• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

"Birthers" - duped again

fff

Well-known member
Shockingly, apparently the "birthers" have been duped by the liberal media!

The Plum LineGreg Sargent's blog

Eric Cantor Rips Chris Matthews, MSNBC, HuffPo, Liberal Bloggers For Inflating Birther Story

GOP Rep. Eric Cantor says he’s no birther — he has no questions about Obama’s citizenship, his spokesman tells me. But Cantor is placing the blame for the spread of birtherism not on its authors or on those politicians playing along with it, but rather on Chris Matthews, MSNBC, lefty news outlets and bloggers.

Asked for Cantor’s views on birtherism, his spokesman, Brad Dayspring, emailed me this:

“Mr. Cantor doesn’t question the President’s citizenship, but he has serious questions about the President’s push for government controlled healthcare, taxes on small business job creators, and a huge energy tax on middle class families. He finds it ironic that those most eager to talk about the President’s citizenship are in fact some of his biggest cheerleaders–whether it’s Chris Matthews or others on MSNBC, the Huffington Post, or camera toting liberal bloggers chasing people through the streets of Washington.”

This is the first time Cantor has publicly declared his disagreement with birtherism. But that aside, this is actually a really interesting response. Cantor would rather pick a base-pleasing fight with those who are trying to knock down birtherism than denounce those who are promoting and playing footsie with the idea that Obama isn’t legitimately our president.

And that’s the number two in the House GOP leadership speaking…
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Friday, July 31, 2009
What to Tell The Birthers Bashers
You are poorly informed on the constitutional issue involved with Obama's eligibility to be President. The primary issue is whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen," not whether he was born in the U.S. When drafting the eligibility requirements for the President, the Founding Fathers distinguished between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen" in Article II, sec. 1, cl. 5 and in Articles I, III, and IV of the Constitution. Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” after 1789 the President must be a "natural born Citizen." The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder have sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.

The distinction between "citizen" and "natural born Citizen" is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, a "citizen" is simply a member of the civil society. To become a "citizen" is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. Neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only "citizens" who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts, nor any case law has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Congressional Acts and case law, like the 14th Amendment, have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a "citizen." Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a "natural born Citizen" prevails today. It is this definition of "natural born Citizen" which gives the Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. I call this state of having all other means of acquiring other citizenships or allegiances cut off unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth.

Obama's father was born in Kenya when it was a British colony. When he came to America, he was probably here on a student visa and he never became a legal resident of the U.S. or an immigrant. He had no attachment to the U.S. other than to study in its prestigious educational institutions which he did for the sole purpose of returning to Kenya and applying his learning there for the best interests of that nation. In fact, when he completed his studies, he did return to Kenya and worked for its government.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, at best, he is a U.S. "citizen" under the 14th Amendment and federal statute. But he is not a "natural born Citizen" under the Constitution, for at the time of his birth under the British Nationality Act 1948 his father was a British subject and Obama himself through descent was also a British subject. Obama has himself admitted to the controlling effect of the British Nationality Act 1948 on his birth. Additionally, in 1963, both his father and Obama also became Kenyan citizens when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain.

Obama was born with multiple allegiances (at birth both U.S., if born in the U.S., and British, and also acquired Kenyan citizenship at age 2). Obama also obtained Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by his step-father in Indonesia at age 6. The Founders would not have allowed such a person who was not born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States to be President and most importantly, Commander in Chief of the Military. We the People have too many "natural born Citizens" in our country, the largest group of citizens by far, from whom to pick to risk jeopardizing the best interests of the United States by allowing a person born with conflicting allegiances and loyalties to be President and Commander in Chief of our Military. There simply is no sound reason for risking America’s national security, welfare, and ultimate preservation by allowing a non-"natural born Citizen" to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. To permit it is a violation of Article II of our Constitution, the supreme law of our land.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Hypo, that was waaaaay over Frankie's head. There's no way that she'll be able to understand that. Her eyes glazed over after the second sentence.
 

fff

Well-known member
It's the same old thing over and over and over. And it's still wrong. That liberal media has done a remarkable job. :lol:

It didn't matter who Obama's mother married after he was born or who adopted him. A child's citizenship can't be taken from them by a parent's actions.

