Source: From Livefyre http://www.livefyre.com/profile/71660528/
@Dave B. @Speak2Truth @Surly Curmudgen @brian P 17
This is so hard to get wrong, yet you persist.
Prior to the Declaration of Independence, NOBODY was a Citizen of the United States. There was no United States. The ‘foreign land’ was the British Colonies in North America. The Declaration of Independence plus adherence to the Revolution made a whole lot of people into US Citizens. They were ‘Naturalized’, or Grandfathered in. That’s what Story was talking about.
There would be no Natural Born Citizens born prior to July 4, 1776. That’s why the Founders ‘grandfathered’ themselves in with that other clause. An examination of the early Presidents shows that the first 7 qualified under that 2nd clause. Martin Van Buren was the very first to qualify under the Natural Born Citizen clause.
1. George WASHINGTON – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) -was born on 22 Feb 1732 in VA.
2.John ADAMS – covered by ArticleII Grandfather Clause (GFC) -was born on 30 Oct 1735 in MA.
3.Thomas JEFFERSON – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) -was born on 13 Apr 1743 in VA.
4.James MADISON – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) -was born on 16 Mar 1751 in VA.
5.James MONROE – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) -was born in 1758 in VA.
6.John Quincy ADAMS – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC)- was born in 1767 in MA.
7.Andrew JACKSON – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) -was born in 1767 in Carolinas.
8.Martin VAN BUREN – Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -was born in 1782 in NY. This was the first President qualified under the NBC clause. He was born in the USA to two Citizen parents. His parents were original Citizens who gained their citizenship by adhering to the Revolution in 1776.
9.William Henry HARRISON – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) -was born in 1773 in VA.
10.John TYLER – Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born- was born in 1790 in VA.
11.James K. POLK – Article II (NBC) bothparents Citizens when he was born -was born in 1795 in NC.
12.Zachary TAYLOR – Article II (NBC) bothparents Citizens when he was born -was born in 1784 in VA.
And so on. After this period, all the ‘grandfathered’ folks were dead. All future Presidents had to qualify under the Natural Born Citizen clause or get into office illegally like Chester Arthur and Barack Obama.
@DrConspiracy @Speak2Truth @ScottVines
Oh, I understand what standing means, just fine.
As I said, NONE of those courts actually accepted and tried the case based on the evidence and merits. NONE of them took on the case of Presidential Eligibility under the Natural Born Citizen clause.
They “dismissed” without ever seeing the evidence. They expressed opinions without ever trying the matter.
Guess who did have standing to challenge Obama? John McCain. That may explain why Obama and other top Democrats co-sponsored McCain’s convoluted, hogwash Resolution of Eligibility, to buy his silence.
It may also explain why that same Senate could not provide Mr. Obama with a Resolution of Eligibility. They could not. Instead, the DNC helped him lawyer up to defeat any attempt at legally resolving his qualification for the office of President.
It never happened.
@Dave B. @Speak2Truth @Surly Curmudgen @brian P 17
Completely wrong.
They only became Citizens through the Revolution. That’s why they grandfathered themselves in with the clause, “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”. That’s how the first 7 Presidents qualified.
The VERY FIRST NATURAL BORN CITIZEN PRESIDENT WAS…
Martin VAN BUREN – Both parents Citizens when he was born in 1782 in NY. This was the first President qualified under the NBC clause. He was born in the USA to two Citizen parents. His parents were original Citizens who gained their citizenship by adhering to the Revolution in 1776.
@DrConspiracy @Speak2Truth @Dave B. @ScottVines
Let me ask, if you can find it – what WAS the original Presidential eligibility requirement that was REJECTED, after John Jay’s warning, and replaced with the Natural Born Citizen requirement?
When he said the office of President must be protected against foreign influence, the Founders had a pretty good idea of how to achieve that… and they did.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
In fact, if you can find ANY other definition of that term that was in the hands of the Founders, I’ll actually ‘Like” your post.
@DrConspiracy @Speak2Truth @bradfregger
The Founders received their copies in 1775, in French. It contained the correct language:
Original French: “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
Literal: “The natural, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country, of parents who are citizens”
Now, can YOU read that sentence and understand what class of Citizen it describes? The Founders obviously could. The OFFICIAL ENGLISH translation, in use to this day, corrects those earlier, not quite correct English translations.
Translated to English: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service provided a propaganda piece to cover the illegal placement of Obama in office. It is full of flaws and is self-debunking.
ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THE ACTUAL DEFINITION IS WRONG!
@DrConspiracy @Speak2Truth @bradfregger
You are intentionally misleading with your words.
It’s not a question of how one ‘acquires’ citizenship. It is what it MEANS to be a Citizen. Or the specific status of Natural Born Citizen.
“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.” – Law of Nations
One may ‘acquire’ citizenship by laws or birth – and then meet the definition of Citizen.
One may ‘be’ a Natural Born Citizen only by … being one. In accordance with what the term means.
@DrConspiracy @Speak2Truth @ScottVines
I just randomly picked another one and… .dude, have you NO intellectual integrity? It ALSO was a dismissal without hearing of evidence…
Allen v Obama C20121317 – ORDER Dismissing Complaint
Darn. I was hoping you had found the case in which Obama’s legal documents had been presented, along with arguments based on the historical definition of Natural Born Citizen known to the Founders, in order to weigh whether the guy could qualify.
Never happened, apparently. Thanks to his lawyers fighting so hard to get all those cases dismissed for lack of standing. It worked. He was allowed to take office in defiance of the 20th Amendment.
@DrConspiracy @Speak2Truth @ScottVines
Beginning with your first link:
“This court held a hearing on the defendants’ motion todismiss this action on those grounds on July 24, 2008. Based onthe arguments presented there, as well as in the parties’briefing, the court rules that Hollander lacks standing to bring this action. The court does not reach the rest of the parties’arguments, including, most notably, the question of McCain’s constitutional eligibility to be President.”
In other words, they did not take the case. They dismissed for lack of standing. That’s been the game Obama’s lawyers have counted on, as well. There was no presentation of evidence and arguments by attorneys to lead to a ruling
Ditto for the Purpura case. No trial, no evidence presented…
Did any of them allow discovery of legal documents, lawyers presenting legal basis for their positions and a proper ruling based on a proper hearing of the evidence?
Even the US Supreme Court refused to accept a challenge to Presidential eligibility based on the natural born citizen clause.
Clearly, mere birth in Hawaii cannot qualify Mr. Obama if his Father was a British Subject… which may explain why his lawyers have fought so hard to PREVENT the legal evidence from being presented in any court.
@DrConspiracy @Speak2Truth @Dave B. @ScottVines
As long as you’re poking around Wikipedia, you could read just a little further…
While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed “citizen” to “natural born citizen” without recorded explanation after receiving Jay’s letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.
Alexander Hamilton submitted his suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787
John Jay’s letter, dated July 25, 1787, cautioned the Convention to use the more restrictive Natural Born Citizen requirement.
The Natural Born Citizen alteration was committed on September 17, 1787,
In other words, the issue of merely being a Citizen, or merely being born a Citizen, had been raised and rejected. They heeded John Jay’s warning.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
Obama did not qualify. His lawyers have spent all these years fighting off anyone trying to confirm his qualifications. By ‘blocking discovery’ and by having courts reject all cases for lack of standing, they have effectively ensured Obama took the office without qualifying for it, in violation of the 20th Amendment.
