Ping to # 128.
Thanks, David.
Posted on 08/23/2017 3:47:18 AM PDT by GregNH
Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, a Republican candidate for US Senate, has cast doubt on former President Barack Obama's citizenship repeatedly and as recently as December 2016, fueling the debunked "birther" movement that sought to delegitimize Obama's presidency.
Moore, who started questioning the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship back in 2008, last year told a meeting of the Constitution Party that he personally did not believe Obama was a natural-born citizen. "My opinion is, there is a big question about that," Moore said when asked how he defines natural-born citizen as it relates to qualifications for president. CNN's KFile reviewed video from the event.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Here are my two theories on which definition was intended.
Theory #1:
Theory #2
It amazes me that the Courts don't see what's in plain view in the Constitution.
PreambleWe the People gave ourselves the power to directly elect our representatives to the House of Representatives in the United States Congress. If you cannot vote for a Representative, then you are NOT We the People.We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I Section 2
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states...
We the People "...ordain[ed] and establish[ed] this Constitution... in Order to... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." It is clear that Barack Obama's father could not vote for the House of Representatives, therefore he was not "We the People." This means that Obama Jr. was not the "Posterity" of "We the People."
The "natural born citizen" clause was meant to secure the presidency. It has the tighter requirement of "natural born citizen" in contrast to Congress which only required "citizen." In other words, "citizen" equaled "We the People," while "natural born citizen" equaled "Posterity of We the People."
Barack Obama Jr. is not the Posterity of We the People, therefore he is not a natural born citizen. He is what Thomas Paine called "half a foreigner" in The Rights of Man (1791).
The closest contemporary writing to the ratification of the Constitution on the subject of natural born citizens being of two citizen parents is Thomas Paine's 1791 book The Rights of Man, written just two years after ratification.From The Rights of Man, The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions. While it doesn't have the authority of the law that Congress passed in 1790, it is a window into it's contemporary understanding.
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
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. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution and a year after the law passed in 1790. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
-PJ
Yeah. Well if that was the one accepted definition of natural-born citizen then why were people like Rawle and Madison saying the opposite? See reply #114.
I'll pass on that thanks. The point I have made is that the claim that there was one commonly-accepted definition of natural-born citizen back when the Constitution was created is, to put it bluntly, nonsense. So the claim that there was no need to define the term is nonsense as well.
There was one commonly accepted definition that accommodated the various and varying State determinations of citizenship, because the States were reserved that power under the Constitution. A natural born citizen is born with no other legally binding allegiance in the form of citizenship. Being born in the United States of citizen parents is the only absolutely certain birth status, though there are others born under differing status who may be determined as natural born citizens, but these have yet to be adjudicated. That to me is clear as a bell, but then I don’t strive to muddy the waters in order to get foreign nationals in control of this country.
this issue coming up now is just a hit piece. The swamp is doing destruction to discourage primarying incumbents.
And as I have pointed out, William Rawle, James Madison, James Kent, and others apparently didn't have the same clarity that you have. You may disagree with them but the one thing that is clear as a bell in all of this is that there was no one, commonly accepted, definition of natural-born citizen and never has been. I am not saying which definition is right and which is wrong, merely pointing out to DiogenesLamp, who I assume is still around here somewhere, that his claim that no definition of the term is needed is completely false.
And you are almost certainly correct in that. The only reason to bring this up now is to cast doubt on Moore. But if this is the best that they have then they're in trouble.
Not so.
My own view is that the enormous underlying conflict in our Culture will result in a major disconnect before the issues inherent in the Obama eligibility question are significant. But if that is not correct--
Continuing action and events that have current impact which require participation by a Constitutional "President" include legal process that would form the basis for a Constitutional crisis.
A good example is the Supreme Court. Assuming that Obama was in fact not qualified under the Constitution, neither Sotomayer nor Keagan are on the Court. Add that to the prospect of imminent replacement of Breyer, Kennedy, and Ginsburg and you can see a sudden shift in the basic legal structure--replace four fuzzies and the primary balancing vote with strong Justices off Trump's list and we should see a reversal of the law on federal government powers such as NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel and the decisions expanding taxing power beyond the Income Tax Amendment.
