Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our guidance forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
LINK

US SUPREME COURT TAKES EXTRAORDINARY EXPEDITED ACTION IN FAST TRACKING NJ CITIZEN SUIT CHALLENGING '08 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

I am awaiting clarification from the Clerk's office at the United States Supreme Court as to whether my stay application has now been accepted in lieu of a more formal full petition for certiorari (and/or mandamus or prohibition). Such a transformation is a rare and significant emergency procedure. It was used in Bush v. Gore, a case I have relied on in my brief.

We do know the case has certainly been "DISTRIBUTED for Conference", a process usually reserved for full petitions of certiorari. Stays are usually dealt with in a different manner. As to a stay application, a single Justice may; a) deny the stay; b) grant the stay; c) refer the stay to the full Court.

My stay application was originally denied by Justice Souter. So, under Rule 22.4, I renewed it to Justice Thomas who did not deny it. The sparse reporting on this issue I have seen today has failed to stress how unique such a situation is to Supreme Court practice. The vast majority of stay applications are denied. And once denied, a renewed application is truly a desperate measure the success of which heralds one of the rarest birds in Supreme Court history.


The relief I requested, a stay of the national election and a finding that candidates Obama, McCain and Calero be held ineligible to hold the office of President, has also not been granted at this time. So that leaves option "c)": Justice Thomas has referred the case to the full court. That much is clear from looking at the docket.

What isn't clear is whether the full court has already examined the referral and taken the extraordinary action of accepting the stay application as if it were a full petition for writ of certiorari which was done in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 at 98 (2000):

"The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari." (Emphasis added.)


It's not clear that SCOTUS precedent would allow a stay application to be "DISTRIBUTED for Conference" without it first having been transformed by the court into a full petition. I don't know if such a transformation could be sanctioned by Justice Thomas by himself. Again, I'm waiting for an official disposition notice from the Clerk's office. Regardless, either the full court has set this for Conference, or Justice Thomas has done it on his own. Either way, it signifies an affirmative action inside the US Supreme Court testifying to the serious issues raised by this law suit.


Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Since Barack Obama's father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen "at birth", just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be President.


The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens". Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:


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;


That's it right there. (Emphasis added.)

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.


The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as "natural born Citizens", so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between "natural born Citizens" and all other "Citizens". And that's why it's important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of "Citizen", not "natural born Citizen". The Framers were Citizens, but they weren't natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.

Since the the Framers didn't consider themselves to have been "natural born Citizens" due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.

Barack Obama's official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen "at birth".

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship "at birth" and therefore split loyalties "at birth", he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States. A "natural born citizen" would have no other jurisdiction over him "at birth" other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words "natural born" and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, "natural born citizen", pertains to the status of the person's citizenship "at birth".


The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, "at birth", a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional "natural born citizen" status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President. Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen "at birth".


Obama has admitted to being a British subject "at birth". And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction "at birth" bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.


As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer "natural born citizen" status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a "Citizen", and only if he is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:

"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 Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."




The most overlooked words in that section are: "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.

Stop and think about that.

The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves - persons born subject to British jurisdiction - and "natural born citizens" who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen... at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.

And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States "at birth". It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject "at birth". If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.


If you click through to Factcheck.org, a more detailed discussion as to why Obama was a British citizen at birth explains the relevant statutes:

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:


British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.' "




The article goes on to state that Obama's British citizenship was transferred to Kenya as Kenya became independent from the UK and that Obama's Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 21 years old. But none of that is relevant since the Constitution requires that every President be a "natural born citizen". The word "born" is proof positive that the status must be present "at birth". If this were not the case, then, as stated above, the Framers would not have needed to put in a grandfather clause.


The Framers recognized that even they were not "natural born citizens" and so they wrote the grandfather clause in to allow any of them to become President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to those who were Citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption. And so, Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States and neither is John McCain who was born in Panama, and neither is Roger Calero who was born in Nicaragua.