Why did Obama go to all this effort? His Father was a British Subject and Citizen of Kenya when he was born, so he fails the Natural Born Citizen requirements:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
Wonderful. He may have been born, at best, a dual Citizen. (sound of one hand clapping)
But that won’t qualify him as a Natural Born Citizen. We know the definition that the Founders had in their hands for over a decade before they wrote the Constitution…
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
@DrConspiracy @Speak2Truth @ScottVines
No court has ever considered the natural born citizen requirement for the Presidency. Ever.
The Founders used the FRENCH version, starting in 1775. It states, quite clearly…
“Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
Literal: “The natural, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country, of parents who are citizens”
Can YOU figure out what class of Citizen that is defining? They sure could. So did those who provided the final, internationally standard English translation, still in use by our Supreme Court today…
Translated to English: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
If you can find “natural born citizen” in English common law, I’d like to see it. So far, nobody has presented it.
But we DO have the absolutely clear definition and we know, for a FACT, that Congress used that reference book for over a decade and it was a standard college textbook long before the Constitution was drafted. It provides the ONLY definition of the term in question.
I urge you to quote the definition of Natural Born Citizen from English common law, if you can find it.
Clearly, anything that disagrees with the definition in Law of Nations, used by the Founders, must be scrutinized for any differences…
@Dave B. @Speak2Truth @Surly Curmudgen @brian P 17
Your reading incomprehension is confirmed.
Before July 4 1776, there were NO births as Citizens, because there was NO United States, therefore nobody born before that date could be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
Washington was born a British Subject. He became a US Citizen via the American Revolution.
Washington, and the first 7 Presidents, qualified under the OTHER clause, “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”…
@DrConspiracy @Speak2Truth @Dave B. @ScottVines
Sure he did. It’s even available on Google Books. Please, learn something today.
It’s in The Works of Alexander Hamilton, page 407.
Try a Google search on the following:
“hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States” hamilton
Pity the fool who allows Authority to be his truth, rather than Truth to be his authority. In fact, if government dirtbags are doing something illegal, their own guy is the one you should trust least.
Here is an excellent writeup on this issue that also debunks Jack Maskell’s propaganda piece for the Congressional Research Service…
http://whoownsyoujoco.com/Downloads/NBC_2015_03_08.pdf
What it comes down to his this: There is only one definition of Natural Born Citizen and it is found in the internationally recognized reference book used by our government for over a decade before they wrote the Constitution…
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
This book was a standard textbook in American Universities for almost a decade before the Constitution, so this was common knowledge of the time.
@Dave B. @DrConspiracy @bradfregger
Yeah, seriously. 8 USC 1401 only deals with who is a ‘Citizen’ and never touches on Natural Born Citizen status. Clearly, Cruz may be born a Citizen and still not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen, which is defined as:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
To be clear, the 1790 Naturalization Act told us who is NOT a Natural Born Citizen per the Constitutional meaning. It created an extension, a new group of people who would be “considered as” natural born citizens – because they are not.
As Surly Curmudgen says, it was repealed just five years later and that extension is no longer in effect. All that remains is the definition the Founders knew as they wrote the Constitution:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
So far, I have found no other source of this definition aside from the reference book Congress had been using for over a decade before they wrote the Constitution. This reference book was a standard textbook in American Universities by 1780, long before the Constitution, so it was common knowledge.
@devilishangelrjp @Surly Curmudgen @ShirleyGessner @brian P 17
Actually, being born in Hawaii would only make him a citizen at birth. That is the qualifying condition first proposed by Alexander Hamilton:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
But this was REJECTED by Congress, in favor of the much more restrictive Natural Born Citizen condition, the meaning of which was clearly spelled out in the reference book used by Congress:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
Just remember – to be born a citizen is not the same thing as to be a ‘natural born citizen’. Once you figure that part out, by looking at the definition of ‘natural born citizen’, then you’ll understand why Obama’s lawyers have spent all these years fighting to block confirmation of his eligibility.
@Dave B. @Surly Curmudgen @brian P 17
Clearly, YOU HAVE NEVER READ the US Constitution. Even this article contains a photograph of the clause that made George Washington eligible.
Are you playing stupid or is this really who you are?
Here’s what the Constitution says. Let’s see if you can figure out what made G. Washington eligible…
“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…”
@Dave B. @Speak2Truth @ScottVines
Yes, in fact they did reject “born a citizen”.
Alexander Hamilton first proposed:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
Then John Jay warned Washington that only a natural born citizen should be President, to protect against foreign influence. You know, like someone born a Citizen in Canada, or someone born a Citizen whose father is a British Subject.
So, they rejected that “born a Citizen” notion and changed it to something much more restrictive…
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
@Dave B. @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12
You’re babbling absolute nonsense.
We know the definition of Natural Born Citizen, the requirement for the office of President, because it is spelled out in the reference book used by Congress, by American universities and even by our Supreme Court to this very day.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
It’s pretty hard to get that wrong. You keep talking about the common law of England but have apparently found NO definition of Natural Born Citizen there.
Might as well use the one the Founders had in their hands. They did.
@ScottVines That only makes him a Citizen, insufficient to qualify for the Presidency.
Note that the Founders REJECTED “born a Citizen” as the condition for eligibility, when Hamilton proposed it. They instead went with the much more restrictive Natural Born Citizen requirements:
“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.”
That’s the definition the Founders had in their hands when they put that requirement into the Constitution, after REJECTING mere birth as a citizen.
@Surly Curmudgen @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12
More information on this – McCain’s long form birth certificate was released by the Michael E. Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University. Here’s a little more detail…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:McCain_Certificate_of_Birth.jpg
@DrConspiracy @Speak2Truth @Surly Curmudgen @hopkinstom12
The definition of Natural Born Citizen is clearly spelled out in the reference book used by the Founders:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
We have found no other source that provides the definition of this term or the requirements to meet it.
Resolution 511 confirms John McCain meets the necessary conditions by birth under US Jurisdiction to parents who are both US Citizens. Notice, they could not do the same for Barack Obama. His Father, a non-Citizen, disqualified him, so instead the DNC provided him with teams of lawyers to “block discovery” and prevent legal resolution to the matter.
No Supreme Court case has ever considered the matter of Presidential eligibility under the Natural Born Citizen requirement, as far as I have found. They had their chance with Barack Obama but avoided the matter.
@DrConspiracy @Speak2Truth @Surly Curmudgen @hopkinstom12
I’m perfectly willing to go either way on that.
At least the Senate’s Resolution confirmed he met the conditions for Natural Born Citizen status: Born under US Jurisdiction to parents who were both American Citizens.
@Surly Curmudgen @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12
Well said – and I’m in complete agreement. There is strong evidence he was actually born in a hospital in Colon, Panama, which was not in the Canal Zone.
Notice how all those cases trying to legally resolve Obama’s eligibility were dismissed because the plaintiff lacked “standing” to bring the case?
Well, John McCain had standing to challenge Obama in court. So, Democrats made a deal with him – they gave him cover to illegally seek that office and he would not challenge Obama who could not possibly qualify even if born in the USA.
There goes the Constitution!
By the way, this site has an excellent writeup on the issue. Let’s spread it around.
http://whoownsyoujoco.com/downloads.php
@Dave B. @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12
Yes, we know that the term “natives” refers to Natural Born Citizens, just like it says in the definition.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
This is quite different from “nationals” or “citizens at birth”.
Do you have ANY intention of quoting the common law of England to support your claim? Or, are you just going to keep dancing away from it – because it does not?
