Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bret explains "natural born citizen" requirements for president and vice president
Fox News ^ | 5/1/2012 | Bret Baier

Posted on 05/01/2012 9:32:22 AM PDT by GregNH

Here's the deal...

Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take-- and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:

The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born citizen," but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father's nationality.

The brouhaha over President Obama's birth certificate -- has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a "natural born citizen," but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; eligibility; moonbatbirther; naturalborncitizen; nbc; obama; vattel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351-358 next last
To: allmendream

“There was nothing in English law that would differentiate a ‘natural born subject’ and someone who was ‘born a subject’. Those who were born as subjects to England were, under the law, ‘natural born subjects’”

Even the birthers’ hero, Vattel, admits this, though I don’t think he’s happy about it.


201 posted on 05/01/2012 4:07:18 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

My question to Bret is what law and when and how it was adopted. Does his law address the debates and concerns of the Founding Fathers when they specified the term NBC. Bret is no more of an authority than I am. This is just another example of the elites looking down on people in hopes of covering up false and deceiving intentions.


202 posted on 05/01/2012 4:08:40 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

“Is not this section of the about ALIENS and only ALIENS?”

No. Just by its title it is also about “nationality,” and the nationality of children born to aliens yet possessing certain qualities is the U.S.


203 posted on 05/01/2012 4:09:56 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Water droplets falling from a cloud can be virga.
Niggling details.
Nevertheless, virga is a form of precipitation which evaporates before it hits the ground. It still falls (precipitates) and it isn't a cloud.
And if you want to go further - hail, rain, freezing rain, sleet and snow all fall from clouds.
The key to it all...it all separates from the cloud, falls, and becomes something unique.

Was there a relevant point to your observation?

204 posted on 05/01/2012 4:12:43 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“’That is, the people who are citizens at birth.’

‘So how does that not make the law apply only to aliens?
They can’t be citizens until they’re born right?’”

Are you putting us on? That’s what the previous poster said: they’re “citizens at birth.” The law applies to them when they are born. At long last, sir, what the hell are you talking about?


205 posted on 05/01/2012 4:13:14 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

“not just a dumb ass, but a dumb jackass!”

So glad you could join the conversation, sir. You are a credit to gentleman everywhere.


206 posted on 05/01/2012 4:15:27 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

“You are a credit to gentleman everywhere.”

I meant “gentlemen,” but being a dumbass jackass couldn’t type it right.


207 posted on 05/01/2012 4:16:37 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; GregNH; melancholy; rxsid
Either way, it seems to be coming to a head when something this important is finally being commented on.

That was my very first thought when I saw this. It's waaay past time to have a national conversation about this issue.

Thanks, GregNH for putting this up, and thanks to melancholy and rxsid for the Pings!

208 posted on 05/01/2012 4:16:47 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Barack Hussein Obama is everything you and the other soil people are arguing for. His father was a foreign hater of the US, but according to you that is exactly what the Framers meant by NBC: the son of a foreign enemy of the Republic.

I listed a few, a very few, of the things Obama has done that no other president has done. Not one other president in the history of this country has done any of those things. Are you seriously arguing that there is no/zero connection between Obama being half-foreign and all the things I listed? Seriously?

Okay then. Your turn. List the things Obama has done to justify your belief that he’s what the Framers had in mind. I.e.: you think they would have been delighted to have the son of a foreign enemy of the Republic at the country’s helm. [Do you seriously believe that, or do you just argue that position because you’re bored and have nothing better to do?] What has Hussein done to validate this weird faith of the Framers in the children of foreign enemies of the USA? Please be specific and thorough. I’m anxious to read your list.

PS: One other ‘historic’ first w Obama. He’s the first POTUS to dedicate his auto-bio to a man who passionately hated the US. But that’s just a freakish coincidence, isn’t it? Just a strange, odd, quirky little coincidence.


209 posted on 05/01/2012 4:18:16 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“I’ve never said they don’t qualify as citizens.”

I know, although originally I thought that’s what you implied. Turns out you were using some alternative argument that I’m still unable to comprehend.