LINK







Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
An interesting, and serious, argument.

It will be equally interesting to see how the SCOTUS handles this issue as it pertains to what they like to call a "living document" (meaning that the SCOTUS can change it however they feel like doing).

It has been my understanding all my life that the ONLY way that the Constitution can be changed is by way of the Legislative branch of the government proposing and passing an Amendment to the Constitution and then submitting the Amendment to the STATES for ratification. Not even the Congress can unilaterally change the Constitution, that RIGHT is reserved to the People of all the States that make up the Nation.

Being a somewhat "simple minded" citizen, it DOES seem that by his own admission, in addition to the actuality of British Law, that Obama WAS, at a minimum, a "dual citizen" of both the USA and Great Britian at the time of his birth and continued to be so at least until he turned 21.

On that basis it DOES appear that he may be Constitutionally unqualified to hold the office of POTUS.

"Wishing" it were not so is irrelevant in a nation that does pride itself on the "rule of law," especially Constitutional Law.

We shall see.

And the SCOTUS does not have much time to DECIDE before the inauguration.

I guess it's sort of like "instant replay" and "the play is under review" in football. Either the goal was scored in complete accordance with the established rules, or it wasn't. If the runner "stepped out of bounds" on his way to the goal line, the "touchdown" is nullified and the "ruling on the field" of a "scored touchdown" is nulified, the "points" taken off the scoreboard, and the "race to the goalline" is reset at the point of stepping out of bounds. The "inauguration" would seem to be analogous to "snapping the ball on the next play" that would end any "appeal of the ruling." Since we are talking about the Constitution and its rules for the Presidency, there would seem to be no "bigger" ruling that would take precedence at this time in history. It DOES seem as though the Founders and Framers OF the Constitution were quite clear in their choice of words and phrases and INTENDED to convey that meaning CLEARLY to succeeding generation of Americans.

It WOULD seem that the "point of stepping out of bounds" was, according to the Constitution, the "point of birth" where Obama held DUAL citizenship and not exclusive citizenship to the United States of America.


Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,834
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,834
Marsh:

Love ya!

But it ain't happening.

Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President in January.

Everything posted here is someone trying thier darndest to make something out of nothing.

McCain probably would have been more easily blocked from the presidentcy than Obama.

Please check Snopes here> Obama NOT a citizen?

If that NJ lawyer is successful? He might be able to throw enough mud to make it happen. British laws don't apply here. Obama WAS in the US when he was born. So, both of his parents could have been born in Kenya, but at that time, if Barack plops out in the US, he was a US citizen. Had he ploped in Kenya, then he couldn't be prez. HE may have rights to claim dual citizenship because of UK laws, but that is a different issue.

If Judge Thomas has taken the case to take a second look, I hope he returns a direct, powerful statement: "Barack Obama IS Authorized to be President of the US."

I might not like it. I voted for the other guy. But BO is #44.

BO could be impeached in the first two weeks in office, or be the best president we ever had. But he won the office, and he's qualified for the office from a legal point of view.

LG


Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,079
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,079

Last edited by ThornedRose; 11/21/08 10:01 AM.

Simul Justus Et Peccator
“Righteous and at the same time a sinner.”
(Martin Luther)
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
Quote
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens". Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

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;

That's it right there.


Ummmm...no, it's not "why the Framers declared that". They did it because otherwise it would be 35 years (or more) until someone would be a "jus soli principle citizen" meaning automatic citizenship as long as he/she is born in the country. It wasn't their prior British citizenship that was the problem they were excepting, it was that no one had yet been born in the United States. Attribution citizenship by descent, is legislation that provides a child inherits citizenship from his parents, independently of where he is born. This attribution principle is called "jus sanguini". The ancient Roman concept of jus sanguini wasn't British, American or really anywhere in the 18 century (the French reintroduced in the 1800's). The framers didn't address it because it wasn't even a consideration. Our mother nation, England maintained it's jus soli tradition up until, it appears 1948.