A wide range of Government action requires a Constitutional President--much of Barry's agenda in the White House would not survive a conclusive decision holding him ineligible.
I doubt we get there because I think the structure dissolves before we do but that is just a judgement call which may be incorrect.
Not true. Some people deliberately started spreading the falsehood that we were following British Common law on Citizenship, and you're never guess the reason why he and others was doing this.
William Rawle in his "A View of the Constitution of the United States" published in 1829:
Yeah, that's the primary guy who was doing it. He waited till 1829 to publish this because most of the people who would contradict him on this point were by that time safely dead. Rawle was a British Loyalist during the Revolution and trained as a Lawyer in London subsequent to the Revolution. He is one of the last people who might know what is correct, if the Pennsylvania supreme court had not already told him that he was wrong.
James Madison, 1789: "It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
Madison was arguing that his friend and ally William Loughton Smith should be seated to Congress. Madison was using rhetoric to accomplish his goal. His later behavior as President refutes completely that he accepted this idea as valid. William Loughton Smith himself invoked Vattel as supporting his position.
James Kent
He is occasionally brought up, but he is such a lesser authority that I have forgotten the rebuttal to him. I also don't have much interest in looking up my past arguments, and at this point I will only point out that James Kent was not a member of either a ratifying convention or a delegate to the Constitutional convention. Therefore his claims are not based on first hand knowledge, and are therefore Hearsay.
But see here, you are bringing out an "authority" argument when I have put forth an etymology argument. Argue against the etymology, or admit you can't.
Neither does anyone else.
His supposed father was a British subject in 1961, therefore, so was he.
Everybody knows this.
Which is exactly what is wrong with them. Statements made by people closer to the action and closer to the time of the constitution (Such as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall) are by far better sources than people both distant in association and distant in time.
Key words “NATURAL BORN”.
Obama’s Daddy was not an American Citizen. Heck, both of Rubio’s Parents weren’t Citizens either.
The same applies to him. Big whoop. The truth is the truth.
Did he say Obama was born in Kenya? Didn’t read that.
I want to see Satan’s DNA before drawing final conclusions!
Rawle was deliberately lying and Madison was shaving the truth because he wanted William Smith seated. Madison clearly did not believe his own rhetoric as demonstrated by his treatment of James McClure being held in French Custody in the run up to the War of 1812.
Ping to # 128.
Thanks, David.
My first thought as well....Midge and Barbour trying their hardest to attack Judge Moore.
#Backfire!!
Moore is a one-dimensional individual who appeals mostly toward the Southern Baptist individuals of the state. Everyone knows that and it’s his one single special interest group. He’ll say or do anything that fits into one single political agenda...beyond that...he has no other topics that he ever discusses or lays out into the public eye.
I grew up in Ala, and generally there are three perceptions of the guy. One, he’s a nutcase. Two, he’s solely there for the Southern Baptist crowd. Three, he’s all theater and no real platform.
In this case, he’s lucky...he’s got the anti-Strange crowd who think Luther is connected to Bentley and corruption, and he’s got the Southern Baptist vote from the state. Very little doubt that he will win, and cover one single 6-year term.
How did he and his wife even pass the bar exam?
A wide range of Government action requires a Constitutional President--much of Barry's agenda in the White House would not survive a conclusive decision holding him ineligible.
A nice fantasy, but unfortunately a fantasy nevertheless. The Supreme Court found some time ago that in the event that an elected official is found to be ineligible for their office, all votes cast and decisions made by them while the were assumed to be eligible for the office remain in place and are legally valid. I forget the term used to describe it but the long and short is that even of Obama is found to have been ineligible, what he did in office stays.
No, I won't. But I'm sure you're going to make up some real good ones.
But see here, you are bringing out an "authority" argument when I have put forth an etymology argument. Argue against the etymology, or admit you can't.
Actually what I am bringing out here is evidence that your claim that there was one, and only one, accepted definition of natural-born citizen is like so much of the rest of your stuff, complete nonsense. That it would have been nice if the Constitution defined natural-born citizen but, alas, they didn't. And therefore Supreme Court decisions and Congressional legislation is not "amending the Constitution". It's necessary law making or interpretation.
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.