“Why do you make something so simple so convoluted?”

I think you do that by baselessly insisting people are getting you wrong instead of sticking to the point.

“What I’m saying is that the law can’t apply to citizens”

Yes it can, and to the very citizens whose status you don’t deny it establishes.

“The only way it can apply to citizens is if said citizen is having a child with an alien.”

No, no, no. The citizen is the child, you see. That is the citizen it applies to. The child that has been rained down into the commonwealth.

“The law governs aliens!”

The law, specifically the part we’re fruitlessly backing and forthing on, governs when the children of aliens can be citizens. Therefore, it governs citizens: the citizens who qualify according to it to be citizens from birth.

“The overarching precept and principle is that the child has an alien parent or parents and has to be naturalized to be a U.S. citizen!”

Okay, let’s pick it up from there. What “naturalizes” the child? The law in question. Therefore, the law applies to the child, who is a citizen. Thusly, the law applies to citizens.


210 posted on 05/01/2012 4:23:16 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“Using that analogy and this conversation you must conclude that the murderer is the victim and the victim should be incarcerated”

Huh?


211 posted on 05/01/2012 4:25:06 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
There was a time when there was no organized society, and therefore nothing of which to be a citizen.
When? There was never a first family?
Wouldn't the father of such a family be the leader and it would be he who decided who was and wasn't part of the family (determine citizenship)?

I use natural law when it suits the situation. It does not apply to everything.
I agree that natural law doesn't apply to everything. That's why man writes positive law. However, natural law most assuredly applies in this situation.

Glad I could brighten your day.
You didn't brighten my day. You showed how vapid you can be.

There were no cities before people cooperated enough for their to be surplus food to support city dwellers.
So what?! Were there no families or tribes either?

Perhaps, just perhaps, there was no civilization before then, and no citizens.
Perhaps not. What if your family disowned you or your tribe banished you?

But are all communities political?
Now or in the past?

You know what a “polis” is, right? That’s it: a city.
Only if you spoke Greek.

Tribes have no need of titles the way agricultural people with their cities do.
Yeah, right! Tell the chief and the shaman that their title meant nothing. And be sure and tell the wise women that your wife can have that child on her own.

You think you're wise and yet you don't allow basic common sense to enter your thinking. That makes you a fool.

212 posted on 05/01/2012 4:25:20 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Mortrey

I might trust Orly to clean my teeth or give me a filling, but I wouldn’t trust her for reliable information about the BC issue.


213 posted on 05/01/2012 4:27:56 PM PDT by turn_to
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
The law applies to them when they are born.
Your words give you away as well!
The law is "applicable upon" the children, it "applies to" the parents.
214 posted on 05/01/2012 4:28:37 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Let me ask a question on this matter.

If I understand correctly (and I may not), one was not a subject of "England" per se, but a subject of the "Crown" or the sovereign King of England as the divine ruler from God.

Since we don't have Kings in the United States, the concept of "subject" does not transfer easily. The closest thing to define "natural born," then, becomes born to citizens of the country, since the citizenry are sovereign.

This is why America was called the "great experiment," and why we have the phrase "American exceptionalism." It is because, until the Declaration and Constitution, all countries were formed by either conquest or by subjection to religious monarchies as laid out in Thomas Paine's The Rights Of Man. America was created as a Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law defined the nation, and that nation's natural citizenry were its descendents (or Posterity, as it's referred to in the Constitution).

From The Rights of Man, Applying Principle to Practice, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions, Part 2 of 2:

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.

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.

-PJ
215 posted on 05/01/2012 4:28:53 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

PPS: There is nothing “magical” about an American knowing how many states there are. There’s nothing “magical” about an American knowing how to pronounce ‘Marine Corpsman’. Nothing “magical” about Americans knowing Hawaii is not in Asia. Etc. Etc.

Either you are dense or you’re doing a good imitation of being dense. Try to read my posts more carefully, or at a minimum respond like an adult having a serious discussion. The idea that only by “magic” can an American know to put his or her hand over her heart—as opposed to lacing one’s fingers across one’s genitals—during the singing of the National Anthem is pretty sick or stupid, take your pick.

