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

Skip to comments.

Obama, Rubio Birthers Should Read the Law
The Examiner Washington ^ | 05/24/2012 | Byron York

Posted on 05/30/2012 6:10:45 AM PDT by circumbendibus

Birtherism -- the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States -- pretty much died last year when the White House released a copy of the president's long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. After that, the number of Americans who doubted Obama's place of birth dropped dramatically.

But not to zero. In recent days, there has been a mini-resurgence of birther talk, from Arizona, where the secretary of state questioned Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot, to Iowa, where some Republicans want to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility for office.

The talk has gone beyond Obama, with some buzz on the Internet suggesting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a leading Republican vice presidential contender, is not a natural-born American citizen.

(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthers; kookyafterbirfers; moonbatbirthers; naturalborncitizen; naturalborncuban; obama; rubio; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-260 next last
To: fireman15

Fireman, I agree with you 100%. Deep in my heart I know this bastard has something to hide. We are just not going at it the right way. I am not that clever but there must be a way to get to the bottom of it without the help of the press. Sheriff Joe is on the right track but he’s getting no help.

I understand the birther movement has a two prong attack. One is to prove he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii and that is the only prong that is correct because the law is clear that if he WAS born in Hawaii he is NBC so the NBC issue is pointless and detracts from the seriousness of this issue. We must prove he is a foreigner.

No one questions his student status. Was he on foreign aid? The press should be all over that. How could he have traveled to Indonesia when there was an American ban there. The press should be all over that.

There are so many things to go after him on that we have a better shot at than proving he isn’t natural born because his father was Kenyan. That ship won’t sail.


101 posted on 05/31/2012 4:51:05 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Edge, listen to yourself. Are you serious?

You say, “It cited and affirmed the exclusive Minor definition of NBC, ” when in fact it said EXACTLY the opposite. Minor v. Harpersett did make a comment on this subject, which some say would disqualify Obama, if applied, but for whatever reason, this recent decision rejects Minor's definition because the court specifically said, “Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett ,88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise. ” The Arizona judge went with the WKA decision as the precedent setter totally knocking out Minor.

Then you say, “The Ankeny decision admits that there was no legal precedent in Wong Kim Ark. ” When in fact Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana states very clearly, “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens. ” You're clever, use a word search to find it.

Then you finally say, “The Arizona court simply brushes this aside with a very flawed misinterpretation of the natural-born citizen predent (sic).” A republican appointed judge by the way.

You infer that anyone who doesn’t agree with YOUR flawed thinking is an idiot.

You are either trying to pull my leg or you have a serious comprehension problem. You would do better at joining the “world is coming to an end” faction.

The constitutional question was settled long ago in 1898 when SCOTUS ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that if you are born in this country, no matter what the citizenship status of your parents, you are a natural born citizen with but a few exceptions which Obama doesn’t fall into. The law clarified what the Constitution didn’t specify. The matter is closed as far as reasonable people are concerned.

102 posted on 05/31/2012 5:51:56 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: edge919

It also cites Elk, which says you are either a citizen born or a citizen made.

The court could have written “a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the natural born citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency” - but they didn’t. They were either careless and wrote a false statement, or they wrote what they believed true.

There is no legal basis for claiming there are THREE categories of citizens - naturalized, native born of alien parents, and native born of citizen parents.


103 posted on 05/31/2012 5:55:05 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner

You say, “Minor, and other USSC decisions have have consistently defined NBC as ‘born in country to citizen parents.’”

A flat out lie! You can’t prove it. Minor just said there was some doubt about a certain class of citizenship but drops it like a hot potato ONLY to be picked up and clarified by a court with more guts.


104 posted on 05/31/2012 5:55:38 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Now you inspired me to pull it out!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’re in for a surprise!


