About that “natural born citizen” business
I’m opening up a huge can of worms here, because people can (and will) argue about this till the cows come home or longer (it’s been going on for many years already, and no end in sight), but yesterday’s thread on Rubio engendered a lengthy comments-section discussion of the term “natural born citizen,” and I want to state my point of view in a post.
I realize that people will define “natural born citizen” any way they think makes sense. Law is like that, and legal terms are terms of art that can be argued almost endlessly, and often are. The point is that the courts are highly highly unlikely to agree with the very narrow definitions of the term that some people want them to adopt (to exclude Rubio, for example, whose exact fact situation is not addressed by precedent), and my opinion is that the courts would be correct in rejecting those arguments.
“Natural born citizen” is a phrase that was not defined in the Constitution, nor did it have a strong common law tradition of use to point to, and it has been used mainly ever since to distinguish such a person from a “naturalized citizen.” The latter is not a citizen of this country at the time of birth, and is never eligible to be president or vice-president.
A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated this view in more precise legal language than I’ve just done:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
Someone could be born to citizens living legally in another country (such as John McCain) and even live there for quite some time, and still be a natural born citizen. Someone can be born here to non-citizens “under the jurisdiction of the US” (legal permanent residents seeking citizenship) and still be a natural born citizen—that is, a citizen at birth. Rubio did not have to be naturalized because he was born here under those circumstances, and as far as I know no one is asserting he is a naturalized citizen.
There is no doubt that a lawyer could make an argument that Rubio, or someone with similar conditions of birth, is not a natural born citizen. A lawyer could make an argument (and will, if someone pays him/her) that the moon is made of green cheese—although I’m not suggesting the argument about Rubio is anywhere near as fanciful as that. But the fact that it can be argued does not make it correct, nor does it mean it has much of a chance of carrying the day in a courtroom.
I’m not shilling for Rubio’s nomination, either. I’m talking about the law. I’ve been listening to people strain and strain for definitions of “natural born citizen” for a long time. It reminds me of the plot of “Macbeth,” where Macbeth is told he can only be defeated by a man not “of woman born.” He thinks he’s safe, but it turns out Macduff was “from his mother’s womb untimely ripped” (i.e. born by Caesarean). I keep thinking (and yeah, I’m not completely serious here, but I wouldn’t say it’s impossible) that the next step will be people trying to define “natural born citizen” as excluding people born by Caesarean section, or people conceived in vitro.
I’m a lawyer and I agree with your interpretation.
I expect we will long into the future be seeing birther claims whenever a candidate provides the opportunity.
I was one of those commenting on that other thread and initially took the view that anyone born in the US, regardless of parental status was not only a natural born citizen but qualified by such to be elected to the Presidency.
George Pal, another commenter, disagreed and presented enough quotes of SCOTUS rulings to convince me that his view was the more accurate.
As I understand it, anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen BUT according to multiple prior SCOTUS rulings, only a natural born citizen whose parents were or are also American citizens, possess the necessary qualifications for the Presidency.
I’ll speculate that the rationale for stating that some natural born citizens qualify and others do not, due to parental status is the legal judgement by multiple SCOTUS’ that the founders felt it of immense importance that the President’s loyalty be unquestioned and undivided.
I don’t recall anything in either the Constitution or in the SCOTUS rulings that differentiates between the parents being either naturalized or natural born. So if Rubio’s parents are now both naturalized citizens, then I would say that he is qualified.
Since there’s no specific differentiation in parental status between naturalized and natural born, I would speculate that the loyalty concerns are satisfied by the parents becoming American citizens and by doing so, proclaiming their loyalty to be to America.
Personally, I see no legal argument that can overturn this rationale.
Geoffrey Britain: that is not what those SCOTUS rulings say. They do not have language that bears on the exact fact situation of Rubio’s birth. New law is made in the gaps, and a decision re Rubio would be substantially new.
The 14th amendment is controlling here, by the way, in terms of the definition of “citizen,” and “natural born” usually is defined as meaning “by birth.” Rubio was born a citizen. Ergo, he is a “natural born citizen.”
As I said, legal arguments can be made to the contrary. But if it ever came to the test, I am 99% certain the ruling would go as I describe.
