Opinions requested - Please

[bigwave]

I've posted several articles regarding the eligibility of presidents in the USA.

 

I would like opinions on the following statement and how the man in our house was even considered let alone allowed to stay.

 

"According to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution, the narrative of the 14th Amendment, the SupremeCourt case of Minor v. Happersett (1875), other legal opinions, precedence and historical background, Presidential eligibility requires that a candidate be born a US citizen of two US citizen parents at the time of birth."

 

Thank you in advance as I know there are some very politically savvy people on this site.

 

Peace

 

Come on RV. 

[Shabibilicious]

DinarMillionaire is your huckleberry when it comes to this question.     

 

Note:  If what you say is true......Ted Cruz would not be eligible to run for president.

 

GO RV, and NO BV

Edited March 26, 2014 by Shabibilicious

[DaveH]

My limited research shows nothing about both parents being natural born citizens, only the candidate for president being natural born. 

 

http://constitutionus.com/

 

5:  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://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

 

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.

 

Seems this is how it was written

[Pablo404]

Anyone got a 'high voltage power line' they want to touch instead?

 Unfortunately, there are several very good for America Senators and Governors that I cannot support because of my personal belief in the 'original meaning' of the US Constitution as written and understood by them (the Founders) at the time.

Senators Marco Rubio and Senator Cruz had 'non-citizen' parent fathers and our Governor Jindall from Louisiana have good credentials. Even the past Republican Presidential Candidate 'Mitt" Romney had questions never answered about his grandparents who as missionaries and land owners in Mexico had given up their US citizenship and then 'reclaimed' it. Of course our current "resident in the White House' has never provided an "official Birth certification" other than the 'photoshopped web version'. (I do wonder if his 'foot print' would match the one on the "official Birth Certificate' issued by Kenya . If it does, he is not even a citizen under effective US Statutes from that time. (His mother was not old enough to pass citizenship claim for him.)

   I believe a "New" US supreme Court review and determination will be pursued before the next election. God Bless America.

[dinar_stud]

It seems to me an untenable position to say that Minor v. Happersett “clearly established who was a ‘natural born citizen’” when the case itself states “for the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts” (”these doubts” referring to citizenship of those born in the United States of alien parents). It would be United States v. Wong Kim Ark that would definitively answer this question in 1898.

 

 

What the case was about

 

 

Mrs. Virginia Minor was a native-born American citizen from Missouri who had the audacity to try to register to vote. The registrar, one Happersett, refused because Minor was not “male”. Minor sued in local court and the Missouri State Supreme Court, but she lost. She appealed to the United States Supreme Court claiming that she was a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment and was entitled to vote. The Supreme Court agreed that she was a natural born citizen of the United States, but that didn’t make her eligible to vote.

 

 

So incidentally to the main question in the case, the Supreme Court did discuss citizenship.

 

 

Two Kinds of Citizen

 

 

The section from Minor that is alluded to by the opening quotation is one in which the court is describing the state of citizenship in the United States prior to the Fourteenth Amendment (something that is overlooked by those who use the citation). Here is what the court said:

 

 

To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States 

before the adoption of the amendment

, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership…

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in 

two ways

: first, 

by birth

, and second, 

by naturalization

. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides  that

“No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, ”

and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, 

new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization

.

“natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners

. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, 

it is not necessary to solve these doubts

. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

 

 

 

 

Let’s take a minute to digest that lengthy citation. The most obvious point is that there are two and exactly two kinds of citizens discussed here: ” natural born” and “naturalized”. Take a minute and reread the citation and verify this for yourself. You will see no distinction made between those who are born a citizen and those who are a natural born citizen. Note: “all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens” — not “natural born citizens” but “citizens” but natural born implied because they are born citizens.

 

 

The issue addressed in this section is not who is a natural born citizen, but who is a citizen. So when the court talks about “some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” they are saying that there are “doubts” as to whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens at all. This is the point glossed over when trying to use this case to create a third type of citizen (the non-natural born, non-naturalized citizen).

 

 

Let me quote from an earlier portion of the decision:

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became 

ipso facto

 a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

 

 

 

 

What can be seen from this quotation is the distinction between the concept of who is in a class and whether members of that class are citizens. In relatingMinor to the question of Obama natural born citizenship Minor informs us that those born citizens are natural born citizens, but Minor does not inform us who are born citizens. Focus on this language from the Court:

These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

 

 

 

 

 

The distinction is not between “plain citizens” and “natural born citizens” but between “natural-born citizens” and aliens (e.g. not citizens).

