Posted on 05/27/2012 9:56:45 AM PDT by raulgomez05
I think it is YOU that doesn’t understand what the framers meant by NBC. Do your own research; don’t rely on others. Check out my previous posts and get back to me.
There are many court decisions that state that Bummer is a NBC. Like it or not, he IS. Get him out of office in the proper way - prove he is born in Kenya or just VOTE HIM THE HELL OUT!
You are so right on!!!!
Do you even know in what context Madison made that statement?
Is Frank Marshall Davis an American? If so, that blows the birthers out of the water doesn’t it!
I pick 3. We have to VOTE the bastard out, or prove he was born in Kenya.
thanks largely to Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Two total idiots that have NEVER won a case in court. Only idiots believe what they have to say. I’m sure they make plenty of money out of this - just like Jackson and that other creep. Apussy was told he would have to pay penalties if he persisted. Not a peep yet!
You are ignorant of the facts.
Sure I do, he was vouching for the character of Mr. Smith. Look it up for your self.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
Perhaps you can reference just one for me then
And what would you know about what I understand of the Framers' intent behind the NBC clause? I haven't said a word about that, on this thread.
Check out my previous posts and get back to me.
What unmitigated arrogance. I wasn't talking to you to begin with - and no, I have no interest in researching your prior postings on this subject, Mr. Know-it-all.
If you want to live in ignorance, that is your decision. If you’d rather belittle me because you can’t refute me, so be it. I though this was a forum where minds can meet, guess I’m wrong as far as you are concerned. Stay in your hole for all I care.
I have absolute confidence and knowledge that you and those like you know nothing about the American system of government otherwise you wouldn’t have made the stupid comment you made that caused me to cross your ugly path.
Where were all you birthers who supposedly know the Constitution for the year and a half before the election? Why didn’t you concerned people act then? He told everyone up front that his father was African. It’s not like it was a surprise. Why no action then, but all the bitchin’ now?
This whole birther issue is nothing but sour grapes and racism. Sure he’s a lousy president but get rid of him the right way. If he was born in Kenya he is a usurper. If he was born in Hawaii he is a NBC.
No judge in this nation will take the birther side because there is no substance to your side....just racism.
By the way, my arrogance is superceded only by my patriotism and I am sorry for reaching out to an idiot like you. If we cross paths again it will be by accident because I will not remember who you are nor do I give a crap.
Be happy to.
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898)
Bonus:
“Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.” ‘
Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)
When he said, "was born of naturalized parents" is incidental to stress his point beyond doubt; analagous to saying, "my son is an honor student, and he plays varsity football." Playing football has nothing to do with being an honor student.
The very last "citizen of the U.S. by birth" proves parentage has nothing to do with being NBC unless the parents owed allegience to a foreign power. Allegiance comes either by birth or by parentage. Madison says "by birth" is the strongest and "is the policy of the United States."
"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. - (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignth can only apply to ambassadors, etc. Regular people living here or immigrating here transfer that allegiance to the U.S. This is not a hard and fast proclamation that they must be citizens. Many court cases are on record stating that citizen parents are not required to produce a NBC child on American soil.
"Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.... - (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
In all three instances of Mr. Bingham quotes you provided, he never says citizen parents are required even though it would have been easier.
While there are many cases, this two in particular use the language Mr. Bingham uses and should make sense:
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898
I couldn't help but notice that your Article II Facts goes to a birther website. I also notice that they ask for donations. I firmly believe that these people are trying to make money by riling up people who really don't understand the law. They distort and they lie.
I have at least 30 solid authorative references that actually state aliens can produce NBC if they live here.
No birther can produce a document or law that says two citizen parents are required to be NBC unless their child is born on foreign soil. FACT!
If you want, I'll provide my references.
Ignorance? You haven't the slightest idea of what I know, or do not know about our Constitution. How dare you presume another to be living in ignorance, when you don't even know the person you're talking to? I was right when I called you 'arrogant'. You're obviously that, and more.
If you’d rather belittle me because you can’t refute me, so be it.
I don't know what your problem is, mate, but you appear to be swinging at shadows. I don't have a clue what your interpretation of the NBC clause is, because I've never spoken to you, nor have I consumed my valuable time tracking down your previous postings on the subject (despite your demand that I do so).
Frankly, I don't know what bug crawled up your butt today, but I guarantee you, it's irritating me too. I don't know who you are, and I have no idea why you're even talking to me. I've never posted to you, and honestly, I couldn't care less about your personal issues, your feigned indignation, or you holier-than-thou take on the Constitution.
Bugger off, creep.
Mr. Jersey cites a circuit court decision (US v. Rhodes) which never mentions natural born citizenship. This is a familiar ploy. Knowing that few will bite on the wild goose chase, some will assume that those official sounding citations mean something. If readers note that natural born citizens are not mentioned, and realize that only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution, they won't bother, and should probably dismiss everything New Jersey says. The authoritative sounding citations can discourage those who haven't seen this nonsense before.
Then he proceeds to Wong Kim Ark, a favorite playground for Obots. Skip Horace Gray's tour through English Common Law. It is irrelevant. Jump to the last paragraph. Wong Kim, the San Francisco born son of parents who were almost citizens, "domiciled residents", prevented from immigrating by Chinese law. They would almost certainly have chosen naturalization but would have faced death for violating Chinese law, was made a citizen - not natural born, but a 14th Amendment citizen. or, using the same words and language Obama used to describe his own citizenship, “A native-born citizen of the U.S.” A “native-born citizen” is born on our land, but not to citizens.