PPPS: What kind of magical spell was put on previous POTUSs, to prevent them from bowing to Muslim kings and Japanese emperors? Must be a pretty good spell. Are you Wiccan, to believe such nonsense, or do you have another excuse?


216 posted on 05/01/2012 4:29:20 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“What other purpose did it serve to say anything about children of citizen parents when Minor didn’t claim to be born to citizen parents??”

It served whatever purpose the judge had for it. Not everything they say is directly tied to the decision. It’s called obiter dictum, and it can spin off into irrelevancy easily. In this particular case, her presidential eligibility was not at issue. If they rejected her claim, obviously she was not eligible for the presidency any more than citizenship, so I hardly see how they danced around citizen parents and the 14th amendment had to do with who’s a NBC besides the children of two citizens, aside from not her.

There were not out to exhaustively define NBC status, and didn’t. They did not say outright that native borns aren’t NBCs.


217 posted on 05/01/2012 4:29:41 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

This’ll be my final shot at this. I think the other poster is right, that you’re only sticking with this because you don’t see a way out.

You said the law applied only to aliens.

The law itself says it applies to people who are citizens at birth.

Therefore, you are arguing that people who are citizens at birth are also, at least at some point, aliens.

I have asked you what that point is.

You have answered only with rhetorical questions.

I conclude, therefore, that you don’t actually have an answer.


218 posted on 05/01/2012 4:30:00 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

“Even by Brets literally made up definition, Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.”

Or, the beginnings of the attack to take Rubio’s name from consideration as VP.


219 posted on 05/01/2012 4:32:37 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

“The Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born citizen,” but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401.” {Bret Baier}

I went to the link to 8 U.S Code, Section 1401. Absent from that text are: any attempt to define “natural born citizen”, or even the words “natural born citizen.” To say that the “job” of defining “natural born citizen” is left to this Code section is simply dishonest.


220 posted on 05/01/2012 4:34:48 PM PDT by Chewbarkah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“The law is ‘applicable upon’ the children. It only ‘applies to’ alien parents.”

Please do define the difference between ‘applicable upon’ and ‘applies to.’ Don’t forget your crazy-to-normal dictionary. Is it like how anti-cruelty laws are applicable upon dogs but only apply to humans? Which is a roundabout way of asking if the citizen children of aliens are like dogs.


221 posted on 05/01/2012 4:35:00 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

In the days of Arthur and Fremont I don’t think there were much public awareness and discussion of eligibility because the societal environment was oriented towards people on the assumption that USA citizens were the government. I believe Arthur knew about his not being Constitutionally eligible but being up for only VP and covered by the usual political chicanery with the communications available at the time, he knew he had a chance to be with the ticket. The deception worked much the same way Obama and his enablers(Bret is now one) have manipulated or ignored the Founder’s words and debate.


222 posted on 05/01/2012 4:38:00 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“So what citizenship would you have had if you were alive and living in the United States prior to its organization under the Articles of Confederation?”

You mean after the revolution started, while the states were united under the Continental Congress, if that is, in fact, called “the United States”? You would be a British subject in the eyes of the British before the war was settled. Aside from that, a citizen of your home state.

I’m not sure whether the Continental Congress was organized enough for the citizens of the states to also be citizens of the congress. Certainly there was no Constitution or Articles to bind the states together. There was the Declaration, but that did not bind them in the same manner.


223 posted on 05/01/2012 4:39:34 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Let me take the first stab at prebutting the obvious remarks.

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.

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."

I'd also say that Paine was a widely read author of the time of the Declaration and the Constitution, and so his writings do reflect the common understandings of the language at the time. I'm sure that the Founders and the Framers shared this understanding of the language.

-PJ

224 posted on 05/01/2012 4:40:59 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“That ‘something’ is natural law and it’s outside of positive law or custom.”

Now you’re not reading what you quote (it’s not that long, go ahead and try). What you should have highlighted was “there has to be something...to be a citizen of.” But then your point, that that something is natural law,” would make no sense.

