Rubio, Amnesty and Article II

Right Side News ^ | 4/28/2012 | JB Williams

[IbJensen]

We want to defeat Obama and his retinue decisively and for all time; however, there are considerations to be made regarding the selection of a 'qualified' vice-presidential candidate to join George Romney's son.

[Dilbert San Diego]

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, at the time when that was American territory. His father was stationed in the military there. So he was born on American soil of American parents, even though that American soil was outside the confines of the then 48 states. If that matters to anyone.

[RichardMoore]

If the Rinos pick Rubio than you know that the jig is up. We are no longer a democratic republic and have gone the way of Rome. I hope and pray that they can stick to the constitution and still win. There has been one credible challenge to NBC by a Federal Judge just the other day. I won’t hold my breath over it though.

[New Jersey Realist]

The “natural born citizen” two-parents-plus-birth-on-US-soil argument has failed in every court that’s heard it. It’s why the Supreme Court has turned down without comment all such cases that have been appealed to it. And it’s why the Vattel birthers do not have the slightest hope of ever prevailing on the two-citizen-parents-plus-US-soil claim in any US court of law.

The Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark found — 6 to 2 — that the children of resident aliens were themselves both “natural born” and “citizens.” In so doing — and in specifically mentioning in their majority opinion the fact that natural born citizenship was a qualification for President — they made clear that they found such US-born citizens Constitutionally eligible to run for, and serve as, President.

Vattel lovers must get a grip on things. Our founders relied upon Blackstone and the English common law, not this Swiss person. You are a citizen of the soil regardless of your parents and that is a FACT. Besides how does one PROVE the citizenship of his parents? By your birth certificate? LOL! Your existance in most cases begins in a hospital. They gather the information from the mother and issue a birth certificate. No one verifies the citizenship of the mother or the father. They can say anything they want. The mother can claim any father she wants. You Vattel fanatics, can you conclusively prove that Abraham Lincoln’s parents were natural born citizens? If all you’ve got is Abe’s BC, that is no proof. The only think you can prove about Abraham Lincoln is that he was born in the U.S. which makes him a natural born citizen. I’m going out on a limb here because I don’t really know if he had a BC; wasn’t he born in a log cabin? My point is a birth certificate can say anything it wants to and the only thing it proves is where a child is born....that is the only indisputable fact.

In Obama’s case I believe his BC is a forgery. If he was born in HI then he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president. If he was born in Kenya like I suspect then he is not.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, at the time when that was American territory.”

In what hole has your head been stuck?

He was born in Colon, Republic of Panama, in Colon Hospital.

He is a dual citizen.

[bioqubit]

New Jersey Realist, your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is wrong. I refer to Leo Donofrio who clear the confusion up a long time ago.

Moreover, the Constitution itself leads to the definition by the process of elimination. There is the qualification for President and Vice President; i.e., natural born citizen. Then there is the qualification for Senator and Representative; i.e., “seven years a Citizen.” That is not too hard to parse. What do you think. If the definition were the same, why have the modifier “natural born” in front of Citizen? Having a looser, broader definition of citizenship for the highest offices in the land would make no sense. Instead “natural born” points a more restrictive, more limited, definition of citizenship that identifies those Americans who have no divided loyalties by either being born on foreign soil, or having parents with citizenship in some country other than America. That also was the main point of the 14th Amendment: Allegiance; complete, pure, unsullied, unquestionable allegiance to just America.

The other hint is found by comparing two immigration acts: The ones of 1790 and 1795. The one from 1790 recognized that, for example, a child born on a ship overseas to American parents would be recognized as a natural born citizen. In 1795, they realized their mistake, and said that such a child was instead a Citizen, not natural born.

So, sorry New Jersey Realist, try again.

[faucetman]

I have been over this and over this! NONE OF THAT MATTERS even IF it were true.

Panama was NEVER a U.S. Territory. Even IF it was (IT WASN'T) It's not the United States, it's a FOREIGN COUNTRY!

Even IF it was (IT WASN'T), John McCain was born in Colon Panama, specifically EXEMPTED from U.S. control in the Panama Canal Treaty 1903, have you read it?

He was born a “NATIVE” because of his parents heritage and service., But NOT “Natural Born” which only applies if you want to be president or vice president.

HE WAS BORN IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, what is so hard to understand here?

Don't give me that crap that a treaty changes the constitution.
“Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!”
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

The Panama Canal Treaty can't change Article II. PERIOD!

If we were to sign a treaty with England (I know it's an island, humor me) to build a canal, would the framers (not farmers) approve of a president whose father was born there?

OF COURSE NOT! If you said yes, you are an a**hole. (with all due respect)

Barack Obama, (even IF he was really born in Hawaii), is the poster child for Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. He has no real ties to the United States. His parents and grandparents were Communists. His stepfather was obsessed with anti-colonialism. Obama was raised a Muslim and STILL IS! John Jay is rolling over in his grave.