Hint: To be a natural born SUBJECT to the King is exactly what the American Founders fought a bloody war to free themselves from…
@Dave B. @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12
Now, you’re being silly.
A person can be born a citizen, or a ‘national’ of the US, without being a Natural Born Citizen.
The Founders first considered Hamilton’s original proposed requirement of being born a Citizen to qualify. After Chief Justice John Jay’s caution, they went to the much more strict condition of Natural Born Citizen:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
There are only two types of Citizen recognized by the US Constitution:
1) Citizens – by birth or naturalization, all Citizens share the same Rights and privileges except eligibility for the office of President
2) Natural Born Citizen – only this class can be President
You have FAILED to quote English common law or Gray’s opinion to support your position. Because neither does. You’re just blathering, here.
@Dave B. @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12
But we’re not talking about nationality law. To be “born a citizen” is completely irrelevant to the matter. That’s the condition that was REJECTED by the Founders when they wrote the requirements for the office of President. They instead chose the much more strict condition of ‘Natural Born Citizen’, which, as far as you and I have found, has only one definition:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
Feel free to quote Justice Gray’s opinion, if you feel it supports your cause.
@Dave B. @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12
Yes, you DID say, “the term’s origin in US v. Wong Kim Ark”. Hey, that’s your strawman, not mine.
“Vattel recognized that his principles were not the principles followed in the law of England” – Exactly right.
US nationality law was never based in the common law of England. It has always been American, with heavy reference to Vattel for the meaning of terms.
WHY CAN’T YOU find any other meaning for Natural Born Citizen except the one in the reference book used by the founders? You keep posting irrelevant quotes that do not provide any alternative definition.
So far, you’ve got nothing. I’m sticking with the one and only definition that we knew, for a fact, was in their hands…
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
@Dave B. @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12
I have demonstrated that the reference book explains EXACTLY what a Natural Born Citizen is – and that the Founders were using it for over a decade before they wrote the Constitution. By 1780, it was ubiquitous in the universities around the USA.
The term clearly does not originate in the Wong Kim Ark case. It precedes that case by over a hundred years. Notice… it’s in the US Constitution and in “Law of Nations”, where the definition is provided. If you want to know the relationship of the USA and its Constitution to English common law, your primary reference is the guys who wrote the Constitution. Anyone who disagrees with them is … wrong.
You have still failed to provide ANY reference to the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” in English common law. If you’re trying to show that’s where the term is defined, then PROVIDE THE CITATION. Surely you can do that, to save your credibility… no? Since you cannot seem to find it in English common law, we turn to the reference book, used by the Founders, in which the definition is clearly stated:
“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.” – Law of Nations
@Dave B. @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12
It’s correct to say that “Law of Nations” is not US law. That would be why Congress was granted the power, via the Constitution, to ‘make law’, defining and punishing offenses against these documented international understandings.
You really need to pass a Civics 101 course to engage in this discussion.
The meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” is clearly spelled out in this reference book used by Congress as they wrote the Constitution. YOU may claim it came from English common law but you, and everyone else so far, have failed to show where it is defined in English common law.
“The common law of England is not the common law of these states.” – George Mason, author of the Bill of Rights
Lacking any evidence showing otherwise, we only have ONE definition that was indisputably in the hands of the Founders…
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
@Dave B. @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12
We know for a fact that Congress used “Law of Nations” as its reference for over a decade before crafting the Constitution.
That’s what the date, 1775, tells us. It’s when they received their copies for internal use.
We also know that the French edition (the original language) explained exactly what a Natural Born Citizen is, in the paragraph dealing with the issue of Citizens:
Original French: “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
Literal: “The natural, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country, of parents who are citizens”
In the Official English Translation, used to this day: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
So, cite the common law of England and its explanation of what a Natural Born Citizen is. I’m curious.
Yeah, Resolution 511 was crafted by Democrats and is as intentionally full of irrelevant blather as it can possibly be. However, the final “whereas” clause that recognizes McCain’s eligibility states that he does meet both of the conditions to be a Natural Born Citizen, according to the definition in “Law of Nations”:
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens [both parents are citizens, CHECK] on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone [born under US Jurisdiction, CHECK] in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” – Senate Resolution 511
All the rest of it was intended to confuse the issue, since the Senate could not give a resolution to Obama.
It’s a fair argument, that “Law of Nations” cited in the Constitution is not necessarily the book by that title. It’s also fair to point out that Congress has defined and enforced violations against “Law of Nations” (the book by that title), referring to the documented understandings in that book, since then. The US Supreme Court continues to use “Law of Nations” (the book by Vattel) to this day, as recently as the year 2012, in enforcing issues, the meaning of which are found in that book.
And there is only ONE definition of “Natural Born Citizen” that we can indisputably confirm was in the hands of the Founders as they wrote the Constitution. It’s found in the book, “Law of Nations”.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
We have searched high and low and found NO OTHER DEFINITION that the Founders would have known, nor in legislation since then.
No wonder they didn’t even argue about the meaning. It was spelled out for them.
@Dave B. @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12
Yes, we do know that the Founders absolutely did have that definition of Natural Born Citizen in the reference book, “Law of Nations”, that they had been using for over a decade before writing the Constitution.
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress…” – Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
But we seem to be confusing two different issues. Minor v. Happersett was not about Presidential eligibility, so it provides no precedent in that matter. It is about the issues you describe. The ruling did make a sidelong comment that repeated the actual definition of natural born citizen, as the Founders knew it.
Meanwhile, the requirement of Natural Born Citizen status for Presidential eligibility is easily understood by applying the clear, unmistakable definition provided in that reference book the Founders were using…
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations, Vattel
It’s fair to say that there is no court case that provides precedent on the natural born citizen issue relating to Presidential eligibility. If the Supreme Court weren’t cowards, Mr. Obama would have provided that precedent.
What we do know is the absolutely clear definition of the term that the Founders had in their hands for over a decade before writing the Constitution. It’s so unmistakably clear, there was no debate or disagreement whatsoever as to its meaning as they included it in the Constitution.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
Minor v. Happersett confirmed this definition, then said that some folks claim other meanings, about which there are doubts.
However, because the case was not about Presidential eligibility, it’s fair to say there is no court precedent and we just have to stick with the actual definition known to the Founders.
The article falsely asserts that to be born a Citizen is to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Nowhere is the difference between the two more clearly expressed than in the crafting of the US Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton first proposed that to qualify for the Presidency, one need only be born a Citizen of the United States:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
But, the Founders REJECTED this as a qualification. Instead, they applied a DIFFERENT qualification, which is that the person must be a Natural Born Citizen. Obviously, the two do not mean the same thing or they could have stuck with Hamilton’s proposal.
And we know EXACTLY what Natural Born Citizen means because we can look at the same reference book the Founders used while writing the Constitution…
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
@Alabama Independent @DavidYee @Stephen Yearwood
I am studying history. The price of things is a balancing act between availability of currency and availability of the goods that are desired, modified by the degree of desire (or need) for those goods.
For example, when Germany engaged in Quantitative Easing on a massive scale, it took a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread.
http://danielbutler.hubpages.com/hub/Financial-History-Germany-Quantitative-Easing-1920s
“Burdened by huge World War 1 Debts and a poor economy the German Government decided to print massive amounts of money in order to repay debts and to hopefully revive the economy. It all sounds very well until the government started printing excessively and increased the money supply to astronomical levels. Due to this massive money supply the currency quickly started to depreciate and the consumers had to offer up more and more notes for every day goods such as bread and milk.”
