Welcome, Guest. Login or register to use the forums.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 20, 2010, 02:04:44 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Bookstore | Support | Newsletter


+  Christian Forums
|-+  Hobbies and Specifics
| |-+  Christian Politics Forum
| | |-+  Judge Carter Orders Discovery in Obama Birth Certificate Case		 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Judge Carter Orders Discovery in Obama Birth Certificate Case  (Read 13322 times)
phoebe
Legendary Member
******

Manna: 300
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Female
Posts: 5367

FlowerFarmer

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #195 on: November 02, 2009, 10:40:40 AM »
Quote from: lightshineon on October 31, 2009, 12:49:03 AM
I knew Judge Carter would fold, he is afraid....


It doesn't take much to make a judge fold.  They are so vulnerable to all kinds of threats.  They aren't paid nearly enough, IMO.

The people will be heard - at the ballot box.
Logged
"IMO"

I WATCH FOX NEWS.

I have one Head, and one Head only-Jesus Christ
Logismos
Guest
« Reply #196 on: November 02, 2009, 12:05:17 PM »
Quote from: phoebe on November 02, 2009, 10:38:53 AM
See, that's the ignorant fallacy.  Being against illegals is not being prejudicial.

I didn't say he had a racial prejudice, I said he was against Mexican immigration. He is one of the strongest voices against Mexican immigration describing them as a army of invaders, carriers of disease, and he has actively fought against groups who advocate for immigrant human rights. So the fact that his wife is a Mexican immigrant is at least a little bit ironic/interesting.
Logged
Christian Forums
« Reply #196 on: November 02, 2009, 12:05:17 PM »
 Logged
Jaime
(Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
Global Moderator
Lee's Inner Circle Member
*****

Manna: 383
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 13409


I am a genius you know!

Blog entries (1)

View Profile
« Reply #197 on: November 02, 2009, 12:06:51 PM »
It would be more ironic if she was an ILLEGAL Mexican immigrant. A legal Mexican immigrant is a whole nuther situation.
Logged
Proverbs 3: 5-6  Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight.

                                          
CLICK HERE ---->My New Blog
red red rose
Newbie
*

Manna: 0
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 8

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #198 on: November 04, 2009, 03:05:29 AM »
Quote from: Logismos on October 21, 2009, 11:21:21 PM
Quote from: tennman on October 21, 2009, 11:58:57 AM
Quote from: Logismos on October 20, 2009, 12:51:50 AM
Okay so his mom was a citizen so this entire thing is pointless. Not only is there no real reason to believe he was born outside the US but even if he were he would still be a natural born US citizen. LOL what a waste of time.

This is simply inaccurate. To be a natural-born U.S. citizen according to U.S. laws, the person must be born on U.S. soil. The only exception is to active duty military families.

That is false.  See the Naturalization Act of 1790 which states that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens" and since Obama's mother was a citizen and his father was a US resident for a time then it makes no difference where Obama was born--even though there is still no evidence that he was born anywhere other than Hawaii (although you acted like you were going to list some off some evidence but then you didn't because there isn't any).


The Naturalization Act of 1790

"'The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which stated:

"...the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=538

Not "natural born citizens" but just "citizens".
Obama's father was never a legal resident of the United States. He was in the US on a student visa, and his legal residency was in Kenya.
Logged
Christian Forums
« Reply #198 on: November 04, 2009, 03:05:29 AM »
 Logged
red red rose
Newbie
*

Manna: 0
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 8

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #199 on: November 04, 2009, 03:18:10 AM »
Quote from: Logismos on October 23, 2009, 04:14:20 PM
Quote from: tennman on October 23, 2009, 10:43:59 AM
And you're just plain wrong about natural-born citizenship. If he was born out of the country with a father being a non-citizen and a mother who is a citizen, he's not natural born.
Prove it. Here is the law that defines natural born citizens (see paragraph G).

The US code you quoted says who will be "citizens" at birth. Citizen at birth and "natural born citizen" are not the same thing.

The phrase "natural born citizen" is what is called a 'term of art', a legal term that has a specific meaning. Like in technical jargon, a 'bug' in a computer program isn't an insect, it is an error in the programming language.