The idea that you can be a citizen of natural law is idiotic. You are citizens not of nature, but of organized human society, as in modern times governed on a national level by constitutions.


225 posted on 05/01/2012 4:42:57 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

.
Bret Baier is a moron, or a deliberate deceiver.

The term has been defined by the SCOTUS four times, each of which was in agreement with the common usage of the term at the time the constitution was written.

That definition requires both parents be citizens at the time of birth.

Deceiver be gone.


226 posted on 05/01/2012 4:43:12 PM PDT by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Yes it can, and to the very citizens whose status you don’t deny it establishes.
I haven't argued anywhere that it doesn't establish the children's status. You going back to it time after time isn't going to change what I didn't say into something I did say.

No, no, no. The citizen is the child, you see.
No kidding, Sherlock. The law is "applicable upon" the child. It "applies to" the parent.
What can't you grasp about that?!
That's like saying a child who isn't of an age to drive is responsible for their parent's speeding simply because they're in the car. The law applies to the driver, not the passenger.

The law...governs when the children of aliens can be citizens.
No, the law states when they become citizens, that being at birth.

Therefore, it governs citizens: the citizens who qualify according to it to be citizens from birth.
They can't be citizens until they're born you dolt! It doesn't take effect until after they're born, meaning before they're citizens. Thus, the law is applicable upon the children of aliens and applies to the alien parent/parents, one of which may not be a citizen at all.

227 posted on 05/01/2012 4:45:30 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Let me ask a question on this matter.
So what's/where's the question? {;^)
228 posted on 05/01/2012 4:48:22 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; philman_36

“The law” in this case does not have the authority to modify the intent of the constitution, which relies on the well known common usage at the time of its creation: Both parents must be citizens at the time of birth to be a “Natural Born” citizen as referenced in the constitution.

Statute law does not amend the constitution.
.


229 posted on 05/01/2012 4:50:16 PM PDT by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Here’s the million dollar question: Why did Obama, who has a degree in Constitutional Law from Harvard Law School, state on his fightthesmears website regarding questions of his citizenship that he is “native” born rather than state that he’s “natural” born?


230 posted on 05/01/2012 4:53:09 PM PDT by SuzyQueIN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
[Do you seriously believe that, or do you just argue that position because you’re bored and have nothing better to do?]

Or getting paid?
231 posted on 05/01/2012 4:53:18 PM PDT by HoneysuckleTN (Where the woodbine twineth... || FUBO! OMG! ABO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
Could this be a prelude to getting the term explained by claiming ignorance as the excuse for not bringing this to light sooner?

Not with SR511 hanging over their heads. The committee of 5, including Hussein and Hillary, along with Chertoff, stated very clearly and signed their names to the definition of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS. The five senators, including Hussein and Hillary, signed it a second time in the Senate.

232 posted on 05/01/2012 4:54:12 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“When? There was never a first family?”

Don’t get cute. This is below even you. One cannot be a citizen of his family. Nor is a family really a societ, according to how we use the word.

“Wouldn’t the father of such a family be the leader and it would be he who decided who was and wasn’t part of the family (determine citizenship)?”

Being a leader is not being government. Deciding who’s part of the family is not determining citizenship, because there is no familial citizenship.

“You didn’t brighten my day. You showed how vapid you can be”

Which made you laugh, thereby brightening your day.

By the way, what’s more vapid, to understand the basis of words like citizen and politics or to pretend that parents being the government of families and childrens being citizens of their families is more than metaphorical?

“So what?! Were there no families or tribes either?”

There are no citizens of families, nor of tribes.

“Now or in the past?”

Either.

“Only if you spoke Greek”

Also if you speak English, which adopted the word “politics” from the Greeks (vias intermediaries).

“Yeah, right! Tell the chief and the shaman that their title meant nothing.”

Those are not titles, in the manner you want them to be, you unspeakable ignoramus.

“be sure and tell the wise women that your wife can have that child on her own”

What are you getting at? That there were customs, and that everyone didn’t do what they felt like means there was government and citizenship? Who are you kidding? Is this some elaborate excercise in wasting my time, or what?