[philman_36]

The Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark found — 6 to 2 — that the children of resident aliens were themselves both “natural born” and “citizens.”
No they didn't. If they had you would have put up the text stating they did so for all to see.
You have no text.

Our founders relied upon Blackstone and the English common law, not this Swiss person.
They depended on far more than Blackstone. And why would they rely on court cases from a judicial system they revolted against?
They incorporated the concept of English common law, not the decisions themselves.

It's sad that you're so narrow minded in your understanding that you have to twist history to exclude some of the greatest minds of political philosophy, like Locke, Calvin, Hobbes, Vattel and many many others, just to fit your preconceived notions.

[faucetman]

“Our founders relied upon Blackstone and the English common law, not this Swiss person.”

George Washington’s library book returned, 221 years later

“The former president borrowed The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel on 5 October 1789, according to the records of the New York Society Library.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/may/20/george-washington-library-book

[New Jersey Realist]

Donofrio represents an OPINION. This is proof of nothing. Why would you smugly tell me to “try again.” Explain why no single court in the land supports your side? How is it possible to PROVE your parents are natural born citizens themselves without their BC’s or their parents BC’s? There are two classes of citizens in this country: those born here and those proclaimed citizens by law or court, the former being natural born.

[New Jersey Realist]

I’m sure George Washington read a lot of books. Your point being?

[faucetman]

The 1789 date proves a contemporary knowledge of this work. It doesn't mean he was unaware of this work prior to 1789. Nor does it mean that he hadn't studied or owned a French language copy prior to this date. Nor does it mean that OTHER founders referred to or drew from it's pages. Benjamin Franklin having been living in France, most assuredly knew of and had read this work.

You can't just kiss off Vattel so easily.

[philman_36]

Our founders relied upon Blackstone and the English common law, not this Swiss person.

Just as an example to show you how ignorant your statement is I give you this...
Founding Father's Library - The Most Commonly Read Books of the Founding Generation

The Founding Fathers of the American Constitution made it clear what authors and texts had influenced their own thinking on the idea of liberty. Donald S. Lutz has examined the speeches, letters, journalism, and theoretical works of the founding generation in order to draw up a composite "library catalog" of that generation. His list includes most of the texts on the Goodrich Seminar Room list and a few more besides. Lutz's "top 40" texts (actually 37) by frequency of citation by the founding generation are listed below.

Another source of information about what books influenced the thinking of the American founding generation are the lists of recommended books they themselves drew up. Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson drew up a list of key texts in letters they wrote and, in the case of Jefferson, he actually donated his personal library (twice) to Congress to create the beginnings of what is now the Library of Congress and also drew up a catalog for the University of Virginia library.

Well surprise, surprise...#29 Emmerich de Vattel

[New Jersey Realist]

Try this link.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

[faucetman]

“The other hint is found by comparing two immigration acts: The ones of 1790 and 1795. The one from 1790 recognized that, for example, a child born on a ship overseas to American parents would be recognized as a natural born citizen. In 1795, they realized their mistake, and said that such a child was instead a Citizen, not natural born.”

DING!, DING!, DING!, We have a winner!

“they realized their mistake,” EXACTLY!

[JerseyanExile]

That’s actually a misconception - the PMC was never official US territory. Instead, it was Panamanian territory whose sovereignty was being exercised by the US on the behalf of Panama - a subtle but important distinction.

[philman_36]

"...like Locke, Calvin, Hobbes, Vattel..."
My pardon, Calvin wasn't one of them.
With so many others who influenced them I slipped up in recalling the names.

[New Jersey Realist]

What a load of crap. Vattel’s book wasn’t translated into English until AFTER the Constitution was written. Who knows what books anyone read. If you read Mein Kampf would that prove anything? The colonies were entrenched in British law and custom. If they wrote anything other than what was customary at the time, they would have explained themselves. The Constitution was written for the common man to understand.

[philman_36]

Try this link.

I don't need to "try" that link. I've read United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which is what your link goes to, many many times.
Try putting up the actual text that supports your assertion...
The Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark found — 6 to 2 — that the children of resident aliens were themselves both “natural born” and “citizens.”

And while you're doing that I've got two portions of text for you to wrap your narrow mind around...

The question presented by the record is 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 domicil and residence in the United States, and are there 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution...
And the question was answered... 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 parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there 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.
Read that question again...by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Not by virtue of Article 2 of the Constitution.

[Doug Loss]

Williams talks about “the fraud of 2008 when America seated its first non-Natural Born Citizen in the Oval Office.” That actually happened when Chester Arthur became president, as his father was a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth. There was some controversy over this in 1880 when he was nominated for VP, but for some reason it didn’t take hold.