Supreme Court Oct. 5, 2009 (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
In the last two days this column has looked into the factual details of American Citizenship. The different types of citizenship and how they are described from government agencies to Supreme Court Justices have been discussed. In Barack Obama and State of Hawaii on the ropes, and Obama's Achilles heel - Natural Born Citizenship we have defined historically what American Citizenship is and what types exist.
How is it possible that America has forgotten the basic meanings of these distinctions? How is it that we have let so basic a distinction as “Parents who are citizens of the nation and the child born on its soil” simply fall by the wayside?
The answer is both simple and terrible: A lack of education.
Historically, children in school were taught lessons from History. Most all of us can remember reading stories or seeing films that stressed how children were once taught the works of the major philosophers as a major part of their education. They were taught the major works that made up the histories of their Nation, be it France, Great Britain, China… children were once taught the fundamental foundational ideas that sculpted the world they were currently living in. It was called a classical education. Culturally, socially, politically they were given the history of how their world arrived to be what it was. They were given the context of their time, as well as other subjects that we consider now to be the more traditional subjects; reading, writing, arithmetic, and science. In America we have shifted our focus so far from our historical and philosophical heritage, we are now barely teaching it at all.
A child was once taught to read so that he or she could read the works of masters such as Voltaire, or Plato, and make use of that knowledge. Today, not so much. While we might recognize those names, few people reading this now, would be able to off the top of their heads quote a line from either of those authors and thinkers with out Googling it. We are a product of our educations. It is a tool, that knowledge. That is why things are taught to us, so that we can use them in our lives, and you cannot use what you do not have. You also cannot give something you do not have. We have not been given our context in history, we have not been taught it in the detail needed to understand it and pass it on to future generations.
If we as Americans had been taught the context of our time, the detailed history of how we arrived to be a Nation and how we find ourselves living today on October 16th 2009, we would not be asking what a Natural Born Citizen was. Study of history is far more than memorizing a time-line, it is the study of the writings of the times that influenced our laws, our Government, and our very society, and a vast majority of that is no longer taught to our children. It wasn’t taught to us who consider ourselves adults either.
The information as to what a Natural Born Citizen is exists in our history, and there are far more references to it than most can imagine. Written and spoken by the very topmost members of society, the best thinkers, the best historians, and the best researchers of their time, going across continents and oceans.
The United States did not just happen, it was deliberately created. It was deliberately designed, and that is one of the most singularly historical events in all of humanity, and was the first of its kind in all of civilized history to occur on the scale that it has.
It is our Constitution that made it possible.
It still stands today as the longest in use Constitution in human history. An amazing achievement and it was designed specifically to succeed. It has succeeded because it was designed to, it was no accident that it was written as it was, that it gave us the protections that it does. The simple fact of its longevity and the wild success of the people which it protects is a brilliant example of just how good a document it is. The founders knew exactly what they were doing and why. They wanted it to succeed so they deliberately designed it to.
All of us stand upon the shoulders of giants. We have cars because Ford invented one and created the assembly line over a hundred years ago. His contribution to society is not irrelevant. We have x-rays, because Madame Curie in 1895 recognized the work of William Roentgen and Henri Becquerel who discovered the sources of radiation she used. All of us use technology and live the way we do because of the people who came before us.
Our constitution is just as much a contribution in technology, one in philosophical and governmental terms. It cannot function and succeed as it has without all of its parts any more than a car can run without its crankshaft. The designation Natural Born Citizen was used in our constitution to do a specific job, one it had been proved to be capable of doing. To prevent a person with divided loyalties, a person with allegiances to nations other than the one they sought to lead, from usurping power. The iron clad and specifically described definition of Natural Born does exactly that, and it is as vital to the leadership of nations as a crankshaft is to a car. It will not run as intended without it.
Barack Obama’s father was a British-Kenyan citizen. Barack Jr. openly admits in his books and has discussed the fact he allowed his Kenyan citizenship to expire. British Citizenship does not expire. Even if it did, Barack Jr. could never be considered a Natural Born Citizen, he had divided loyalties at the time of his birth, because of his parentage.
