Editorial
Mitt Romney birthright red herring
Flying rumors saying that Mitt Romney is a Mexican national are false and misleading. Mitt Romney is a natural-born citizen of the United States. As such he is fully eligible to the office of President of the United States.
Mitt Romney – bio
Former Governor Mitt Romney at a townhall in Sun Lakes, Arizona. Photo: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0 Generic License
Mitt Romney on Sunday (January 8) reminded an audience of Latin voters that his father was born in Mexico. (Source: Univisión, cited by New America Media.) He is looking ahead to competing with Barack H. Obama for Latino votes. (Latinos favor Obama 2 to 1 over Romney at last report.) This has led some commentators on some social networks to say that Mitt Romney either:
- Is not a natural-born citizen, or else:
- Is such a citizen, and Obama must also be a citizen on the same grounds.
Neither remark is correct. (It also led NBC’s news division to say that “Mitt Romney is a poster boy for the DREAM Act,” according to the Media Research Center.)
Mitt Romney’s father, George W. Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, in one of the original Mormon Colonies of Mexico. George’s grandparents had fled the United States to avoid prosecution for polygamy. George’s parents were Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt. Both were citizens of the United States at the time of George Romney’s birth. The Romneys returned to the United States in 1912 to flee the violence of the Mexican Revolution.
Thus George Romney was a citizen-at-birth of the United States by jus sanguinis, or the Law of the Blood. He did not need to apply for naturalization.
Mitt Romney was born in 1947, the son of George Romney and Lenore LaFount. She was born in Utah to two American citizen parents. Thus when Mitt Romney was born, both his parents were citizens, and he was born in-country.
Question of citizenship
Is Mitt Romney a natural-born citizen? Absolutely. According to Emmerich de Vattel, a natural-born citizen is one:
- Born in-country
- To two citizen parents.
The parents do not have to be natural-born citizens. They need only be citizens at the time of the subject’s birth.
By this analysis, George W. Romney was not a natural-born citizen. Thus the Republican Party was mistaken in letting him seek the nomination for President of the United States in 1968. He lost to Richard M. Nixon. He then challenged Spiro T. Agnew for the Vice-Presidential nomination, and lost that battle, too. Therefore, no one challenged the elder Romney, and after he lost both nominations, his citizenship became a non-issue.
Can Barack H. Obama make the same claim? No. Barack Hussein Obama, Senior, was a British colonial subject. He did not seek naturalization before the younger Obama was born. Whether he does (or can) prove that he was born in-country, or not, is a moot point.
Activist Donald R. Laster explained his research to CNAV:
There are three kinds of citizens: natural-born citizens, statutory citizens, and naturalized citizens. Of these three, only the natural-born citizen is eligible to be President. And no such thing as dual natural-born citizenship can possibly exist.
The common birthright-citizenship principle of jus soli (Law of the Soil) derives from English Common Law and is not universal. Germany is one country that does not use it. Jus sanguinis is an explicit statutory principle in American law. But natural-born citizens are a special class, and natural law defines that class.
Senator Claire McCaskell (D-MO) tried to re-define a natural-born citizen by statute. (See S. 2678 [110th] on Gov.Track.Us.)
Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen’ in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States shall include: `Any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces’.
That bill never became law. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was also not a natural-born citizen. He lost, of course, and so his citizenship is now moot. Barack H. Obama won, and so his citizenship is still an active issue, under active litigation.
Related:
Obama eligibility challenges go forward
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /][subscribe2]
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
-
Clergy4 days agoFaith alone will save the country
-
Civilization2 days agoElon Musk, Big Game RINO Hunter
-
Civilization5 days agoDr. Jay Bhattacharya Will Rebuild Trust in Public Health
-
Civilization5 days agoFreewheeling Transparency: Trump Holds First Post-Election News Conference
-
Civilization3 days agoLegacy media don’t get it
-
Constitution21 hours agoBiden as Feeble Joe – now they tell us
-
Executive2 days agoWaste of the Day: Mismanagement Plagues $50 Billion Opioid Settlement
-
Civilization5 days agoWhat About Consequences? Are Democrats Immune?
Well done Terry. You provided a concise explanation of the difference between Romney and Obama in terms of birth status.
(Whether there is much difference in their politics is another matter…)
Dan
I’ll bet Romney can produce an authentic birth certificate.
