Natural Born Confusion – Only for Obama supporters

 After posting the Constitutional Points to ponder, I was flooded with comments. I decided to pick the worst comment that was sent and dicest his illogical and clearly labeled lies.  My responses in RED

Now lets look at how far the Obots are trying to confuse the truth.

 Author : smrstrauss (IP: 70.19.198.241 , pool-70-19-198-241.bos.east.verizon.net)

E-mail : smrstrauss@aol.com

URL    :

Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=70.19.198.241

Comment:

Re: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ”

 The quotation is from a translation of Vattel that appeared 100 years after the Constitution was written. No translation of Vattel before the Constitution used the term “natural born citizen” (Vattel himself wrote in French.) What were his words? “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”

The version that I have been quoting is  The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758) Emmerich de Vattel.

Clearly there is no “citoyens” (citizens) in the phrase “Les Naturels.” The translation that was made before the Constitution said: “The natives, or indigenes [whatever that meant] are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

Again I will correct [whatever that meant] (sure sounds like he’s is confused)

“The term ‘indigenous people’ can be used to describe any ethnic group of people who inhabit a geographic region with which they have the earliest known historical connection”

 So the authors of Article II in the Constitution could not have been thinking of Vattel when they wrote “Natural Born Citizen.” What were they thinking of: The common law of Britain (and of America too), that had held for decades that someone was a “Natural Born Subject” if she or he were merely born in the country and not to a foreign diplomat.

 Again, states miss-information.

Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“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 (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

And James Madison said: It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

The commonly used term in the law at the time was “Natural Born subject.” There was no use in law or common discussion that “Natural Born” required two US parents and being born in the country. Since the reference “Natural Born” can only have been to the common law, the common law definition applies, and that merely requires birth in the USA.

 Again, miss-quoting and miss-leading remarks.  Again, I will correct him.

 All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
-Circuit Justice Swayne, in United States vs Rhodes (1866)

 And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

 Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

 “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

 Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

 “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

 Senators Hatch and Graham are NOT correct. But is this the first time Senators or Congressmen have been wrong.

 As a case in point I refer to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

This Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004 refers to the following; S.2128 Natural Born Citizen Act.  That act never passed and hence as of this Judiciary Hearing in Oct 2004, the meaning and Constitution had never been amended.

So let’s look at the Natural Born Citizen Act

 S. 2128: Natural Born Citizen Act

A bill to define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

(About the paid content on GovTrack)

Navigation

> Overview

– Summary (CRS)

– Full Text

– Committee Assignments

– Related Legislation

 Track S. 2128 [108th]

Because this bill was introduced in a previous session of Congress, no more action can occur on it.

 Primary Source

See S. 2128 [108th] on THOMAS for the official source of information on this bill or resolution.

 Overview

Sponsor: Sen. Don Nickles [R-OK]show cosponsors (2)

Cosponsors [as of 2008-11-10]

Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK]

Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]

Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date. Why?

Text: Summary | Full Text

Status:  Introduced Feb 25, 2004

 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments

 Reported by Committee (did not occur)

 Voted on in Senate (did not occur)

 Voted on in House (did not occur)

 Signed by President (did not occur)

 This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven’t passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session. 

Last Action: Oct 5, 2004: Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.

Related: See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.

Now lets fast forward to Feb 2006 and look at the following.

 SARAH P. HERLIHY  2/22/2006 AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE

 The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,1 “undecidedly un-American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.” Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligi-ble for the presidency.5 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Of-fice who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.6

Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.

 Again, no amendment has ever been passed to alter the Founding Fathers and Framers definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”. However Obama and his supporters have continued to attempt to not only disregard the United States Constitution, but to alter it’s meaning.

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
-Circuit Justice Swayne, in United States vs Rhodes (1866)
http://www.thecommentary.net/1861-circuit-justice-swayne-defines-na…

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.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
-Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=1…

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy
-Homeland Security SecretaryMichael Chertoff and Senator Patrick Leahy, (April 03, 2008) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

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. -110th Congress, SR 511 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text