Many who have been following the debate regarding Obama’s eligibility point out that there have been Presidents in the past who were not Natural Born Citizens. This is in fact true. However, no one knew about their status during the term of their service. Chester Arthur is the most provable example of this, his father was Canadian, but he successfully deliberately covered up this fact. Why cover up a fact that is irrelevant if Natural Born means something other than having parents who were citizens? There would be no reason to other than Arthur knew he was not legitimately qualified. Obama is the first President which the American people have become aware of his ineligibility during his term of office.
That bears repeating.
Obama is the first President with which the American people have become aware of during his term to be a Constitutionally ineligible President of the United States.
Because of this, we now have to ask ourselves if it is acceptable to tolerate the commitment of a crime while that crime is occurring.
At what point do we get off the fence and decide that the rule of law is far more important than any one man, any one president, and one administration? At what point do we rise up and defend the details of the Constitution that are necessary factors to its fundamental success?
Do we stand for law? Or do we stand for crime? Crime is ill gotten gains, and there are a lot of people who are taking things from this government that they did not earn, in exchange for keeping that government in power. That is naked bribery.
We stand upon the shoulders of giants, are we going to kick them in the head by allowing a Usurper to remain in the White House? He is not constrained or limited by the constitution; he has broken it already with his fundamental nature, something out of even his control. But it has freed him from the limitations and obligations the constitution demands none the less. His oath to it is meaningless, because he does not meet the basic demands of it.
We do not have a constitutional government. We know it, and the knowing of it makes it intolerable. It is up to the American people to demand that we be made whole again under the law. A crime has been and is currently being committed against us.
It is time to demand redress from what is left of our government, the Judiciary, the third branch of government which was designed in part to serve us when the other two fail.
The importance of these issues cannot be understated. What we do in the near future will determine if our constitution will be able to fully protect us in the future.
Barack Obama has one honorable choice left to him if he is going to uphold any part of the oath of office he took on Jan. 20th, 2009. Resign immediately. The only other option left to the people and the constitution is to treat him as the criminal he is, in the middle of committing his crime.
It is time to demand, with all the power of the American people and her full history, that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. resign the Office of the Presidency immediately.
Comments
I'm glad I bookmarked your site.
Good writing demands good thinking; which in turn, demands good action. But beware: good action demands bravery.
Be brave, Ms Cotter. Don't lose your steam over the weekend!
Thank you Glenn. The flak lets us know we are over the target, and this target is far too big to miss from the air.
Hey Birfoon kooks, can ANY of you at all ever answer this little riddle regarding a word right there in the Constitution instead of some Swiss novel: why is the word "naturalized" used to describe citizens who were born as citizens of another country and later made U.S. citizens? What is the general, plain dictionary meaning of that word?
To be eligible for Naturalization one must:
• Be at least 18 years old at the time of filing the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400
• Have been lawfully admitted to the United States
• Have resided as a permanent resident in the United States for at least 5 years or 3 years if you meet all eligibility requirements to file as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
• Have demonstrated continuous permanent residence
• Have demonstrated physical presence
• Have lived for 3 months in the USCIS district or state where the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400 is filed
• Demonstrate good moral character
• Show an attachment to the U.S. Constitution
• Be able to read, write, speak, and understand basic English
• Demonstrate a knowledge of U.S. civics (history and government)
• Take the oath of allegiance to the United States
A Naturalized Citizen is one who has applied for and has qualified for American Citizenship. Someone applying for and being granted US Citizenship must meet the following qualifications according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.
(cont. below)
You don't answer my questions: WHY is the word "naturalized" used to describe citizens who were born as citizens of another country and later made U.S. citizens? What is the general, plain dictionary meaning of that word?
But then, Birfoons have the capacity only for copy and paste, not independent thought and analysis.
A Natural Born citizen is one with Parents (PLURAL) who are citizens and must have been born in the USA or her territories.
A Naturalized citizen can never qualify as a Natural Born Citizen.
Acerbic.... The word is used to differentiate it from that of NATURAL BORN. Naturalized =/= Natural Born.