@Stephen Yearwood @Speak2Truth @Alabama Independent
Shortly after Lincoln was assassinated, the bankers worked a scheme to recover control over those Greenback Dollars and put their fiat currency back into dominance.
HISTORY of the GREENBACK
http://www.heritech.com/ymagchy/heath/heath.html
@Alabama Independent @Speak2Truth @JP1092
I’ll start with the housing market crash and how it was set up. The Clinton Administration ordered lenders to give home loans to people who really could not afford them. Barack Obama, as a lawyer for ACORN, personally sued Citibank repeatedly to force them to give bad loans. All of a sudden, there was more and more money in buyers’ hands, so buying power gained an advantage over the availability of homes.
Home sellers suddenly had more and more buyers competing for a limited number of houses and those buyers had more money. So, they jacked up the prices. The homes were bought at rapidly escalating prices. Then, when the bad loans could not be paid back, it all came crashing down.
Democrats are repeating the process with school loans, now.
Or, let’s say the government prints more and more money, handing it out to people favored by The Party. Suddenly, those people can afford lots of things that they could not before. Sellers see more money in people’s hands to buy their products, so they can raise prices.
When rich people move into a community and start buying properties, the selling price of property goes up – because there are now buyers who can afford it.
HOWEVER… if there is a greater abundance of goods because of competition, then the price goes down in order to lure in buyers who might buy someone else’s goods. Let’s say, for example, three different corporations are building mansions and each built one mansion to sell to every family in the country. Well, the price of that product is going down, in order to lure the buyers who have a lot of choice. If they can get an equivalent mansion for a thousand dollars less, they will.
It’s a balancing act between buying power and availability of the desired goods.
If everyone was a millionaire, iPhones would cost a lot more. But when buyers have less money, they’ll prefer to buy a less expensive phone, like a $40 Android.
It’s an interesting balance game.
Free market competition drives down prices. One who charges too much over what the product is really worth is undone by competitors willing to take a little less in profit, with an obvious lower limit. Everyone’s gotta make a fair living.
Putting unearned money into people’s hands drives up prices as the Democrats did with the housing market, causing the crash. Now, they’re repeating that same strategy using student loans.
At least Lincoln was solving the problem of the Federal Government having to ‘borrow’ its printed currency then pay it back with interest, resulting in a steady drain of the US economy and massive enrichment of the ‘lenders’ who run the printing presses. The Founders tried to keep us out of that trap.
@PeterLettkeman @MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth
Peter – I’m wondering whether you have seen this particular pattern.
In just about every comment section relating to Obama’s eligibility, Global Warming and a couple of other issues dear to the Left, there is always one troll who just keeps on repeating the Party line over and over. No matter how many times you show them the factual information, they’ll just keep on repeating the Democrat Party line
One must wonder whether Cass Sunstein’s goons really have been put on the job.
Okay, Mikey, that’s how a person can be a US Citizen.
But it still does not make them a Natural Born Citizen or eligible to be President.
To qualify as President, one must be a Natural Born Citizen…
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
But what you’re saying is that he can’t qualify. What disqualifies him is his father, a British subject and Citizen of Kenya.
He does not meet both conditions to be a Natural Born Citizen, which makes no allowance for a foreign parent who passes down foreign citizenship.
In fact, the Founders outright rejected the notion of a person being born a Citizen as sufficient to qualify. It was proposed, by Hamilton, and rejected.
But Obama, born to a British Subject, is not a Natural Born Citizen. He was a dual (or triple) citizen at birth.
That’s why his lawyers have spent all these years fighting to prevent any court from getting its hands on his legal birth document. With that evidence in hand, they could rule according to the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen that the Founders had in their hands:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
That’s what the term means as used in the Constitution.
So, he has prevented legal resolution of the matter and was allowed to take office without first qualifying for it. The 20th Amendment was violated.
I fully agree with your post. A lot of people are being made into Citizens who should not be.
But this is a matter completely separate from the Natural Born Citizen clause, which is the topic of this IVN article.
Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen because of his foreign Father as well as birth under foreign jurisdiction.
Barack Obama is disqualified by birth to his foreign Father.
Ditto for Marco Rubio.
But it’s not the law. It’s an unlawful practice. What you’re saying is that the Federal Government violated the law by allowing Barack Obama to take office.
Obama’s lawyers fought hard to prevent his legal qualification for office from being confirmed. It never was. Even the Supreme Court refused to take the case, likely out of fear of consequences if the law was upheld and Obama was forcefully removed from office.
What we see is called “law-breaking” or criminal behavior. That does not change the law, any more than Al Capone could by getting away with murder.
When Abraham Lincoln began the process of restoring Congressional control over the printing of currency, with the Greenback Dollar, America’s competitors in the world were not amused.
“If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” – London Times
So, the problem was corrected by shooting Lincoln dead. Let that be a warning to others.
John F. Kennedy did not heed the warning. By executive order, he began the printing of silver certificate dollars, circumventing the Federal Reserve.
So, the problem was corrected by shooting Kennedy dead. Let that be a warning to others.
Moammar Gadhafi apparently did not heed the warning. He proclaimed his nation would get the international money-suckers out of his economy by printing a Libyan currency, the Gold Dinar.
So, the problem was corrected when Obama sent our Air Force to carve a path for Islamist militants to reach Gadhafi and murder him. No trial, just straight-out murder of a foreign leader, handing his nation over to brutal Islamists. Let that be a warning to others.
Let’s see who tries to rescue their nation from the international money-suckers next!
I still don’t know what this has to do with slaves. The Natural Born Citizen requirement for the Office of President is not about slaves becoming Citizens. That’s an entirely different subject.
To be a “Citizen”, even by birth, does not qualify a person for the Presidency. The Founders rejected that when Hamilton proposed it.
You keep saying that. Can you show the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen to support your claim?
I’ve only found one definition of the term that the Founders had available to them, in “Law of Nations”, which they used as a reference book while writing the Constitution.
I’m interested in your claim. It just needs some sort of evidential backing.
Nope, just a Citizen.
The Founders considered the possibility of merely being born a Citizen.
Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
It was rejected, due to John Jay’s warning, and limited to a much more restricted class: Natural Born Citizens. That is, those who are born without a foreign parent or foreign jurisdiction to pass down foreign allegiance or nationality.
The literal definition is:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
The Constitution ensures all Citizens, whether by birth or naturalization, share the same Rights and privileges.
But, it sets aside one privilege, qualifying for the office of President or Vice President, for a much more limited class: Natural Born Citizens.
All your joking aside, the definition is clearly spelled out:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
Oh, okay. You’re only talking about someone who is considered a “citizen” by birth in the US, not a Natural Born Citizen.
So, that has nothing to do with the question of Presidential eligibility.
You have made this claim a few times. Please show where this is spelled out in law. It’s an honest request, because all I have been able to find is that a person is a “Citizen” by birth on US soil, which is not a “Natural Born Citizen”.
The Constitution is clear on the fact that the two are not the same. Only one of them gets to be President or VP.
@MikeyPalos @GlennPChickering @Speak2Truth @PeterLettkeman @hopkinstom12
Glenn? You mean Beck? Heck, even he thinks Cruz is eligible. He made the mistake of hiring Democrats into his staff of researchers, so they make a point of NOT finding the clear definition that is in the reference book used by the Founders…
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
@PeterLettkeman @Speak2Truth @MikeyPalos
That appears likely – huge problem there. It seems his resolution of eligibility was founded on a lie in order to buy his silence regarding Obama’s inability to qualify.