The 14th Amendment was written to make slaves into citizens. The children of naturalized slaves would then be natural-born. Wong Kim and Obama and Rubio are all naturalized - native-born - citizens, and not natural born, and not eligible to the presidency.
The nonsensical allegation that English Common Law and US common-law are almost synonymous was probably Horace Gray's effort to provide cover for himself and his patron, Chester Arthur, in case Chester's ineligibility was discovered. Chester too hid his birth certificate, and lied frequently about where his mother was born, and when, to tantalize his enemies, and keep them searching for grounds for ineligibility in the wrong places. Arthur's father's naturalization papers were not discovered until December 2008 when Leo Donofrio, poring over material collected by the last Arthur biographer, found the naturalization papers. The author who had collected the material was ashamed that he had not noticed, but he didn't have a reason to pay attention. Everyone knew Arthur's minister father was born in Ireland, but nobody had thought to ask when he became a U.S. citizen, and declared, like all naturalized citizens, sole allegiance to our Constitution. Arthur had all his personal papers burned just before he died.
Justice Gray, known as an excellent judicial historian, cited Minor v. Happersett, and couldn't have written a decision controverting Minor without doing so explicitly. That would have required replacing the definition made precedent in Minor. He didn't!
Without ever citing the common-law definition cited by Chief Justice John Marshall who credits Vattel, C.J. Marshall's and C.J. Waite's definitions are the same, born on the soil to parents who were its citizens. Justice Gray never contested that definition. Gray's decision is based, as he makes clear, on the 14th Amendment, whose author, John Bingham who uses essentially the same definition for natural born citizen in his addresses to the House, and never mentions, nor changes, the definition he recites to the House in 1866: "...born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty."
Then Mr Jersey cites a congressman who likes Blackstone. Congressmen, of course, unless they succeed in getting an amendment passed, have no authority to interpret the Constitution. Blackstone, while he was a professor, was an editor of volumes and volumes of English Common Law which are considered by many the most authoritative collection of that often internally inconsistent body of ideas. To see in how little regard our framers and justices held English common-law, from which they fought a revolution to escape, read Justice James Wilson's Lectures on The Law. Few will have time, of course, and Thomas Paine is more fun, and destroys any notion that our framers held English law as an example.
Here are a few paragraphs, sent personally by Thomas Paine to Washingto and Lafyette, dealing with “The Rights of Man”, and describing some of the differences between English law and the U.S. Constitution (there being no real English constitution) - from 1792 (and with thanks to the FR contributer who introduced many of us to this passage):
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.
When Paine points out that the president must be a “native”, he is using the common-language term, later legally associated by Chief Justice Waite, which also means “natural born citizen.” When he explains that the King is often a “foreigner” and at least “half a foreigner”. Our executive must be a “native”, not “native-born”, but a native, or Paine would have said that. Again, “native-born” or jus soli citizenship implies being born, like Wong Kim, on our soil, but to one or more alien parents. Our president satisfies both jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship because natural law presumes that the child inherits the allegiance of his parents.
Paine also notes that the King, half a foreigner, having been born to a foreign mother or father, is not eligible to be a Member of Parliament because one of his parents was not a subject. Not a monarchy, we do require that the chief executive be born to citizens, but, unlike England, allow naturalized citizens to hold every other office.
Few of us believe politicians and their media will acknowledge these truths. If we retain 1st Amendment rights, we will communicate the truth to enough citizens, who are seeing how critical allegiance to our Constitution is to our survival and quality of life, that we will restore respect for law. There is truth in the honest observation by SEIU’s former president Andy Stern: “We will rule by the power of persuasion until that doesn't work; then we'll use the persuasion of power.”
There is the honest admission by Barack Obama, on his “Fightthesmears.com” web site for several years, that he is a naturalized citizen. He never lied. He never claimed to be a natural born citizen. He was one of the signees of Senate Res 511, and knows that constituitonal eligibility requires citizen parents. He clearly determined that he had the political capital, and press support, to ignore it. Barack was honest when he said the the Constitution was of limited use, not allowing him to do many of the things he thought society needed. He talked about a new bill of rights. But many of us prefer our Constitution to a Marxist autocracy - a Castro or Chavez or Erdogan or Ahmadinejad government. Just how many only time will tell.
I guess by your tagline I spoke the truth cause you sure are riled up. I’ll bugger off because you are an obvious nut job. I dared to make a comment to you post! Oh, sin of sins.
Fact is, there is not ONE judge or politician that actually believes the tripe birthers put out. The evidence on your side is nonexistent and the evidence going the other way is overwhelming. You people ARE the definition of insanity.
You say, “Mr. Jersey cites a circuit court decision (US v. Rhodes) which never mentions natural born citizenship.” What is it you don’t understand about
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
I think Rhodes hits the nail right on the head.
You mention Minor as if that means something while totally disregarding a recent ruling about Minor which reads:
“[Supreme Court] precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“, Is this more of your conspiracy theory?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint. THIS IS A MUST READ!
What about this?
“Every person born -within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen,
Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases, pg. 4664 (1904)
What about this?
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
or this?
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
And finally this which tosses out Vattel completely.
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
Come up with ONE legitimate and authorative citation that clearly establishes that NBC requires citizen parents and you will win the day. If you cannot then everyone reading this will know your agenda and say EPIC FAIL!
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.