Posted on 02/13/2013 4:57:41 PM PST by drewh
Obama admits doing coke and smoke. A-OK by the media.
Don’t be shocked if Rubio starts “apologizing” for distracting his viewers by drinking water. Remember how Trent Lott kept apologizing for a minor discretion. Didn’t seem to help Trent that much either
Even here on FR there are people for whom the definition of “Natural Born” is a challenge. I would like to see their decision matrix on the possibilities that the Founding Fathers addressed in the language of the Constitution. In the end, we must deal with four classes of people:
1) those who immigrated and have become naturalized citizens;
2) those who were born here of parents who themselves were immigrants but who are were not citizens at the time of the birth;
3) those who were born here of parents who themselves were immigrants but who were naturalized citizens at the time of their birth;
4) those who were born here of parents who themselves were born here.
Barack Obama by his own admission in his autobiography is in class 2. His father was a citizen of Kenya at the time of his birth in Hawaii. In the case of Marco Rubio, his parents were legal residents but not citizens at the time of his birth.
I contend that the plain text of the Constitution implies that in order to qualify as “natural born”, a person must be in class 4, or class 3.
This is supported by the detailed explanation found here:
The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed.
I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States.
Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language:
Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.”
Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.”
(While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.)
The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific.
Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.
Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President.
According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.
It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored.
Now let’s see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about the rule:
“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).
The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).
This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”.
Is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B?
Yes. The Constitution tells us that any Citizen can be a Senator, or Representative, but that to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen”. The Constitution specifically assigns different civic statuses to “Citizens” and “natural born Citizens”. Therefore, not only is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B, it is absolutely required by law, and no court has the ability to circumvent the rule.
Had the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause. Additionally, had the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to declare that every person born in the country was a “natural born Citizen”, then the 14th Amendment would contain clear and manifest language to that effect. But it doesn’t. Therefore, each clause must be given separate force and effect.
Deputy Chief Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of candidate Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, ...
They don’t need to believe it themselves - they just need to get voters to believe it.
Let me postulate a thought experiment...
Suppose an midwestern American hospital noticed an abandoned newborn in it's emergancy room; obviously newly born due to the condition of the umbilical, still attached.
No parents are ever found, and this child is adopted and grows up in America.
I wonder if it would be legally elgible to be President in the future?
What 'class' would it be?
“Media” pack attack on Rubio. He must really scare them.
And not only that - I saw a picture of our PINO drinking water during a speech....the horror!
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.