Boy, I hate to say, "I told you so", but this is just smart politics and probably the way I'd have played it if I was Mitt Romney. This close to the election Mr. Romney feels there is no way the Democratic Party can even nominate a qualified constitutionally eligible presidential candidate, so here we go into what could be a one sided vote.
Democrats have shuffled coughed, and winked once too many times for Obama who is not qualified to run for office. Obama may have had the GOP as the cat-in-the-bag during Sen. John McCain's run in 2008 because McCain needed cover also not being born in the United States which he received in Non-binding U.S. Senate Resolution 511, but all bets are off with Mitt Romney, and rightly so, Obama's not a 'natural born citizen' required by the Constitution.
So the cat-comes-out-of-the-bag and Democrats are freaking out! Look at the contribution solicit I received, as if donations and contributions could make Obama eligible.
Cody --
You have got to be kidding me. Yesterday, Mitt Romney said, and I quote:
"No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised."
This actually makes me feel sick when I think about it -- what it means when the leader of the Republican Party, a presidential candidate, stoops to this level.
The scariest part? His comment was met with cheers. It certainly fired up the extreme "birther" elements of the Republican base.
This has to stop, and it has to stop now. There's only one way to do that -- by making sure President Obama and Democrats across the board win on Election Day.
Donate $3 or more now to give Democrats the resources they need to cut through this crap and do what it takes to win in 73 days:
https://my.democrats.org/Birth-Certificate
Keep fighting,
Jeffrey
Jeffrey Lerner
Political Director
Democratic National Committee
Democrats have only once chance in hell of not entirely giving Mitt Romney the President by hook, or by the Constitution due to Obama's eligibility, and that is United States Supreme Court case no. 12-5276 Judy v. Obama where at least we could have a decision prior to the Democratic National Convention that is held Sept 5th, 2012.
Its getting close and Democrats should stop diluding themselves about U.S.C. Amendment 14 somehow replacing the qualifications for President that demand a natural born citizen- Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.
Further evidence on this topic was presented on this blog July 16th 2012 here:
http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/07/mound-of-mitt-judy-v-obama-scotus-faces.html
Cody Robert Judy
www.codyjudy.us
YouTube: CODE4PRES
I bet that the Dems WERE planning on asking Romney for his birth certificate to keep Romney from asking for Obama's.
ReplyDeleteIf Mitt ever asked Obama to show his short-form birth certificate, it would be game over.
Actually, Romnye was either misinformed or lying. That is because Reuters actually DID ask to see his birth certificate (So the claim that "no one asked to see it" is wrong), and Romney actually did show it. (But perhaps he forgot about the Reuters request. It's not such a good joke to say "Only Reuters has asked to see my birth certificate.")
ReplyDeleteRomney, however, only showed an image of a photocopy of his short form birth certificate. In contrast, Obama showed both the short form and the long form and both the images of them and the actual physical copies to the press. And the facts on Obama's birth certificate were confirmed by the officials in Hawaii of both parties, and by the Index Data and by the birth notices that were sent to the newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii.
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents.
“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. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as 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.]
“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)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
Here are sources to turn to for further research:
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/#nbc
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/an-open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo/
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/mario-apuzzo-schools-obot-poster-about-founders-utilization-of-vattel-on-natural-born-citizenship
ReplyDeleteThe Founders and Framers did not look to Vattel only in a general way on natural law and the law of nations, but also specifically for their definition of a “natural born Citizen.” As examples only and not as an exhaustive list, during the 1789 Ramsay-Smith congressional debate on whether Representative William Smith was at least a “Citizen of the United States” for seven-years so as to be eligible to be a representative under Article I, Section 2, Smith relied upon Vattel to show that he was such a “citizen.” David Ramsay in 1789 said that birthright citizenship after July 4, 1776 belonged only to the children of “citizens.” St. George Tucker in 1803 said the same. Our first law school at the College and William and Mary, along with many other early colleges, taught courses on Vattel, the law of nations, which they considered to be “national law.” These courses specifically provided explanations of Vattel’s definitions of “citizen” and “natural born citizen” under natural law and the law of nations.