105 posted on 05/31/2012 5:56:48 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner

“Minor, and other USSC decisions have have consistently defined NBC as ‘born in country to citizen parents.’ That is settled Law in the US. “

Not true. Minor specifically said it wasn’t going to try to resolve the issue. Thus it left it open for WKA to resolve the issue.


106 posted on 05/31/2012 5:57:36 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

I hate it when these threads degenerate into a “you’re a liar, no you are” back and forth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I agree and I try to avoid it but when someone states an out and out lie it must be addressed. Some people here claim that it is law that a natural born citizen MUST have citizen parents. I ask them to show me that law and all I get is a load of you know what - but NEVER the precise law.

You know, if it was a law, I could certainly live with it. It’s no skin off my nose if you need 2 citizen parents, heck, I’d even go for a rule that says your great grandfather must be a citizen if that’s what the founders wanted. I will do anything the founders want because I honor and respect them.

I also respect that lots of people (like Paine, Jay, Madison, etc., had personal thoughts and ideas but unless it somehow got into writing as part of the Constitution or enacted law, it is JUST an opinion and not binding. Hell, I’d like to have restaurants serve free meals on Sunday! Ain’t goin’ to happen.

I just want to see a precise assertion by some judge or law somewhere that mandates a two citizen parent rule. It can’t be found - but many judges and laws and knowledgable sources state quite the opposite. What is an honest man to do?


107 posted on 05/31/2012 6:09:46 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
It also cites Elk, which says you are either a citizen born or a citizen made.

AND Elk excludes children from being under the operation of the 14th amendment, so it destroys the Fogger and Faither claim that all children born in the country are natural-born citizens under the 14th amendment. You idiot, you showed a direct citation of Minor as THE legal precedent for defining presidential eligibility: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.

There is no legal basis for claiming there are THREE categories of citizens - naturalized, native born of alien parents, and native born of citizen parents.

Absolutely false. Minor recognized two separate classes of citizens at birth and Wong Kim Ark acknowledged a separate type of citizenship at birth through the 14th amendment that only applies to children of resident aliens. This has been SHOWN to you conclusively several times. You've just destroyed your own arguments with the Luria quote. Congratulations, fool.

108 posted on 05/31/2012 6:44:00 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The only issue Minor left open was whether children born in the country to anyone but citizen parents could be citizens. The other class of persons, children born in the country to citizen parents, was EXCLUSIVELY characterized as natural born. Wong Kim Ark affirmed this. Why did either decision say ANYTHING about citizen parents when Virginia Minor did NOT make it part of her argument or birth facts??


109 posted on 05/31/2012 6:46:29 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: edge919

So...why is it no court in the country agrees with you? Why is it that 0 out of 50 states agree with you? Why is it that 0 out of 535 members of Congress agree with you?

Oh wait! It is a vast conspiracy! The Supreme Court is in on it. All of Congress. Every state. Every party.

Only edge, and his valiant band of birther brothers know the truth. Only THEY know what Minor said, and only THEY have the magic mirror that unlocks WKA.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For any who wants to read the decisions, here they are:

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

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/325/case.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012


110 posted on 05/31/2012 7:36:23 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“AND Elk excludes children from being under the operation of the 14th amendment...”

WOW!

You really ARE a fruitcake, aren’t you!


111 posted on 05/31/2012 7:37:44 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Please remember that the poster wears obamanoid kneepads and will argue anything at FR to defend little barry bastard commie’s illegitimacy as legitimate.


112 posted on 05/31/2012 7:44:31 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Here's the direct quote to help you understand:
the plaintiff, if born while his parents were members of an Indian tribe, would not be embraced by the amendment even had he been at the time it was adopted, a permanent resident of one of the states, subject to taxation and in fact paying property and personal taxes, to the full extent required of the white race in the same state.

113 posted on 05/31/2012 8:04:04 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
So...why is it no court in the country agrees with you?