Naturalization gives a person who applies for and qualifies for, citizenship. The governor of California is a perfect example, and he can never run for POTUS either.
If you cannot understand this BASIC difference, go back to your legos and loc-blocks. There is no hope for you.
Dianna
I see you have attracted paid government stooges to comment at this site. Their comments speak to their lack of intelligence. And now they want to run our health care system. LOL
"The word is used to differentiate it from that of NATURAL BORN Naturalized =/= Natural Born"
...and therefore the only difference between naturalized and natural born is the "born" part and therefore everybody born citizen is a natural born citizen. Congratulations for finally getting it. I have understood it for a long time just as the people who wrote the Constitution did but Birfoons seem to have terrible difficulties with it. There may still be hope for you. :-)
Dear Scotty,
How's your Mom's basement? I bet not as nice as this comfy office at DOJ.
Your's Truly,
acerbic
This is pretty crazy. While you say it bears repeating that "Obama is the first President with which the American people have become aware of during his term to be a Constitutionally ineligible President of the United States." that is not quite true.
Obama has never hidden the fact that his father was born in Kenya and that his father lived there his entire life before coming to school in Hawaii. It was published in his book "Dreams of my Father." It was featured in all of Obama's stump speaches as evidence of improbable story that could only happen in America.
Everyone knew it, and nobody cared. Why do you think that is? Why did no one argue that his Kenyan father made him ineligible during the primary? Before he won the election?
I think it's pretty clear that you have the wrong definition of a "natural born citizen." The term is never defined by the Constitution or SCOTUS, but it's been pretty widely accepted that any American citizen from birth can become President.
acerbic
I quote Donofrio here: The leading citizenship case issued by the US Supreme Court – US v. Wong Kim Ark – stated the following:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here… if he hath issue here… his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
Both hypothetical children discussed in the passage above are US citizens and both hold equal rights. But the majority opinion makes it quite clear that only one child is “natural born” – the child of the citizen. The court compared the native born child of an alien to the “natural born” child of a citizen, and in doing so made clear that – while both are citizens - the circumstances of their US citizenship are not the same.
DJ - Please do a search on Chester Arthur. He is a past President. After doing so, please come back and tell us why he deliberately hid the citizenship of his Canadian father, who was never a citizen of the United States.
Thanks
DJ, you're right that Obama has never hidden the fact his father was born in Kenya, yet it took months for the public to be made aware that would make him ineligible for the Presidency. Let me assure you Obama and the thousands of lawyers working with the DNC were quite aware.
Dianna hit the nail on the head. The reason he could get away with pulling the wool over the eyes of the electorate is "both simple and terrible: A lack of education." Most people think being a citizen is good enough.
That is a hurdle we have yet to get over. Once everyone understands Obama is a usurper, will they understand WHY it is vitally important to the country to deal with the situation, or will they prefer to let sleeping dogs lie?
Dianna,
There is so much more to this. American citizens also need to understand how the law of nations came to be the guiding force behind our Constitution. I covered this extensively.
constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/the-congressional-natural-born-citizen-part-iii-mccain-s-res-511-were-meant-to-sanitize-obamas-ineligibility-to-be-president/
constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/
constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/understanding-your-constitution-historical-references/
constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/bringing-the-constitution-into-the-21st-century/
constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/whiplash-syndrome-feverishly-sweeping-the-nation/
constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/vattel-law-of-nations-is-the-key-and-it-is-now-verified/
an above poster mentioned Chester Arthur. it's true he had mixed citizenship parentage, but they were citizens at the time of the election (naturalized). he lied about when that occurred and represented himself as NBC. that hardly supports obummer's position; he's not a NBC.
Outstanding analysis and conclusion regarding a timely and critically important subject, which is Obama’s obvious lack of eligibility to be POTUS! Bravo and thanks!
It sadly brings to mind the following quote from Thomas Jefferson. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe."
For all your machinations, the fact remains Obama is a natural born citizen and is the legitimate POTUS.
Only the most pathetic, deluded, idiots, would believe such crap.
Is there another definition of "natural born citizen"?