In my presentations, I have also explained that several U.S. Supreme Court and lower court cases specifically cited and quoted or paraphrased Vattel and his Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Cases that cited and quoted Vattel for the definition of a “natural born Citizen” are The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); and United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”). Cases that paraphrased his definition are Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) (a child inherits the citizenship of his parents); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (a child inherits the citizenship of his parents); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (said that the Founders and Framers were familiar with the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen;” the American “common-law” definition that the Court gave was a paraphrase of Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen” and not that of the English common law’s definition of a “natural born subject”) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (cited and quoted Minor and its Vattel paraphrased American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen”). These cases, along with other historical evidence, show that Obama’s supporters are wrong when they say that Vattel did not provide the Founders and Framers with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” On the contrary, this evidence demonstrates that it was, indeed, Vattel who provided the Founders and Framers with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Indeed, this historical and case law evidence conclusively demonstrates that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” can be traced to Vattel’s Section 212 and was handed down from there to the Founders and Framers when they wrote the Constitution and continued to be confirmed in case law of our U.S. Supreme Court and lower court down to even the 1898 seminal case on citizenship, Wong Kim Ark.
Hey Cody
DeleteJust wanted to drop a link to a video I made last year that talks about Vattel and the College of William & Mary and has loads of other facts to prove Obama ineligible!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DHZmeMXyE
“He [Vattel] is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times.”
ReplyDeleteThe specific issue is the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” not the English common law in some general way. The English common law may be mentioned, but there is no evidence that the Founders and Framers used the English common law to define a “natural born citizen.” On the contrary, and only as one example, we know from his Federalist No. 42 that Madison called the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in defining terms in the Constitution. James Madison sat on the convention committee that drafted Article II presidential eligibility. Hence, he would not have relied upon the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.” Moreover, the law of nations is not only mentioned many times in the Federalist Papers, but was actually incorporated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 as part of Article III’s “Laws of the United States.” The English common law cannot make the same claim.3. “And the Wong Kim Ark decision was AFTER the Minor vs Happersett decision, and hence would have overturned it (if the Minor vs Happersett decision was actually a ruling on the matter, and it isn’t. It is merely dicta).”
Minor did confirm through a binding precedent what the American “common-law” meaning of a “natural-born citizen” was, i.e., “[a]t 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.” Second, Wong Kim Arkdid not abandon or amend this American “common-law” meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, it interpreted and construed the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby defined a “citizen of the United States” at birth thereunder. It did not amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
If you look at the Index of the Congressional Globe, 1833-1873: 28th Congress, 2nd Session and under "A", it says
DeleteAllegiance, natural. (See Webster. See Vattel.)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:20:./temp/~ammem_p1V7::
Go to Vattel's Book I and scroll down to 212, which says:
"§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 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."
Thank you for your comments. ;)
Delete4. “And the Wong Kim Ark decision ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (thus NOT from Vattel), and that it refers to the PLACE of birth (not the parents), and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.”
ReplyDeleteFirst, you are confused about what the “common law” means. The “common law” does not only come from the English. It also comes from the law of nations. Second. Wong Kim Ark used the colonial English “common law” as an aid in interpreting, construing, and applying the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not use the English “common law” to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” From that English “common law,” it concluded that every child that is born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (which at a minimum necessarily excluded children born to diplomats and invading armies), is a “citizen of the United States” at birth. The Court did not hold that such a child is necessarily a “natural born Citizen” also, and it would not have given that Wong Kim Ark also expressly recognized that a person has to satisfy the American “common law” standard of a “natural born Citizen” and not only be a “citizen” in order to be born with that status.
5. “THAT is why Meese had that quotation in his book. It corresponds to a ruling of the US Supreme Court. It does not differ from the ruling of the Supreme Court.”
The quote that Obama supporters like you plaster all over the internet as being made by Edwin Meese was not made by him, but rather by James C. Ho. Ho’s love affair with Wong Kim Ark jus soli puts Ho in a bind. Ho argues that, under English common law jus soli, simply being born in the United States makes one a born citizen of the United States which in turn makes one a “natural born Citizen.” First, he cannot explain if mere birth in the United States is sufficient to make on a “natural born Citizen,” why did the Founders and Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 say “natural born Citizen” rather than “born Citizen.” Second, Ho cannot explaint why if just being born a citizen makes one a “natural born Citizen,” why should Wong Kim Ark have concluded that persons born abroad to citizen parents who are also born “citizens of the United States” are not “natural born Citizens.” Ho offers no explanation why Wong Kim Ark gave birth on a soil so much more power than birth to parents? Not having an answer, Ho simply suggests that we not paying attention to Wong Kim Ark when it comes to the question of whether our citizens born abroad to citizen parents are “natural born Citizens.” He submits that they are. So Ho uses Wong Kim Ark anyway he wants, given the particular needs of the moment. He takes from the decision what he needs and throws away what he does not.