Didn’t activist Donald L. Laster’s research also play a major role in a legal challenge to the ACA that was so flawed that courts at all three levels of the federal judiciary refused to hear it? Maybe we should consider setting the bar slightly higher when it comes to sources of legal research.
The Supreme Court challenge is still active.
Terry……..the supremes case is still active on romney? Really? Please, tell me that’s true, so, I can get a few minutes sleep tonight. TY
I was talking about a different case. See the Home Page for the most recent disposition.
Got that, Terry, right after I posted. Very sorry!!!!!
The Government defaulted and the District and Circuit Court violated the rules and law to avoid having to rule against the Government. When one looks at the Third Circuit you find that they regularly ignore challenges based upon the Constitution. The Supreme Court appears to be running away from the case since the filings clearly show where the Courts broke the law and violated procedures. And the filings show exactly where the Constitution was violated.
Remember, early on after the initial filing the government said they would answer each count and prove it meritless. Yet they never answered and the Courts covered up for them. The research was so-right-on the Courts did everything they could to avoid the case. Take a look at the case files. They can be found at
link to jerseyshoreteaparty.org
Why are you using Vattel to define what a natural born citizen is? Is Vattel a valid source for interpreting U.S law? Black’s law dictionary is one of the most widely used law dictionary in the United States and it has a different interpretation of a natural born citizen than Vattel does.
Black’s law dictionary is not the source of the definition. The Supreme Court from 1814 through at least 1939 have cited Vattel as the source of the definition of natural born citizen in at least 6 or 7 major cases. And history shows the Law of Nations is the source of the definition. This is what the writers of the US Constitution used. You have to use the correct dictionary.
Do you know of any modern law dictionaries that use Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen?
Citations, please. Preferably in Bluebook format, but I’d also accept ALWD.
Sorry, I should have Googled before I posted.
What on earth does a Swiss, who died in 1767 (when the US was still a colony) without setting foot in the US, have to do with US law?
Also, your quote in your article is wrong. de Vattel did not define “natural born citizen” as “Born in-country to two citizen parents.”
The actual quote translates as: “”The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”
But once again – why are you referring to a long-dead Swiss? Because you like his definition of it?
hat about the Supreme Court v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Guess what – and know it’s something you keep “forgetting to mention” – Obama’s mother is an American. Ego, he is a natural-born citizen.
What you fail to realize is that from the beginning the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have regarded Vattel’s Law of Nations as the common law for federal controversies. Various States might use English Common Law, Louisiana uses French, and in the American Southwest you see Spanish law, but for the federal government and the USA as a whole, we have a uniquely American body of common law, and Vattel, not Black, is its basis.
In which parrallel universe do you blog from? Give me one single example where Vattel has ever been used to decide a Supreme Court case. Anything. He may have got a passing mention once, but the statement that Vattel is the basis of US federal law is not even wrong. Vattel is an obscure 18th century legalist that nobody had heard of until birthers latched onto his definition of citizenship. You would think that a guy who is suppose to be the basis of US law would be better known, he would be read in school, but no is almost completly ignored. English common law on the otherhand is explicitly cited in the decision ofn US vs Wong Kim Ark. The Congress of Confederation explicitly stated that US territories would follow judicial proceeding according to common law.
The Venus (1812), Minor v. Happersett (1847), and Perkins v. Elg. There. I just named three.
If you could kindly point out where in Perkins v Elg or Minor v Happersett Vattel is cited I would be most grateful, by cited I mean use his name, not this bit looks vaguely like what Vattel said. Minor v Happersett once again cites common law as the definition of natural-born citizenship.
Congratulations on finding a citation of Vattel, there are in fact 38 in total before 1820, but this has to do with a ship that could be construed as being either from the US or Great Britain, that is international law not US domestic law. Hugo Grotius is also cited, does his works also form the basis of US law? Such a situation these days would be decided by a UN agreement regarding shipping and so citation of such philosophers would not be needed now. I also asked for a case where Vattel was used to decide the case, Vattel was used here largely for definitions. The case was decided heavily on previous rulings by Sir William Scott – an English judge – some of which postdate the American revolution.
And the pre-Amendment 14 Dred Scot also references the source of the term natural born citizen. There are something like 6 or 7 major decisions that reference what a natural born citizen is.