Read this I found:

Quote
In particular, we focus on the laws governing citizenship acquisition at birth, which are therefore especially relevant for second-generation immigrants, even though they are part of the migration decision of any parent who cares for his children and their future. These laws originally come from the two broad traditions of common and civil law. The former
applies the jus soli principle, according to which citizenship is attributed by birthplace. This implies that the child of an immigrant is a citizen, as long as he is born in the country of
immigration. The latter applies the jus sanguinis principle, which attributes citizenship by descent, so that a child inherits citizenship from his parents, independently of where he is born. Since citizenship acquisition means full membership in a state, a jus soli legislation should therefore be perceived as an inclusive migration policy measure.1

In 18th century Europe jus soli was the dominant criterion, following feudal traditions which linked human beings to the lord who held the land where they were born. The French Revolution broke with this heritage and with the 1804 civil code reintroduced the ancient Roman custom of jus sanguinis, only to reintroduce elements of jus soli in 1889 for military reasons related to the draft. During the 19th century the jus sanguinis principle was adopted throughout Europe and then transplanted to its colonies. On the other hand, the British preserved their jus soli tradition and spread it through their own colonies, starting with the United States where it was later encoded in the Constitution. By the beginning of the 20th century, the process of nation-state formation and the ssociated codification effort were completed in Continental Europe. At the same time, the revolutionary phase was over in those countries that had been the subject of the earlier colonization era, and 19th century colonization had extended the process of transplantation of legal tradition to the rest of the world. Therefore, by the end of the period of interest, most countries had completed a slow process of adjustment of their legislation regarding citizenship acquisition, in response to a variety of largely exogenous impulses.

We code countries on the basis of the kind of citizenship laws (i.e., jus soli vs. jus sanguinis) in place at the beginning of each decade. The data set that we compile for the 1870-1910 period, can be described as follows. Within Europe, the jus sanguinis model tends to dominate, but with several exceptions. Britain, as previously mentioned, always remains a jus soli country. And so does Portugal. Scandinavian countries, as well as the Netherlands, are late-comers that embrace the jus sanguinis legislation only towards the end of the 19th century. France, on the other hand, leads the introduction of jus sanguinis but switches to jus soli in 1889. Outside Europe, jus soli dominates not only in the former British colonies,3 but also in Latin America.
Economia - Migration & Citizenry



In addition, I knew if I looked hard enough I could find it. My research lead me to the tiny Pacific Island nation of Cobolosoon ("Coconut Sun"). The Island Country, void of many resources, development or population...just lots of jungle is making (and apparently still making) an effort to open it's doors to the world and encourage people to come there and help develope it. It has always maintained an open citizenry. Their legistlation codifies:

Cobolosoon World Nationality Act of 1984:

Article 4 sub (iii): Subject to the provisions of this article, any person now living or hereafter born anywhere in the world after enactmentment of this Article shall be a citizen of Cobolosoon.

Thus...we (US posters) are ALL both citizens of Cobolosoon and citizens of the US and according to Donofrio, thus, ineligible to be President... ooopps....the elections have been cancelled this year because nobody is qualified to run.


Finally, if the British law of 1948 WERE around back then and the framers did consider it, then they drafted in a real problem. All of their own children, born AFTER (and thus not excluded as Donofrio argues) the Constitution was adopted could be considered dual citizens as well by virtue of their parents being "born" a United Kingdom citizen. Thus, all of those children would have to grow up past some magical age where they finally shed their dual citizenship (age 18 or 21) and THEN finally have children, who themselve must get to age 35 before ANYONE is truly qualified to be President of the United States. So children born the day before the Constitution was adopted were, by exemption, qualified to be President upon attainting the age of 35, but any children born the day after adoption weren't (but their children MAY be).

Do you see how this lawsuit and this attorney are mixing up and twisting the jus soli and jus sanguini principles to make it appear rational? It isn't. He's just grandstanding. Wasting money. Seeking his 3 minutes of fame (attorneys aren't that interesting...we don't get 15 minutes).


