Posted on 11/23/2010 9:43:51 PM PST by Errant
Oh goody. Are we gonna talk about the unprovoked invasion of the Commonwealth of Virginia by the Union Army again?
He is using that argument as a strawman as the court would only declare him ineligible. removing him would then be left up to congress.
There have now been eighty-five adjudicated lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility, including eight appeals that have reached the Supreme Court of the United States, none of them has found Obama to be ineligible. The ruling on the ninth appeal to reach the Supreme Court will be released on Monday.
A serious investigation of Obama’s eligibility would utilize either a grand jury investigation of Obama for fraud, election fraud or forgery or a congressional investigation; either of which would have subpoena power and the ability to compel witnesses to testify under oath.
Every major investigation of a presidential administration over the last sixty years used a grand jury; some examples: Nixon-Watergate, Reagan-Iran-Contra, Bush 41-Savings and Loan crisis, Clinton-Whitewater/Lewinsky-impeachment, Bush 43-CIA Leaks.
Broke it, you mean.
Go ahead. This should be amusing.
From the opinion:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes, at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."
The affirmation is that Ark was a citizen at birth - NOT that this meant he was a "natural-born citizen". And that has been the crux of the problem in ALL USSC decisions concerning this matter.
It has been cited that if by many constitutional scholars that [had Justice Gray insisted that the phrase "natural-born citizen" been inserted in the affirmation instead of JUST "citizen"], the opinion of the Court would have been "DENIED". This is because the other justices in the majority WOULD NOT have been willing to declare Ark "natural-born". The 14th Amendment gave them an out - giving Ark the rights of citizenship, though not that of "natural-born citizenship". Half a loaf being better than none.
While [GENERALLY] true that citizenship at birth within the domain confers "natural-born citizenship", it DOES NOT necessarily construe that ALL such births are "natural-born". The question hinges on the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment. Which is what the USSC has consistently avoided.
While unknown enemies of the United States might well be within the domain with [or without] permission, and might have children, does the 14th Amendment make those children citizens [and by extension, "natural-born citizens"] merely by birth on United States soil?
Under English common Law - NO, but the United States Constitution makes NO DISTINCTION. Therefore, it is up to the USSC to decide, should such a case come before it.The USSC needs to decide just what is [and is not] a "natural-born citizen". Until it does, your opinion [and mine] are moot.
Boy - you must be Karnak The Magnificent !!! Cuz I DO NOT see ANYWHERE in the Constitution the words "Citizens of the United States at birth”. Just the word "citizens".
“Citizens at birth” and “natural born citizens” are synonymous terms: one is from the 18th century, the other from the 20th century.
Do you have a cite for that ??? And do you have an affirmation from the author of the 18th century definition that he agrees with the 20th century definition - 200 YEARS LATER ??? QUIT INSERTING YOUR BOOTSTRAPPING OPINIONS !!!
If what I’m saying was untrue, some court would have ruled against my interpretation of the law by now. No court has ruled against what I am saying, in 85 attempts including 8 appeals heard at cert conferences at the Supreme Court of the United States.
No, QUIT ASSERTING THAT YOU ARE ALL KNOWING !!! The plain fact is that this is a politically charged issue and the USSC will keep avoiding it as long as possible. BUT, there may very well come a day whaen it cannot avoid it and the USSC will be forced to render a decision.
So far, the current Court has refused to grant Cert without comment - so we DO NOT know the reasons why. It could be every thing from "lack of standing" to total agreement with lower court's decisions. Until [and if] we ever find out, all is mere speculation ...
Bookmarked
Here’s the citation that you asked for.
Enjoy!
You’re welcome.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5203+17++%28nationals%20citizens%20at%20birth%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
For the record, there are no issues of standing at the Supreme Court other than the justices may uphold a lower court’s holding on Article III standing. The Supreme Court can grant cert to any appeal that four justices feel raises serious enough constitutional issues.
Thus far, four justices (”the rule of four’) have not been in agreement that any of the Obama eligibility appeals to reach them have raised serious constitutional issues relative to the 1 to 2 percent of appeals where they do go ahead and grant cert.
On Monday we should have their ruling on Kerchner v Obama.
NOT the USC definition of “citizen at birth” - that is a legislative regulation. Show me a Constitutional or USSC cite where the phrase “natural-born citizen” is declared [by BOTH the 18th and 20th century definitions] to be THE SAME as “citizen at birth” ...
You can’t. Nobody can since the phrase “natural-born citizen” from the Constitution has never been defined - either by Amendment or USSC decision.
NOT the USC definition of “citizen at birth” - that is a legislative regulation. Show me a Constitutional or USSC cite where the phrase “natural-born citizen” is declared [by BOTH the 18th and 20th century definitions] to be THE SAME as “citizen at birth” ...