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
<b>The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.</b> As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. <b>The society is supposed to desire this,</b> in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, <b>if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.</b>
For "acerbic" The word "naturalized" came from the commonly accepted biological/natural definition:
to wit: In biology, naturalisation is the process when foreign or cultivated plants or animals have spread into the wild, where they multiply by natural regeneration.
Therefore, "naturalized" means it (i.e. the plant or person) was once a "foreign object" but it is now a native.
Two things are obvious your name is approprite and the use of the word "naturalized" accurately describes what was once "foreign."
Dianna,
It is a discouraging thought that our populace becomes more and more ignorant with each generation. At some point, our society will crumble under its own weight of mindlessness. We see this happening before our very eyes but know that there is nothing we can do about it.
I've ready many quotes by ardent Obama supporters that even if he is constitutionally ineligible, he should still be President. What is their rationalization for so cavalierly tossing out a fundamental principle of the Constitution? Because they think majority rule should override the Constitution. In their ignorance, they fail to see where that will lead. A selfish, self-centered ends-justifies-the-means mentality is taking hold on our society. Personal responsibility and a respect for knowledge and the law are vanishing. The current situation with a usurper in the Office of the President and no mass outcry from the media and the populace is just a sign of this state of decay.
WB
Dianna twisted: "the circumstances of their US citizenship are not the same"
Not the same? Exactly which part of "AS MUCH a citizen as" don't you understand? It would take a far better lawyer than "Black Helicopters" Donofrio to make anything of that minor ambiguity.
BTW, unlike you with your cherry-picked Birfoon quote riddled with ellipses, I dare post a link to the full text of United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
where anybody literate can see for themselves the numerous references to the common law of England and how anyone born a subject/citizen, even to non-citizen parents, is natural born. A quick way is to search for "natural" on the page. Not a peep about your precious Vattel. Oops. :-)
Do we as Americans remember a place called Fort Arnold? That's something America has certainly forgotten in this discussion about natural born Citizen. It's known now as West Point. There's a good reason it's not called Fort Arnold after it's namesake General Benedict Arnold. Oh yeah, we remember that name, of course. Only do we remember that his treason was to sell Fort Arnold to the British General Henry Clinton for 20,000 pounds? Are we thankful that this critical fort of the American Revolution on the Hudson river is not remembered in history as Fort Clinton?
After Washington discovered the extent of his treason, he was quoted as saying "Whom can we trust now." Benedict Arnold might have become a citizen. We forget our history in understanding why our founding fathers knew that wasn't enough for the presidency.
For the benefit of acerbic:
From Wong Kim Ark-
"A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,"
Was Obama Sr. "permanently domiciled" here? No
Dianna says: "A Natural Born citizen is one with Parents (PLURAL) who are citizens and must have been born in the USA or her territories."
You've got it backwards. Someone who has both parents citizens and born in the USA _is_ a natural born citizen. That is more than sufficient, but it is not necessary.
Are the Presidencies and all treaties signed and federal actions under the other Non-NBC Presidents now null and void, now that we know about it after their terms?
I'd be readily convinced if there were a court case that said(undoubtedly in dicta because it doesn't matter except for President) "_____ is a citizen and has been from birth, he is a Native Born Citizen, but he is not eligible to be President because he is not a Natural Born Citizen because [reason]."
A case or opinion that says Mr. Ark or the Steinhauler kid or Ms. Eng _is_ a [native/natural/unspecified but from birth citizen] because [reasons] only tells us that those reasons are sufficient, not necessary.
Dianna, you are so right and your detractors are so wrong. For some, your truth is inconvenient, so they deny it. For others of us, we can conceive the day of another great march of patriots in Washington, D.C., who this time surround the White House chanting,"Barack, can you hear us? Resign Now, Resign Now, Resign Now! Barack, can you hear us?"
In Barack Obama and State of Hawaii on the ropes, and Obama's Achilles heel - Natural Born Citizenship we have defined historically what American Citizenship is and what types exist.
HOw can you say your own articles define something historically? Did you get your articles entered into the National Archives?
