Even they're more lucid than you.
Posted on 02/01/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by Sallyven
[snip]...Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.
Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.
The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.
Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
We have several acts of Congress, since those cases, concerning citizenship.
“NO COURT HAS EVER RULED THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND CITIZEN AT BIRTH!”
Woah, are YOU late to the party!
Minor V. Happersett, 1874 DID make precisely that ruling. It defined a Natural Born Citizen, and differentiated it from someone who is a 14th Amendment Citizen. GO READ IT. It isn’t even that long for a SCOTUS case!
“NO COURT HAS EVER RULED THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND CITIZEN AT BIRTH!”
With my limited knowledge of the English language and my sophomoric attempts at Logic, I come to the conclusion that Minor v. Happersett discussed the subject of native or natural-born citizenship, leaving the interpretation open for future courts to decide on a case by case basis.
The Supreme Court is all the authority I need. So is the Constitution. Both trump any and all other authorities.
Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH and nothing else.
You have no Supreme Court precedent that says any such thing. Nor any Constitutional clause that says it. Nor the words of any Founder. I have all three.
Worse, were "citizen at time of birth" perfectly synonymous with "natural born citizen," then anyone naturalized at birth by Act of Congress—even those born outside the US to parents neither of whom were ever or ever will be citizens—would then be classified as "natural born citizens" and so eligible to be President.
That cannot be what the Founders intended, since those naturalized at birth cannot possibly be "natural" citizens. One is either a natural citizen, or one is a naturalized citizen. It is no more possible to be both at once that it is possible to be a citizen and not a citizen at the same time. The two terms are mutually exclusive.
Also, per Marbury vs. Madison:
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such a construction is inadmissible.” 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1805).
Every word in the Constitution must be some effect. The fact that the phrase "natural born" precedes "citizen" in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 must make a substantive difference relative to all occurrences of the word "citizen" without that prefix.
Since the difference between "citizen" and "natural born" citizen cannot simply be the difference between "born a citizen" and "made a citizen after birth," it must be something else. We can infer from the phrase itself that one such difference must in fact be whether or not one was born a citizen. But there's another essential difference: "natural" vs. "naturalized."
Based on that, it could be that the difference is between "citizen from birth without naturalization" and "citizen either by naturalization or else not from birth" (e.g, those who became citizens after birth without any naturalization law when the US came into existence.)
However, it has always been the case that those born in the US to even one parent who was not a citizen became citizens as an act of positive, man-made law, and were not regarded as citizens by nature without need of any such law. Such persons are naturalized citizens, not natural citizens.
Even the 14th Amendment is a law. And it makes no claim to be defining anyone as a natural citizen, by birth or otherwise. It is logically impossible to make a natural citizen by law, since the definition of a natural citizen is one who is such without the need for any legal fiction created by a legislative act. The term "naturalization" means to make someone a citizen by law who would not be one naturally without such positive law.
The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause defines both a) those born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, and b) those naturalized in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, to be citizens of the US, and does so using a single sentence with a single phrase that is the subject of the sentence and a single phrase that is its predicate. The subject phrase is of the form "<A> and <B>", and the predicate phrase is "are citizens of the United States."
That single predicate phrase, "are citizens of the United States," must intend to apply that exact same meaning of the word citizens to both noun phrases in the conjunctive phrase that is the subject of the sentence, since it's but one predicate phrase applied to but the one conjunctival phrase that is the subject of the sentence. Therefore, the semantics of the word citizens in the 14th Amendment must encompass both those born in the US (and subject to its jurisdiction) and those naturalized in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. That is flat-out impossible unless the intended semantics of the term citizen in the 14th Amendment is that of general citizenship, and is not intended to signify any other, more specialized meaning.
Therefore, the 14th Amendment simply naturalizes anyone who is not already a citizen naturally without need of the 14th Amendment to be one. And per Minor vs, Happersett, the only ones who don't need to be naturalized by the 14th Amendment are those born in the US to parents who were citizens.
You have NO case law that says otherwise. The Case Law you claim to have does not count, since Congress had no Citizenship language in place at that time.
The Minor Court's definition of “natural born citizen” was pivotal to reaching its holding, the Court's definition is part of its holding and is, therefore, also precedent. In addition to Ogilvie (as cited in the essay,) also see Black’s Law Dictionary 737 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 7th ed., West 1999) (see also Id. at 1195 defining “precedent” and quoting James Parker Hall, American Law and Procedure xlviii (1952); see also Black’s Law Dictionary at 465, distinguishing “dictum gratis”).
Congress has no power over citizenship per the Constitution to make any law affecting or defining natural citizenship. By definition of natural citizenship, it cannot have any such power, which is why the Founders pointedly only granted it the power to make rules regarding naturalization (the making of citizens by political law or edict, instead of recognizing citizens by natural principles which require no law.)