If the Supreme Court grants review...it's merely to debunk these trivial type lawsuits which only go to hurt our democracy and the partisan wingnuts that bring them. 1/2 an hour on the internet and I figured this matter out, even Thomas can figure this one out.

Mr. Wondering


edited to add: Before anyone goes and researchs it...I thought I'd mention...Cobolosoon is MADE UP. I conjured it up to counter the ridiculous notion that some law in some other country can somehow negate your American Citizenship when you are BORN on American soil (whether here or deemed American soil abroad).




Last edited by MrWondering; 11/21/08 11:10 AM.

FBH(me)-51 FWW-49 (MrsWondering)
DD19 DS 22 Dday-2005-Recovered

"agree to disagree" = Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,834
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,834
TR:

The first two websites just repeated what Marsh posted.

So.

The third one listed that BHO, didn't list his second name on his application.

So.

It looks like you don't even have to file that application with a PICTURE. Does that mean I can take Barack's place on the stage in January? After all, I filed that application for Barack....Who to say it wasn't me?

Allen Keyes is a flake also. ANYONE can file a lawsuit in this country. And if your a lawyer, your costs of doing so is your time and the filing fee. If he had to pay attorneys fees of a couple of thousand dollars, that case never gets filed.

I think is would be FABULOUS if Justice Thomas is the one who issues the opinion that stops all this silly stuff.

The left has critized the SCOTUS since 2000 when they voted to "stop the counting" and Bush was deemed the election winner. Can you see the left having to ADMIT, that JUSTICE THOMAS is the one who had to write the opinion clearing the way for Obama?

I can't WAIT!

LG


Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Quote
Love ya!

But it ain't happening.

Yeah, like that's the first time I heard THAT today!

It's my DH's mantra.

LOL

Quote
McCain probably would have been more easily blocked from the presidentcy than Obama.

Could be.

Here's how I have always understood the citizen vs. natural born citizen issue...

1)A woman was born in Germany and is German citizen. She married a man who was born in Florida, and his parents are U.S. citizens too, so he is a “natural born” citizen. The couple have a son born in the US. The son is a citizen by birth b/c he was born in the US, but he is not a “natural born” citizen b/c his parents each pass on their citizenship to the child, so the son can not grow up to be President.

2) A couple are both German citizens, but are living in the US when they give birth to a baby. Their child would still be a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil, but he is still not a natural born citizen b/c both of his parents are German citizens, so their citizenship is passed to their child.

3)If a man was a U.S. citizen and his W was a German citizen and they lived in Germany when their son was born, their son would be a U.S. citizen b/c the father passed his U.S. Citizenship to his son. The son could not be President, b/c his mother also passed on her citizenship to the child and also b/c he was born on foreign soil.







Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Quote
If the Supreme Court grants review...it's merely to debunk these trivial type lawsuits which only go to hurt our democracy and the partisan wingnuts that bring them.

Leo Donofrio filed his petition BEFORE the election, and included BOTH McCain and Obama in it.

Not my definition of a partisan wingnut.




Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Quote
Being a somewhat "simple minded" citizen, it DOES seem that by his own admission, in addition to the actuality of British Law, that Obama WAS, at a minimum, a "dual citizen" of both the USA and Great Britian at the time of his birth and continued to be so at least until he turned 21.

And wouldn't he have been a Kenyan citizen at birth too?

Is my understanding of what a citizen vs. a natural born citizen correct?




Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,316
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,316
Interesting stuff...confusing to ME, but interesting nonetheless...

I remember being told by a teacher of mine that I could never be POTUS, which I always found a bit disconcerting...