 

 

All of the preceding discussion is related to the situation before passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (“To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment”). The reason for this digression to the time before the Fourteenth Amendment was the question of whether Minor was a citizen apart from the Fourteenth Amendment. The court said that she was: “she has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” She was such a citizen because her parents were citizens and she was born under the jurisdiction of the United States, and the pesky argument about those not born of citizen parents before the Fourteenth Amendment “it is not necessary to solve”.

 

 

I don’t know if this question was ever solved for those born before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it is not necessary for us to solve either because there are no more persons living born before the Fourteenth Amendment, and because it was solved for those born after by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wonk Kim Ark. Wong, born in the United States of alien parents, was declared a citizen. It is hardly reasonable to quote the dicta in Minor as casting doubts while refusing to recognize the dicta in Wong which resolved them.

 

 

So in summary:

 

 

• Minor tells us that there are two kinds of citizens: native or natural born and naturalized
• There was some question prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States were citizens.
• Minor does not resolve this question
• However, it is clear that those born citizens are natural born citizens (since there are only two types, and those born citizens cannot be naturalized).
• United States v. Wong Kim Ark clarifies who is under the jurisdiction of the United States and thereby who are citizens at birth.

 

 

Update:

Since the original publication of this article in March of 2009, Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon in Arizona wrote in his order in the case of Allen v. Obama:

…this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution to hold the office of President. See 

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); 

Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana

 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion,

Minor v. Happersett

, 99 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.

[dinar_stud]

Of course our current "resident in the White House' has never provided an "official Birth certification" other than the 'photoshopped web version'. (I do wonder if his 'foot print' would match the one on the "official Birth Certificate' issued by Kenya . If it does, he is not even a citizen under effective US Statutes from that time. (His mother was not old enough to pass citizenship claim for him.)

   I believe a "New" US supreme Court review and determination will be pursued before the next election. God Bless America.

 

 

He has never provided an Official Birth certification?? Are you sure about that or are you just rehashing debunked birther claims???3

 

.

Obama provided a short form COLB in 2009. A form that was certified in Hawaii because that is the form given to every Hawaiian that requests a copy of their COLB. in 2011 he presented a long form COLB that as witnessed by every single White House correspondent, including Lester Kinsolving, a reporter from WND.com. When he was asked what his opinion was after seing the hard copy his answer was he has no plans to raise the issue again.  Shortly after he was replaced from being the wnd.com White House correspondent by wnd.com/

 

 

 

World Net Daily’s Les Kinsolving Reacts To Release Of President Obama’s Birth Certificate

http://www.mediaite.com/online/world-net-dailys-les-kinsolving-reacts-to-release-of-president-obamas-birth-certificate/

 

 

 

.You have a right to have our opinions and beliefs, what you don't have is the right to distort the facts.

Edited March 26, 2014 by dinar_stud

[Pablo404]

Oops!  I forgot to mention that an historical literary work well known and understood by the Founding Fathers at he time was titled "The Law of Nations" in which a "Natural Born" citizen was defined as  (praphrased) ...a Natural Born citizen is the child of parent(s) who are both citizens of a country and born therein.  It was understood by the 'Founding Fathers' to mean born in America to parents who were both citizens at the time of birth. Our confusion arises from later laws that involved "naturalized' citizenship of immigrants and legal definitions of a "natural" person versus 'corporate' personhood as well as unclear court rulings on clarifications of citizenship rights

[dinar_stud]

Oops!  I forgot to mention that an historical literary work well known and understood by the Founding Fathers at he time was titled "The Law of Nations" in which a "Natural Born" citizen was defined as  (praphrased) ...a Natural Born citizen is the child of parent(s) who are both citizens of a country and born therein.  It was understood by the 'Founding Fathers' to mean born in America to parents who were both citizens at the time of birth. Our confusion arises from later laws that involved "naturalized' citizenship of immigrants and legal definitions of a "natural" person versus 'corporate' personhood as well as unclear court rulings on clarifications of citizenship rights

 

 

The Law of Nations Thoery has been debunked time after time and 224+ court cases have proven it false.

 

 

The Law of Nations and the US Constitution

The United States Constitution in Article I Section 8 states that the Congress has the power:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

 

 

 

Some have gone so far as to say that the phrase “the Law of Nations” is a reference to Emerich Vattel’s work commonly known by that name. I think most would find that silly, but let’s look closer.

 

 

• It must be a citation because it is capitalized. FALSE. Every noun in the Constitution is capitalized, so capitalization here implies no special meaning. Add to that the fact that “the” is not capitalized; a citation should read “The Law of Nations” not “the Law of Nations.”

 

 

• But it is still the title of de Vattel’s book. FALSE. The title of de Vattel’s book was Le Droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des Nations et des Souverains. “The Law of Nations” isn’t even the full English title.

 

 

• But it is still the title of de Vattel’s book. FALSE. Look at the Constitution again, at the larger phrase: “Offences against the Law of Nations.” Guess what? That is the title of Chapter 5 of  Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, the most influential legal treatise of the time. I would say that if anything, Blackstone has the stronger claim than Vattel.

 

 

[dinar_stud]

Those advocating that we should change our traditional view of “natural born citizen” in favor of a view advocated by a 18th century Swiss philosopher, Emer de Vattel, argue that the framers of the Constitution relied on a work by that philosopher for their definition of “natural born citizen”. They cite this passage from his work, the short English title of which is The Law of Nations:



The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

Those words, however, are quoted from a translation of de Vattel that first appeared in 1797, 10 years after the Constitution’s ratification. Did the framers know Vattel’s work in the French? If so, there is a problem because the literal phrase “natural-born citizen” is not present in the original French which says:

 

 



Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

For those who don’t speak French, the word “citizen” (Citoyen) appears only ONCE in the sentence.

 

 

 

Given that the phrase “natural born citizen” was not in the French, was it in the English translations available to the framers of the US Constitution? The answer is, “no”. The first English translation (thanks to Mr. Greschak for the images) in 1760 follows:

 

 

And the first American Edition (1787) issued the year of the Constitutional Convention also does not have “natural born citizen”.

 

So I ask, how can de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” define a term that it doesn’t even contain (except in translations a decade after the Constitution was ratified)? If the framers wanted to refer to de Vattel, then they surely would have used his words from the English translation they had, but “natives or indegenes” is not in Article II of the Constitution.

Edited March 26, 2014 by dinar_stud

[dinar_stud]

I've posted several articles regarding the eligibility of presidents in the USA.

 

I would like opinions on the following statement and how the man in our house was even considered let alone allowed to stay.

 

"According to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution, the narrative of the 14th Amendment, the SupremeCourt case of Minor v. Happersett (1875), other legal opinions, precedence and historical background, Presidential eligibility requires that a candidate be born a US citizen of two US citizen parents at the time of birth."

 

Thank you in advance as I know there are some very politically savvy people on this site.

 

Peace

 

Come on RV. 

 

 

How about we take a case from 1898, United States V. Wong Kim Ark. 

 

 

 

 

This post 14th Amendment case is important both because it provides a broad survey of citizenship law and the legal framework through which the Constitution views citizenship, and because this decision is cited by numerous other cases.

 

 

 

[An alien parent's] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

 

 

The Wong court also said:

“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’

 

 

 

and

…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The 

same rule

 was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

 

 

 

 

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

Or How about   Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920)

 

 

 

 

It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen…

 

 

Kwock Jan Fat v. White

 

 

[Pablo404]

Dinar_stud

 

  Interesting comments. As to the XIV amendment you might want to add the remainder of the clause ..."and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.." which in legal terms meant they are NOT subject to the legal jurisdiction of their parents country ..ie 'citizens of another country thrugh their other country's citizen parents. I believe there are only a few countries on the planet which 'honor' citizenship by place of new births ONLY.

  I would love to see the 'long form' COLB as the one on the web contains multiple errors of facts. None of the other States have a copy of an "original Birth Certification" available for copy or review, which was to be filed as part of the  Eletion Law requirements for qualification to be on the ballot, instead a notarized form indicating BHO was the candidate of the Democratic Party and witnessed by Ms Nancy Pelosi of Congress (Chairperson) is possessed.

  You are correct, each of us has a right to their beliefs based upon the facts we accept or reject.  Acceptance, rejection, and distortion or non inclusion do not change the facts. If I were ever called to testify in a court of law and an attempt was made to 'Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." I would have to say "No" - because I know both sides would never allow testimony on "the whole truth" that might negate their "truth" via their limited questions and implied facts questions.

Namaste.

[dinar_stud]

Dinar_stud

 

  Interesting comments. As to the XIV amendment you might want to add the remainder of the clause ..."and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.." which in legal terms meant they are NOT subject to the legal jurisdiction of their parents country ..ie 'citizens of another country thrugh their other country's citizen parents. I believe there are only a few countries on the planet which 'honor' citizenship by place of new births ONLY.3

 

Lets start here. "Subject of the jurisdiction thereof" simply means he lives within the legal jurisdiction of, in this case, USA or one of its territories, last I heard Hawaii was a state when Obama was born and his father and mother were both living in Hawaii. You are confusing jurisdiction with alliegence and even then there has been US Presidents with dual citizenship, something that was not a problem until Obama became president even when he only has US Citizenship, in other words single allegiance with the USA.

 

Just so you know there have been 2 presidents in US history with dual citizenship, that alone debunks your theories.

 

The first was James Buchanan. His father (James Buchanan) was a citizen of Ireland who immigrated to the United States and was naturalized. Ireland at the time was part of the British Empire. Under the force of nemo potest exuere patriam. Buchanan remained a British subject his entire life under British law and bestowed this status to his son at his son's birth. This is not dissimilar to Barack Obama's status as a British subject at his own birth. Buchanan would have been a British subject his entire life under British law.

The second was Chester Alan Arthur. Arthur, like Buchanan, was the son of an Irish immigrant (William Arthur). Like James Buchanan's father, Arthur's was also naturalized. AS was the case with Buchanan, Arthur was also a British subject under British law. Unlike Buchanan, Arthur's British nationality was rescinded with the passage of the Naturalization Act, 33 &34 Vict. c. 14 in 1870 (at age 41).

 

 

 

  I would love to see the 'long form' COLB as the one on the web contains multiple errors of facts. None of the other States have a copy of an "original Birth Certification" available for copy or review, which was to be filed as part of the  Eletion Law requirements for qualification to be on the ballot, instead a notarized form indicating BHO was the candidate of the Democratic Party and witnessed by Ms Nancy Pelosi of Congress (Chairperson) is possessed.

  

I would love to see what "facts " you are refering to. The .pdf posted online for everybody to see has no errors whatsoever. The supposed errors are all part of the birther conspiracy theory mentality. To make my point I will cite a report that was paid for by Joseph Farah for wnd.com. A report he did not print because it debunked the birther conspiracy theory, of errors on the birth certificate. The expert is Ivan Zatkovich and if you click HERE you will see his credentials. 

 

 

In his report that wnd.com never posted for the public to read it said quite clearly and I quote "All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document" In simple layman terms its a legit copy, and not a forgery. 

 

 

Now I know you will now bring up Arpaio and what I fondly call The Cold Turkey Possee. A duo that cannot be trusted because they have lied to keep the slaes of Zullo's books and to keep the money flowinf to his coffers. i will give you only one example of thses lies but since it is a big lie it takes away all credibility. 

 

In 2011 Zullo and the Cold Turkey Posse tried to prove that there was errors in the COLB by saying that the race of the father was wrong and he provided a copy of the The 1961 vital statistics instruction manual but he provided the manual from 1968, a manual that would not have applied to the Obama COLB. Here is the 1961 manual as proof:  1961 Vital statistics Manual. 

 

 

In racap, alliegance and jurisdiction are not the same,  there is a hardcopy and in the PDF thatw as posted online there are no errors, and mike Zullo was caught in one of his many lies in regards of the supposed errors.

 

Edited March 27, 2014 by dinar_stud

[dinar_stud]

I will provide more proof of my claims.

 

 

Rawle’s View of the Constitution of the United States (1825)

The following paragraph was cited by Congressman Wilson of Iowa in debate on the 14th Amendment.

Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity….

Under the Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however that capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of the president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

Rawle’s View of the Constitution

 

Musata v. U.S. Department of Justice, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (1999)

Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania.

At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

 

 

The courts in this case assumed that two children of aliens are “natural born citizens of the United States.”

 

 

Lynch v. Clarke, New York in 1844

This case is important because it was among those cited by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark as well as other lower court decisions such as Munro vs. Merchant (N.Y. 1858).

By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…

The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “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,” …

The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

The New York Legal Observer