"Natural born citizen" has a specific legal meaning.
Logged
red red rose
Newbie
*

Manna: 0
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 8

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #200 on: November 04, 2009, 03:27:56 AM »
Quote from: Logismos on October 23, 2009, 05:40:45 PM
Quote from: phoebe on October 23, 2009, 04:51:10 PM
BTW, his mother must be 18 to pass legal citizenship on to her baby born on foreign soil.  Her age at his birth has always been a question.

A question by whom? Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was born on November 29th 1942 in Wichita, Kansas.

So when Obama was born, she was about four months shy of her 19th birthday.

If Obama really was born outside of the US, then he didn't have any US citizenship AT ALL at birth because of this statute quoted by the State Department:
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
Quote
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock:
 A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Since Obama was born in 1961, his mother (the citizen parent) had to have been physically present in the US for ten years, five of those years after the age of fourteen. She would have to have been at least nineteen years old (fourteen plus five) when he was born for him to get American citizenship through her. She was only eighteen when he was born, so he wouldn't have American citizenship through her if he was born outside of the US.
Logged
Christian Forums
« Reply #200 on: November 04, 2009, 03:27:56 AM »
 Logged
red red rose
Newbie
*

Manna: 0
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 8

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #201 on: November 04, 2009, 03:46:22 AM »
Quote from: Logismos on October 23, 2009, 08:56:13 PM
Quote from: tennman on October 23, 2009, 07:55:04 PM
Concerning what is a natural-born citizen, BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens or the person must be born in the mainland United States according to the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
HUH? The section you cited says this "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President" and it is related to the qualifications of the presidency and does not define what a natural born citizen is. It doesn't say any of that stuff that you just said it does.

Quote
and was upheld in the court cases U.S. versus Wong Kim Ark
Both of Wong Kim Ark's parents were foreign born immigrants and he was born here in the US. This case established the principle that if a baby is born in the US then it is automatically a citizen. It doesn't address the question of a baby born to a US citizen outside the country.

It does define "natural born citizen"
From U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
"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. " The judge talks about two children, a citizen child and a "natural born" citizen child. The judge clearly states that ONLY ONE is Natural Born, the child of the citizens.
Another quote, "...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..."

Quote
Quote
and Perkins versus Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).
This case again relates to an immigrant who has two foreign parents and the precedent of the case deals with dual citizenship. What does this have to do with anything?

In Perkins v Elg http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325 The first sentence of the case says:
"The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship..."
Ms. Elg was born in the US to two naturalized US citizen parents. Her parents originally came from Sweden. The court said: " ...declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States'..."

Quote
Did you even look at those cases or did you just copy and past that from somewhere? I mean really, with all due respect, I'm pointing you to the actual law of the US that explicitly defines what a natural born citizen is and it seems as though you responded with a blatantly incorrect claim about the constitution and then two completely irrelevant court cases. The law explicitly states that a kid born outside the country to a US citizen parent and an alien parent is still a natural born citizen. How do you argue around paragraph G of this immigration law? Its not new either, its been a similar principle since the original Naturalization Act of 1790. I ultimately don't know that all of the  requirements would be satisfied for Obama to be a natural born citizen in the hypothetical case that he was not born in the US, but I do know that a kid does not literally have to be born inside US territory to be a natural born citizen--that is a myth and a very common misunderstanding of citizenship laws.
A kid literally does have to be born inside US territory to be a natural born citizen. It is part of the definition.

(BTW, sorry about all of the posts at once, I just got home from work.)
Logged
chestnutbrowncanary
Guest
« Reply #202 on: November 04, 2009, 04:05:42 AM »
Quote from: red red rose on November 04, 2009, 03:46:22 AM
Quote
Did you even look at those cases or did you just copy and past that from somewhere? I mean really, with all due respect, I'm pointing you to the actual law of the US that explicitly defines what a natural born citizen is and it seems as though you responded with a blatantly incorrect claim about the constitution and then two completely irrelevant court cases. The law explicitly states that a kid born outside the country to a US citizen parent and an alien parent is still a natural born citizen. How do you argue around paragraph G of this immigration law? Its not new either, its been a similar principle since the original Naturalization Act of 1790. I ultimately don't know that all of the  requirements would be satisfied for Obama to be a natural born citizen in the hypothetical case that he was not born in the US, but I do know that a kid does not literally have to be born inside US territory to be a natural born citizen--that is a myth and a very common misunderstanding of citizenship laws.
A kid literally does have to be born inside US territory to be a natural born citizen. It is part of the definition.

