Posted on 01/14/2010 10:08:15 AM PST by STARWISE
Correct. As previously stated, the Constitution mentions two types of citizens, and only two.
The dual citizenship at birth is, or could be, the disqualifier for Obama to serve legitimately under the Constitution as President of the United States.
The founders, signers of the Declaration and drafters of the Constitution, were all born British subjects of the King. It was because of that that THEY were not ‘natural born citizens,’ and exempted themselves, reasonably enough, from that qualifier for president.
The dual citizenship was not foisted on him by another sovreign nation, it was conferred by the fact of his birth. It means, or could mean, a great deal.
Correct. As previously stated, the Constitution mentions two types of citizens, and only two.
This point, is exactly what I've been saying.
Since Barry was born with foreign citizenship by way of his father, and thus was a citizen of two nations at birth (this, of course assumes HI birth, yet to be proven) how in the world could he possibly be considered a Natural Born Citizen as required for Article II, section 1, clause 5?
What court(s) have made the two synonymous, especially with regards to the qualifications for POTUS?
Under the Articles of Confederation, anyone naturalized by one of the States became a naturalized citizen of the United States. States continued to naturalize citizens of the United States even after the ratification of the Constitution, until Congress passed the first federal naturalization law in 1790. Someone naturalized by, say, the State of Virginia in, say, December of 1789 was a citizen of the United States but not a Natural Born Citizen, and not eligible to be President.
It’s not fickle—you’re not really thinking this through.
When a person has a record portraying them as a patriot, you call them a patriot.
But a person’s history never guarantees their future. This is the point missed by so many. (Just like with John McCain, for example.)
Your saying, that the "states", under the Articles of Confederation...AFTER the Constitution was ratified, were naturalizing citizens as citizens of the United States (and not "just" in their state)? That, it would seem, in effect means that the Articles of Confederation trumped the Constitution as federal law.
The founders, signers of the Declaration and drafters of the Constitution, were all born British subjects of the King. It was because of that that THEY were not ‘natural born citizens,’ and exempted themselves, reasonably enough, from that qualifier for president.”
Actually, it's much simpler than that. You simply can't be a natural born citizen of a country that didn't exist when you were born. That's the obvious fact they were addressing. It doesn't represent a definitive determination about what they thought of people born in the US with a non-citizen parent.
The Constitution gave Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization and uniform bankruptcy laws. Neither power was exercised immediately; the first federal naturalization law was not enacted until 1790, and the first federal bankruptcy law was later. Until Congress acted, the states’ laws continued in force— not because the Articles of Confederation trump the Constitution, but because the Constitution did not prohibit state laws on these topics unless Congress chose to occupy the field.
This point, is exactly what I’ve been saying.
Since Barry was born with foreign citizenship by way of his father, and thus was a citizen of two nations at birth (this, of course assumes HI birth, yet to be proven) how in the world could he possibly be considered a Natural Born Citizen as required for Article II, section 1, clause 5?
How can a Natural Born Citizen's status be "Governed" by Great Britain?
How can a Natural Born Citizen's status be "Governed" by Great Britain? Any other ideas?
A "Natural Born Citizen" means someone who is a citizen by birth as opposed to by naturalization. Period.
You’re a dem plant, right? What you wrote in reply to my post should be cut-and-pasted on the next DNC ad as a reason why anyone who’s sitting on the fence should definitely not vote for conservatives. CAN you be so stupid? I’m a conservative who IS about fighting these dirtbags who have plunged America into the mess we’re currently in. What you wrote is just an unspeakably rotten piece of idiocy. You’re no conservative. You’re a walking advertisement for NOT voting conservative. Sheesh! What a dip!
“And courts have ruled that “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are synonomous terms. “
What court(s) have made the two synonymous, especially with regards to the qualifications for POTUS?
Other relevant decisions are: Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.
DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992) (equating “natural born citizen” with “native born citizen” for purposes of presidential eligibility):
DeTomaso is “eligible” to be President of the United States if he is “a natural born Citizen … [who has] attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Art. II § 1 cl. 5. A 35-year-old native does not have a property interest in the presidency.
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a “natural born citizen” of the US):
The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece… ***
The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.
Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918) (child born in the US to Russian citizen was “natural born citizen” of US):
Appellant was therefore, as correctly decided by the General Land Office and the Department of the Interior, not an heir of the deceased entryman, while at the time of the final proof at least the grandchild Esther Gustafson undoubtedly was. She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state. U. S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1.
State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920) (holding that there are two (and only two) paths to citizenship and that natural born citizenship depends upon location of birth):
According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States there are two methods by which a person may become a citizen: (a) By birth in the United States; and (b) by naturalization therein . A natural-born citizen’s right to vote depends upon his place of birth, and this is the fact to be established. A naturalized citizen’s right to vote depends, not upon his place of birth, but on a judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, declaring either him or his ancestor a naturalized citizen.
One of the problems with this argument is that there seems to be this belief that the Constitution itself is legislation. It’s not. It’s the framework that legislation has to fall into.
The Constitution gave Congress the power to Naturalize citizens, but it did not say how. The 1790 Act is the how.
Similarly the Constitution states that one must meet certain requirements to be eligible for the Presidency. But it doesn’t say “how” that is to be done. And, frankly, there really isn’t a mechanism for the “how.”
The best bet is to stop this angels balancing on the head of a pin stuff and get either the states or Congress to pass a bill explaining how this is done.
No one seems terribly interested in doing this though.
Since there is no US law that states someone born with foreign citizenship is in fact a Natural Born Citizen, the question remains:
How can a Natural Born Citizen’s status be “Governed” by Great Britain?
Sorry for calling you a “dip,” FrankR. What I should have called you is a simple-minded, uneducated dip$hit—just the kind of moron the libs love to parade before the country in an effort to tarnish the Conservative cause. The libs use retards like you to futher their aims. You’re either a dem plant or a genuine retard. Try turning off the porn channel and read some books to educate yourself. Also, stop watching World Class Wrestling—it’s fake. Oh, BTW, it’s “schtick,” not “schick,” dumb@ss.
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.