Dred Scott is null and void, a civil war and two constitutional amendments made sure of that.
The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment gave a new and more expansive definition of a citizen-at-birth. They did not expand the definition of a natural-born citizen.
There is no defintion of natural born citizen in US law, not in the constitution, not in any legislation, you are splitting hairs based on rephrasing of the same concept. You can rearrange the words into different orders, but you can’t find one Supreme Court case where they ruled ”this person is a citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen”, because they are the same thing. The court, at least since the 14th was passed, has just used a straight forward jus soli principal.
You clearly forget the role of common law. Common law is the foundation of any written document. Every American legal system has a common-law foundation, to which courts resort when neither statute nor constitution nor city charter treats a given subject. In the case of natural-born citizenship, the courts rely on common law. And the common law they have consistently relied upon is a uniquely American common law. And its basis is Vattel’s Law of Nations.
You forget that in Van Ness v Pacard 1829 the opinion of the court clearly states that US common law has been adapted from English common law. The court completly fails to mention the great Vattel.
James K wrote
1. Guess what – and know it’s something you keep “forgetting to mention” – Obama’s mother is an American. Ego, he is a natural-born citizen.
Slock writes:
I can answer this if you follow Vattel’s writings Natural born citizen lineage follows the fathers side not the mothers side. I find this view dated and maybe even sexist. Even the English monarchy rules of succession have changed allowing first born daughters over latter born sons in the lines of succession.
The fact that his mother was a citizen does not make Mr Obama a natural born citizen. It means, from everything I have read so far, is that regardless where he was born he would still be a US citizen – statutory not natural born.
Natural born is like a tripod. One must be born in the country, the mother must be a citizen of the country at the time of birth and the father must be a citizen of the country at the time of birth. Mr Obama’s father was never a US citizen. So at best Mr Obama has 2 legs of the tripod. Birth in country and mother a citizen of the country.
From research
———————
But what does the term “natural born citizen” mean? When one does the research we find the treatise “Law of Nations” written by Monsieur De Vattel and published in 1758 is the source and legal definition of the term. This is the document that was known to those who wrote the Constitution of the United States of America. In Book 1, Chapter 19, Paragraph number 212 it states in French
Les Naturels, ou Indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de Paren Citoyens.
In the 1760 English translation of this work this sentence is translated as
Its natives are those who are born in the country parents who are citizens.
The later translations translate this sentence as
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The word French word “Indigènes” is the English “Indigenous”. The word was adopted in to the English language and “anglicized”. The word has the meanings
1. Native; born in a country; applied to persons.
2. Native; produced naturally in a country or climate; not exotic; applied to vegetables.
when one examines the dictionaries of the time.
This is the first indication of what the term “natural born citizen” means.
——————
The full document can be found here
link to thepostemail.com
I’d be more inclined to believe your research, if it didn’t come from another right wing blog. Especially one with “Barry Soetoro” in the tag list.
Please show me one major newspaper (hint, that’s not WND) that’s covering this story, from the right’s point of view.
That is cute. Do you really believe that newspapers have ever been objective purveyors of the news? Newspapers in the Western world began with The Roman Senate Journal (editor-in-chief: Gaius Julius Caesar, Consul). Since then, they have been government organs or party organs. That’s what they always were in this country. Then came the big Progressive publishers like Arthur L. Ochs and his son-in-law Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Senior (“Punch”) and Junior (“Pinch”) (The New York Times), the Grahams and the Bradlees (The Washington Post), and others too numerous to name. They all had agendae, and they still have those same agendae.
Your preference for these old-line Progressive organs betrays your allegiance, and that is to Progressive gatekeepers who arrogate to themselves to decide what is, and what is not, fit to print or show. Well, understand this: a new wave of publishers, including me, are out to crash the gate. Get out of the way if you don’t want a shard of flying glass to slash you. And don’t talk to me about journalistic standards.
Terry, writing a blog doesn’t make you a journalist.
Likewise, if it was an issue – after all, we are talking about the eligibility of the President and possible fraud here – don’t you think the media networks would all be trying to scoop each other? Fox certainly would.
Sadly, all I see coming from the birthers are rambling conspiracy theories, which you yourself fall prey to, by muttering darkly about Progressive publishers.