You haven't read the law. There are plenty of circumstances in which childen can be born outside the United States and become "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" as much as if they had been born on United States sovereign territory. Essentially, the statute preserves the common law in this matter.

Not that it matters, the President was born in Hawaii, and every court that's heard birthers' lawsuits have thrown them out at the summary judgment stage.  One cannot make outlandish, unsubstantiated claims in civil court and demand the court make the party opponent then prove a negative.  It's a foolish quest for the GOP base to pursue; it hurt them last year, and independents will associate the foolishness of a few with the party as a whole.  Political speech is still free, if foolish, but the last thing the GOP needs to do right now is become the new nativist "Know Nothing Party."
Logged
red red rose
Newbie
*

Manna: 0
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 8

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #203 on: November 04, 2009, 12:58:29 PM »
Quote from: chestnutbrowncanary on November 04, 2009, 04:05:42 AM
Quote from: red red rose on November 04, 2009, 03:46:22 AM
Quote
Did you even look at those cases or did you just copy and past that from somewhere? I mean really, with all due respect, I'm pointing you to the actual law of the US that explicitly defines what a natural born citizen is and it seems as though you responded with a blatantly incorrect claim about the constitution and then two completely irrelevant court cases. The law explicitly states that a kid born outside the country to a US citizen parent and an alien parent is still a natural born citizen. How do you argue around paragraph G of this immigration law? Its not new either, its been a similar principle since the original Naturalization Act of 1790. I ultimately don't know that all of the  requirements would be satisfied for Obama to be a natural born citizen in the hypothetical case that he was not born in the US, but I do know that a kid does not literally have to be born inside US territory to be a natural born citizen--that is a myth and a very common misunderstanding of citizenship laws.
A kid literally does have to be born inside US territory to be a natural born citizen. It is part of the definition.

You haven't read the law. There are plenty of circumstances in which childen can be born outside the United States and become "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" as much as if they had been born on United States sovereign territory. Essentially, the statute preserves the common law in this matter.

Not that it matters, the President was born in Hawaii, and every court that's heard birthers' lawsuits have thrown them out at the summary judgment stage.  One cannot make outlandish, unsubstantiated claims in civil court and demand the court make the party opponent then prove a negative.  It's a foolish quest for the GOP base to pursue; it hurt them last year, and independents will associate the foolishness of a few with the party as a whole.  Political speech is still free, if foolish, but the last thing the GOP needs to do right now is become the new nativist "Know Nothing Party."

If Obama was born in Hawaii, yes, he's a citizen. That is what the law covers.
It doesn't necessarily make him a Constitutional "natural born citizen". To be eligible to the Presidency, a person has to be a natural born citizen, not just a "citizen" or a "native born" citizen.

There is a difference.
Logged
Logismos
Guest
« Reply #204 on: November 04, 2009, 04:56:55 PM »
Thanks red red rose, once upon a time I originally asked a question as to what the legal basis for these birther claims were and you've filled in a lot of gaps from the previous responses that have so far been quite lacking. Your stance is the consensus view on this issue from all that I've read in the process but I do think that it is in many ways an unsettled question. There is remarkably little to be found from the last 200+ years that authoritatively defines what "natural born" means and your argument that it is just a very specific common sense term of legal jargon seems to contradict the fact that Congress, only 1 year after the constitution was ratified,  saw fit to confer natural born status onto children born overseas in 1790. So why did such a principle exist then if it is such a precise and well understood term? Why are there exceptions today for foreign born kids being "nationals and citizens?' But the real clincher for the case of Obama is the title 8 of the US code. If Obama was born today outside the country to a US parent, the US code would confer citizenship onto him (whether it is defined as "natural born" or not would arguably have to be decided by the supreme court). But the citizenship laws have changed constantly over the years. Today the citizen parent would have to be in the US for two years after the 14th birthday but several sources say that in 1964 the law was 5 years after the 14th birthday. So that narrowly missed technicality pretty much closes the door to the argument. Although the law is confounded and spotty on this issue of natural born citizenship and there are circumstances in which kids could be born outside of the country and become nationals, I concede that if Obama was born outside the US in 1964 he would not be a US citizen. Now, the next question is what makes someone the president? If the state and congress certified his qualifications without any challenge by lawmakers, and he was elected to the presidency in Congress by the electoral college and later took the oath of office, is that what makes the holding of the position official or would all of that be made void if hypothetically the qualifications were found not met in the first place? Obviously its a somewhat unanswerable question unless the Supreme Court were to decide but are there any legal scenarios to liken it to?
« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 05:13:33 PM by Logismos » Logged
Christian Forums
« Reply #204 on: November 04, 2009, 04:56:55 PM »
 Logged
chestnutbrowncanary
Guest
« Reply #205 on: November 04, 2009, 08:39:27 PM »
Quote from: red red rose on November 04, 2009, 12:58:29 PM
If Obama was born in Hawaii, yes, he's a citizen. That is what the law covers.
It doesn't necessarily make him a Constitutional "natural born citizen". To be eligible to the Presidency, a person has to be a natural born citizen, not just a "citizen" or a "native born" citizen.