You just cited one that does ... and it was the SUPREME COURT. What an idiot. Anyone who reads those links is going to see that I'm right, except that Lynch is NOT a controlling decion and you know that. Wong Kim Ark cited it as an extreme view which they never accepted as controlling on the issue of natural-born citizenship. You're just digging a deeper and deeper hole for your Kenyan Coward™.

114 posted on 05/31/2012 8:06:40 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The cases you cite do not define natural born citizen. And in particular, I’m having a hard time understanding why you would cite the Indiana case. It clearly states that WKA did NOT define natural born citizen, and then directly contradicted that by citing WKA as a reason to find that Obama is a natural born citizen. That was a kangaroo court, plain and simple.

The only SCOTUS case that defines Constitutional natural born citizen is Minor v. Happersett: born in US to 2 US citizen parents.


115 posted on 05/31/2012 8:07:00 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

And Rogers unwittingly gave us a Supreme Court precedent that specifically cites Minor v. Happersett for defining presidential eligibility but does NOT cite Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark is NOT the legal precedent and Ankney knew it. They only used it to create a justification to punt the plaintiffs arguments as inconclusive. The meat of their dismissal of the case was only by virtue that the governor of Indiana could not be legally obligated to vet presidential candidates. The Ankeny decision did NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen.


116 posted on 05/31/2012 8:32:16 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: circumbendibus

I haven’t read any of the comments or the article. I’m fixin’ to take the article downstairs and read it to my husband who was asking me about the birther thing yesterday because of good old Donald Trump (peace be upon him)

But, as far as getting rid of Obama is concerned, the quickest and best way to do that is in November, only a little more than four months away and the despicable creature can be banished from our leadership.

A lot of freepers need to wake up, put their hatred and self-righteouness on the back burner for a while and get rid of the Kenyan.

After that, if they are not satisfied with Pres. Romney, double down on the tea party movement and find someone better.

But for now there’s an easier way to rid ourselves of this loathsome president... just fill out a ballot.


117 posted on 05/31/2012 8:34:05 AM PDT by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919
And Rogers unwittingly gave us a Supreme Court precedent that specifically cites Minor v. Happersett for defining presidential eligibility but does NOT cite Wong Kim Ark.
I strongly suspect that's because Rogers and those like him just copy and paste the scripted defenses they've been handed without reading them. If they have bothered to read the cases they cite, it certainly seems they don't understand them.
118 posted on 05/31/2012 9:01:16 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: edge919; Rides3

“if born while his parents were members of an Indian tribe”.

It was being part of an Indian nation that was the problem. It had nothing to do with someone just being a child.

“Anyone who reads those links is going to see that I’m right...”

I posted the links so anyone CAN read the decisions. There IS a reason no state and no court agrees with you. A fair reading of those decisions will make it obvious - and the answer is not a conspiracy.

“It clearly states that WKA did NOT define natural born citizen, and then directly contradicted that by citing WKA as a reason to find that Obama is a natural born citizen. That was a kangaroo court, plain and simple.”

No. What it said was that the court didn’t specifically write, “WKA is a NBC” is irrelevant. The argument they used in the decision says WKA met the definitions of NBC & 14th Amendment, and that those two definition are identical.

Of course, you can choose to refuse to believe that, but every court who reads it agrees with me. Every state in the union agrees with me. Every member of Congress agrees with me. When every court, every state and every member of Congress says the decision means A, and you insist it means not A, then your opinion is irrelevant. Further, your opinion is probably the opinion of an idiot, because your theory requires all of the USA to be in a conspiracy. And that is nutjob land...


119 posted on 05/31/2012 9:10:28 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: altura
A lot of freepers need to wake up, put their hatred and self-righteouness on the back burner for a while
Well... there's this little thing called establishing precedent. If Obama is allowed to get away with being POTUS even though he is Constitutionally ineligible, it leaves the country vulnerable to more of the same.

Obama's ineligibility has to be exposed and he has to be removed from office because his presidency is a direct violation of the US Constitution.