The scoundrels.
More precisely, he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was under US Jurisdiction from 1903 to 1979. So, he was not born under foreign jurisdiction.
You will find a lot of conflicting theories in a Google search. A lot of work was done to confuse the issue, so Obama could illegally take office (in violation of the 20th Amendment).
The ONLY spelled-out definition of “Natural Born Citizen” that the Founders had was in the reference book they were using. It’s pretty easy to understand.
“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.” – Law of Nations
For a more detailed explanation of the issue and a rebuttal to some of the false claims, read:
http://americaspeakout.com/?p=1
Well, no. A person born on US soil is only a Citizen, by birth.
To be a Natural Born Citizen is a bit different. It requires birth in the country to parents who are Citizens, so that no foreign Citizenship or allegiance is passed down to the child.
The Constitution recognizes only two classes of citizens, just as Law of Nations does.
There are Citizens (whether by birth or naturalization) and there are Natural Born Citizens.
“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.”
@MikeyPalos @PeterLettkeman @Speak2Truth
I have seen no change to the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.
Can you show me where Congress did this?
@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth @PeterLettkeman
The Constitution is still the highest law of the land. So, why would it not be applicable?
@GlennPChickering @Speak2Truth @PeterLettkeman @hopkinstom12
I agree it would be of great benefit for the Supreme Court to take on a case of Presidential eligibility, to further solidify this issue. It’s a real shame they declined to use Obama as a test case, since he would never pass as a Natural Born Citizen according to the definition in the reference book used by the Founders.
Why have so many Judges refused to even take the case?
FEAR
The Left have a nasty habit of organizing riots when it suits their agenda and you can be sure that after their ‘historic opportunity’ to put a black, Muslim Socialist into the White House, the threat of violence they hold over this nation, should he be removed, is serious.
@PeterLettkeman @MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth
“By the way being born on a military installation has never provide Jus Soli birthright citizenship. ”
Agreed.
What worked for McCain was the claim he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was under US Jurisdiction. A US military base is not.
That’s why, after all the irrelevant blather and obfuscation, the Resolution affirms his birth in the Canal Zone to American Citizens, meaning he had no foreign claim over him:
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” – Senate Resolution 511
A Non-binding Resolution is simply a resolution to a matter brought before the Senate that is not new Legislation, which would require passage by the House and a signature of the President. It is a resolution to a matter that the Senate is empowered to resolve.
@PeterLettkeman @GlennPChickering @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12
It’s an interesting read, on how one becomes a Citizen either by birth or naturalization. Neither of those is sufficient to qualify for the Presidency.
The original proposed requirement for the office of President stated:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
But the Convention rejected this, since a person born a Citizen can also be a dual Citizen, for example a person born on US soil to a British Father. Or, a person born under foreign jurisdiction to American parents.
The Founders instead heeded John Jay’s warning, limiting the office of President to only a Natural Born Citizen, which is not someone merely born a Citizen but a much more restricted class:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
But it was never dropped, for birth as a Natural Born Citizen.
I think you’re talking about a person being born as a Citizen or being naturalized, which is a different matter and is defined by various laws that have changed over the years.
But the Natural Born Citizen status was only extended once, in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was repealed in 1795. That extension, allowing those born abroad to parents who are Citizens to be “considered as” natural born citizens, was made because some of the Founders, like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, were spending years abroad as ambassadors. They expected to have their families with them. They did not want to deny their own children, born during their ambassadorial duties, the opportunity to become President.
But, this extension did not last. Wisely, Congress repealed it because such a child, born in France or Germany or wherever, would also be a citizen of that country, giving that country undue influence over a child who might become President.
I’m curious – where do you find that definition? The only one I have found is in “Law of Nations”.
I don’t really believe John McCain is a Natural Born Citizen. The Senate gave him a Resolution of eligibility because they alleged he was born in the Panama Canal Zone (US Jurisdiction) to parents who were both US Citizens, so he met the requirements of the definition. They didn’t actually refer to the definition, they just recognized that he met the requirements:
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” – Senate Resolution 511
However, I am not sure he was really born in the Canal Zone. There is a picture of his birth certificate (which may be a forgery) on the ‘net showing he was born in a hospital in Colon, Panama, which was not under US Jurisdiction. It belonged to Panama. So, he would fail the requirement of birth ‘within’ the nation.
Rubio, Cruz and Obama cannot qualify because they were born to a Foreign person.
@PeterLettkeman @MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth
The original (and only) definition is found in a reference book called “Law of Nations”, used by many nations at that time to understand international relations.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm
Benjamin Franklin received several copies in 1775, before the Revolution, for use by Congress in crafting the Declaration of Independence and, later, the Constitution.
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress…” – Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
That’s where we find the definition of Natural Born Citizen, as it was meant in the Constitution.
Original French: “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
Literal: “The natural, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country, of parents who are citizens”
Translated to English: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
After the Constitution was ratified, the Founders wrote an ‘extension’ in the Naturalization Act of 1790:
The 1790 Naturalization Act stated that “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”. This added a consideration that was NOT in the Constitutionally understood meaning, otherwise it would have been redundant. It only allowed those children to be “considered as” natural born citizens, because they are not.
The 1790 Act was repealed just five years later in 1795, eliminating that extended consideration. All that remains, since then, is the Constitutional meaning.
Law of Nations continues in use, by the US Supreme Court, in deciding Constitutional cases and cases of sovereignty.
Well, the Constitution trumps the Supreme Court – but point taken.
I think the argument for McCain was that he was born under US Jurisdiction, which the Panama Canal Zone was until the Torrijos-Carter treaty of 1977, therefore was born ‘within’ the nation. I’m not saying I agree with that.
Rubio, Cruz and Obama had a foreign Father to disqualify them.
Well, no, that just means he was born a Citizen. That’s what Hamilton proposed that was rejected by the Constitutional Convention.
A ‘natural’ citizen is one who is completely and totally a citizen of the nation, with no foreign citizenship or allegiances. Ted Cruz ‘naturalized’ by renouncing his Canadian Citizenship – because he was not born a ‘natural’ US Citizen.
The Oath of Allegiance, taken when one Naturalizes, should clear up the meaning of what it means to become a Natural Citizen…
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…” from the Oath of Allegiance
Cruz does not meet the conditions for Natural Born Citizen status. Neither do Obama or Rubio.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
Alexander Hamilton had originally proposed that mere birth as a Citizen should qualify for that office:”No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
But, thanks to Chief Justice John Jay’s warning, the Founders rejected Hamilton’s proposal and settled on the much more restrictive requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.
The meaning of that term is easily found in the reference book the Founders used while writing the Constitution…
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
@Surly Curmudgen @PeterLettkeman @VindowsXP @hopkinstom12
I think Peter was agreeing with and enhancing your statements.
I’m glad to see so many people still understand what a Natural Born Citizen really is, despite the massive propaganda campaign to change the ‘understood’ meaning of the term without ever changing the Constitution.
Barack Obama was illegally placed in office, per the 20th Amendment, as his lawyers fought to prevent his qualification from being legally resolved. It still has not been legally resolved.
The USA is currently ruled under a coup d’etat.
@PeterLettkeman >> “Ted Cruz is a naturalized Citizen as affirmed by both the opinion of the Court and dissenting opinion in Rogers V Bellei (SCOTUS) 1971.”