No, you need to be saying "I have defined in my OPINION".
Birfoon type of "Truth" said: "A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil..."
So does that mean to you that ONLY a child of parents who have a permanent domicil becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States? Is that what you're claiming? Doesn't it then also mean that ONLY a child of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States? Right? According to Birfoon logic?
NBCofUSA and Dianna,
From what I've read, the controversy over Arthur's eligibility was whether he himself was born in Ireland or Canada. It had nothing to do with his parent's place of birth. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
There was no wool pulled over anyone's eyes. Obama and all his supporters mentioned his father's Kenyan birth often because the story is an amazingly compelling story. None of the high-powered lawyers for any of the other campaigns brought it up, and there is a reason: because a child born in the US is considered a natural born citizen. The quote from Wong Kim Ark makes that point elegantly.
Obama was born in the US. He was a citizen from birth. Therefore, he is a natural born citizen.
Walt, we will remember those words you spew, our day will come, this impersonator will be exposed. He will be removed from office, and your party will be voted out come mid-term, you will see. Truth is of the past, lies are of the future, you must continue to explain a lie, and that is what it is.... a lie...
DJ, the controversy was over Arthur's place of birth came about because he concealed his birth certificate so no one would find out his father was not a citizen. There's a full explanation, with links to documents, on Donofrio's website. I can't post urls, but if you google "CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH" it's right at the top.
I think the audio of Barney Frank saying citizenship should not be a factor and people should be able to elect whomever they want, that is being posted around blogdom today, shows quite clearly that the Democrats knew very well Obama was not eligible, and instead relied on the lack of knowledge of voters and misinformation being spread by the MSM to make his eligibility a non-issue.
The only thing more idiotic than the author is the idiots who buy her load of bull excrement. A natural born citizen is anyone born on American soil. This is accepted, established law.
NBCofUSA,
I went to that page on Donofrio's site and there was nothing there that indicated that Arthur was afraid of the location of his father's birth - just that he was afraid of rumors that he himself was born in Ireland or Canada. Can you quote me the exact text that says otherwise?
In fact, what I did find on Donofrio's site was a picture that refutes your belief. It quotes a speech from Arthur on the campaign trail where he *explicitly states* that his father was born abroad. He does this as part of his story to prove that he was born in the US. I can't post links, but go to "/2008/12/hinmanbrooklyn1.jpg" on his blog
So once again, the reason no wool was pulled over anyone's eyes is because there was no reason to - Obama was open about his father's birthplace and nobody cared. Why? Because by virtue of Obama's Hawaiian birth, he is a natural born citizen eligible to be president. This has been understood for years - as Donofrio's picture shows.
Dianna,
Your trilogy of articles have been well researched and written. Do not mind the Obots because they are paid to be here to disrupt the true message from reaching the masses. One has to learn to accept them as the pathetic losers they are.
acerbic,
A peanut butter sandwich "is as much a" sandwich as a jelly sandwich; Isn't it? That doesn't mean they are the same thing. Does it?
It's easy to spot the Obots. Read what they say, and how they say it. They are representatives of those who are running this country. That is the respect they show for any citizen with whom they disagree.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." – Socrates
SilenceDoGood at 12:34pm: "naturalized"
Naturalized is not important to the argument; "natural born" is.
D.J. at 2:25pm: "He was a citizen from birth. Therefore, he is a natural born citizen."
Wrong. Obama is a citizen; he is not a natural born citizen. Look to the definition of the term.
Louise at 3:33pm: "This is accepted, established law."
You err, Louise. What you define is precisely NOT established law.
Great article(s), Diane!!
.
Whatsamatta Troof(er), can't you answer my question regarding your domicil blather? Things getting too Chinese for ya, eh?
BTW, you can whine about "obots" and "trolls" as loud as you like, but guess if you can get anyone banned here for calling you FreakRepugnant Birfoons smelly, brainless, America-hating spawn of a threesome between Satan, Bin Laden and Putin. So there, run to your mommy now. :-)
DJ, I think the evidence is compelling. You obviously believe differently.