Just face it – there is no controversy and there is no conspiracy. There’s just a man you hate in the White House.
Fox doesn’t understand the issue. Yet. The rest of them are in the tank for Obama and have been in the tank for Progressivism and its ideas for a hundred years or more. Progressivism is a collection of bad ideas, not merely a cabal of evil men. Those who promote it uncritically are just as bad as the practitioners.
You are making an assumption about how I research and you know what happens when one assumes. I did not depend upon WND or any other blog source which you imply. I did my own research. Obviously, you can not accept the definition of what a natural born citizen is.
For the record – I started with a web search and then I downloaded and read the relevant Supreme Court decisions, I found and printed Law of Nations – it is only about 600 pages or so. Got the original French and English translations. I looked up the existing laws, etc. In short I did real research. The document I wrote is the result of the research. And if you took the time to read the document you will notice that I pointed out that John McCain is not a natural born citizen either.
The Progressive Media is to scared to cover the story. And if was not for the constant attacks on “Birthers” I would never have started my research. And it was DEMOCRATS – Hilliary Clinton’s campaign that challenged Mr Obama because he was not a natural born citizen in the first place. In other words – one Progressive/Marxist challenging another Progressive/Marxist because of the rules and requirements.
The is a saying “Where there is smoke there is fire”. And while I would oppose Mr Obama due to his Marxist philosophy, yes I researched him as well and even considered voting for him, I would not be challenging his illicit election if he were a natural born citizen.
James F, What do you think a newspaper is? It is a blog that happens to be published on paper and distributed. If the INTERNET was available back in the 1700 and 1800s they would have used it. And the pamphlets (basically single pages) that many things were distributed on were just that – a blog.
John McCain is a natural born citizen. Below is the senate resolution
S.Res.511 – A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen
A Senate Resolution can never suffice for a thing like that.
You can not make someone a natural born citizen after the fact. It is a condition from birth. Just like a person is born a male or female. If this 1790 law was still in effect (repealed in 1795)
“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 state, shall be admitted a citizens as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.(a)”
then John McCain would be a natural born citizen. But upon repeal we went back to the strict definition.
If the father’s citizenship was not more significant to you why does your website have this from Vattel Law of Nations? Notice the words that you put in capitals.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not 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 a 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.”
What you are doing, like many people do, is failing to recognize that Vattel gives a specific definition in stating
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
He then goes on to discuss how society in general perpetuate itself in
“As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself … reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”
He does not change the definition he gave at the beginning of the paragraph. This is further re-enforced in his later paragraphs in dealing with people in John McCain’s circumstances.
He points out that children inherit their primary inheritance via the father. People do the same thing in reading the “Minor” case. The Court points out the definition of the term “natural born” as used in the US Constitution and its writers and then points out that some countries define and use the phrase differently. Thus the importance of using the correct dictionary and definition for words and phrases.
Minor does not say that the native-born children of non-citizens are not citizens. It says that at common law, prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, “[s]ome authorities” held that the citizenship of the parents was irrelevant, 88 U.S. at 167, but that “for the purposes of this case” the court did not need to address that issue. Id. at 168. Not only was it not a statement of the law, the question itself was acknowledged as dicta in the opinion.
Terry what is your take on the assertion that Vattel’s The Law of Nations doesn’t contain the words natural born citizen, but the words natives or indigenes. It was a 1797 translation of The Law of nations that contained the natural born citizen wording. If the framers wanted to use Vattel’s definition of citizenship they would have used the words Natives and indigenes. They did not have the natural born citizen translation available to them because that translation was not produced till ten years later after the ratification of the constitution
That was the best way they had to translate it. And they clearly had the concept “born in-country to two citizen parents” in mind. In any event, Don Laster has already answered you and other commenters with the details.
Why do you think the U.S. Courts has wordings like this in there rulings?
Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States. They legally entered the United States in late 1991 and, shortly thereafter, applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) for asylum.
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)
They got it wrong. Note the court involved: Sixth Circuit.
Terry How about this one.
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
The circuits are all getting it wrong. They’re confusing “citizen at birth” with “natural-born citizen.” And by the way: I don’t accept the “anchor-baby” theory.