I am also pretty certain a lot of people will disagree with me. I also have an exceptionally busy day today and will not be minding the comments section as much as usual, so if I don’t keep replying here it doesn’t mean I don’t have things to say, it just means I’m very busy.
Let’s get one thing straight. In general the cows are due home before sunset and in time for milking. Since that is the case I don’t think this argument is too long at all.
Natural Born Citizen
“Extending citizenship to non-citizens through birth based solely upon locality is nothing more than mere municipal law that has no extra-territorial effect as proven from the English practice of it. On the other hand, citizenship by descent through the father is natural law and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?).
…
When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.
Rubio is not a natural born citizen of the United States. He was a natural born citizen of Cuba.
Obama is not a natural born citizen. His father was a citizen of a British colony which became Kenya.
vanderleun: depends what you mean by “home.”
And “cows.”
Is it “home” as defined by the owners, or the cows themselves? And does “cows” include bulls, and calves?
Legal minds want to know.
Maybe we should just call them “cattle.”
njartist: don’t try to make the argument that Rubio is a “natural born citizen” of Cuba to SCOTUS, because it won’t wash.
If that were true, by the way, he would have had to have been naturalized along with his parents in order to serve in Congress. He would not be a citizen at all, because he was never naturalized.
I go with the ‘citizen by birth’ analogy and always have. I look to my own children in that they were both born in the US, my daughter’s husband was born in the US but my granddaughter was born in Germany, in a German hospital. Her parents were military. However, regardless, SHE is a ‘natural born’ citizen regardless of physical location of birth. According to the law as I have always understood it. My son, who was born here, married a woman from Columbia. While she has her green card, and is working towards full citizenship, their child if they had one now….. that could be iffier…..she not being a citizen yet, the child’s father is. But, if their child is born here in the US….to me that is still natural born? It’s easy to become confused isn’t it? Is it physical location of birth or citizenship of parents?? My granddaughter will, in theory of sorts, have to decide at 18…according to her German birth, if she wishes to stay American or declare citizenship of Germany instead. At that age, according to their law, she will have the choice owing to her being born in that country. Here, it is automatic I guess…if you are born here then you are. Believe me, having grandchildren has confused my feelings on this subject! And i am sure this entire post is just as confused as I sometimes feel. 🙂
“I realize that people will define “natural born citizen” any way they think makes sense.”
I, for one, have not defined anything. I quoted Supreme Court Opinions, historians, congressmen, and men contemporary to the Framers of the Constitution, and Emmerich Vattel, an internationally renowned philosopher, diplomat and legal scholar.
CRS:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term…
This is a conclusion with no direct evidence of what legal and historical indicates. Indicate the indications CRS. Is this anyone’s idea of legal and historical authority as proposed by CRS:
CRS:
Page 51of report , Maskel writes of, then quotes, misquotes and malquotes, a SCOTUS decision:
In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “it is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen.”
Here is the SCOTUS decision verbatim (beginning with the phrase ‘it is not disputed’:
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country.”
What is one to make of this? Typo? Error? Misinterpretation? Dishonesty?
“…natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”.
All this is so well known that in the thirty years before the advent of Obama two bills had been introduced in Congress seeking to definitively speak to what was at issue in ‘natural born Citizen’. After Obama’s speech at the DNC in 2004 where he’d wowed everyone but mostly himself, and in a span of one year, eight, i.e. 8 bills had been introduced seeking to address ‘natural born Citizen’. All had never gotten out of committee, and two were reintroduced, again failing. If the weight and legal authority and meaning were a settled issue then why eight bills in one year where there had been only two in the previous thirty. It is as if our congressmen, writers and sponsors of the bills had concluded: We understand the weight and legal authority and meaning of A as being X; we therefore present these bills so that henceforth the meaning of A remain as X. I have no great opinion of our congresspersons but I do not believe them clinically insane. Twice around the mobius strip and you end up where you started does not demonstrate sanity.
Neo-neocon:
“I’ve been listening to people strain and strain for definitions of “natural born citizen” for a long time.”
The straining you hear is not from the historical authorities but from modern deception. I point you once again to Mr. Maskell’s CRS report in which he lied — utterly. And to the depths that those who disagree with the arguments for ineligibility (a legitimate position by the way) would stoop to: making the argument illegitimate by making the arguer a crank or birther, or by raising not strawmen to knock down but strange dust bunnies such as excluding people born by Caesarean section, or people conceived in vitro.
