Were birthers a bunch of nut jobs?

At any rate, as we were discussing McCain, US parents make him legit...

But, thanks for the rational response...

 

A foreign military base is generally considered to be under the legal jurisdiction of the government who's military is located there by the treaty agreement that allows the base to exist but it still isn't a part of the nation that occupies the base and the base in Panama certainly wasn't located in any of the 50 United States.

Once again, simple rule, remove the statutory law that granted John McCain his citizenship and he would never have been a natural born US citizen under the criteria established by the 14th Amendment (which actually existed since the creation of the United States but that was unenumerated) which is based upon Jus Soli (i.e. The Right of Soil).

It was the violations of the Inalienable Right of Citizenship based upon Jus Soli by statutory laws that lead to the ratification of the 14th Amendment. That was what the Supreme Court decision in the United States v Kim Wong Ark actually addressed after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Kim Wong Ark was born in California when it was a State but statutory laws refused to acknowledge his natural born US Citizenship. The Court decided that Kim Wong Ark was a natural born citizen based upon the criteria established in the 14th Amendment which was "Jus Soli" and he had the Inalienable Right of US Citizenship that could not be denied under statutory law.

 

Were they nutjobs because they initially questioned his birth certificate, No, are they nutjobs because they still question it after having all the proof required provided and by the GOP also not taking issue with it, Yes. They are simply wishing it could be true, something children do, adults live with reality.

 

Thanks...

 

Actually there is plenty of excuse for it, because as it applies to the citizenship by birth of the foreign born, the law is nowhere near as cut and dried as practically everybody is making it out to be.

 

Of course it is..... You are just fantasizing about ignorance. Thousands of Americans are born overseas every year.. Their births are registerested at the nearest US consulate and they are footprinted in ink and issued US passports as natural born citizens.. I have been thru the process several times.

 

to me, McCain being elected would have been an interesting Constitutional argument- there are certainly hard core Constitutionalists who don't believe McCain was eligible- but...

If the voters voted for him.
And the Electoral College Elected him...

The only body that could have prevented his election was Congress- and Congress had already signaled that they considered him a natural born citizen.

I believe that only Congress has the power or authority to determine a President's eligibility- if Congress confirmed McCain's election he would have been President.

 

Sweet Jesus.. both of McCain's parents were Americans.

 

Sure it is, to the constitutionally illiterate.

Then surely you will have no problem citing a claim I've made here that is not demonstrably true.

You can go through it several thousand times and remain blissfully oblivious as to whether that process is valid under the Constitution, as you clearly are.

 

Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution delegate the role and responsibility to Congress to:

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/article.html

Congress has statutory control related to "naturalized" citizenship but has no statutory authority or control over "natural born citizenship" and the US Supreme Court in it's definative decision on "natural born citizenship in the case of the United States v Kim Wong Ark established this fact. In that decision it the Supreme Court ruled that "anyone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction (laws) thereof" had an inalienable Right of Citizenship (i.e. it is a natural right which is the basis for the usage of the word "natural" born citizen). Their inalienabel Right of Citizenship is a natural Right based upon the "Right of Soil" (Jus Soli) and that the criteria of Jus Soli had always been the basis for "natural born citizenship" historically both in the United States as well as in the UK under common law prior to the existance of the United States.

States only have legal jurisdiction over their specfic territory and have no statutory authority outside of that territory. The US Congress can, as noted above, create laws related to naturalization where foreign born persons are granted US citizenship but the States cannot do that. The 10th Amendment establishes that the States (and the People) do not have powers that are delegated to the federal government by the US Constitution. States do have the authority to document "natural born citizenship" for those born within the State as that is an Inalienable Right of the Person protected by the 14th Amendment and is not and cannot be controlled by any statutory law. States merely document "natural born citizenship" for those born within the States based upon "jus soli" but do not grant that citizenship nor can they deny it.

Our naturalization laws passed by Congress do grant "naturalized citizenship" based upon "Jus Sanguinis" (i.e. Right of Blood) when the child's parents are US citizens but the child is born outside of the United States. A child born outside of the 50 states is not automatically a US citizen based upon the Right of Citizenship established by Jus Soli (i.e Right of Soil) and for those children born outside of the United States they (or their parents) must apply for citizenship under the statutory laws passed by Congress.