And that pretty well clarifies he is not eligible to be President. The Constitution recognizes only two classes of Citizen (yes, there is a ‘second class’ citizen in the Constitution).
1) Citizen. By birth or naturalization, all citizens share the same rights and privileges except eligibility for the office of President.
2) Natural Born Citizen. Only this more restricted class can become President or Vice President.
To be a mere ‘citizen’ at birth or by naturalization is insufficient to qualify.
One must be born a ‘natural’ citizen, with no foreign claim, citizenship or allegiance, to be a ‘natural born citizen’.
The very definition of natural born citizen results in exactly that condition, since it excludes anyone born to a foreigner or under foreign jurisdiction:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
Now, let’s be clear about this ‘climate change’ notion.
If you believe burning oil causes global warming and pollution, then it should matter to you whether China or the USA burns the oil. It will be used, no matter what.
So, make sure that the USA gets it because we have much stronger environmental controls on our energy production than China does. If we use it, it does LESS harm to the planet than if China uses it.
And the pipeline saves the fuel that China would have to burn to haul shiploads of the stuff over there, further improving the efficiency of this resource if it is procured by the USA.
” founder and former director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment” – umm… aren’t we supposed to be against these self-interested biased sources?
Here’s the actual analysis: “The number of people needed to operate and maintain the 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) pipeline may be as few as 20, according to the U.S. State Department, or as many as a few hundred, according to TransCanada. ”
However, note that it is limited to the jobs ACTUALLY WORKING ON THE PIPELINE.
That’s a bit like saying Microsoft job creation, with the release of Windows, is limited to the number of people actually working at Microsoft.
In reality, by ensuring America has continuing inexpensive energy resources, we ensure a robust economy and protect or create a whole lot of jobs that are NOT related to work on the pipeline.
When gas is provided reliably and domestically, OPEC can’t drive the price up to $4.50 a gallon, which drives up the cost of industry, costs jobs, makes our goods more expensive…enemies of the USA want to ‘punish’ us by forcing up domestic energy costs and ensuring the money goes to America’s competitors, such as Saudi Arabia and China.
‘Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.’ – Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu
Wise, pro-American energy policy ensures domestic resources are procured, so that enemies of the USA cannot use our dependence on them to harm or ‘punish’ us for not doing their will.
Some folks have claimed Saudi Arabia backed the 9/11 attacks. Those people should be screaming most loudly in favor of the Keystone pipeline, domestic coal and GW Bush’s Hydrogen Energy development plan. Note that whenever Americans push for more domestic control over their energy production, Democrats and Saudis conspire to undermine that effort.
Be careful with the personal attacks and smears. It’s against IVN posting rules.
What effect comes from America securing an abundant energy resource, from which we can produce refined products to sell to other nations or use ourselves?
Alternatively, what effect comes from delivering that resource to other nations, obligating us to BUY the products from them? It makes us dependent on them, which no national leader wants for his own nation.
Note, that’s the situation the former British Colonies were in, under British rule. Forcing the colonies to deliver raw materials to England, then buy the finished products from England, kept the colonies in poverty and dependence. Some folks, who have openly expressed their hatred of American prosperity, are trying to get us back into that mess.
The low-cost oil, around $50 a barrel, with a steady supply, is what we need to get free of Saudi control over our energy. Instead of making us MORE dependent on foreign suppliers like China, we can become LESS dependent on them by making THEM buy from US.
No, we do not want to be one of their biggest customers, as Mr. Obama crowed when he moved Brazil into our productive oil territory off the coast of Louisiana. We want it the other way around.
Oh, Steyer’s hypocrisy is on display for all to see. If someone is exposing it, more power to ’em. I did not even know about it until yesterday so thanks for inspiring me to do some research.
As for poisoning our environment, that’s rather a buzz-word approach to a complicated technical situation. Bear in mind that the fuel will be consumed. The question is whether we use it or China does, leading to a thoroughly considered estimation of the quality of life you want.
The Leftists blocking American access to these low-cost energy resources, sending them instead to China, are actively working to bring down your quality of life. They are not secretive about it:
“The need for de-development [of the United States] presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential” – John Holdren, Science Czar to Barack Obama
Detroit provides a good illustration. They turned it from a prospering capitalist society, home of the arts and Motown music, into a ruin. That ‘low consumption’ economy is the natural result of their pillaging the wealth for themselves and living a ‘high consumption’ lifestyle with the loot. Look at Al Gore.
GW Bush deserves credit for initiating a 12 year plan to wean the US off petroleum and other carbon-based fuels, to make America energy independent by converting it to a Hydrogen fuel economy. Working with the EU and Iceland to standardize the infrastructure, he got major energy corporations and vehicle manufacturers to contribute their own assets to developing it all, with minimal cost to the taxpayers.
That’s what drove Democrats ballistic in the early 2000’s. He was yanking the rug out from under their carbon-tax pillaging scheme. He was providing a nationwide SOLUTION to the problem, which would have eliminated any need for all the billions of tax dollars they pillage and shovel into their Party-supporting corporations like Solyndra, Brightsource, etc. Once they took control of Congress in the 2006 election, they derailed the clean Hydrogen infrastructure development and accelerated their “Green” pillaging schemes.
Just think – GW Bush’s plan would have made the USA the world leader in clean, abundant, inexpensive energy.
We would be compleat idiots to kill off our own sources of inexpensive energy and hand them over to China. If not idiots, then genuinely working in the interests of foreign nations and against the USA – traitors.
If you’re referring to the Tom Steyer bit, I did a quick search and came up with…
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/the-epic-hypocrisy-of-tom-steyer.php
Billionaire hedge fund operator and “green” energy magnate Tom Steyer has pledged $100 million in the 2014 election cycle to help Democratic candidates who oppose the Keystone pipeline and who favor “green” energy over fossil fuels. Steyer claims to be a man of principle who has no financial interest in the causes he supports, but acts only for the public good. That is a ridiculous claim: Steyer is the ultimate rent-seeker who depends on government connections to produce subsidies and mandates that make his “green” energy investments profitable. He also is, or was until recently, a major investor in Kinder Morgan, which is building a competitor to the Keystone pipeline.
@RandyScott(PartyOfOne) I do want big-money donors providing support for the defense of the American System.
Political parties are inevitable. People with a common agenda will rally together to effect that agenda. Socialists will rally together to pillage the USA. Liberal (capital “L”) people will rally together to defend the Constitution and their Liberty and to fight back against the pillagers.
Even during the Revolution, there was a sharp divide between people seeking the rule of law and fairness versus those backing the King and the notion that power and pillaging was a benefit to themselves. The Tories did not vanish after the Revolution. They continue working to “fundamentally transform” this nation back into what the Revolution was fought to eliminate.
The Constitution, if enforced, should be immune to political parties. The Rule of Law, if absolute, prevents any party from taking this nation in a lawless direction. All that is lacking is the will to enforce it.
It may be that the Republican establishment is trying to squash some good conservative candidates – but I can see no reason to vote for the Socialists who are actively trying to destroy the USA.
This whole fuss about the Koch Brothers is simply a game out of Saul Alinsy’s “Rules for Radicals”. It’s like Hitler keeping the focus on “jews” or any other Leftist playing that “personalize it, freeze it and never stray from the target” game.
“The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.” – Adolf Hitler
I could never vote for the Socialists and their “de-development” agenda because I consider myself an American with a duty to defend our nation and Constitution against them.