Neo-noecon:
Re Scotus rulings: They do not have language that bears on the exact fact situation of Rubio’s birth
They indeed do not. The language bears on the meaning of ‘natural born Citizen’ which phrase must apply to a Rubio run as it appears in the Constitution under the eligibility clause for those offices. Rubio is not exempt from the requirements just because no court has looked into Rubio’s situation of birth. When they do look into it they may indeed find him eligible for the office. They may even recognize precedence in the offer made to George Washington to be King and rule that Rubio is eligible to be king, like Obama.
George Pal: I don’t think you quite understand how precedent works in deciding court cases.
And Marco Rubio’s parents WERE “permanently domiciled in the US” when he was born. They later became citizens, but their legal status at the time of his birth was “permanent resident,” as I said in one of my earlier comments (don’t have time to find it now). Apparently they had applied for and received that status.
Nor have I ever said the “natural born citizen” definition is a “settled issue.” What I’ve said is that the weight of legal opinion indicates it is almost certain that, were his case to come to court, it would be decided in favor of him being a natural born citizen.
Of course, it’s not “settled.”
Something is getting in the way of your seeing what I’m actually saying.
Neo,
I agree, none of the SCOTUS rulings that George Pal quoted had any “language that bears on the exact fact situation of Rubio’s birth”. I thought I’d made that clear, please forgive any lack of clarity upon my part.
I agree, Rubio was born and is a citizen. Ergo, he is a “natural born citizen.”
That said, it is not merely legal arguments that are involved but legal precedents by multiple SCOTUS courts, which have clearly ruled that for qualification to be President, both parents of a natural born citizen have to be citizens as well.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
“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 indigenes [natural born citizens] are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
“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.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Court concurs. Cites Minor v Happerset verbatim
Given my prior position, I’m certainly open to persuasion but currently see no legal rationale for disagreement with George Pal’s view.
And just to be sure we’re on the same page, nothing here directly addresses Rubio qualifications. He is a natural born citizen and if his parents are naturalized citizens, (even if not at the time of his birth) I see no logical basis for disqualification.
njartist49,
While of some relevance, the Federalist papers are not legal precedent.
On another point, a personal anecdote may be of interest regarding inheritance through the father.
I once was having a conversation with a good friend, who happened to be Jewish and inheritance through the father came up (why, now escapes me) and I was a bit surprised when he informed me that in the Jewish tradition, inheritance is through the mother, not the father.
In my surprise, I asked why?
“Simple”, he replied, “there’s never any doubt who the mother is”…
I had to admit that to make perfect sense.
Neo-neocon:
“George Pal: I don’t think you quite understand how precedent works in deciding court cases.”
Must I use those infernal emoticons when I am being facetious?
“…Rubio’s parents WERE “permanently domiciled in the US” when he was born”
Proving, by the SCOTUS decision and exact words, that he is a ‘citizen’, not that he was a ‘natural born Citizen’ as Mr. Maskell in the CRS report disinforms us.
Nor have I ever said the “natural born citizen” definition is a “settled issue.”
Nor have I said you did. I said ” If the weight and legal authority and meaning were a settled issue…” which clearly leads back to the first line of the CRS report quoted in the post.
“Something is getting in the way of your [George Pal] seeing what I’m actually saying.”
Clearly, as per the previous paragraph, something is getting in the way of your understanding I was referring to the CRS report and not to what you had said.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada, but I don’t know his parents’ status. Has anybody dug into that one yet?
George Pal: well, it certainly appeared you were addressing me, since your comment appears to be in the format of quotes from me and then rebuttals to those points.
Macbeth is my favorite Shakespeare play. They man could write, there is no doubt about it!