Both of my parents were American citizens...I was born on a U.S. military base in Germany...My birth certificate says, "Child Born Abroad of American Parents"...[how dare they call me "a broad" -- sorry, bad joke laugh]

I suppose that teacher said that because of my option for dual citizenship - which I did not opt for...dunno, but weird...I've always considered myself very American, or more accurately, to borrow a phrase from the late Lewis Grizzard, "American by birth, and Southern by the Grace of God"! grin My parents were both "Southern Americans" after all - and I am a G.R.I.T.S. (Girl Raised In The South)! wink laugh wink

Mrs. W


FWW ~ 47 ~ Me
FBH ~ 50 ~ MrWondering
DD ~ 17
Dday ~ 2005 ~ Recovered

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
If you're from the South, you gotta love dem Grits! whistle laugh (pass the cheese, will 'ya?)

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,956
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,956
Quote
I remember being told by a teacher of mine that I could never be POTUS, which I always found a bit disconcerting...

Both of my parents were American citizens...I was born on a U.S. military base in Germany...My birth certificate says, "Child Born Abroad of American Parents

Being born on the military base is the same as being born on American soil. Being born in an embassy is the same...not saying that babies ARE bron in embassies...just saying IF it were to happen, it would be the same as American soil.

I would wager that your teacher was grossly misinformed.

committed


Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
Originally Posted by Marshmallow
Quote
Love ya!

But it ain't happening.

Yeah, like that's the first time I heard THAT today!

It's my DH's mantra.

LOL

Quote
McCain probably would have been more easily blocked from the presidentcy than Obama.

Could be.

Here's how I have always understood the citizen vs. natural born citizen issue...

1)A woman was born in Germany and is German citizen. She married a man who was born in Florida, and his parents are U.S. citizens too, so he is a “natural born” citizen. The couple have a son born in the US. The son is a citizen by birth b/c he was born in the US, but he is not a “natural born” citizen b/c his parents each pass on their citizenship to the child, so the son can not grow up to be President.


Nope...he's qualified. He's "natural born" because the framers ONLY considered where the individual attempting to qualify was born utlizing the "jus soli" citizenry principle. The old (as in Roman) "jus sanguini" principle of determining a child's citizenship by looking at his parents citizenship wasn't a favored principle in the 18th century. However, perhaps seeing a small problem with the definition of "natural born citizen" in the 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "And the children of citizens [notice "citizens" is plural] of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." In addition George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law. If Washington disagreed with this definition, he could have vetoed this bill.

It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay (who was born in New York City) to George Washington (who was born in Virginia), presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

A good description of this debate that even mentions the Donofrio case can be found at Wikipedia


2) A couple are both German citizens, but are living in the US when they give birth to a baby. Their child would still be a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil, but he is still not a natural born citizen b/c both of his parents are German citizens, so their citizenship is passed to their child.

Nope again...he (or you could have said "she") is qualified too. He's "natural born" because the framers ONLY considered where the individual attempting to qualify was born utlizing the "jus soli" citizenry principle. The old (as in Roman) "jus sanguini" principle of determining a child's citizenship by looking at his parents citizenship wasn't a principle utilized anywhere in the 18th century.


3)If a man was a U.S. citizen and his W was a German citizen and they lived in Germany when their son was born, their son would be a U.S. citizen b/c the father passed his U.S. Citizenship to his son. The son could not be President, b/c his mother also passed on her citizenship to the child and also b/c he was born on foreign soil.


Now you've got it. This child does not qualify as he was NOT born on US soil and both his parents aren't US Citizens. The passing on of her "citizenship" is irrelevant to the question. The child may very come back to the US and be considered a naturalized citizen but he'll never be a naturally born citizen.

What if he was born at a US military base???

Interestly...the wikipedia page says this:

Quote
Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[6] However, the State Department is of the opinion that this does not affect those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship

This could be interesting if a MAN or WOMAN wanting to qualify for President were born in say Germany, to a female military person at a US military installation and the father was not a US Citizen. Now, perhaps, you've got a problem.




4. I'll take your example one further. A Mexican woman gets pregnant in Mexico by a Mexican man. She crosses the border and has her baby in a United States Hospital. Believe it or not, that child IS a Natural Born Citizen


Quite simply...you and Mr. Donofrio are mixing up the principles to state something the framers never intended.