**
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

Obama has never renounced his American citizenship. Sooooo since he was born in the United States to an American citizen, he's a natural born US citizen and well qualified to be President of the United States.


Here's what the Constitution says:

Article II: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

**
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
he was never born a natural born citizen

He was a dual citizen at birth

Can a dual citizen be a Natural Born Citizen? I have my doubts so does SCOTUS

Define Natural Born Citizen for us

a Congressional statement on record would suffice.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Frankie, you share the same problem with a lot of you anti-birthers; You don't know what the difference between a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen" is. The truly sad part is that you don't seem to care.
 

fff

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
he was never born a natural born citizen

He was a dual citizen at birth

Can a dual citizen be a Natural Born Citizen? I have my doubts so does SCOTUS

Define Natural Born Citizen for us

a Congressional statement on record would suffice.


What? No arugment for my statments? :lol: :lol:

Doesn't matter if he was a dual citizen at birth. He was born in the United States, the son of an American citizen and has never renounced that citizenship. So he's a natural born citizen.

You can huff and puff and have an opinion all you want. But as the law stood when he was elected, he was a legal candidate. And he won the election. :D :D
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
so you can cite this law?

congress has said it takes 2 citizen parents, can you show any different?

1stuscongressnaturalborncitizens.jpg
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Frankie, you share the same problem with a lot of you anti-birthers; You don't know what the difference between a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen" is. The truly sad part is that you don't seem to care.

Obama is a natural born citizen. He was born to an American citizen in the United States of America. You can't change that, Sandhusker. Nor can all the rantings of the "Birthers" on the 'net. Or Republican Senators/Congressmen who are feeding the frenzy among their base.

Claiming that both his parents must be US citizens doesn't make it so. That's not in the Constitution.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
fff said:
hypocritexposer said:
he was never born a natural born citizen

He was a dual citizen at birth

Can a dual citizen be a Natural Born Citizen? I have my doubts so does SCOTUS

Define Natural Born Citizen for us

a Congressional statement on record would suffice.


What? No arugment for my statments? :lol: :lol:

Doesn't matter if he was a dual citizen at birth. He was born in the United States, the son of an American citizen and has never renounced that citizenship. So he's a natural born citizen.

You can huff and puff and have an opinion all you want. But as the law stood when he was elected, he was a legal candidate. And he won the election. :D :D

what now you want to debate immigration law, for a non-immigrant?

the INA wouldn't and doesn't pertain to the Natural Born Citizen clause in any manner, just the opposite.

the clause pertains to "Natural Law" citizenship at birth, not statute law, which the INA is.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
Frankie, you share the same problem with a lot of you anti-birthers; You don't know what the difference between a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen" is. The truly sad part is that you don't seem to care.

Obama is a natural born citizen. He was born to an American citizen in the United States of America. You can't change that, Sandhusker. Nor can all the rantings of the "Birthers" on the 'net. Or Republican Senators/Congressmen who are feeding the frenzy among their base.

Claiming that both his parents must be US citizens doesn't make it so. That's not in the Constitution.

So where is it defined?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
hypocritexposer said:
he was never born a natural born citizen

He was a dual citizen at birth

Can a dual citizen be a Natural Born Citizen? I have my doubts so does SCOTUS

Define Natural Born Citizen for us

a Congressional statement on record would suffice.


What? No arugment for my statments? :lol: :lol:

Doesn't matter if he was a dual citizen at birth. He was born in the United States, the son of an American citizen and has never renounced that citizenship. So he's a natural born citizen.

You can huff and puff and have an opinion all you want. But as the law stood when he was elected, he was a legal candidate. And he won the election. :D :D

When did Barak Obama Sr. become a US citizen, Frankie?
 

fff

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
fff said:
hypocritexposer said:
he was never born a natural born citizen

He was a dual citizen at birth

Can a dual citizen be a Natural Born Citizen? I have my doubts so does SCOTUS

Define Natural Born Citizen for us

a Congressional statement on record would suffice.