Neo-neocon:
The only place I find the phrase “settled issue’ in my comment was in this paragraph:
All this is so well known that in the thirty years before the advent of Obama two bills had been introduced in Congress seeking to definitively speak to what was at issue in ‘natural born Citizen’. After Obama’s speech at the DNC in 2004 where he’d wowed everyone but mostly himself, and in a span of one year, eight, i.e. 8 bills had been introduced seeking to address ‘natural born Citizen’. All had never gotten out of committee, and two were reintroduced, again failing. If the weight and legal authority and meaning were a settled issue then why eight bills in one year where there had been only two in the previous thirty. It is as if our congressmen, writers and sponsors of the bills had concluded: We understand the weight and legal authority and meaning of A as being X; we therefore present these bills so that henceforth the meaning A remain as X. I have no great opinion of our congresspersons but I do not believe them clinically insane. Twice around the mobius strip and you end up where you started does not demonstrate sanity.
The quote previous to this paragraph:
“…natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”.
does not quote you but is a direct but partial quote from the CRS 2011 Congressional Research Service. I copy and paste from it directly:
“natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”.
It is incontrovertible, since my comment follows a quote from the CRS, that I was speaking to it and it’s points and not to you and your points even though you may agree with them.
See my comment @ 3:03 pm and you will note “settled issue” follows quote from CRS report.
“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” Federalist No. 68 – Alexander Hamilton
Well, unless your going to rewrite history and change the meanings, then there are only a few (3) that are acceptable. others are not valid, though we can pretend they are and discuss it. until the official things change, we are just armchair kings pretending to write writs.
note that those who like the foreign or dont want the definition, conveniently leave out the basis of why and what such laws were.
one thing that is VERY IMPORTANT is that the constitution and such is based on NATURAL LAW… (so if the new guys are hegelian and they are opposite natural law, then they are promoting unnatural law, or natural chaos, take your pick)
important references…
March 26, 1790 in 104 FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cn. 4. 1790:
“[T]he 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:”
the “A 2011 Congressional Research Service report” conveniently left out a major source… but then again… 2011 is AFTER gliecshaltung… and so you really should not trust things as you did before… (this is one of those behaviors i have yet to see change… to me its like eating rotten food, and then going back to keep eating it… )
once you put the right words together, if you know them, then all the stuff thats left out comes pouring forth.. however, what you will find is how many of these things have a basis in Judaism and Christianity… which to the moderns is anathema… (they would rather be tortured by a real person than not tortured by what they believe is a non entity!!!!!!!!!)
given i am always in trouble for setting the stage for a conversation, and things get cut, i cant explain or talk… i can only paste, or talk. and given no mention has happened yet, i am stuck pasting.
National Center for Constitutional Studies
Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government
“The supreme power in a state is jus dicere [to declare the law only]: jus dare [to give the law], strictly speaking, belongs alone to God…. There must be in every instance a higher authority, [namely,] God. Should an act of Parliament be against any of His natural laws, which are immutably true, their declaration would be contrary to eternal truth, equity, and justice, and consequently void.” James Otis – 1764 – Reason for opposing an unjust revenue act passed by the British parliament
you see, without natural law, all laws become just by administration. that is, if they follow the rules of administration, any law is ok. but our constituton and law and such is originally founded on the idea that there is natural order, and that laws that dont follow that, are unconstitutional as the basis for the constitution is NATURAL LAW….
ie. we are free because of natural law…
without that, there is no limit to government as there is no moral reason
and no way to argue a laws suitability other than outcome or fashion
Who Taught the Founders About This?
In their historical and political studies, it was a familiar thread that ran through the Greek and Roman philosophers (such as Aristotle, Demosthenes, Seneca, and especially Cicero); the Anglo-Saxon tradition of common law; and many of the European and English political philosophers (such as Sir Edward Coke, John Locke, Baron Charles de Montesquieu, and Sir William Blackstone).
the dead white guys feminism ended our relationship with… we are not supposed to listen to those oppressors, and so the current fad is to ignore them when we read the thing… this unhitches the law from any moral basis… which removes all limits on the RULERS
without natural law, there is no basis for arguing against kings…
“Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator…. These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator Himself in all His dispensations conforms; and which He has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such, among others, are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to everyone his due…. This law of nature… is binding over all the globe, in all countries and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.” Blackstone
…the most ancient and most influential source from which the Founders drew their understanding of natural law was the Holy Bible which they had studied from their childhood
“I will give thee… a law,” Exodus 24:12
in this, god and the people enter into a covenant as to obeyance of law. they will obey because gods law is just, and if not just, then do not need to obey
The Israelites were forbidden to alter the words received by Moses, for “the law of the Lord is perfect.” (Psalm 19:7)
“Great peace have they which love [the] law,” (Psalm 119:165)
In the New Testament, Jesus proclaimed that the two greatest commandments are to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart” and to “love thy neighbor as thyself,” and that “on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” The Apostle James spoke of Christ’s gospel as “the perfect law of liberty.” (James 1:25)
ergo, they rewriting these doctrines for secular church and replacing them with the Social Justice of Father Coughlin… because the basis of constitutional rights, and freedoms, and even natural born, comes from natural law.