There is a difference.

No, in President Obama's case, there's not; the Fourteenth Amendment says so.
Logged
red red rose
Newbie
*

Manna: 0
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 8

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #206 on: November 05, 2009, 02:28:08 AM »
Quote from: Logismos on November 04, 2009, 04:56:55 PM
Thanks red red rose, once upon a time I originally asked a question as to what the legal basis for these birther claims were and you've filled in a lot of gaps from the previous responses that have so far been quite lacking. Your stance is the consensus view on this issue from all that I've read in the process but I do think that it is in many ways an unsettled question. There is remarkably little to be found from the last 200+ years that authoritatively defines what "natural born" means and your argument that it is just a very specific common sense term of legal jargon seems to contradict the fact that Congress, only 1 year after the constitution was ratified,  saw fit to confer natural born status onto children born overseas in 1790. So why did such a principle exist then if it is such a precise and well understood term?
That is an excellent question. Since the founders were so concerned about foreign influence in the executive branch, I think that they realized that they had opened up the Presidency to foreign influence by calling a child born outside of the country a natural born citizen. They then corrected that mistake in 1795 by considering that child a "citizen" and repealing the previous act.
Quote
Why are there exceptions today for foreign born kids being "nationals and citizens?' But the real clincher for the case of Obama is the title 8 of the US code. If Obama was born today outside the country to a US parent, the US code would confer citizenship onto him (whether it is defined as "natural born" or not would arguably have to be decided by the supreme court). But the citizenship laws have changed constantly over the years. Today the citizen parent would have to be in the US for two years after the 14th birthday but several sources say that in 1964 the law was 5 years after the 14th birthday. So that narrowly missed technicality pretty much closes the door to the argument. Although the law is confounded and spotty on this issue of natural born citizenship and there are circumstances in which kids could be born outside of the country and become nationals, I concede that if Obama was born outside the US in 1964 he would not be a US citizen. Now, the next question is what makes someone the president? If the state and congress certified his qualifications without any challenge by lawmakers, and he was elected to the presidency in Congress by the electoral college and later took the oath of office, is that what makes the holding of the position official or would all of that be made void if hypothetically the qualifications were found not met in the first place? Obviously its a somewhat unanswerable question unless the Supreme Court were to decide but are there any legal scenarios to liken it to?



I can't think of any directly related legal scenarios (the presidency) to liken it to.

Looking at citizenship in the US over the years, I've been trying to find out what exactly the founders meant when they said "natural born citizen".

All I have to go by is the history of citizenship law.

Before the Supreme Court case of US v Wong Kim Ark (1898), children born to alien parents weren't definitively considered citizens of the US. The decision in that case interpreted the 14th amendment to mean that anyone born in the US was a US citizen.

That isn't what the 14th meant originally, though.

The two main authors of the 14th amendment, Sen Trumbull and Sen Howard, were concerned about people with divided allegiance being granted citizenship. In their discussion, they contended that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else....subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States".
http://tiny.cc/14th_amendment

The 14th amendment happened because the Senators were afraid that some subsequent Congress would overturn the 1866 Civil Rights Act that made anyone born in the United States, and not subject to a foreign power, a citizen. (It overturned the Dred Scott Decision, thereby making anyone of African descent born in the US a citizen of the US. They didn't want it un-done.)