Yes, it is abundantly clear that you and I are in two different dimensions. Well stated.
” leading scientific organizations” – such as the American Physical Society, where George Soros has a leadership position and scientists are resigning in disgust over the loss of scientific integrity.
NASA is also under close Government control, with its resources being diverted to “Muslim Outreach” and AGW propaganda. As Obama has dictated, all government agencies are now to frame their budgets and activities in terms of climate change.
That’s exactly what Dwight Eisenhower was warning about – scientific institutions being corrupted by Government funding and control.
It appears someone has been pulling your leg…
Naomi Oreskes claims consensus on AGW. Review of published scientists shows less than half endorse it, greater number reject it.
97% claim is false.
http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
When scientists are punished for speaking the truth, it is no longer science, it is called ‘consensus’.
Well, I’m glad to see the Republican Party has some financial backing too, just as the Democrats have Soros pouring our redistributed tax dollars into their coffers.
As for “global warming”… boy, that’s a whole different argument. I’m pretty sure you won’t understand the science behind it but let’s just be clear on this – scientists who speak out against the propaganda game are losing their jobs. The rest of them want to keep their jobs. That’s how ‘consensus’ is manufactured when science is bought and paid for by government.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.” – Dwight Eisenhower
“All modeling efforts will inevitably converge on the result most likely to lead to further funding.” – software engineer Charlie Martin
Wow, that’s a lot of anger at information. Cognitive Dissidence, even.
Well, since you seem uninterested in supporting evidence, aside from that already provided, I suppose there shall be no further examination of this issue.
Are you asking for a long list of links to all this stuff, aside from the links provided?
Or, do you have something specific you want more information on?
Soros is the billionaire financier of all sorts of Leftist activities (MoveOn.org, Open Society Foundation, etc) and has quite a crooked history. He buys politicians and has them do the dirty work of moving a country’s assets into his pockets.
Notice, he’s the guy introducing Barack Obama as a Presidential candidate. He’s right there, sitting by the stairway with his hand on the railing.
http://images.nymag.com/news/politics/obama070423_1_560.jpg
Barack Obama shut down some oil drillers in the Gulf of Mexico (bankrupted Seahawk Drilling) then invited Brazil to move in and tap oil off our Louisiana coast. Soros is a big investor in PetroBras, the Brazilian company Obama invited in.
Soros has bought and paid for a bunch of NPR reporters to manage the political reporting from that network.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28970
Soros has bought and paid for the Secretary of State project, to ensure the people responsible for elections across the USA answer to him and his agenda. Well, his people didn’t all get into office but he sure tried.
Soros is the guy who, with his cohorts, “broke the bank of England”, causing economic havoc there and raking in the loot.
He was convicted of insider trading in 2002 in France and ordered to repay about $2.9 million.
“The foreign ministers of the 10 ASEAN countries believed that the well co-ordinated manipulation of their currencies was a deliberate attempt to destabilize the ASEAN economies. Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad accused George Soros of ruining Malaysia’s economy with “massive currency speculation“. Soros claims to have been a buyer of the ringgit during its fall, having sold it short in 1997.”
Note that he seems to have meddled in, crashed and pillaged the economies of other nations before targeting the USA.
Soros, who is no scientist, was somehow given a leadership in the American Physical Society that has been spewing global warming alarmism instead of science. Prominent scientists such as Hal Lewis and Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever, have resigned in disgust. Soros invests in corn used for ethanol, where our tax dollars are poured so he can profit at our expense while destroying our food production capability. He invests in ethanol produced in the Amazon, hastening destruction and desertification of the Amazon Jungle.
“The European Union has mandated a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, mandating that 10 percent of all vehicles be powered by biofuels. Government spends tax dollars, toward this end, on the investments of George Soros in this market. Consequence: Vast amounts of Amazon rain forest are destroyed for soybean and sugar cane cultivation to produce biofuels. Brazil announced that deforestation was on track to double in 2009″ – John Truman Wolfe
Soros invests in the Bank of Colombia that launders money for drug cartels – and bankrolls pot legalization efforts in the USA. Colorado legalizes and the Colombians start moving product into the USA, draining cash out of our economy into Soros’s pockets, along with his buddies the criminal drug cartels.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/colombians-move-into-colorado-marijuana-business/
I could go on all night about this guy.
Soros and his cronies are meddling just about everywhere, infiltrating governments, manipulating politicians, preying upon nations and pillaging them.
The Left have been systematically attacking those who contribute to Conservative (pro-American) causes. They REALLY want to know who those contributors are, so they can boycott their businesses, bring busloads of union thugs to scream on their front lawns, use the IRS to harass them, get them fired from their jobs…
Either get the Leftists out of power or protect the identities of those trying to defend America’s principles and Constitution.
I’m okay with Koch Bros doing well and using their assets to fight the Leftists. What annoys me is George Soros, who has Government funneling our tax dollars and assets into his coffers so he can fund the Leftist operations in this country that are bleeding this nation dry.
This isn’t the first nation he and his cohorts pillaged.
I’d rather see the entrepreneurs succeed than the blood-sucking Leftists.
The Big Spenders are unions, many of which have dues money forced from members into their political coffers. No wonder they try to stop private business folks from doing the same – they want union political money to control the political arena.
Koch Brothers Way Down The List Of Top Political Donors – A List Dominated By Democrats
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
So, with it firmly established that Obama was born to a foreign person who conferred foreign citizenship on Obama at birth… there’s no possible way he can meet the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen.
“The natural, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country, of parents who are citizens”
The main problem with this article is that it pretends that a Natural Born Citizen is merely a citizen at birth. This is simply not the case. The entire argument springs from this initial falsehood.
The Founders used a legal reference titled “Law of Nations” since 1775 as they crafted the new nation.
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations.” – Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
This documentation of international law was so important that it is mentioned by title within the text of the Constitution itself, where Congress is granted the power:
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;” – US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
It has been referenced by the Founders, by Congress and even by the Supreme Court as a legal foundation for deciding cases, such as the Dred Scott case in 1859. It’s authority is recognized even today:
“For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations” — Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 — Supreme Court 2004
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court, “The law of nations, as understood by Justice Story in 1824, has not changed” — United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 US 655 — Supreme Court 1992
This legal reference provides the definition of Natural Born Citizen so clearly that it is impossible to get it wrong unless one really tries to. That’s why the Founders saw no need to debate the meaning and NEVER said they were leaving the meaning up to other people to decide later. It’s spelled out:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
Even if he was born a citizen, that is not enough to qualify for the Presidency. Obama knows this. It’s why his teams of lawyers have fought all these years to keep his legal birth certificate out of a courtroom.
The legal definition known to the Founders disqualifies Obama because his Father was a British Subject and a Kenyan citizen:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
@PeterLettkeman @simbasrealdaddy
More about the 1790 Naturalization Act:
It asserts that children born overseas to American Citizens shall be “considered as” natural born citizens. Meaning, they are not, in the Constitutionally understood definition.
It was repealed five years later and such children were demoted to the status of mere Citizen, which does not qualify them for the office of President.
All that is left is the legal definition known to the Founders as they wrote the Constitution:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
Obama was born to a Father who was a British Subject and a citizen of Kenya. That’s why he can’t meet the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
Obama knows this. His teams of lawyers have fought desperately to keep his legal birth certificate out of a courtroom all these years. He knows he can’t qualify.
Nope, it’s just fact and reason.