Mitt’s father also had Mexican citizenship by way of being born in Mexico. As such, Mitt Romney is a Mexican national-Mexico says that if your parent was born in Mexico, you’re automatically a Mexican.
Accordingly, Romney has dual allegiances to Mexico and the United States and his natural born status cannot be differentiated from Obama.
George Romney’s parents (Gaskell and Lenore) were both American citizens. That’s why George W. Romney was a citizen, and had the privilege of voting, when his son Mitt was born. (Letting the elder Romney seek the Presidency in 1968 was a mistake. He lost to Richard M. Nixon, so that point became moot.)
You don’t accept the anchor baby theory. Funny the Federal Circuit courts do and so does the INS. Who do you thinks opinion is the one that counts, the people vested with interpreting and enforcing the law or the blogger.
Statements like that put me in mind of people who don’t accept the 16th amendment and have constructed arguments as to why it is wrong/invalid and then get upset when the IRS comes to their door and calls the court wrong when they are thrown in jail. The IRS has a term for these people, the constutionally confused, a term that applies to birthers I feel.
What we have is the INS and Circuit failing to follow what the Amendment states. They need to go and read Elk and Ark if they are using Amendment 14 as their justification. If they are using an Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 law that is a different issue. But a key problem is that over the last 100 years Progressive/Marxist have distorted the actual meaning of the US Constitution. Just look at the explicit statement of Amendment 2 and how it has been violated over and over.
As for Amendment 16 it is valid and always has been. Based upon what I have read Ohio went through a formal readmission after Amendment 16 was ratified and it was the last State to ratify it. Thus they claim Amendment 16 was never ratified. The failure of their argument is that Ohio was admitted as a State in the 1803 and no formal ceremony of admittance changes that fact.
Amendment 14 does not produce anchor babies. The only way an anchor baby can be produced is if Congress passed a law under the provisions of Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4. In the Supreme Court Elk case this was made very clear. It was reenforced in the Ark case.
The Courts have for a long time been using “natural born” as a synonym for “native born”. In the cases that you cite, except for the illegal aliens, the children are Amendment 14 citizens – statutory or native born. Illegal alien parents do not produce citizens due to the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause.
This is the problem with the Progressive/Marxist thinking and writing. They re-define words that carry specific meanings to mean something other than what the words means to accomplish another purpose. All one has to do is to look at what happened with “eminent domain” case where a private/public enterprise was allowed to take land in violation of Amendment 5 by claiming increasing tax revenue is a “public use”.
And that is why France actually has a ministry responsible for protecting the French language from being contaminated with these types of re-definitions.
That’s right: l’Académie Française. Similar to Ha’Aqademmia LaLashon Ha’Ivrit in Jerusalem.
“Illegal alien parents do not produce citizens due to the ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ clause.”
Really? So undocumented immigrants can’t be arrested if they commit a crime? They can’t be tried and imprisoned/fined/deported? They’re completely immune to prosecution?
They get picked up and deported.
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has nothing to do with criminal law. Take the time to read the history of Amendment 14 and the rulings of Ark and Elk. It has to do with citizenship. A person born in the country and subject to the full jurisdiction – related to citizenship obligations – think obligations to the King – is a citizen. Illegal aliens are not subjects and their children are subjects of the country the parents are from. If, and only if, one of the parents were to be a US citizen then the child would be a citizen due to the citizen parent not Amendment 14.
Prior to Amendment 14 even though Dred Scot was under the full jurisdiction he was not a citizen because he was property. Amendment 14 changed this. And Amendment 14 did not change the meaning of natural born citizen however.
Again, take the time to read the history as well as Ark and Elk. Elk was not a citizen even though he was born in the US. He was a subject of his tribe. Illegal aliens follow the same circumstances. When immigrant parents (one who asked to enter and live in the country and is admitted) has been accepted under the jurisdiction their child becomes a citizen under Amendment 14 (see Ark case).
One of these days I will finish the paper on it. But from it
————–
When one replaces certain words of the Amendment 14, Section 1, Paragraph 1 with the appropriate meanings of the words in the sentence you get the following
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and being under dominion, rule, or authority, as of a sovereign, state, or some governing power; owing allegiance or obedience [subject] to the United States [jurisdiction] of that or it [thereof], are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
——————–
So, if you rewrite the 14th Amendment to say something else, it says something else?
Fascinating.