1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D.
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/1866cra/1866.cra.htm
Quote
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States..."
It looked like a person born in the US to someone with foreign citizenship would inherit that citizenship, would be subject to a foreign power, and wasn't a US citizen.

I found exactly what was meant ...
Senator John A. Bingham was one of the authors of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. He said this ...
Quote
" find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . "

- John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332



Before Wong Kim Ark, the only people that were definitely citizens of the US at birth were the children born to citizen parents.

Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to is that a "natural born citizen" is this:
  Natural - citizen by nature, i.e. by descent from the parents
  Born - born on US soil
  Citizen
A natural born citizen is born on US soil to two US citizen parents.

Other changes have been made in citizenship law, making people "citizens" in various circumstances. The definition of "natural born citizen" hasn't been changed.
Logged
chestnutbrowncanary
Guest
« Reply #207 on: November 05, 2009, 07:22:17 AM »
Quote from: red red rose on November 05, 2009, 02:28:08 AM
Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to is that a "natural born citizen" is this:
  Natural - citizen by nature, i.e. by descent from the parents
  Born - born on US soil
  Citizen
A natural born citizen is born on US soil to two US citizen parents.

Other changes have been made in citizenship law, making people "citizens" in various circumstances. The definition of "natural born citizen" hasn't been changed.

Ah, a birther argument. Wont' fly. 

This kind of analysis has been tried as early as the presidency of Chester Arthur to quibble of his qualifications for the office. No-one dared to take it up in court.  What's happened to change that this time is the collision of social freedom, ideology and political extremism, and economic uncertainty.  Even under those circumstances, the plain meaning of the text is the preferred method of interpreting legal language.

"Natural born citizen" is not defined in the Constitution, but the legal history of the term suggest that the emphasis was on the location of the birth, not the citizenship of the parents.  Sandfort v. Dred Scott isn't good for much, but obtaining citizenship was the point of the lawsuit, Justice Curtis wrote this in dissent:

Quote
At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States

This legal reasoning was preserved in the Fourteenth Amendment:

Quote
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

For its part, Wong Kim Ark simply insists that the plain and accepted meaning of the legal text is always the preferred meaning. It's interesting that Dred Scott, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Wong Kim Ark take place at a time not just of economic, but also of social, confusion, and I suggest the move toward a fuller social freedom is what has animated many rightists to go nutjob on the Obama Presidency.  Mr. Obama violates what many seem to see as a natural order of "ruler and ruled", and it's no coincidence that events such as the Dred Scott decision, the Dred Scott, the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Wong Kim Ark decision also take place when many people, wrongly, feel panicked enough to insist that race must be a factor in citizenship and leadership and that to question that is to obtain the disintegration of the American Republic.

This, of course, is mere hysteria, now and then.

Under the plain meaning of our fundamental law as well as the clear meaning of cases interpreting that law, President Barack Obama was born in the city of Honolulu, in thee State of Hawaii, one of the several United States of America.  That makes him a natural born citizen, a citizen born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and, by common law, a free man born in the State of Hawaii and a citizen thereof and of the United States of America.

There is no legal argument otherwise that will stand.
Logged
Christian Forums
« Reply #207 on: November 05, 2009, 07:22:17 AM »
 Logged
red red rose
Newbie
*

Manna: 0
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 8

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #208 on: November 05, 2009, 01:03:24 PM »
Quote from: chestnutbrowncanary on November 05, 2009, 07:22:17 AM
Quote from: red red rose on November 05, 2009, 02:28:08 AM
Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to is that a "natural born citizen" is this:
  Natural - citizen by nature, i.e. by descent from the parents
  Born - born on US soil
  Citizen
A natural born citizen is born on US soil to two US citizen parents.

Other changes have been made in citizenship law, making people "citizens" in various circumstances. The definition of "natural born citizen" hasn't been changed.

Ah, a birther argument. Wont' fly. 

This kind of analysis has been tried as early as the presidency of Chester Arthur to quibble of his qualifications for the office. No-one dared to take it up in court.  What's happened to change that this time is the collision of social freedom, ideology and political extremism, and economic uncertainty.  Even under those circumstances, the plain meaning of the text is the preferred method of interpreting legal language.