What? No arugment for my statments? :lol: :lol:

Doesn't matter if he was a dual citizen at birth. He was born in the United States, the son of an American citizen and has never renounced that citizenship. So he's a natural born citizen.

You can huff and puff and have an opinion all you want. But as the law stood when he was elected, he was a legal candidate. And he won the election. :D :D

what now you want to debate immigration law, for a non-immigrant?

the INA wouldn't and doesn't pertain to the Natural Born Citizen clause in any manner, just the opposite.

the clause pertains to "Natural Law" citizenship at birth, not statute law, which the INA is.

Yawn. :D :D
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
hypocritexposer said:
he was never born a natural born citizen

He was a dual citizen at birth

Can a dual citizen be a Natural Born Citizen? I have my doubts so does SCOTUS

Define Natural Born Citizen for us

a Congressional statement on record would suffice.


What? No arugment for my statments? :lol: :lol:

Doesn't matter if he was a dual citizen at birth. He was born in the United States, the son of an American citizen and has never renounced that citizenship. So he's a natural born citizen.

You can huff and puff and have an opinion all you want. But as the law stood when he was elected, he was a legal candidate. And he won the election. :D :D

When did Barak Obama Sr. become a US citizen, Frankie?

You're just being silly now, Sandhusker. Surely you're not one of the "activist" who want to change the Constitution because some part of it doesn't satisfy you? :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean

Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?

Unlikely because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country prior to the year 1866. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was part of the “ordinary course of affairs” of the States that only local laws could affect. Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State. Citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the United States.

Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual allegiance to the crown in this country. After independence, this maxim was only recognized as far as individual States were willing to recognize it. The State of Virginia in 1777 moved to recognize parentage (citizenship of father) in determining allegiance and citizenship. States that were slow in enacting laws controlling birth and citizenship forced the courts to adjudicate citizenship disputes under common law rules.

Congress was vested only with the power to make uniform rules of naturalization in order to remove alienage from those who were already born abroad (outside of the States) who had immigrated to any one of the individual States. The best Congress could do is declare children born to fathers who were already a citizen of some State to be a citizen themselves. In other words, naturalization only provides for the removal of alienage and not for the creation of citizens within individual States.

Additionally, if the framers merely intended for birth alone on U.S. soil then all would had been necessary was to say the President shall be “native born.”

Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?

It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.” The British doctrine allowed for double allegiances, something the founders considered improper.

Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”

The powers of the general government were limited and defined, preventing Congress from exercising the same kind of sovereignty that Britain had over its claimed dominions within established States of the Union.

Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.

Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were impressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.

Fourteenth Amendment

The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment obviously affects how we view natural-born citizens because for the first time there is a national rule of who may by birth be a citizen of the United States. Who may be born citizens of the States is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.

The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.

Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes a great deal of sense for the time because there was a great deal of controversy over conflicts arising from double allegiances. In fact, Congress issued a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 that said the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.”

Fourteenth Amendment framer, Rep. John A. Bingham, argued before the House in 1871 that Dr. John Emilio Houard was a natural-born citizen of the United States. According to Bingham he was a natural-born citizen because he was “born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States” by the “express words of the Constitution, as amended today.” A naturalized male (women became naturalized through their husbands) were required to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity” to other nations, and thus, could no longer be said to owe allegiance to anyone but the United States.

Because “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires not owing allegiance to any other nation, and because the nation does not recognize double allegiances that can be created at common law, narrows the possibilities to what “natural-born citizen” can mean.

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.” The first Naturalization Act passed by Congress recognized “natural-born citizens” to be those born beyond the States to resident fathers who were already established citizens of the United States.

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Additional alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” This national law does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice but only recognizes citizenship of those born to parents who do not owe allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.

Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. … The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.

Additionally, Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.”

What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child the return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.

http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/page/defining-naturalborn-citizen-1
 
Top