societies should be governed, as Jefferson put it, by “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society,… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.” (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:228)
Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.
when deciding if something is constitutional, what ruler should they use?
after all, to just use the small writing in the constitution is not enough, one has to also have the other knowlege of natural law
“that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824)
the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848)
and since the early days of our nation had no precedent to rely on…
“eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).
i will give one more link…
and then i will show what happened. where did we take our turn…
the biggest PERIOD thing you can find that covers natural law, is:
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758) by Emmerich de Vattel
[i dont know why i bother, but… if anyone wants to read it.. ha ha.. http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/ ]
Do notice that the stuff i am bringing up is mostly absent from the pages on natural born citizen, because they dont want you to trace that back to natural law…
and Vattel defined it thusly:
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
i cant refute their revisioning and the missing history by just saying its missing.
duh…
do note, that everything in the upper levels and such follows a flow of precedence and argument. IF you want to have any meaningful conversation on things, and not just a idea game with average people, then your arguments and things have to come from a basis in this past.
if it does not, they ignore you…
because if your arguments and things are not derivative of this stuff, then its just you arguing, and you as a person has no basis for such arguments (especially after 1947 and the dying of natural law)
the same is true about art…
the artists that did great works, but were not part of the click of the famous, were not considered anything. so seurat might not be the first to use pointilism… he was the first in this in crowd that did!
and you can read Kostabe on how to get into that crowd and then be an ‘artist’ which is quite different than the average ignorant joe knows.
this is the key to the kingdom.. do not turn it, you dont get in to argue anything and at BEST your a marginal character.. otherwise, your erased and have no existence..
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
the use of natural law didn’t start ending until the 1900s, and specifically, right after WWII!!!!!!
at this point, socialists became ascendant in the schools after their taking over unions in the early part of the century, and with bella dodd, and so on, taking over the teachers unions… etc
following the reasoning of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Justice Hugo Black (1947) was arguing that natural law should be abandoned… (now, how can you abandon something unless its what you are already with?)
Black even argued that natural law was a violation of our constitution which is based in natural law
“a violation of our Constitution!” (Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 75, 1947)
without natural law, mans law has no basis beyond mans personal desires, and one mans personal desires is as good as another… (though the victims of such people may have other things to say)
FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cn. 4. 1790
http://librarysource.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/1%20Stat.%20103.pdf
“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:”
so they DID tackle the question..
we just choose to lose this history and then argue from a basis in man… after all, without all this basis from rome and greece to the first continental congress… then what would the basis be, but people sitting around spouting what they think it should mean, with no way to resolve it, all opinions equal, and the worst of it being the despotic answers being as valid as the more traditional ones.
under natural law, abortion is a social ill
under progressivism, its needed to breed humans for a future…
and so, euthanasia is ok… eugenics is ok… democide (covert) and genocide (overt)
after birth abortions (baby killing), work camps, and on and on.
the same penumbras that came out of thin air create those as well, as there is no limit once natural law has been torn asunder.
how can there be?
all our arguments here will be meaningless, and only POWER can decide, because power can impose will, and so, impose the choice.
read chapter three of that link
CIAP. III.-.n .&t to establish an uniform Rule of N4’aturalization.
you will also find that naturalization was reserved originally for whites…
baring the race thing… its pretty much what we have been following even up to today if you read the forms and things for immigration..
they did not define it, because they did not have to
(a equivalent argument went with the bill of rights, and they lost, so we have the bill of rights… )
they thought everyone would know natural law, and the posterity would not be so stupid as to throw out natural law, and so end the society and the peoples.
humans are funny creatures…
for fun i throw this in
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 18 Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 — Decided: March 28, 1898
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.