“You think you’re wise and yet you don’t allow basic common sense to enter your thinking.”

Basic common sense like what? That families are collectives of people and have some sort of order, therefore they have government and citizenship? Yeah, that’s a little too “common” for me. Everything is not everything else. We distinguish with good reason.

I’m done with this. Anyone who can’t understand that citizenship doesn’t predate civilization is not worth talking to on the subject.


233 posted on 05/01/2012 4:56:47 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Yikes!!! :-(

I got on my soapbox so quickly that I forgot! LOL!

I meant to ask about the relevance of citing equivalencies to British subjects to make natural-born citizen a like term.

I guess I answered my own question without ever asking the question.

But since the comparison was being made to England, I thought that Paine's thoughts on the matter were interesting, given that I've not seen them mentioned on any of the eligibility threads that talk about what the Framers knew or didn't know about the writings on the matter.

Paine seems to indicate that a "full natural... connection with the country" was not the same thing as a "half-foreigner." If he wrote it, it was a common understanding at the time.

-PJ

234 posted on 05/01/2012 4:58:02 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“The law is ‘applicable upon’ the children, it ‘applies to’ the parents.”

Tell me the difference, oh you John Marshall, you.


235 posted on 05/01/2012 4:59:21 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
You said the law applied only to aliens.
To be concise, I'm saying the law applies to alien parents.
It's saying, "Hey, driver, the speed limit is 30 MPH. If you don't want a ticket don't speed. If you do a fine will be levied."
In other words...If you're here legally and you have a child here they're going to have U. S. citizenship whether you want them to or not.

The law itself says it applies to people who are citizens at birth.
Where does the law say that? Can a law apply to a person who isn't born? How is that possible?
No, the law is applicable upon certain children at birth. It "applies to" alien parents.

The speed limit through a residential district is posted at 30 MPH.
Upon whom is the law applied to? Is it applicable upon another?

236 posted on 05/01/2012 5:01:36 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

“There is nothing ‘magical’ about an American knowing how many states there are. There’s nothing ‘magical’ about an American knowing how to pronounce ‘Marine Corpsman’. Nothing ‘magical’ about Americans knowing Hawaii is not in Asia. Etc. Etc.”

No, there isn’t. Non-natural born people could easily know better. Foreigners could easily know better. For that matter, NBC could easily not know better.

“Either you are dense or you’re doing a good imitation of being dense. Try to read my posts more carefully, or at a minimum respond like an adult having a serious discussion.”

It’s hardly adult behavior to so easily castigate others for phantom childishness. What I said was, “You’re saying somehow magically he wouldn’t do these things had he qualified for NBC status?” Which I still believe is what you said, and yes I read your post carefully (enough). Your litany of gaffes against Obama is really neither here nor there as regards NBC status. Being born a citizen wouldn’t prevent you from doing what he’s done, nor does doing what he’s done indicate

I see the word “magically” especially got to you, as well it should. Not because I was wrong to attribute it to your thoughts in the previous post, but because it well describes your thoughts, at least as you chose to lay them out, and hearing so naturally makes you angry.


237 posted on 05/01/2012 5:08:24 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Therefore, you are arguing that people who are citizens at birth are also, at least at some point, aliens.
The parents are the aliens! The child never had the opportunity to be an alien!

That's the point. You can't make a law on aliens and naturalization be about a person who was never an alien to begin with as their parent was.
The parent is the alien, not the child. The parent isn't the citizen, the child is when they're born and you can't enforce a law on someone before they're born (well, that goes into the whole abortion issue and just how wrong that law is).
The child has no choice but to be labeled a U.S. citizen.

238 posted on 05/01/2012 5:09:42 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
No, the 14th amendment does not define who’s an NBC.

The Preamble defines who is a natural-born citizen.

Preamble

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.

"We the People" are citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children.

Whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children?

How else would the Founders attempt to secure the United States of America if not by limiting the qualifications for the highest office to the People and their Posterity that was the reason for establishing the Constitution in the first place?

That language seems plain enough to me. The whole Constitution must be read within the context of the purpose as stated by the Framers in the Preamble: the Constitution was framed specifically to ensure the country to its people and their children - the natural born of the country.

