Free Republic

The article also touches on “natural born” citizenship and Rubio’s eligibility, near the end.

From the article: "Those chilling words were written decades ago, yet they seem to describe much of today's society. For a real jolt, reread Thompson's article, replacing Nazi wherever it appears with "Obama-supporter." Besides being a very politically incorrect exercise, the uncomfortable parallels are inescapable: both statist ideologies, besides being led by riveting personalities, seem to appeal to childish minds -- many of them highly educated -- whose souls have been neglected."

"We will keep asking questions, even when we're called "birther." Because outside the juvenile sandbox of the name-calling Democrat-Media complex (Breitbart's term), in grown-up conversation, those terms imply healthy skepticism. And, as Lifson noted, 'skepticism is contagious in a time of disillusionment.'"

Another attempt to explain the sweeping significance of the judge's broad ruling in favor of Obama, on citizenship law in this country.

The article concluded: "Now, will we get the opportunity to debate the meaning of "subpoena" -- or whether the law even applies to this president?"

Thanks...and oops, I meant “Mrs. Minor” not Mrs. Happersett!! :)

My thoughts on the “dual citizen” issue being argued here: if it is posited that dual citizenship was not authorized by the 14th amendment, that is correct.

Obviously, though, incorrect practice has created much of the dual citizenship that exists today. Support for this position can be found in George Collins’ outstanding appellants brief (arguing for the US) in WKA—wherein he asserts:

[B]ecause the error has become almost universal and our people through ignorance have established a course of conduct under the authority of…’law taken for granted,’ that therefore the law has been superseded and nullified …[T]he injury to our country arising from the admission to citizenship of every person born on the soil, irrespective of his parentage, would be far greater and extensively more disastrous than the consequences apprehended from an enforcement of the law… http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA

Of course the State Department has to deal with dual citizenship, because it exists, not because it is granted anywhere in our laws or constitution…

The 14th amendment was intended to be declaratory of existing law—applying it to newly freed slaves. I do not believe that it created a new class of citizenship.

Following Collins’ logic, even after the 14th, there are only 2 kinds of citizens—natural born and naturalized. Although the 14th didn’t use the term ‘natural born’, it nevertheless implied such—born on the soil, with no competing allegiance. Isn’t that “natural born” citizenship? If the child was born to a non-US citizen father, the child became a citizen when the father naturalized, or could elect to become a US citizen at majority—both of these scenarios conferred citizenship under naturalization.

Collins also rejected “…the doctrine that while [Wong] is a subject of the Chinese Emporer he is also a citizen of the United States and at majority had the right to elect between the two countries…” Collins asserted that “double allegiance…is not possible under our Constitution.”

Collins fully acknowledged that many born in the US to alien parents were considered citizens in practice—a practice inconsistently applied among states and even among government offices and departments.

The “doubts” expressed in Happersett, in my opinion, related to this inconsistent and incorrect application. The court didn’t need to address that issue, though, because Mrs. Happersett was not a part of the questioned group.

The only reason one would need to argue that the 14th did not address “natural born” citizenship would be because one posits that the 14th DOES grant citizenship to the children of aliens. I think that is entirely incorrect--remember the pesky little "subject to the jurisdiction" clause? It is not redundant to "born in the country".

If we were able to go back in time and ask Collins what he thought of the Obama situation—I think he would answer that not only is Obama not a “natural born” citizen, he was not born a citizen—unless his father naturalized or Obama himself did at his majority. And it would not matter that his mother was a citizen, because Collins explicitly rejected the granting of US citizenship at birth to a child with any competing citizenship under international law.

I do NOT believe that the 14th authorizes anchor baby citizenship. Anchor babies are in no way "natural born citizens." In the realm of severely needed immigration reform, that is a fight I will continue to engage...

Three questions:
(1) Didn’t I read somewhere that on one of Obama Sr’s immigration forms, he stated that Stanley Ann was in the Philippines?
(2) Isn’t there a picture of a young Stanley Ann wearing a school uniform of a private school overseas, I believe Lebanon?
(3) Donofrio addressed the FOIA request of SA’s passport records, and came up with a request, correctly worded, that the Dept. would have a hard time avoiding. I would imagine Dr. Conspiracy has seen his post...