its an interesting case…
and WAY WAY WAY too big to put more up …
but its interesting how modern sovialist state like communist state, picks and chooses the history it wants to use, or ignores it, so it can construct a false image of things, and a false history, so that those who learn THAT history, make natural choices based on it.
in this way, you revision history to control people!!!!
so, each time we start our arguments and dont follow the prior lines of thought, we are living an alternative hsitory, which then makes our choices different.
this is why there is so much false history and fakery
from the obama debates, and everywhere..
you can control the personality of the person by controllling the environment of that person, and so feeding them the mix of information that will get their personality to make the choice you want.
its completely dishonest.
but its honestly following the premise that the person must choose!!!!!!!! even falsely is valid…
so its the choice… and seeming legitimacy
in that way, the victim is trapped – as the other can say, whats wrong, this is your choice, you got what you wanted… etc… (and given ignorance cant argue they were tricked).
so if one wants to make a meaningful contribution to this game from this area, one is going to have to read an awful lot of stuff that everyone hsa refused to read.
do note that who your trying to influence HAS read it, knows what to put in, and take out, and is relying on your natural proclivities to avoid being fouled up and negated.
i should point out that the case above is VERY pertinent
as the subject was the child of two chinese nationals..
and so… as with the other stuff that came early, were they born here, or are they a citizen…
@George Pal – Kudos to you… i didnt see your mention of some of the same sources i am using!!!
vīvat!!! vīvat!!! vīvat!!!
I just wanted to add that Leo Donofrio submitted a 209 page Amicus Curia brief in the Georgia ballot challenge that has become THE authoritative source for the Obama-And-Rubio-Are-Not-Qualified faction. You may not agree with Donofrio’s conclusions, but if you want to understand why so many people consider Obama and Rubio unqualified, Donofrio’s brief is required reading because you won’t understand your opposition until you read the document that largely formed your opposition’s position.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79088747/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Amicus-Brief-From-Attorney-Donofrio-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-1-23-2012
Thank you, Artfldgr.
I would gladly sacrifice the citizenship of 100 Rubios (and one Obama) if that would prohibit all of the millions of pups born to illegal aliens from being deemed US citizens at birth just because they were delivered in US territory.
The fervent, incandescent opposition to the birthers has the inadvertent effect of making the requirement extremely important. Now, suppose Obama turns out to have been unqualified by reason of birth.
Immediately, the issue becomes irrelevant to the opponents of the birthers. And, presto, Rubio qualifies. Since the issue is now irrelevant.
“In general the cows are due home before sunset and in time for milking.”
It depends upon the season. Cows are milked long before sunset in the summer. And, you forgot to mention milking in the morning in the dark days of winter. Non-farm boys & girls should not mix their farm metaphors with reality. 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVf6Sf53K4w
Even the mop tops know when the cows come home. 😉
“The fervent, incandescent opposition to the birthers has the inadvertent effect of making the requirement extremely important. Now, suppose Obama turns out to have been unqualified by reason of birth.
Immediately, the issue becomes irrelevant to the opponents of the birthers. And, presto, Rubio qualifies. Since the issue is now irrelevant.”
Ah, but BHO is a special case. Its a part of the whole most intelligent ever, halo around the head of the messiah thingy.
Funny you should mention the Caesarian. Here is a prime example of the so-called superiority of Democrat thinking complaining about how Republicans think.
http://moonbattery.com/?p=25895
Thanks Artfldgr.
I once had a link dated to 2008 to a site which covered the same material; I have since deleted it and cannot relocate it. The author of that site wrote of discovering that an online law research site – to which many lawyers and jurists went for information – had been sanitized of the full Vattel references regarding natural born citizen versus native born versus citizen. The author came to realize that this sanitation in favor of Obama had been done over a period of years before Obama publicly decided to run for president.
All of my children were born overseas, two in Berlin and one in Seoul. I promptly registered their births at the embassy and obtained US birth certificates and passports for them. You can’t do that if they aren’t US citizens.
I think you mean the opposite of that?
alex: thank you, thank you! Good get!
The way I put it, it wouldn’t have been all that much of a challenge, would it?
Although it is true that Caesareans are becoming more common these days.
I’ll fix it right now.
@Artfldgr
Here is the natural born citizen website I referred to above: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/