If you are an alien who becomes a naturalized citizen, you become one of We the People, and then your children that follow become the nation's posterity.

Natural-born citizens are the nation's "posterity" that the Constitution was ordained and established to secure.

-PJ

239 posted on 05/01/2012 5:11:18 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: chopperman
But if your parents were citizens of the same country you were born in, there is no conflict.

You are naturally a citizen of just that one country.

Now, where do you people think ‘Natural Born Citizenship’ came from?

What could be more simple than this?

One certainly needn't be a constitutional law scholar to spot the simple logic of it, that's for sure.

240 posted on 05/01/2012 5:16:07 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

For every fact I cite about Obama, you come back w a hypothetical. Obama has demonstrated over and over a total ignorance of America. No, I didn’t cite a list of “gaffes”. It wasn’t a “gaffe” when Obama cradled his hands in front of his genitals during the playing of the National Anthem. It was something a foreigner would do. You say an NBC could do it too. Fine. Cite one, just ONE, POTUS prior to Obama who did it. Just one.

No hypotheticals this time. I gave you a list of FACTS demonostrating that Obama acts like a foreigner—and like a foreigner who hates the USA. You come back w your fairytale stories of how NBCs could do that too. Get out of your make-believeland and into reality. Cite an actual example of a president w two citizen parents who did any of the things Obama has done. I’ll be waiting.

I also note you are acting like a complete liberal re: the term ‘magical’. I pointed out how stupid a usage it was, and you said it got to me. I’ve never met a conservative who argued that way. Only liberals.


241 posted on 05/01/2012 5:17:54 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
The idea that you can be a citizen of natural law is idiotic.
Your statement is what is idiotic. One is a citizen through natural law, not "of" natural law.

You are citizens not of nature, but of organized human society, as in modern times governed on a national level by constitutions.
And once again you deny natural law when, and as, you choose.
To believe what you say then you have to believe...

My ability to keep and bear arms isn't of nature, but of organized human society, as in modern times governed on a national level by constitutions and positive laws.

You don't believe that, as you've indicated...

@Yes, like I said, you have a natural right to bear arms.

242 posted on 05/01/2012 5:19:17 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Section 1401 of Obamacare....

“So Section 1401 of the law [§1401\36B(c)(2)(C)(i)] states that employer-sponsored coverage is “unaffordable” if the required premium “exceeds 9.5 percent of the applicable taxpayer’s household income.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/08/10/obamacare-bombshell-did-the-government-underestimate-the-costs-of-ppacas-exchanges-by-hundreds-of-billions/

1401
Jul 9th - Mongol monarch Timur Lenk destroys Baghdad

http://www.historyorb.com/events/date/1401

“In 1401, under Barquq’s successor, his son Faraj, Ibn Khaldun took part in a military campaign against the Mongol conqueror Timur, who besieged Damascus.”

http://baheyeldin.com/history/ibn-khaldun.html
(See “The Muqaddimah” Ibn Khaldun)

Somewhere, there is a discussion of ‘year 0’ of the hijri calendar. I don’t remember what the corresponding year of the Gregorian calendar was, but it is connected to this, and it is hard to find........


243 posted on 05/01/2012 5:23:15 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“I haven’t argued anywhere that it doesn’t establish the children’s status. You going back to it time after time isn’t going to change what I didn’t say into something I did say.”

I haven’t changed what you said. We both agree that you agree it establishes their status. I was using that to move on the nexct point, which is that obviously if it establishes their status it applies to them. It’s their status, after all.

“What can’t you grasp about that?!”

Um, everything?

“That’s like saying a child who isn’t of an age to drive is responsible for their parent’s speeding simply because they’re in the car”

no it isn’t. Your example has as much bearing on the argument as me saying “That’s like saying apples baseball submarine Herny Kissinger toilet seat babies.”

“The law applies to the driver, not the passenger.”

