Thursday, March 8, 2012

Obama Eligibility is about The Rule of Law.

One key concept in the founding of a free society is that men (kings, queens, emperors, dictators, etc...) should not rule by their whim. The Rule of Law is the concept that no one is above the law. It is fundamental to individual rights and a free society.

America was founded with three separate branches of government to protect the Rule of Law. The most basic level of law in America is the U.S. Constitution. It establishes which rights the government is charged to protect. The Constitution is the written representation of enduring and agreed upon truths, and as such we call it law. The only alternative is the Rule of Man.

We should all remember that the issue of Natural Born Citizenship, as established in The U.S. Constitution and upheld by 3 supreme court cases and Senate Resolution 511, is about The Rule of Law.

Many of us allow ourselves to believe that the Obama eligibility issue is not going to be settled. However, it is a battle worth fighting. If The Rule of Law does not apply to our leaders, if they are above the law, America is over and we are no longer free.

When the Roman Republic fell, Romans did not accept the truth. Historians say that for at least 100 years, many Romans held to the belief that the Republic still lived. After the complete collapse of the Roman Empire a few hundred years later, many Romans were slaughtered by invading hordes as they continued to cling to the belief that Rome was invincible. Without Constitutional Rule of Law, Americans are on the same path and the world will suffer a new dark age.

To accept that we can not or should not fight relentlessly to preserve freedom via The Rule of Law is to condemn future humanity to the Rule of Man. To allow The Constitution to become a worthless piece of paper reveals us as cowards and unfit for freedom. Cowards is not a strong enough word because we patriots know that historically freedom is the exception to the tyrannical rule and we are the people charged with it's care.

Post Script

We face a dishonest media, a corrupt government and a miseducated public. We may not prevail. If generations to come see that we failed to fight when we are so clearly on the correct side, it will discourage them. Some of us are not brave enough to face the task for ourselves but imagine a hopeless future where humanity is little more than a natural resources for those in power. You can see it today in the hopeless eyes of the young who are desperately grasping empty promises from the left.

Patriots do have an advantage. We occupy our historical position as the rebels who fight for freedom. We are "cool." Now we must take control of the message and spread real hope.


Some comments have raised the question of Natural Born Citizenship. This argument always revolves around asking for a direct example of Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution or Supreme Court cases. They never reference a Constitutional example or Supreme Court case that equates naturalized citizen, native born citizen, or simple citizenship with Natural Born Citizenship. They are attempting to use the "it depends upon what the definition of 'is' is" argument.

The definition of Natural Born Citizen is exactly as it sounds. A child who is a natural citizen in that they are born of citizen parents. There is no real controversy on the subject. It is the simplest definition possible and is not directly defined because it is common language just as 'is' is.


Anonymous said...

Obama was born in the USA, in Hawaii--as has been proven overwhelmingly--and hence he is a Natural Born Citizen. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to citizenship at birth, mainly caused by the place of birth. The only kind of US citizens who are not Natural Born Citizens are naturalized citizens.

“Concerning specifically the reading into the Constitution of a two-citizen- parent requirement for “natural born” citizenship status, it should be noted that there is, significantly, no historical nor controlling legal holding in American jurisprudence to support the argument that parental citizenship governs and controls the eligibility of a native born U.S citizen to be President. As indicated in the discussion of the history of the constitutional provision, there is also no justification for this unique theory, which would exclude an entire class of native born U.S. citizens from eligibility for the Presidency, in any of the statements or writings of the framers of the Constitution, or in the entire record of the ratification debates of the United States Constitution.”-- Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Jack Maskell, Congressional Research Service, November 2011.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President...."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Doo Doo Econ said...

You are confusing Native Born with Natural Born. Natural Born has been established by the framers and upheld in several supreme court cases to ensure that a puppet regime cannot be installed in America. The rights of women to vote are based upon their Natual Born citizen rights as true American citizens per

Doo Doo Econ said...

Further distinction is found in immigration law:

Doo Doo Econ said...

Additional documentation of the cover up of the facts is found and

Anonymous said...

The Minor vs Happersett case never said any such thing. Birther sites simply cut off the part of the quotation that says that the court does not have to decide this issue and hence it DID NOT DECIDE.

Birther lawyers are pulling your chain. No US Supreme Court case has ruled that two citizen parents are required. HOWEVER, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case DID rule that every child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats is NATURAL BORN.

This is what it said:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

Notice EVERY CHILD. Now the Wong Kim Ark case was after Minor vs Happersett and hence it would have overturned it if Minor vs Happersett actually was a ruling on the matter, but it wasn't.