You can’t. Nobody can since the phrase “natural-born citizen” from the Constitution has never been defined - either by Amendment or USSC decision.
And in 1939 in Perkins v Elg, the Supreme Court held that “Young Steinkauler is a NATIVE BORN American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States.”—Perkins v Elg, 307US 325, 1939.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/index.html
No matter how much you desperately wish it to be, the phrases “citizen at birth” and “natural-born citizen” HAVE NEVER been declared to be equal either by Amendment or USSC decision. And that is all that counts.
The phrase “citizen at birth” in the USC is perfectly legal under the auspices of the 14th Amendment - I do not disagree with that. However, you CANNOT bootstrap that to mean that a “citizen at birth” is a “natural-born citizen. It is the purview of the Congress and States to define it through Amendment or for the USSC to rule on it.
As it stands, the ONLY definition that currently counts is the one that the Founding Fathers had - which, unfortunately, was never adequately explained in the Constitution.
No matter how much you desperately wish it to be, the phrases “citizen at birth” and “natural-born citizen” HAVE NEVER been declared to be equal either by Amendment or USSC decision. And that is all that counts.
The phrase “citizen at birth” in the USC is perfectly legal under the auspices of the 14th Amendment - I do not disagree with that. However, you CANNOT bootstrap that to mean that a “citizen at birth” is a “natural-born citizen. It is the purview of the Congress and States to define it through Amendment or for the USSC to rule on it.
As it stands, the ONLY definition that currently counts is the one that the Founding Fathers had - which, unfortunately, was never adequately explained in the Constitution.
I wish you all the best in convincing the Supreme Court of the need to further define the term “natural born citizen” to distinquish it from “citizen of the United States at birth.”
Is it germane to the thread, if it is not by all means ignore them, you wouldn’t want to be trolled would you?
“Distinctions between native born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a NATIVE-BORN may become president.”—Schneider v Rusk, 377US163, 1964
I now see that you got your law degree by sending in box tops from Cracker Jacks ...
The first paragraph you cite IS from the affirmative opinion - and is the basis of the decision. This is what the majority agreed upon.
HOWEVER, the second paragraph you cite is from the DISSENT and expresses ONLY the dissenting opinion of Justices Clark, Harlan, and White. The majority DID NOT sign onto the dissent.
Thus, there is a dichotomy within a single case. The majority cited that only "natural-born citizens" could become President, whereas the dissenters asserted that only "native-born citizens" could claim the office.
NOWHERE IN THE DECISION IS THERE A STATEMENT THAT RECONCILES THE PHRASES AS BEING ONE AND THE SAME. To assert so is pure conjecture on your part.
BTW: Justice Brennan did not participate in the decision.
More "box top" lawyering, I see ...
What the decision REALLY says is this:
"This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:"
"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of the opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that, when he reaches the age of twenty-one years, he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be 'right reason,' and I think it is law."
SO, THE USSC DID NOT HOLD THAT STEINKAULER WAS NATIVE BORN - THAT WAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S STATEMENTT.
What the Court DID agree with was the Attorney General's statement that:
"Under the treaty, and in harmony with the American doctrine, it is clear that Steinkauler, the father, abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor) and that, by virtue of German laws, the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth, has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one natural, the other acquired. . . . There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright."
And the Court DID NOT affirm that Steinkauler could become Prsident - that was merely the Attorney General's opinion.
However, the USSC did affirm in this case that being born within the United States [being "native-born"] granted a birthright to citizenship. NOWHERE is it mentioned that being "native-born" confers "natural-born" citizenship upon a person.
“Every state has the liberty of granting or refusing to foreigners the power of possessing lands or other immovable property within her terrority.” Law of Nations
Since England and other European states claimed neutrality....between the Confederate States and the federal government..this is an acknowledgement..the CSA is a country.
South Carolina seceded..the federals at that time became foreigners.
Once South Carolina left..all property in her domain reverted to her.
This is the Law of Nations. It was an offense against the Law of Nations when Anderson seized the works.
With the Lost Causer's? Too late for that.
I’ve seen you on enough Birther threads to be familiar with your belief that not only is Vattel’s book the law of the land but that it somehow trumps the Constitution as well. Suffice it to say that I don’t agree with you. Sumter war the property of the federal government, and even if the Southern secession had been legal that would not have changed it.
I’ve seen you on enough Birther threads to be familiar with your belief that not only is Vattel’s book the law of the land but that it somehow trumps the Constitution as well. Suffice it to say that I don’t agree with you. Sumter war the property of the federal government, and even if the Southern secession had been legal that would not have changed it.
obumpa
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.