Many know Obama is Constitutionally ineligible, including Obama himself and his attorneys. Obama's attorneys try to argue...

In one of the more bizarre arguments made on behalf of President Obama, his lawyers filed a motion in the Arizona eligibility court case asking that all challenges by the LLF be dismissed. The President’s lawyers argue that it is not the jurisdiction of the courts or the US Constitution to decide who can and can’t hold the office of President. Instead, President Obama’s attorneys insist the voters on election day have the final legal say.
http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q22012/lawyers-challenging-obama-eligibility-speak-out639/

Um... actually... POTUS eligibility requirements ARE specifically stated in the US Constitution.

Why else would Obama's lawyers try to have the Constitutional requirements legally dismissed unless they already know Obama does not meet them?

120 posted on 05/31/2012 9:23:03 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

“If they have bothered to read the cases they cite, it certainly seems they don’t understand them.”

At some point, you really need to ask yourself why every court and every state thinks you are full of poop. Why is it the folks you think “understand them” always lose, and the folks who don’t understand them always win?

Why is it that no state - not 1 out of 50 - agrees with you? Not Utah. Not Arizona. Not Texas. Not Georgia. Not Alabama.

Why do I provide links to the full decisions, and birthers do not?

Hmmmm???????


121 posted on 05/31/2012 9:41:39 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
It was being part of an Indian nation that was the problem. It had nothing to do with someone just being a child.

You're missing important distinctions: A) the status of the parents was used to determine the status of a child born on U.S. soil and that child was excluded from the 14th amendment. B) This means that not all children born in the country are citizens at birth under this interpretation of the 14th amendment, so it was excluding this set of children. This destroys the idea that being a "native citizen" is sufficient to be eligible for president since this class of "native-born" persons was excluded from citizenship.

I posted the links so anyone CAN read the decisions. There IS a reason no state and no court agrees with you.

You posted an undeniable reason why these courts SHOULD agree with me. The ONLY Supreme Court precedent for defining NBC in direct relation to presidential eligibility is in Minor v. Happersett, which is proved by the Luria citation ... AND its purposeful OMISSION of Wong Kim Ark. You just stabbed the heart of every Fogger, Faither and Obama Excuse Maker on the planet when you gave that citation. Obama is NOT eligible for the office he occupies and YOU proved it.

122 posted on 05/31/2012 9:52:52 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Minor v. Happersett decision, full length:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

The cases you cite and link do not define Constitutional natural born citizen. Minor v. Happersett does:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Note that Obama was born a foreign citizen via his non-US citizen father. The DNC's "Fight the Smears" website openly admitted that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed Obama Sr's children's citizenship status.
123 posted on 05/31/2012 9:55:26 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

You aren’t a fan of full quotes, are you...


124 posted on 05/31/2012 10:07:53 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
You aren’t a fan of full quotes, are you...
The rest of that passage goes on to question whether those born in the US to alien/foreign parents are even US citizens at all. And SCOTUS is absolutely correct in questioning that. I've already shown in this thread that Trumbull and the Senate Judiciary Committee specifically intended to exclude/u> anyone owing allegiance to anybody else from birthright US citizenship in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment.
125 posted on 05/31/2012 10:14:15 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
*I've already shown in this thread that Trumbull and the Senate Judiciary Committee specifically intended to exclude anyone owing allegiance to anybody else from birthright US citizenship in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment.
126 posted on 05/31/2012 10:17:53 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

A person learns a lot if they take the time to read. I used to think that Wong Kim Ark provided a strong foundation for believing that being born in the country was sufficient to be considered a natural-born citizen, but the more I read the decision, the more I realized that Judge Gray went out of his way to make a distinction between natural-born citizens and so-called native-born citizens ... in direct deference to the Minor decision. He understood that as a UNANIMOUS decision he would have needed a very strong legal footing to change the precedence established in that decision. Instead, he built up a completely different case, but he knew he had to pile it on deep because it was still a weak justification to make Wong Kim Ark a citizen at all.