Notice how similar the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case is to what Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan's attorney general, said:

"“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President...."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]"

Well, that is the law. That is why not a single member of the Electoral College changed a vote, despite a letter-writing campaign to them by birthers and two-fers to have them change. And that is why not a single member of the US Congress voted not to confirm Obama's election.

Anonymous said...


That is because it has been shown overwhelmingly that Obama was born in Hawaii, and every lawyer who has studied constitutional law (except for birther lawyers who are pulling your chain) knows that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (as the US Supreme Court and Meese both said) and that it refers to the place of birth, not the parents.

Here is an example of how the term Natural Born Citizen actually was used in America in 1803, shortly after the Constitution.

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

Notice that the quotation only refers to the place of birth, not the parents. Natural Born Citizens were "those born within a state." And here is how it was used in 1829:

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

"There's nothing that I'm aware of that says you have to have two American parents," said Gary Kreep, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation. "My understanding of it is if you're born in the United States, you're a natural-born citizen, period."

Floyd Brown, head of the Western Center for Journalism who has actively sought the impeachment of Obama, told WND that he, too, considers someone born "on the soil" a natural-born citizen.

Ann Coulter has written the same thing recently, and there now have been THREE state court rulings that say specifically that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen due to his place of birth and the Wong Kim Ark decision, and one federal court ruling, and there have been several other state and federal court rulings that state that the US-born children of foreigners are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

For example:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“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.”

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.”

Doo Doo Econ said...
The reasons behind the distinction Natural Born Citizen can be found in Vattels Law of Nations. America wanted to prevent England and France from placing a puppet president. There were exceptions for the founding fathers of which many comment upon. However I suggest that you take the time to read Senate Resolution 511 or any number of historical references to Vattel and our founding fathers. Natural Born status was such a commonly accepted idea that the current misinformation on the subject would have been unthinkable to educated people in the past.

Anonymous said...

Vattel is not mentioned even once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times.

The meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law, not from Vattel, and it refers to the place of birth, not the parents.

The writers of the US Constitution made absolutely no statement that they wanted to exclude the US-born children of foreigners. They excluded foreigners themselves from becoming president (because to be a Natural Born Citizen you must be a citizen). And they excluded naturalized citizens (because to be a Natural Born Citizen you have to be natural born).

But they never said, or indicated in any way, that they considered the US-born children of foreigners to be foreigners or that they considered the US-born children of foreigners to be less reliable and more likely to be security risks, than the US-born children of US-citizens.

All native born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. That is the way that the term was actually USED in the USA at the time that the Constitution was written. There are examples of American writers using it that way, and no examples of them using it the Vattel way.

Doo Doo Econ said...

You are confusing naturalization with Natural Born Citizenship. Citizen is distinct from Natural Born Citizen. The language Natural Born is distinct from Native Born in even common language. It takes no more thought than to speak the words Natural Born and consider what that means.

Other than your anonymous proclamation, what do you base the statement "Natural Born comes from common law, not from Vattel?"

Doo Doo Econ said...

Further consider the 14th Amendment:

To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.” This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, 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; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.

Doo Doo Econ said...

Here are some more resources for you to consider:

1. The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. “The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

2. Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “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.”
3. Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
4. Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Affirms that “natural born citizen,” is the child of an existing citizen. “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
5. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of “a native born person” of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.

Facts are stubborn things.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

About three birther lawyers have made selective quotations from Minor vs Happersett and other Supreme Court cases, claiming that those cases required two citizen parents. But they did not explain the legal concept of "dicata"--and they cut off the quotations just before the court states that it DOES NOT HAVE TO RULE ON THIS ISSUE.

There are about 400 lawyers in Congress and another 300-400 in the US Electoral College. Birthers tried to get them to change their votes to vote against Obama--but NOT ONE OF THEM DID.

There have now been three state court cases (Indiana, Georgia and Arizona) and one federal court case that all have ruled specifically that Obama is a Natural Born US citizen based on the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case. And there were also several lower court cases that stated that the US-born children of foreign citizens were Natural Born US Citizens.

Here are some resources for YOU to consider.

Doo Doo Econ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doo Doo Econ said...

Your links all seem to flow from the same 2008 CRS source which is just wrong and the authors of which should face scrutiny.

Bob Block Bail Bonds said...

Man, what a crazy story. I'll probably share this with some of my friends. Thanks again for posting it.




Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...