Posted on 08/28/2013 8:45:24 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
Court witnesses are sworn in and must tell the truth upon threat of facing perjury charges. Why aren’t justices held to the same standard? Why can justices lie and face no consequences for doing so?
"Natural born" simply means citizen by birth, as opposed to citizen by naturalization.
There is more than one way to be a citizen by birth. All born in the US — except those not subject to US jurisdiction, a very narrow class — are citizens by birth and, therefore, natural born. Additionally, all born abroad to one or more US citizen parents are citizens by birth and natural born.
Such a guy could become a naturalized citizen, but would be no more eligible to be president than Henry Kissinger or Arnold Schwarzenegger. There is not watering down going on.
Obama started it, Cruz is continuing it
You are out of your mind to group Cruz with Obama.
Early in the article, he says as much:
In fact, in 1787, no one over 11 -- not George Washington, not John Adams, not Thomas Jefferson -- was a "natural born citizen" of something called "the United States of America." The first "natural born citizen" to enter the White House, by my count, was Martin Van Buren in 1836 -- who was born in 1782, five years before Philadelphia.
Is this author serious? He sounds like an idiot.
I suggest you actually read the article and educate yourself.
Any self-respecting foreign government would laugh at that.
Tell that to the foreign banks that are forced by the U.S. to comply with U.S. law:
"Conceived as a way to enlist the world in a crackdown on wealthy Americans evading tax, it gives global financial institutions and investment entities a choice: either collect and turn over data on U.S. clients with accounts of at least $50,000, or withhold 30 percent of the interest, dividend and investment payments due those clients and send the money to the IRS.
Foreign institutions and entities that refuse, or fail, to do so face bills for the taxes due, a draconian penalty of 40 percent of the amount in question and heightened scrutiny by the IRS.
"FATCA is a blunt instrument for which foreign banks have no choice but to each spend tens of millions of dollars to help the U.S. enforce its own tax law," said Scott Michel, a tax lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale in Washington, D.C."
World's financial institutions say new law forces them to be U.S. tax agents
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/us-usa-tax-fatca-idUSTRE77I38220110819
How very uninformed many of you are. [shaking my head]
Completely false.
The USCIS has already proven that ridiculous notion false. Details here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3059469/posts?q=1&;page=179#174
I am curious what your thoughts are about why the founders made the distinction between "natural born Citizen" and “citizen” in the Constitution.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
It's simple: they wanted to distinguish between born citizens and immigrants. The latter are people who were not born citizens but became citizens later on through naturalization. Examples include Kissinger and Schwarzenegger and, as the article mentions, in 1786 threatened to include Prince Henry of Prussia and George III's little brother Frederick, Bishop of Osnaburgh.
The Founders decided it was OK for immigrants to serve in the House and Senate, but that the presidency should be reserved for natural born citizens, in order to exclude the likes of Prince Henry and Prince Frederick. There would be no Emperor Maximilian I of the United States.
The fact that 1790 Naturalization law says that children born abroad to US citizen parents should be considered “as” natural born citizens tells us that legislators at that time did not consider those children to actually be nbCs. Next revision of the Naturalization law in 1795 changed the wording by dropping the word "natural". This is an additional proof that legislators at that time did not consder the two phrases to have the same meaning. We are left with the only nbC definition that makes sense: born in the country of citizen parents.
SCOTUS in Minor confirmed this when discussing Virginia Minor's citizenship.
Obot is a person who lies, obfuscates and misleads others all in an effort to justify Obama's eligibility. A true conservative would never quote Justia.com as a leading legal web site. Not only did you quote them, you continued lying on their behalf, claiming that they did not remove references to Minor from other SCOTUS cases. The evidence of their manipulation is out there. Even Justia did not deny it. They used a lame excuse that an innocent programing error occurred. Those of us, who read their excuse and who are familiar with "Regular Expressions" used in text processing, know that this was a lie to cover up intentional manipulation of SCOTUS texts.
“A true conservative would never quote Justia.com as a leading legal web site. Not only did you quote them, you continued lying on their behalf, claiming that they did not remove references to Minor from other SCOTUS cases.”
Yes, one would. And I did not say Justia didn’t accidentally remove references, but that Minor itself remained and was available. I also pointed out no lawyer, DA or court relies on justia, but instead they use Westlaw and LexisNexis.
“We are left with the only nbC definition that makes sense: born in the country of citizen parents.”
No. WKA went into exhaustive detail on the meaning of NBC. I’m sorry you don’t understand what the US Supreme Court wrote:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
"Persons who were British subjects by denization could not pass on the status to their heirs."
Cited from the U.K. Border Agency, the Home Office on matters relating to immigration, permission to stay, work permits, citizenship, and asylum -- http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/denization?view=Binary
Clearly, NOT all those born in the U.K. were natural born subjects.
Good find. I have added that page to my bookmarks of British Common law. Not that it will do any good. The opposition simply isn't interested in looking at any proof that their thinking is wrong, But thanks for the info anyways. :)
I just posted information showing that Denizens could not pass U.K. citizenship to their offspring. The British Archives have Denization records going back to the early 16th century: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/naturalisation.htm#18296
It's quite clear that the "natural born subject rule" Gray wrote about in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling was purely a figment of his imagination. It hadn't been in effect in England since at least 1509.
I personally think that the legal appeal to claiming a subject by Jus Soli is a by product of the Calvin's Case affair in which the King VERY DESPERATELY NEEDED some such ruling to keep Scotland united with England. As I've pointed out elsewhere, if the ruling had gone the other way, the Scots would likely not have stood for it, for it would make them second class citizens in the English Union.
Solid clear law does not take 14 judges over a year to figure it out. (And with a dissenting Judge.) I think the King made his desire known, and the Judges came up with a way of legally rationalizing the result, but more or less I think the Calvin's case was a pretense for the benefit of the populace.
Likewise, I think the Confusion arising within American law is the result of so many newly created abolitionists (After the Declaration of Independence) agitating in favor of the English Common law rule so as to achieve their goal of Freedom for Slaves. Vattel lends them no aid at all, while the Common Law rule supports them completely.
I have what I consider to be plausible evidence that Rawle was motivated by this idea, because he was surrounded by people who followed the Vattel rule, Indeed, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania UNANIMOUSLY refuted him in 1804 but he chose to ignore it when he wrote his book.
His book spread a false understanding and helped to entrench that false understanding in the minds of the subsequent American legal profession.
Would the founders have agreed that a person who holds dual citizenship at birth by birth is a Natural Born Citizen of this nation?
By what distinction are the rights of individuals born in the same place, at the same time, different? Simply this: children born in England to an alien or denizen father were NOT natural born subjects.
Another good find. Another bookmark. I've pointed out many times in the past that the English would CALL someone a "natural born subject" but they treated the children of Non English Parents VERY DIFFERENTLY than they treated the children of English Parents. Children that had been born in England of Foreigners were second class citizens.
People simply get hung up on the idea that "natural born subject" means exactly the same thing as "natural born citizen" and that there is no distinction based on parentage, and this is just factually wrong. Not even the English went to the absurd lengths advocated by those who claim we follow English Common Law.
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.