Roger reminds me of the joke about how a bunch of idiots were in a battle and threw dynamite at their enemy, who in turn, lit the dynamite and threw it back. Rogers is throwing the dynamite, and I’m lighting it and throwing it back where it blows up in his face.


127 posted on 05/31/2012 10:21:22 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

“The rest of that passage goes on to question whether those born in the US to alien/foreign parents are even US citizens at all.”

No, it does not. But you won’t believe me, so go on believing in a Giant Conspiracy. I suggest getting edge to send you a magic mirror, allowing you to read all decisions backwards...


128 posted on 05/31/2012 10:22:48 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
You omit the rest of the sentence which clarifies
It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws
Senator Trumbull is clear that he means to exclude only those "not subject to our laws." You never answered - are you claiming that someone born on American soil of a (non diplomat) foreign father is not subject to US laws on American soil? Again, I urge you to read the whole of Senator Trumbull's comment, of which you are quoting a tiny portion, out of context. Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session Page 2893 of 384.
129 posted on 05/31/2012 10:26:31 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
No, it does not.

Yes, it does...

"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
Note that SCOTUS is defining such children as doubtful citizens ONLY, and then goes on to reaffirm that there is NO doubt that one born in the US to US citizen parents (the first class discussed at the beginning of the passage) is a Constitutional natural born citizen.
130 posted on 05/31/2012 10:36:16 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist; edge919

While I admire your effort, I concluded from past threads it’s no use discussing anything with Edge.

Edge believes the Minor case decided who was an NBC, although the case was actually about whether Virginia Minor was entitled to vote. He also has an unfortunate habit of leaving off part of a quote so that it says the opposite of what the full quote actually said - be forewarned.


131 posted on 05/31/2012 10:39:14 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
You omit the rest of the sentence which clarifies
It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws
You seem to be skipping the most important part of Trumbull's statement... "It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws"

A born dual national, such as Obama, does not come completely within US jurisdiction. The US State Department publication I linked explicitly states such. Trumbull et al recognized that those who owe allegiance to anyone else can never be completely within US jurisdiction and specifically sought to exclude those persons from birthright US citizenship.

132 posted on 05/31/2012 10:46:58 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

“Some authorities go further...” links it to the previous sentence. Here is what Minor says, in context:

Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.

To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.

Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by “the people of the United States,” [n3] and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, [n4] and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of “the United States of America,” entered into a firm league of [p167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. [n5]

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”

To repeat:

“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Notice that in that sentence too, they simply use the word citizen. They did not repeat NBC in every sentence.

Again, I cannot keep you from misreading Minor, but no court has ever upheld your wacko interpretation.

As Ankeny put it:

“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

But then, that is a kangaroo court because it believed:

“The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in
their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and
quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent
that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Courts interpretation of
what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs; arguments fall
under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we
need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120.”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf


133 posted on 05/31/2012 10:49:18 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
I also respect that lots of people (like Paine, Jay, Madison, etc., had personal thoughts and ideas but unless it somehow got into writing as part of the Constitution or enacted law, it is JUST an opinion and not binding.

Then you understand the contrast between Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Minister's Association?

That letter was also "just an opinion and not binding," nor was it written into the Constitution or enacted law, but it is still held up as original intent by a non-Framer who was in France at the time of ratification. Interestingly, Paine was also abroad, living in England at the time.

Maybe you could argue that Paine was just a columnist nee pamphleteer, and Jefferson was a president (and a sitting president when the letter was written), but that still doesn't make it law.

-PJ

134 posted on 05/31/2012 10:49:40 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

> > voting the bastard out < <

That’s not good enough. I want his USSC picks invalidated.


135 posted on 05/31/2012 10:52:30 AM PDT by zeebee (Where would I be right now if all my dreams had come true? (Mason Jennings))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
You’re in for a surprise!

I'm sure. Paine seems to be a person who was in the right place at the right time (Common Sense and The American Crisis), but then his radicalism got the better of him later in life.

He seems to be an example of when someone who falls out of favor has his "name stricken from every book and tablet, stricken from all pylons and obelisks, stricken from every monument... Let the name... be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of men for all time." ;-)

-PJ

136 posted on 05/31/2012 10:59:56 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
“Some authorities go further...” links it to the previous sentence.

You seem to be having trouble comprehending that sentence. Here it is in its entirety... "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

The meaning is clear. "Some authorities go further" is actually linked to the rest of the sentence by the words that follow "and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

And is a conjunction. It links two phrases and clauses together. The and in this sentence links "Some authorities go further" to "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"

The meaning is clear: "Some authorities go further [insert implied 'than that'] and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

Wow. I can't believe I'm having to give a grammar lesson.

137 posted on 05/31/2012 11:00:36 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
As Ankeny put it: “Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

That's a clear misinterpretation (a deliberate can-kicking misinterpretation, I suspect) of Minor v. Happersett. The sentence I just explained to you very clearly expressed doubts as to whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is even considered a citizen at all. The 'natural born' didn't need to be included because a non-citizen certainly couldn't qualify as 'natural born' in the Constitutional sense.

138 posted on 05/31/2012 11:07:54 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

“Not true. Minor specifically said it wasn’t going to try to resolve the issue. Thus it left it open for WKA to resolve the issue.”

Not true back at you!

What it said was that other forms of born citizenship besides NBC were in dispute, and that that issue was beyound the scope of Minor. (Minor was a NBC) WKA only partially resolved the issue of what other forms of born citizenship there were besides Natural Born Citizenship.......


139 posted on 05/31/2012 11:15:14 AM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

““Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens. ” You’re clever, use a word search to find it.”

....and then in the following footnote admitted that WKA didn’t actually say that.

Ankeny is a joke! You should be embarred even quoting it! lolololol


140 posted on 05/31/2012 11:18:34 AM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner
What it said was that other forms of born citizenship besides NBC were in dispute, and that that issue was beyound the scope of Minor. (Minor was a NBC) WKA only partially resolved the issue of what other forms of born citizenship there were besides Natural Born Citizenship.......

Forty-Niner is correct.

Why is this so difficult for some to understand?

141 posted on 05/31/2012 11:21:10 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner
You see, you too are trying to muddy up the water.

In a previous post I admitted that WKA did not actually say Ark was a Natural Born Citizen. This is what I wrote:

"It is not necessary to specifically say “Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen”. Logic is sufficient. When the Supreme Court said that EVERY child born in the USA is natural born–except for certain exceptions (foreign diplomat, etc); and Wong Kim Ark was born in the USA and none of the exceptions apply to him, then Wong Kim Ark fits into the category of Natural Born Citizen.

I can say Jimmy has blue eyes. I can further say that you need blue eyes to become president. I never said Jimmy is eligible to become president in actual words but logically Jimmy CAN be president because he has blue eye. LOGIC!"

Now here comes Ankeny and their footnotes are saying almost exactly what I said. See if you can follow. Here is the complete excerpt from Ankeny:

“The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that:

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. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

Id. at 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted). The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15

[14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

[15] We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.

Footnote 15 is addressing the children born overseas of U.S. parents.

Furthermore I don't recall EVER anyone saying Ronald Reagan was a natural born citizen either - certainly no court did yet I'm pretty sure he was. Get the point?

142 posted on 05/31/2012 12:01:21 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Even if you’re right, and you may well be... I don’t pretend to be a scholar on the subject ...

Even if ... this topic should be investigated and decided, it can better be done with Obama out of the equation.

There is too much media and liberal devotion to Obama for anything to happen while he is president.

We need to defeat him in November and somewhere after that have a lawsuit which will end up at the Supreme Court to decide the issue.

And, by the way, for anyone who’s on the fence about voting for Romney, we don’t want an Obama Supreme Court to decide issues like this.


143 posted on 05/31/2012 12:11:42 PM PDT by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects

Well, there you have it. Obama is a natural-born British subject.

The DNC's "Fight the Smears" website openly admitted that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed Obama Sr's children's citizenship status.

Obama for Prime Minister, anyone?

144 posted on 05/31/2012 12:11:52 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

WHAT guidance provided by WKA? WKA never stated that all persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens."

That ruling completely defies LOGIC.

145 posted on 05/31/2012 12:23:16 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

“I can’t believe I’m having to give a grammar lesson.”

You aren’t.

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

Notice they start with the idea that the Constitution, in the NBC clause and the power of naturalization, provides two methods of citizenship (and that is two, not three): “first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself...Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

Those not naturalized are born citizens, because of the NBC clause.

They then go on and say, “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Thus there is no doubt that those born in country of citizen parents are citizens, called NBC or natives. However, there is doubt that this is an all inclusive definition of those born citizens, aka natives, aka NBC.

Some authorities would say no. Others would say yes. But for the purposes of Minor, it didn’t matter, and so “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

Your error, not followed by the courts, is in believing there are two classes of citizens born - one class born to aliens, and the other to citizens.

Thus, in the 1890s, it was possible for someone to doubt the citizenship of WKA, because he was born of alien parents. But citizenship by birth IS NBC, because, as Minor and others point out, it springs from the NBC clause of the Constitution.

And that is why WKA discussed at length the meaning of NBC - because a NBC is a citizen by birth, not naturalization. It was an open question, left that way by Minor, until WKA.

WKA then demonstrated that NBC was rooted in the term ‘natural born subject’, a phrase every Founder was used to using. It then demonstrated that the set of all NBC equaled the set of 14th Amendment citizens - and all were citizens by birth.

The dissent protested that decision, saying that the children of tourists, born while in the USA, should not be considered suitable for the Presidency - but the dissent is, after all, the losing side.

But this is lost on you. As I have often said, if birthers could read, they wouldn’t be birthers. But courts CAN read, which is why no court, no state, and no member of Congress agrees with your legal theory.


146 posted on 05/31/2012 12:29:10 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
provides two methods of citizenship

Of "citizenship" only, yes. Constitutional natural born Citizen status is more distinctive. It's a deliberately stated difference in the US Constitution. POTUS must be a natural born Citizen, members of Congress need not be so. Minor v. Happersett defines the Constitutional natural born Citizen distinction as born in the US to US citizen parents and it purposely ascribes "the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar" in doing so. No doubt, they were familiar with John Jay's letter to George Washington suggesting such a requirement with the intent of excluding foreigners from the very highest levels of our national government and military to prevent usurpation. Very prudent and COMPLETELY logical for the Framers to restrict the office of POTUS to only those with NO other allegiances.

147 posted on 05/31/2012 12:48:29 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

“Constitutional natural born Citizen status is more distinctive. It’s a deliberately stated difference in the US Constitution.”

Where is it stated in the US Constitution that a NBC is not just a citizen by birth?

It is true that members of Congress can be naturalized citizens.


148 posted on 05/31/2012 1:31:02 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

“Constitutional natural born Citizen status is more distinctive. It’s a deliberately stated difference in the US Constitution.”

Where is it stated in the US Constitution that a NBC is not just a citizen by birth?

It is true that members of Congress can be naturalized citizens.


149 posted on 05/31/2012 1:31:31 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Perhaps you should take that up with the court but maybe they were refering to these two paragraphs from WKA. Oddly enough I found this on Leo Donofrio’s website!

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen , and by operation of the same principle. [p666] “

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject'; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.' It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher's case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: 'Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,-it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger [169 U.S. 649, 694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.' Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster's Works, 526; U. S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

150 posted on 05/31/2012 1:57:05 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-260 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