Look back at the video again. I’m talking about what Obama was saying from :24 to :17. At :17 was where he began with “next time...” From :24 to then, we can’t hear what he is saying, as it was muted for Barton’s dubbed comments. From his expression, it wasn’t very nice. At first, I thought it might have been a different camera angle for the same “next time” sentence, but watch his lips. It was clearly something else.

Can anybody catch what Obama was saying, right when he started taking his mic off, before he started with the “next time...”?

Watch the expression on Watson’s face as he says that first part, which is talked over by Watson’s post-commentary and which is not captioned.

Remember this?

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/obama-not-eligible-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-signature-on-arizona-candidate-nomination-paper-moniquemonicat-blog-did-obama-commit-fraud-did-obama-lie/

Obama himself, (not Nancy Pelosi) in December 2007, in order to participate in the Presidential Preference Election, swore to the SOS of Arizona that he was a “natural born citizen.”

On the Candidate Nomination Paper, Obama certified he was a “natural born citizen of the United States.” The wording you noted was part of a blog post, not the actual wording on the certification.

Remember this?

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/obama-not-eligible-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-signature-on-arizona-candidate-nomination-paper-moniquemonicat-blog-did-obama-commit-fraud-did-obama-lie/

Obama himself, (not Nancy Pelosi) in December 2007, in order to participate in the Presidential Preference Election, swore to the SOS of Arizona that he was a “natural born citizen.”

Does anyone else here recall back when Leo Donofrio was requesting Hawaii index information for Obama’s birth, that instead Hawaii gave him listings showing the marriage record between Obama Sr. and Ann?

I agree with you, Dr. Rahe, that Mr. Jindal would be an excellent candidate, but I honestly do not believe he would be eligible because his parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.

I have a daughter who attends Hillsdale College, and I can’t convey enough how much I respect your institution. I have similar regard for The Heritage Foundation. What I cannot understand, however, is the fact that Heritage has in prior years published many articles rejecting both the notions of birthright citizenship and dual citizenship by esteemed scholars such as Dr. John Eastman, Dr. Edward Erler, and Dr. John Fonte. Dr. John Eastman even testified in a 2005 Congressional hearing that the Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship to the children of temporary visitors, and Dr. Fonte has written that dual citizenship is a type of “social bigamy.”

This quote from Dr. Eastman in Mark Cromer’s essay, “American Jackpot: The Remaking of America by Birthright Citizenship,” is especially noteworthy:

“According to Eastman, the real shift in popular perception began to take root in the late 1960s, when the idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status. “I have challenged every person who has taken the opposite position to tell me what it was that led to this new notion,” he said. “There’s not an executive order. There’s not a court decision. We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough.”

Eastman attributes some of it to our nation’s loss of an intrinsic understanding of the language that the framers of the 14th Amendment spoke and used in that era, ergo a century later the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” has been watered down in the collective American consciousness to require little more than an adherence to traffic safety laws.”

---

The oath of naturalized citizens requires sole allegiance, and it seems obvious to me that the founders, if expecting sole allegiance for senators and congressmen in Article I (from the date of their naturalization forward, if not born US citizens), intended the requirement of natural born citizenship for the Presidency in Article II to mean sole allegiance from the moment of birth.

I also understand that every student at Hillsdale must take a course on the Constitution, which I assume would include a study on the concept of citizenship by consent and the specific requirements of Article II. In addition, I heard of an Honors seminar at Hillsdale on Vattel’s Law of Nations, and I wonder whether it covered Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen.”

Therefore I find it hard to believe that not only would Heritage and Hillsdale remain silent on the Article II natural born citizenship issue, with the public knowledge that Obama had a non-citizen father (who never obtained US citizenship—at least Jindal’s did!) and was a dual citizen for 23 years, and that you, Dr. Rahe, would endorse Jindal.