tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4118973902952907664.post3416244202474035350..comments2024-03-06T00:16:17.962-08:00Comments on Vandalia Republic News: U.S. Supreme Court Has Ruled on Obama’s Eligibility!!Lets build a Republichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13461371924633755006noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4118973902952907664.post-11517572513706140572011-11-15T14:51:24.979-08:002011-11-15T14:51:24.979-08:00Re: “Edwin Meese based his analysis on the "c...Re: “Edwin Meese based his analysis on the "common-law principle", not on the Supreme Court precedent. “<br /><br />Not true. The Wong Kim Ark case is the precedent, and it clearly says that EVERY child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born. You hve to be deliberately obtuse to not understand that a US Citizen who fulfills the criteria of Natural Birth as defined by the US Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark is anything other than a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN, and that is what Meese wrote.<br /><br />But the same principle in fact was understood long before Meese, and even long before the Wong Kim Ark ruling. This was written in 1829:<br /><br />"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)<br /><br /><br />Re: “He fails to discuss the citizenship of the parents. “<br /><br />Answer. That is because the citizenship of the parents has no effect on the Natural Born Citizen status of a child born in the USA (other than the children of foreign diplomats). Only the place has effect . That was the original meaning of Natural Born Citizen. Here is an example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the US Constitution was written:<br /><br />"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)<br /><br />As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within a state.”<br /><br />Re: “He fails to show the legal distinction between "citizens" and "natural born citizens". <br /><br />Answer the difference is that in the broad category of citizens there are two, and only two, sub categories, naturalized citizens and Natural Born Citizens. Naturalized citizens, who of course were not born in the USA, are not eligible. Natural Born Citizens, who were born in the USA are eligible. A Natural Born Citizen is a US citizen who fulfills the Natural Born criterion, birth in the USA.<br /><br />Re: “The Framers were very concerned that we never have a President who grew up under parents with divided loyalties, thus dividing the loyalties of the son.”<br /><br />Answer: Sure, but they did not say that they considered (and hence there is no evidence that they considered) that a US-born child of foreign parents would have less loyalty to the USA than the US-born child of US parents. They were concerned about foreigners becoming president, and hence they barred them (to be a Natural Born Citizen, you must be a US citizen). And they were concerned about naturalized citizens becoming president, and hence they specified that only Natural Born Citizens can become president. But they did not bar the US-born children of foreigners from becoming president. IF they had wanted to, they could have said it, but they didn’t—not in the US Constitution, nor in the Federalist Papers, nor in anything else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4118973902952907664.post-81702497748106545032011-11-15T05:41:03.624-08:002011-11-15T05:41:03.624-08:00The Minor v, Happersett decision never ruled any s...The Minor v, Happersett decision never ruled any such thing. If it did, Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan's attorney general, would not have written:<br /><br />“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.]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com