Yes, that’s because the law is about the driver. A law controlling citizenship status from birth, contrariwise, is more about the child than the parent, given that they are the ones with the status. Are you trying to say citizenship from birth is like being in a speeding car as a passenger? Like, it’s an objective fact that you were speeding, though anti-speeding laws don’t apply to you. Just like how the law applies only to the parents, somehow, even though the children are the ones who aqcuire the status.

“No, the law states when they become citizens, that being at birth.”

Distinction without a difference.

“They can’t be citizens until they’re born you dolt!”

So what? How does that mean the law doesn’t apply to them when they are born?

“It doesn’t take effect until after they’re born”

You just said they’re not citizens until they’re born. Being born citizens, as they are, their citizenship comes simultaneously with their birth. They’re born, and—bam!—they’re citizens. There is no lag.

You do agree that children born to an alien parent and qualifying according to the conditions laid out in the law are born citizens, don’t you? Then how can you possibly say it isn’t until after they’re born? Do you know what it means to be born a citizen? Just that: to be born a citizen.

“meaning before they’re citizens”

That makes absolutely no sense. Born citizens are not ever anything but citizens once they are born. Not a few seconds after they’re born, not a week after they’re born. As soon as they’re born. There is no lacuna of indeterminacy.

“Thus, the law is applicable upon the children of aliens and applies to”

Because of the lacuna theory? Oh, well, I knew there must have been a reason, however unreasonable.


244 posted on 05/01/2012 5:25:24 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I’m done with this. Anyone who can’t understand that citizenship doesn’t predate civilization is not worth talking to on the subject.

You probably can't conceive that slavery predated civilization either as there were no laws against it since "civilization" hadn't been established to make it morally wrong or criminal.

245 posted on 05/01/2012 5:31:06 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“It’s saying, ‘Hey, driver, the speed limit is 30 MPH. If you don’t want a ticket don’t speed. If you do a fine will be levied.’
In other words...If you’re here legally and you have a child here they’re going to have U. S. citizenship whether you want them to or not.”

That’s what it says to the parents. What does it say to the child? That if his parents meet the criteria, it is a citizen. Why are you restricting yourself to the parents’ perspective? The law may not be comprehensible to the child, but it will control his future, and therefore does apply to it.

“Where does the law say that? Can a law apply to a person who isn’t born? How is that possible?”

That isn’t possible. It can, and does, apply to people upon being born. Apparently you think that because they can’t read it and be advised of consequences, like the parents, before being born, it somehow doesn’t apply to them. But you don’t have to read a law for it to be applicable. That’s why ignorance of the law is no excuse. It’ll apply to you whether it’s said “Hey” to you or not.


246 posted on 05/01/2012 5:32:33 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
The law is "applicable upon" the children, it "applies to" the parents.

Tell me the difference, oh you John Marshall, you.

Your reply is all the answer I need to know that I'm right and you know it.

247 posted on 05/01/2012 5:33:45 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
...if it establishes their status it applies to them.
It's applicable on the child. It applies to the alien parents.

Yes, that’s because the law is about the driver.
Just like the law in question is about the parents!

In other words...if the alien parent doesn't want the child to have U.S citizenship then don't let it be born here.

You just said they’re not citizens until they’re born. Being born citizens, as they are, their citizenship comes simultaneously with their birth.
The child has no control over where it's born. The parent does!

How obtuse can you get?!

248 posted on 05/01/2012 5:42:46 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
What does it say to the child?
It says...your parents were complete idiots who were ignorant of the law, which is no defense, for not being aware that you were automatically going to be designated a U.S. citizen when you were born.
249 posted on 05/01/2012 5:45:40 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
“If you believe that was the intent of the founders then you are beyond hope.” Only if you live on a faraway planet that has yet to hear of the difficulties of “original intent.” Intent is one thing, what the Constitution says another. Original meaning, my friend, is where it’s at.

The Constitution clearly says Natural Born Citizen. All other references are to Citizens. So the original "intent" was for the president to be born of two citizen parents and that's EXACTLY what the constitution says. Now if you want to start arguing what the meaning of "is" is then you might falsely believe that Obama is eligible and slick willie did not actually have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.

250 posted on 05/01/2012 5:46:22 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351-358 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson