Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligiblity

[apophenia]

I know a woman here, locally, who can channel the Founding Fathers. I hope the court will accept an affidavit though. She doesn't like to travel.

[JimC]

We haz a woman Prime Minister, thank you very much...

Somewhat of a conniving bitch, but never mind...

[Tyrannical]

Speaking of President Chester A. Arthur................

It appears that Arthur may have been purposely obfuscating (lying ) his dual citizenship since he knew it would make him ineligible.

We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen.

Chester Arthur’s lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880. His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility.

Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... -at-birth/

[Coito ergo sum]

More of your own obfuscation and pettifoggery in denial of a valid question of constitutional law. You have no caselaw stating that the meaning of the phrase is as you have suggested it is.

Plain meaning and original intent. The term "natural born citizen" is analogous to "natural born subject" under English common law. That's the meaning the drafters of the constitution would have had, and as Blackstone's Commentaries clearly state - natural born subject included anyone born, naturally, within the realm. We, in the US, wanted to get away from "subjects" and we had "citizens" instead. Natural born citizen included anyone naturally born in the realm - although we don't have a realm, because there is no regis. We have a nation. A citizen born in the nation is a natural born citizen.

There is no evidence to think it means anything else but the plain meaning of the term. To define it as not only a person naturally born in the country, but also to carve out an exclusion for those people naturally born here whose parents were not citizens when the person was born is to distort or expand the plain language. The drafters could easily have said that only citizens who were born in the US and whose parents were citizens - however, they did not. They focused only on "natural birth."

If you have some evidence that being "natural" and "born" and a "citizen" is necessary to be a "natural born citizen," then by all means, present it. Until then, I'll rely on the plain language of the constitution.

So, you know you're wrong in your allegation that the Supreme Court ruled that natural born citizen means born in the US to two US citizens. It doesn't. The Court didn't rule that. But, you said it did. You were wrong. Again.

No, I said the Court has mentioned the phrase, in dicta, and that's the closest it's ever come, so to quote the Minor ruling, resort must be had elsewhere to determine what the original intent of the Founders and Ratifiers was.

No, Seth - you said the Court DEFINED it. I said the court "mentioned" it, in obiter dicta. You backed off only after I pointed it out to you.

Yes, the "citzenship" necessary for congressmen and governors is "naturalized" OR natural born citizens. Like Jennifer Granholm who was governor Michigan and Arnold as Governor of Callyfawneeya could be governors because they are citizens, but they were naturalized. If they were born here, they'd be "natural born" citizens. One who becomes a citizen through other than birth is "naturalized." This isn't complicated, Seth.

Look again. The language used in the qualifications for Congresspersons is NOT "natural born citizen," it's merely "citizen" and "naturalized citizen" is implied by the "seven years a citizen of the United States." It's not expressly stated that a naturalized citizen is eligible, it's implied. As i said, "natural born citizen" is only found in ONE place in the Constitution, in the qualification for President,

Yes, and that's why only the president MUST be born in the United States or be born to US parents overseas. The other positions can be merely naturalized citizens.

and that explicit phrase has meaning beyond mere surplusage.

Exactly, and you're pushing at an open door. I am giving full meaning to both terms. The President must be born in the US or overseas to US citizens, but a Congressman and governor can be mere naturalized citizens OR natural born citizens. There is no surplusage there.

If the Founders and Ratifiers meant that any "citizen" could be President,

I NEVER FUCKING SAID THAT ANY "CITIZEN" CAN BE PRESIDENT --- WHAT IN THE FUCKING GOD DAMN HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??????????

You must be a natural born citizen. That means you're born here, or your parents are citizens. Naturalized citizens are NOT able to be president.

they would not have used the words "natural born" in the provision. Therefore, "natural born" means something more, or else, than "citizen." What it means finds its derivation in English common law, as the amicus brief lays out in detail.

What the FUCK are you talking about?

I have several times now explained the difference:

Naturalized citizen: someone who became citizen by law, not by birth.
Natural born citizen: someone born a citizen, naturally.

Period. Those ARE two different things. I'm not SAYING that citizen and "natural born citizen" mean the same thing. All natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born.

Clause 2. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen. (emphasis added)

The unresolved question for the courts to answer is what, exactly, "natural born" means, and the current cases that mention the term point towards a child of two citizen parents.

Citation to those cases please. They're all published for free on the internet. So, give us the citation of the cases that mention this and point toward the child to two citizen parents.

Been there, done that. Go read the thread and the amicus brief, then get back to me.

No. You make your own arguments. You're the one who said that they "point towards a child of two citizen parents." They don't, and the amicus brief doesn't. Supply a quote, if you've got one.

[Tyrannical]

Plain meaning and original intent. The term "natural born citizen" is analogous to "natural born subject" under English common law.

No, it wasn't.

It was derived from Emerich de Vattel's "The Law of Nations"

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?op ... ayout=html

They specifically used the wording "natural-born citizen" only for President and were well familiar with Vattel's work. Vattel's definition should stand, Obama is not a natural-born citizen by definition.

The book influenced many of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton
Swiss editor Charles W.F. Dumas sent Benjamin Franklin three original French copies of the book. Franklin presented one copy to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Franklin also said that this book by Vattel, "has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of ... #Influence

[Coito ergo sum]

...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States[/quote]James F. Wilson in: Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, Washington 1866, p. 1117.

Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition): 'Natural Born Citizen' = "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government."

Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."

Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University, stated, "There's some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That's never been the law."

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2 ... hapman.php

[Tyrannical]

Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."

Yes, considering, as Black's Law Dictionary (first published 1891) differs from the probably more correct definition in The Law of Nations (published 1758).
Which is why it will make an interesting court case

[Seth]

...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States

James F. Wilson in: Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, Washington 1866, p. 1117.

Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition): 'Natural Born Citizen' = "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government."

Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."

Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University, stated, "There's some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That's never been the law."

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2 ... hapman.php[/quote]

Well, if we look at your citation from Black's, we see reference to the following Acts of Congress:

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And 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: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed. (emphasis added)

Here we see the first mention of parentage by Congress as it relates to citizenship of a child and the use of the term "natural born Citizens" as distinguished from the term "Citizens of the United States." To be a "natural born Citizen" a child born at sea or in a foreign land must have two US citizen parents. But a child "dwelling within" the US of naturalized parents under 21 when the parents are naturalized is not a "natural born citizen," but is merely a "citizen." This presumes I think that the child was not born in the US. So, in the very first act by Congress under it's authority to set rules of naturalization, we see that a child born outside the US whose father has never been a resident is not a citizen even if the mother is a citizen, but that a child born outside the US to two US citizen parents is a "natural born citizen" regardless of the child's place of birth.

So we see that the citizenship of the father is of importance to the Congress, as was customary at the time even under English law, which is quite complex, as the amicus brief demonstrates.

The upshot is that the precise original meaning of the term "natural born citizen" is in question, and is ripe for consideration by the Supreme Court. And there's no better time to resolve the issue than now, when the facts are clear and undisputed: Obama's father was never a citizen of the United States. There is an ancillary question to be asked, which is whether Vattel's theory takes into account the phrase "whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." It is at least plausible that under the 1790 law, Obama's father's legal residence in the US pursuant to a valid student visa might have met the 1790 standard for "resident in." This might put paid to the Birther argument, but only if it's argued before the Court, and only if birth within the US to a citizen mother and a non-citizen legal resident makes the child a "natural born citizen" rather than just a "citizen."

It's a perfectly valid constitutional question of law.

Interestingly, I just saw another website that claims that Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico to two US citizen parents (Mitt's grandparents) who had fled to Mexico due to religious persecution of Mormons. The claim is that Mitt's father, George, was born in Mexico, and that under an 1882 anti-Mormon law, Mormon polygamists were stripped of their citizenship, so when Mitt's grandparents fled to (and lived out their lives) in Mexico, where George was born, George was actually a Mexican national, not an American citizen born to American parents out of the country because, the theory goes, George's parents lost their citizenship in 1882 before fleeing to Mexico in 1884.

So, we have yet another eligibility controversy to argue about.

With all due respect to Professor Rotunda, he's not a Supreme Court Justice, so his opinion is just that, an opinion, and is of no more weight than the opinion of anyone else, particularly given the fact that law professors today commonly hold strongly leftist opinions on the law and prefer to teach constitutional law as a matter of stare decisis rather than constitutional originalism. That's been going on since Woodrow Wilson's time, but the Constitution and original intent are still the foundation of our legal system.

I want the Obama case to come before the Supreme Court so it can be finally and authoritatively resolved, to prevent such controversy in the future...hopefully before the election.

Whomever is President needs to be unassailable in his qualification to hold that office in order to provide stability and political unity for the nation. These sorts of disputes do not benefit anyone.

[Coito ergo sum]

Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."

Yes, considering, as Black's Law Dictionary (first published 1891) differs from the probably more correct definition in The Law of Nations (published 1758).
Which is why it will make an interesting court case

Interestingly, the link you provided does not contain that text. I word searched it.

[Coito ergo sum]

You never fail to misread: "And 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: "

Right - they're talking about persons NOT BORN IN THE US.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth wrote, "So we see that the citizenship of the father is of importance to the Congress, ..." only in the context of a child born outside of the US.

All persons born in the US are natural born citizens, and some persons not born in the US are also natural born citizens.

[Coito ergo sum]

Interestingly, I just saw another website that claims that Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico to two US citizen parents (Mitt's grandparents) who had fled to Mexico due to religious persecution of Mormons. The claim is that Mitt's father, George, was born in Mexico, and that under an 1882 anti-Mormon law, Mormon polygamists were stripped of their citizenship, so when Mitt's grandparents fled to (and lived out their lives) in Mexico, where George was born, George was actually a Mexican national, not an American citizen born to American parents out of the country because, the theory goes, George's parents lost their citizenship in 1882 before fleeing to Mexico in 1884.

So, we have yet another eligibility controversy to argue about.

\

It's no controversy at all. Mitt's a natural born citizen. Go file suit and find out.

[Coito ergo sum]

I want the Obama case to come before the Supreme Court so it can be finally and authoritatively resolved, to prevent such controversy in the future...hopefully before the election.

Will never happen.

A person who becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization is not considered a natural born citizen. Consequently, naturalized U.S. citizens are not eligible to become President of the United States or Vice President of the United States, which would ordinarily be the case as established by the Presidential Succession Act. For example, though the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor are tenth and eleventh in the presidential line of succession, Elaine Chao and Carlos Gutierrez (respectively former U.S. Secretaries of Labor and Commerce under President George W. Bush) would have been unable to succeed to the presidency because they became U.S. citizens through naturalization. The highest-ranking naturalized citizens to have been excluded from the Presidential Line of Succession were Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright, each of whom would have been fourth in line as Secretary of State had they been natural born citizens.
Whether this restriction applies to children born to non-U.S. citizens but adopted as minors by U.S. citizens is a matter of some debate, since the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 is ambiguous as to whether acquisition of citizenship by that route is to be regarded as naturalized or natural-born. Those who argue that the restriction does not apply point out that the child automatically becomes a citizen even though violating every single requirement of eligibility for naturalization, and thus the case falls closer to the situation of birth abroad to U.S. citizens than to naturalization. This interpretation is in concert with the wording of the Naturalization Act of 1790, that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens", which does not draw a distinction between biological children and adopted children, even though the process of adoption was certainly well known at the time.[citation needed][dubious – discuss]
Some argue that the phrase "natural born citizen" describes a category of citizenship distinct from that described by the phrase "U.S. Citizen" in Article Two of the United States Constitution, and this was discussed during the constitutional convention of 1787.[19] While it is true that "natural born citizen" is not defined anywhere within the text of the Constitution and that the Constitution makes use of the phrase "citizen" and "natural born citizen," Supreme Court Decisions from United States v. Wong Kim Ark to the present have considered the distinction to be between natural-born and naturalized citizenship.
Most legal scholars believe that the phrase "natural born citizen" is derived from the works of William Blackstone and depends on the legal doctrine of Jus soli. For example, in her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, Jill Pryor wrote, "It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born."[20]
An April 2000 CRS report by the Congressional Research Service, asserts that most constitutional scholars interpret the phrase "natural born citizen" as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.[21]
Chester Arthur (born of an American mother and Irish father, purported birthplace of Canada) was sworn in as President, however his status as a "Natural born citizen" was challenged because he was born with British citizenship[22] (therefore not jus sanguinis) and it is contended, on foreign soil (therefore not jus soli). Some argue that those born abroad to U.S. citizens are not eligible to ascend to the Presidency (not jus soli), since an act of the United States Congress such as the Naturalization Act may not overrule the Constitution (see "Natural born citizen" as presidential qualification).[23] Presidential candidates George W. Romney (born in Mexico), Barry Goldwater and John McCain (born in U.S. territories), were never seriously challenged on the basis of their "natural born" citizenship, but no candidate falling under this classification has ever actually become President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ted_States

[Tyrannical]

Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."

Yes, considering, as Black's Law Dictionary (first published 1891) differs from the probably more correct definition in The Law of Nations (published 1758).
Which is why it will make an interesting court case

Interestingly, the link you provided does not contain that text. I word searched it.

Chapter XIX, paragraph 2.
The phrase is "natural-born citizen" not "natural born citizens"
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?op ... ayout=html

[Tyrannical]

And to mix things up........

Mark Rubio possible VP? Not if he isn't a natural-born citizen.

Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. Farah’s argument against Rubio’s “natural born” status relies on a strict definition also used by Farah and others who raised doubts over Obama’s eligibility. The strict definition requires that both parents be legal citizens at the time of the birth.

Rubio’s parents became naturalized citizens in 1975, but were permanent legal residents of the United States when Rubio was born, according to Rubio’s office. Rubio’s official biography has already been scrutinized, due to questions over the date his parents arrived in the United States as Cuban exiles.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... y-argument