The fact is that the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen excludes Ted Cruz, Barack Obama, Marco Rubio…
The Founders had it in their hands as they wrote the Constitution. It requires birth within the nation to parents who are citizens of the nation.
In other words, it makes such irrefutable, factual sense that you can’t figure out how to escape it.
You seem to be suffering what we call cognitive dissidence.
Well, at least you’re admitting it.
I’m glad to help you learn something new today.
I’ll reiterate: Congress was empowered with violations against certain international laws and understandings, documented in “Law of Nations”.
If, today, Congress was empowered to deal with violations of the Geneva Conventions, they would refer to the documented Geneva Conventions to do so.
That’s why Law of Nations was referred to by title in the Constitution. And they DID refer to it, in their legal writings.
Even Chief Justice John Jay, who warned Washington that only a Natural Born Citizen should be President, referred to Vattel’s works in his legal writings.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the profound importance of of Law of Nations in founding this nation. Just as Benjamin Franklin told you.
Yes, it’s the actual Law of Nations. Guess what – it was written down. The Founders had several copies of it while they were writing the Constitution.
It’s as if, today, we empowered Congress to deal with violations of the Geneva Conventions. Same thing – there is a written text for them to refer to.
Natural Born Citizen status is clear – it is birth to American citizens under American jurisdiction so that there is no foreign claim over the person. The purpose, as stated, is to prevent foreign influence in the office of President.
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;” – US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
Perhaps you should try reading the Constitution sometime.
The Constitution (US Law) requires the status of Natural Born Citizen for the Presidency. The definition is in the legal reference used by the Founders, Law of Nations. It was critical to the crafting to the crafting of the new nation.
Benjamin Franklin can explain it to you…
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations.” Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
Law of Nations was even cited by the Supreme Court in issues regarding Citizenship, as late as the Dred Scott decision of 1856.
Law of Nations is so fundamental to the US Constitution that it is named in Article 1, Section 8.
It is so critical to US nationality that it is cited by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case.
Natural Born Citizens are those born in the country to American Citizens. Mere birth on US soil may, if a parent is foreign, also convey dual citizenship which would disqualify one from Natural Born Citizen status.
To understand what a Natural citizen is, look at the Naturalization oath. One must renounce all foreign citizenship and allegiance to become a Natural citizen. A person born without those foreign ties is Natural Born.
@PogueMoran @SunnydSmiles @PatrickJColliano
Didn’t you ever read the Wong Kim Ark case? It actually says that a person born on US soil is only a Citizen. It says that a natural born citizen is one born to a citizen parent (since only the Father passed down citizenship at that point).
Wong Kim Ark: “and his child … ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’ ”
Notice how it does include parentage in the natural born status.
Natural Born Citizen literally means a person born without foreign parents or foreign jurisdiction to pass down foreign citizenship.
When a person ‘Naturalizes’ as a US Citizen, they do so by renouncing all foreign Citizenship, becoming completely and totally an American Citizen. A person born in that condition is a Natural Born Citizen.
@Dave B. Yes, it is the correct code to apply to his Citizen status. But it has nothing to do with Natural Born Citizen status. It only addresses the status of Citizen.
The legal definition of Natural Born Citizen is found in the book of international law the Founders used as a reference while writing the Constitution. They had several copies, in the original French, and refer to these frequently. It is even named directly within the text of the US Constitution in Article 1, Section 8.
Original French: “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
Literal: “The natural, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country, of parents who are citizens”
Translated to English: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
@PogueMoran @grf1939 Vattel’s book of international law was so important, it is reference by name in the text of the Constitution.
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;” – US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
Congress is granted the power to deal with violations of the Law of Nations. And where is the legal definition of “Natural Born Citizen” found? In the Law of Nations.
Ben Franklin received several copies that he says were critical for use while building the new nation:
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations.” – Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
It was also critical to understanding Citizenship issues. So important, in fact, that the Supreme Court references it in the Dred Scott case as late as 1856.
@Dave B. Being born a US Citizen is to be a ‘Citizen’. The Constitution does not allow that to qualify one for the Presidency.
A ‘Natural Born’ Citizen is one who has no foreign allegiance or citizenship, such as is passed down by a foreign parent or birth under foreign jurisdiction. That’s why the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen, in the legal reference used by the Founders, states
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations, translated to English
@MEL Maskell’s CRS propaganda piece was full of holes, all right. He wrote it to give cover to the illegal placement of Barack Obama in office. The 20th Amendment requires that the president-elect ‘qualify’ before being placed in office. If he does not, the vice-president elect is to be President until that qualification is fulfilled.
Barack Obama’s lawyers have fought all these years to prevent his qualification from being confirmed. He was illegally placed in office.
As for Maskell – that idiocy about a person born abroad of two Citizen parents qualifying comes from the 1790 Naturalization Act. It only says that such a person shall be “considered as” a natural-born citizen, not that they are. It was repealed five years later. So, all that is left is the meaning in the Constitution that does NOT include such persons.
The Constitutional meaning was spelled out in “Law of Nations” by Vattel Congress had several copies, in French, that they used as a reference while building the new nation.
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations.” – Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
The definition requires birth in the country to parents who are citizens of the country. Why?
A ‘Natural’ Citizen is one who is completely and totally a citizen of the country. A person who is born that way has no foreign parent or birth under foreign jurisdiction to convey foreign citizenship or allegiance. ‘Natural Born’ means born completely without foreign entanglements.
That’s why Obama could not qualify – his Father was a British subject and citizen of Kenya. It’s who Cruz can’t qualify – he was born in Canada to a Cuban Father. It’s why Marco Rubio can’t qualify – his Father also was not a US Citizen when he was born.
Here’s where you go wrong.
A ‘Natural’ Citizen is one who has no foreign legal claim, such as foreign Citizenship. When a person ‘Naturalizes’ as an American, they do so by renouncing all foreign loyalties and citizenship. That is the meaning of ‘Natural’ – to be completely, totally and ONLY a Citizen of this one nation.
To have that status at birth is to be a Natural Born Citizen. That means no foreign parent and no birth under foreign jurisdiction to convey foreign nationality.
This fits perfectly with the legal definition the Founders of the USA had in their legal reference when crafting the Constitution:
In French: “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
Literal, word-by-word: “The natural, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country, of parents who are citizens”
Later translated in the English version: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
The Founders had several copies of “Law of Nations” in their hands to use as a reference when writing the Constitution. George Washington signed one out from the New York Society Library and Benjamin Franklin had received several more:
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations.” – Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
The Law of Nations was the key legal guideline for the US Constitution. It is mentioned by name in the Constitution where Congress is granted the power:
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;” – US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
Law of Nations, scribed by Emerich de Vattel, was as critical to understanding international law and understandings then as the Geneva Conventions were more recently. It was cited frequently by the Founders in their legal writings, by Chief Justice John Jay, and even by the Supreme Court as late as the Dred Scott case of 1856.
It’s pretty easy to see why the Founders did not need to debate the meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’ when writing the Constitution. It was spelled out so clearly that it’s impossible to get it wrong.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
@DrConspiracy @Dave B. @Speak2Truth @ScottVines
“The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.” –James Wilson, Of the Study of Law in the United States, 1790
Original French: “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
Translated to English: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations
Have you found ANY OTHER DEFINITION that was in the hands of the Founders?
NOPE.
Anyone who disagrees with the actual definition of the term is… wrong.
5 hours, 35 minutes ago on Defining Natural-Born Citizen: The Debate Over Who Qualifies To Run For President