"Natural born citizen" is not defined in the Constitution, but the legal history of the term suggest that the emphasis was on the location of the birth, not the citizenship of the parents. 


Excuse me, but did you read any of the above?
We're talking about "natural born citizen", not just "citizen".

Quote
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States..."
Quote
" find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . "

From U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Quote
"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. "
The judge talks about two children, a citizen child and a "natural born" citizen child. The judge clearly states that ONLY ONE is Natural Born, the child of the citizens.
Quote
"...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..."
They clearly state that a natural born citizen is born in the country to two US citizen parents.


Quote
Sandfort v. Dred Scott isn't good for much, but obtaining citizenship was the point of the lawsuit, Justice Curtis wrote this in dissent:

Quote
At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States

This legal reasoning was preserved in the Fourteenth Amendment:

Quote
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

For its part, Wong Kim Ark simply insists that the plain and accepted meaning of the legal text is always the preferred meaning. It's interesting that Dred Scott, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Wong Kim Ark take place at a time not just of economic, but also of social, confusion, and I suggest the move toward a fuller social freedom is what has animated many rightists to go nutjob on the Obama Presidency.  Mr. Obama violates what many seem to see as a natural order of "ruler and ruled", and it's no coincidence that events such as the Dred Scott decision, the Dred Scott, the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Wong Kim Ark decision also take place when many people, wrongly, feel panicked enough to insist that race must be a factor in citizenship and leadership and that to question that is to obtain the disintegration of the American Republic.

This, of course, is mere hysteria, now and then.

Quote
Mr. Obama violates what many seem to see as a natural order of "ruler and ruled"
What?
What "natural order" could you possibly be talking about?
Quote
...many people, wrongly, feel panicked enough to insist that race must be a factor in citizenship and leadership and that to question that is to obtain the disintegration of the American Republic.

This, of course, is mere hysteria, now and then.
What in the world does race have to do with anything? The question is the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" to be President of the US. Race doesn't enter into it, only citizenship.


Quote
Under the plain meaning of our fundamental law as well as the clear meaning of cases interpreting that law, President Barack Obama was born in the city of Honolulu, in thee State of Hawaii, one of the several United States of America.  That makes him a natural born citizen, a citizen born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and, by common law, a free man born in the State of Hawaii and a citizen thereof and of the United States of America.

There is no legal argument otherwise that will stand.



I believe that Barack Obama was born in the city of Honolulu, in the State of Hawaii. That makes him a native born US citizen per the 14th amendment. He says that he is a native citizen on his fight the smears website:
Quote
The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

Given that Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor, he would certainly know that the necessary qualification was "natural born citizen". The only claim that he has made is that he is "native born".

Further down the "fight the smears" webpage, it states:
Quote
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
In my view, a person whose citizenship status at birth was governed by a British Nationality Act would in no way be a "natural born citizen" in the eyes of the founders.
Logged
chestnutbrowncanary
Guest
« Reply #209 on: November 05, 2009, 06:15:51 PM »
Quote from: red red rose on November 05, 2009, 01:03:24 PM
Quote from: chestnutbrowncanary on November 05, 2009, 07:22:17 AM
Ah, a birther argument. Wont' fly.
Excuse me, but did you read any of the above?
We're talking about "natural born citizen", not just "citizen".

Your response fits the typical MO of a birther: obviously, you won't read - or accept - anything that doesn't fit your pet theory.

Namely this:
Quote
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

President Obama was born in the State of Hawaii of the United States of America. Ergo, he's a citizen of the United States at birth. About as natural born as one can get.

Nothing there about having to have two citizen parents, and this IS the law of the land.

Even if you still insist on quibbling, here's the current law on Hawaii prior to statehood:

Quote
§ 1405. Persons born in Hawaii

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

Likewise, nothing there about having to have two citizen parents, and had President Obama been born in Hawaii on August 20, 1959, he'd still be a citizen of the United States at birth. About as natural born as one can get.

You're not arguing with me; you're arguing with the U.S. Code.

(And rather ineffectively at that.)
Logged
Judge Carter Orders Discovery in Obama Birth Certificate Case - Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Grace-Centered Christian Forums
Bible concordance | abortion ticker | is God real? | galaga | play tetris | copter game | mini golf games | arcade | donkey kong | Christian marriage help | articles | privacy
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC