon" sunk. Even so, my point still stands. Why would the US Government let the man spend any time in French custody?
If it is so cut and dried as you seem to think, how do you explain the Actions of Armstrong, Madison, and Monroe during this period of time? On the one hand they appeal to the British to let American citizens go, 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.
The facts of the case still contradict your theory.
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.