Many president's have had immigrant parents. The issue is not the birthplace of the parent. The issue is the citizenship status. If the immigrant parent was naturalized prior to the birth of the child, then the child is natural born. If the parent remains a subject of the foreign sovereignty, then just as I would pass on my citizenship should I have a child outside of the US, so does the foreign parent pass on their citizenship. The child is native born, and the dual nationality of the child precludes natural born citizen status.
"He is not a natural born citizen. Look to the definition of the term."
As far as it is defined in U.S. law and precedents, the definition is "citizen from birth". U.S. courts usually go by those, not some Swiss novels.
ascerbic at 4:44pm: "the definition is "citizen from birth""
You err. Try reading the law again.
.
Just_said: "You err. Try reading the law again"
Let's see now... I'm fairly certain that of our two opposite opinions on the subject, mine is NOT the one that has been recently repeatedly argued in court filings and gotten laughed out every time.
Just show the birth certificate and clear up this issue.
Dianna,
Don't give up sweetie!
You are right on track...
Kool_aid drinkers will be begging for life sooner then later!!!
Ignorance is BLISS for them...
Brad, We've seen the birth certificate. That's it. There's nothing else. A birth certificate is a present-time document from the state registrar certifying to the record. But what there be on it that would matter for this question?
NBC says "the dual nationality of the child precludes natural born citizen status." That's very clearly stated, but it's wrong. It's not supported in law.
Acerbic, I like your idea. You can't be a native born citizen unless your parents are Chinese.
Brad Sanders says:
Just show the birth certificate and clear up this issue.
My reply:
Hi, Brad, your sentence is correct in its two parts.
1. He should show is 1961 long form birth certificate.
2. The issue should be cleared up.
The bc alone would not clear up the issue, however. It would only prove where Obama was born. Full stop.
To end this, the definition of "natural born citizen" must be resolved LAWFULLY and definitively.
And the historical evidence must be addressed as to that definition.
(no w's) thelibertypoleDOTningDOTcom/forum/topics/natural-born-citizen-1
thelibertypoleDOTningDOTcom/forum/topics/scotus-past-on-natural-born
thelibertypoleDOTningDOTcom/forum/topics/blackstones-natural-born
thelibertypoleDOTningDOTcom/forum/topics/naturalization-class-for
Everything on my site, is free for the taking and sharing.
My internet radio show is Thursday at 4pm-6pm Pacific Time, at wwwDOTtexasbroadcastingDOTnet
acerbic wrote:
Let's see now... I'm fairly certain that of our two opposite opinions on the subject, mine is NOT the one that has been recently repeatedly argued in court filings and gotten laughed out every time.
My reply.
None of the cases have been argued in court.
yes, argued IN the filings, but not in the court itself. The merits have not been addressed.
If I were an honest supporter of Obama AND a lover of the United States,
I would DEMAND that a case be heard on its merits, to shut up people like Dunbar.
"There is the case's summary decision, Dunbar."
David Chesler posted:
Brad, We've seen the birth certificate.
My reply.
No. We have not seen his 1961 long form birth certificate or a certified copy of that specific document.
We have seen a computer-generated image of a "certification of Live Birth", dated as of 2007.
But I am not hung up on the bc.. but on...
DavidC posted:
NBC says "the dual nationality of the child precludes natural born citizen status." That's very clearly stated, but it's wrong. It's not supported in law.
My reply.
It is supported by historical evidence.
And you are correct that there is NO US law which defines "natural born citizen". Not the US Code. Not the 14th Amendment. Not Senate Resoultuon 511 (which is not a law but a statement of the Senate)
I want a law.
I want the government to face this issue, and to address the historical statements of those SCOTUS members, and to prove their (current govt) definition is correct.
DJ posted:
and there is a reason: because a child born in the US is considered a natural born citizen. The quote from Wong Kim Ark makes that point elegantly.
My reply:
Which quote of Wong Kim Ark's makes that point?
THIS quote by Justice Horace Grey, "“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 [169 U.S. 649, 680] 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.”
Or this quote by Chief Justice Melville Fuller,
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. "
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!