Please stop acting like you can’t read and are an idiot. All I did is insert the meaning of the words from the dictionary and put the original words in “[ ]” after the definition to convey what the sentence actually means. Which also happens to be what the writers said it means and the Supreme Court has accepted.
And in case you don’t understand the first sentence here is the dictionary definition of “idiot”. Please stop acting like one since you obviously are not one.
id·i·ot
[id-ee-uht]
noun
1. Informal . an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2. Psychology . (no longer in technical use; considered offensive) a person of the lowest order in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.
Could the Senate produce a resolution affirming/ recognizing Obama as a natural born citizen making the whole controversy null and void like they did with McCain?
S.Res.511 – A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen
The Senate’s action would have no force or effect, even if it could achieve cloture.
They could, but like the one for John McCain, it would be meaningless. Being a natural born citizen is condition of birth. You can not acquire it after the fact due to the definition.
That’s true. To be a natural-born citizen, a person must be Born in the U.S.A., not just Born (again) in the U.S.A.
and both parents must be citizens. It is important to reference the full definition.
Have you seen Congressional Research Service Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement? It is very informative and it debunks just about every source of your arguments. Here is a link if you have not seen this report yet. link to scribd.com
Actually it doesn’t. When one looks at the actual rulings one finds the Congressional Research Service (CRS) doctored their use of the Supreme Court rulings by the careful use of “…” to hide the meaning of natural born citizen. When one goes at looks at the real rulings the Court has consistently referenced “natural born citizenship” as birth in the country of parents who are citizens.
And justia.com and Public.Research.org were identified as altering Supreme Court rulings to hide the meanings. Which is a crime by the way.
Now that this debate has descended into an argument of punctuation, I say we are in the same realm of Clinton’s famous quote “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is is”.
Well anyway here I am descending.
“An ellipsis is a series of three points with spaces between them (. . .) inserted into a quotation to indicate the omission of material from the original quotation. There are quite a few simple rules for the proper use of ellipses, which are used more often in legal writing than most forms of writing, since lawyers often (generally too often) quote material from other sources. Failure to use the proper form of an ellipsis could misrepresent the work of another person and result in legal liability for the writer. Correct use of ellipses, on the other hand, shows that the writer has carefully attended to detail, and thus increases the reader’s confidence in the reliability of the written work.”
According to the above definition of an ellipsis I should have an increase of confidence in the reliability due to the writer’s attention to detail. After all the report is cited and I can look up the quotes if I want to see what was omitted.
Mr. Laster on your website you have a document that you wrote titled “why Barrack H. Obama Jr is not eligible to be President and is not President of these United States of America”. On page six of this report you quoted the Minor v. Happersett case. Here is what you included
“The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-16810 Chief Justice Waite wrote
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Below is the full paragraph and furthermore not only was it not a statement of the law, the question itself was acknowledged as dicta in the opinion.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
Did you read this sentence? “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”.
Mr. Laster you omitted the sentence that nullifies your argument and you omitted it without an ellipsis.
So I ask you who is trying to hide/redefine the meaning of a natural born citizen.
If you read what Minor says you find they reference the definition and state what it is. Then they point out that some other countries use a different definition. And what I pointed out was that they were found to have dropped text that was relevant to the definition and if they had included it, it would have clearly shown Mr Obama is not a natural born citizen due to his father.
From a post in which I was discussing this issue related to Minor.
==========================
If you actually took the time to read the various rulings and look at the real history you would see you are wrong. Having read the actual cases as they are written I am correct. Minor v Happersett states (with comments) states
—-
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. (we had to look for dictionary that defines the meaning and look it up)
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. (What the writers understood is children born in the country of citizen parents are citizens – this does not mean British Common law).
These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. (The prior type of citizenship identified are natural born citizens – call it type N)
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. (Some places don’t consider parentage – this this does not redefine natural born citizenship – call it type O)
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (The type O class is not cast in stone, but type N is cast in stone).
—-
So as you can see when one takes the time to read what is written correctly and as it is stated it does not support you. Nor does many other Supreme Court rulings.
You are trying to argue the dictionary does not define the meaning of words and trying to ignore historical fact. Nor do you seem to understand the different types of citizenship. But that does not surprise me since it contradicts your position. And logic contradicts your position as well. The exception clause would not be needed if your position was correct.