So whether Congress had any "citizenship language in place at the time" is irrelevant with respect to the decision in Minor or with respect to the meaning of "natural born citizenship."
But you're also quite wrong on another point: Congress has had citizenship law in place since 1790.
You might have simply cited U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and provided the link. Actually the part of the decision most helpful to the view that “natural born citizen” is analogous to the British notion of “natural subject” rather than to Vattel’s notion of “native” is later than the part you provided.
Nonetheless, although as the Court noted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court in Minor asserted it was appealing to common law, the decision in Minor explicitly defined the phrase “natural born citizen” as equivalent to “native” and gave Vattel’s definition.
You demand proof from the opposition, when our side is obvious, logical, legal and historical.
You provide “proof” which supports my side. Your Judges, in prior case law, refer to Common Law, in cases that WERE NOT POTUS CASES! And Common Law is now moot on citizenship issues.
HUH?
You just stated that there is no difference between “Naturalized” and “Natural Born”??
Is that what you meant to say?
The dates and requirements are not printed on the form anymore, but those rules still apply.
I grant you that Hillary Clinton did a good job scrubbing that form since I, and a few others, were posting it all the time on FR and elsewhere, a few years back.
find a PRINTED pp AP prior to this Administration, the rules are spelled out very well on the application. Those rules still apply. This is why they ask for ages of the parent and dates of residence.
You are a resounding gong.
Which provision of the Constitution gives Congress the power to do this?
The only power I see delegated to Congress involving citizenship issues is the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
So, any person who is a citizen at birth due only to a law passed by Congress, must therefore be considered to be a naturalized citizen.
The 14th amendment defines persons born in the US to be citizens, but does not define them as "natural born" citizens.
Wrong way to look at it.
Natural Born Citizen has always meant Citizen at Birth.
However, when Common Law controlled this issue, both terms still meant the same thing.
The Founders meant that you had to be a Citizen at Birth, and at the time they wrote and ratified those words, they also gave Congress the power to define Citizenship clearly.
FYI - interesting.
BO was supposed to have been watching a live feed of the hearings?
Think of all the antacids he was consuming.
Barry, (or someone who works for Barry)
“Your example depends on the age of the parents and the year of said birth.”
Finally! Something you said that is actually technically correct.
My statement only covered about 99% of the possibilities, I forgot about the other 1%.
I assumed they were of legal age in the year in question, silly me. If it was between 1790 & 1795 he would have been an NBC. If the father didn’t have the child until he was over 100 and the poster is over 100, it could be true! (1%)
Except in the case of defining the terms of the Constitution. Otherwise the Legislature could change the meaning of the Constitution itself. Only the amendment process can do that.
How would you like it if your landlord redefined the terms of your lease, without you being able to agree to them or not agree to them? That's the same as the legislature redefining the terms of the Constitution, without going through the arduous amendment process.
They gave Congress the power to define Naturalization rules, not citizenship, unless you can point to a Constitutional clause stating otherwise.
The PP app used to contain some of this language, prior to Hillary as SOS:
Acquisition of citizenship
There are various ways a person can acquire United States citizenship, either at birth or later on in life.
[edit] Birth within the United States
Main article: Birthright citizenship in the United States of America
Main article: Jus soli
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:
Is born in the United States
Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States
Has parents that are in the United States for business
The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[6] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[7]
[edit] Through birth abroad to United States citizens
See also: jus sanguinis
[edit] Birth abroad to two United States citizens
A child is automatically granted citizenship in the following cases:
1.Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth
2.The parents are married
3.At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child’s birth. INA 301(c) and INA 301(a)(3) state, “and one of whom has had a residence.”
The FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) states “no amount of time specified.”
A person’s record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of citizenship. They may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have their citizenship recognized.
[edit] Birth abroad to one United States citizen
A person born on or after November 14, 1986, is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (different rules apply if child was born out-of-wedlock):[8]
1.The person’s parents were married at time of birth
2.One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
3.The citizen parent lived at least five years in the United States before the child’s birth
4.A minimum of two of these five years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
INA 301(g) makes additional provisions to satisfy the physical-presence requirements for periods citizens spent abroad in “honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization”. Additionally citizens who spent time living abroad as the “dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person” in any of the previously mentioned organizations can also be counted.
A person’s record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of citizenship. Such a person may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have a record of citizenship. Such documentation is often useful to prove citizenship in lieu of the availability of an American birth certificate.
Different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before November 14, 1986. United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law is applicable as it existed at the time of the individual’s birth.
For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock)[8]:
1.The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
2.One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
3.The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
4.A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
For persons born out-of-wedlock (mother) if all the following apply:
1.the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and
2.the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.[9] (See link for those born to a U.S. father out-of-wedlock)[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.""
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.