Check out the wikipedia page.

Mr. Wondering


p.s.- Donofrio may not be that partisan (I'm not going to look into it but I'm guessing he is) but passing along and presenting this bogus case as a real problem or concern after the election certainly is.

p.p.s. - McCain's birth certainly is a bit more problematic, as he was born outside the US...but both his parents WERE US citizens so it's O.K. He's mentioned in the wikipedia article.

p.p.p.s. - Notice that Dukakis isn't mentioned. His parents were both Greek immigrants, who thus maintained Greek Citizenry. Mike Dukakis could have gone to Greece and been drafted into their military as a Greek citizen born abroad to Greek citizens. Under Donofrio's logic...he wouldn't have qualified either.


FBH(me)-51 FWW-49 (MrsWondering)
DD19 DS 22 Dday-2005-Recovered

"agree to disagree" = Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
LOL @ Mrs. W.

Thanks Mr. W.

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,316
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,316
Yummmmmm, cheese grits...Now I have a mad craving FH! smile

Thanks c&l, that is the same thing that my parents and Mr. W have always told me as well...Nutty teacher I suppose...Ah well, I didn't actually have presidential aspirations anyhow...lol!

Hehehe Marsh...You have no idea how confused that Mr. W had me trying to explain all that FIRST thing when I woke up - I hadn't even had coffee yet for goodness sakes! I finally cried "uncle" and he gave up and decided to explain it here instead! grin

Mrs. W



FWW ~ 47 ~ Me
FBH ~ 50 ~ MrWondering
DD ~ 17
Dday ~ 2005 ~ Recovered

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,079
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,079
Marshmallow


Quote
And wouldn't he have been a Kenyan citizen at birth too?

Is my understanding of what a citizen vs. a natural born citizen correct?

No, because Kenya was a British Colony at the time, so he would be a UK citizen


Simul Justus Et Peccator
“Righteous and at the same time a sinner.”
(Martin Luther)
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Kinda makes you wonder about all those illegal immigrants who have babies on American soil, but who still have their allegiance to Mexico and would like to see the Southwest "returned" to Mexico.

Also makes you wonder about how much "spinning in the graves" the people of the Alamo and Texas might be doing knowing that the prevailing feelings are "if you can't beat them in war, beat them by walking and staying." And did I mention "let's give them amnesty?"

All the "legalese" nothwithstanding, it is patently clear that Obama WAS born a "dual citizenship" person. The only question remaining would seem to be "does the Constitution actually SAY what it says or are we going to allow attorneys and judges to change what it SAYS without any Amendment to what IS SAID.

And choosing to label someone "partisan" is just a means to distract from the merit of the case. It would seem that all who believe in the Constitution AS WRITTEN and/or AMENDED through the Constitutional process for amending the Constitution, ARE, by definition, "Partisan" to that Constitution regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof. It would equally seem that those who support "legislation from the bench" are NOT "partisan" to the Constitution and I'll leave to all to apply their own "labels" to those folks.


Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Quote
Kinda makes you wonder about all those illegal immigrants who have babies on American soil, but who still have their allegiance to Mexico and would like to see the Southwest "returned" to Mexico.

Indeed it does.

I would think that the framers understood the danger in allowing a person w/ divided loyalties into the most powerful job in the country.






Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,834
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,834
Marsh:

I don't have the exact language, but the case cited atually lists the language, but the law has been changed.

FH words:
Quote
Kinda makes you wonder about all those illegal immigrants who have babies on American soil,

You can't stroll across the border, birth your kid, and have that kid immediately become a US citizen anymore.

That's where all the age 16 and more than 5 years in the US, etc rules are all about.

So you can't stroll a pregnant woman across the border.

LG

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 1,116 guests, and 67 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Mike69, petercgeelan, Zorya, Reyna98, Nofoguy
71,829 Registered Users
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2019, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5