==================================
Donald — Just so I can try to be clear on what you’re saying:
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
Am I right to say that you don’t think use of the word “citizens” in this sentence refers to “natural-born citizens”? That is to say, you don’t think the sentence is properly read as saying that “some authorities go further and includes as *natural born* citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”?
That is correct. Based upon the English the Type O are not natural born citizens based upon the English. The Court is citing a specific definition and set of qualifications regarding a specific type of citizenship. And then says that is known and not questionable. Then the the Court goes on to say some authorities just use soil (jus soli) or birth place to define a person as a citizen. Note the use of the phrase “include as citizens” to include a different set of circumstances related to birth. They don’t redefine “natural born” – just include another group of people as citizen.
This sentence “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” is critical. It shows they are looking at two distinct groups go people that are defined by birth conditions.
These people (the Type O group) would be Amendment 14 or Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 citizens – positive law. I believe British Law treats people in “Type O” as citizens, while German law does not. German laws requires a citizen parent based upon my knowledge. But based upon Venus, a host of other Supreme Court rulings, their references to Law of Nations and its specific requirements for soil and parentage and historical documents, Type O people are not natural born citizens as defined by Law of Nations but Positive Law.
The research I did, published at
link to thepostemail.com
involves researching a host of information. I did not depend upon secondary sources but went to Law of Nations (French and English), the Supreme Court and the known historical documents. The pdf file can be found at
link to dlaster.com .
And so far no one has shown the information is wrong. In fact the document is part of the case “Purpura v Sebelius” 11-7275 at the Supreme Court. The Circuit and District Court created a “standing” argument to avoid dealing with the case after the Government failed to answer Count 6 or any of the 15 Counts. And the Government stated they would answer and prove each Count meritless. And we gave them almost an extra month to answer before putting in the motion for a default judgement.
In the Minor case the court didn’t hold she was a citizen. Such discussion was obiter dicta. The holding of the case was that the Constitution did not give anyone the right to vote including a citizen. Since citizenship was deemed irrelevant to the right to vote, it was obviously unnecessary to determine it to dispose of the case. For example, the Missouri supreme court below didn’t mention Minor’s citizenship status as such court also ruled that, citizen or not, she would not be entitled to vote. The defendant never contested or argued her citizenship status at any level. The defendant did not even argue the case before the US Supreme Court and hence it appears that the citizenship issue was never briefed or argued. Such is why dicta is not precedent as it is clear the issue didn’t recieve the full consideration that the actual question before the court gets
But their discussion of citizenship is relevant in that they referenced the various types of citizenship. And justia.com and Public.Resource.Org (PRO) were caught altering various Supreme Court rulings to hide the definition of natural born citizen.
Here is an interesting factoid. The chief justice(Morrison Remick Waite) on the Minor v. Happersett case and the one that wrote the opinion on citizens also swore in president Chester A. Arthur. Chester A. Arthur’s father was from Ireland.
Below is an interesting quote from chief justice Waite
“For protection against abuses by legislatures the People must resort to the polls, not the courts”.
But the CJ did not know that Chester A. Arthur’s father was from Ireland, and not naturalized when Arthur was born. Did he? The whole point is that Chester A. Arthur got away with fraud, not that the courts granted him their official, eyes-open sanction.
And to my knowledge Chester A Arthur was not challenged in the Courts or registrar offices. This is unlike Mr Obama who was challenged immediately by Hillary Clinton and her campaign. And continues to be. If the Judges had the guts to address the Constitutional issue back in 2007 and 2008 we would not be dealing with this issue 4 years later. Remember, both the Republicans and Democrats nominated illegible candidates. And in New Jersey the Communist did as well.
Who knew, what. when and where in 1880? Questions of Arthur’s eligibility for president surfaced during the 1880 campaign. However his father being from Ireland wasn’t the issue. The controversy was some thought he was born in Canada. Arthur said he was born in Vermont. There is no record of him being born in Vermont or Canada. There was also a book “how a Subject of the British Empire Became President of the United States” by Arthur P. Hinman written about his ineligibility published in 1884.
I will have to see if I can find a copy. It will be interesting reading. And since I believe he was born in 1843 (?) I can see that being a question.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Arthur was born in Canada, only because of the mediocrity of his presidency.