This was exemplified by the case of Leeland Davidson who was born in Canada when his "US citizen" parents were apparently on vacation. Leeland Davidson grew up in the United States, served in WW II, and always believed that he was a US citizen but when he was in his 90's he applied for a "Washington Enhance Drivers License" to travel to Canada but was turned down because he was not a US citizen. He was later granted US citizenship but had to apply for it under our naturalization laws.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/25/leeland-davidson-wwii-vet_n_840768.html

There was fundamentally no difference between Leeland Davidson that wasn't a natural born citizen of the United States and John McCain except that John McCain was granted US citizenship immediately after being born under the statutory naturalization laws passed by Congress and Leeland Davidson was granted US citizenship under the identical law when he was 95 years old. Neither was a "natural born citizen" of the United States and both obtained US citizenship under the "uniform rule of naturalization" that our Congress creates by statutory law.

 

Read the law for yourself.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

 

Natural Born US Citizenship is based upon Jus Soli (Latin - Right of Soil) and not on Jus Sanguinis (Latin - Right of Blood). Who a person's parents are has no bearing whatsoever on their Inalienable Right of Citizenship nor can an Inalienable Right be based upon anyone other than the actual person.

"Natural Born Citizenship" reflects the "Inalienable (natural) Right of Citizenship of the Person" and an inalienable Right is that which is inherent in the Person not being dependant upon any other person (e.g, parents). The child, at birth, establishes it's Inalienable Right of Citizenship based upon where it is born regardless of who the parents are.

Citizenship based upon Jus Sanguinis is granted based upon statutory laws and does not reflect the Inalienable (natural) Right of Citizenship of the Person.

 

Obama's father was under US jurisdiction and married to a US citizen when Barak was born in Hawaii.

I am not sure I understand what you are referring to .. The statues define who is a citizen...

If you are born to two US citizens in Saudi Arabia, you are a natural born US citizen.

 

A person needs to understand the difference between "at birth" and "by birth" as they are not the same. Natural born citizenship is established "by birth" and is also effective "at birth" but Congress can establish that a person is a citizen "at birth" but not "by birth" under statutory laws.

Natural born citizenship is established "by birth" and is not subject to Statutory Law as it is an Inalienable Right of the Person. Once again, simply repeal 8 USC § 1401 and then it sorts out who is and who is not a natural born citizen because all that would remain is the definition of natural born citizens established by the 14th Amendment (born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof).

 

what about the supremes j ??

 

The Inalienable (Natural) Right of Citizenship cannot be dependent upon another person. All Inalienable Rights are inherent in the Person and are not dependent upon any other person.

The Statutes passed by Congress can and do define "naturalized" citizens but "natural born citizenship" is defined and protected by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment protects the Inalienable Right of Citizenship of the Person and Congress cannot pass any laws that violate that Inalienable Right. This is exactly what the Supreme Court decision in the United States v Kim Wong Ark addressed as the "statutory laws" would have denied Kim Wong Ark his protected Inalienable Right of US Citizenship.

Both of my parents happen to be natural born US citizens but if I was born in Saudi Arabia I would not be a "natural born citizen" of the United States but I would have an Inalienable Right of Citizenship in Saudi Arabia (whether Saudi Arabia legally recognizes it or not). A person can only have one country where they are a "natural born citizen" and that is based upon Jus Soli but they can be citizens of many countries based upon statutory law. If I was born in Saudi Arabia my parents could have applied for US citizenship for me under the statutory naturalization laws that Congress has passed and I would have been granted US citizenship but I would not be a natural born citizen as Congress has no authority over natural born citizenship.

 

Congress has no authority related to "natural born citizenship" which is defined and protected by the 14th Amendment.

Per Article III of the US Constitution:

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/article.html

Only the Supreme Court that has the delegated role of addressing disputes arising unde the US Constutution and would have the authority to intervene and would do so based upon a challenge established by a lawsuit. There was and remains much dispute about whether McCain met the Constitutional requirement of Natural Born Citizenship that surfaced in 2008 but it has come up before. George Romney, a prior presidential candidate was born in Mexico and had US parents. It has never been resolved by the US Supreme Court and there is one fundamental problem related to bringing a lawsuit that would place the issue before the Supreme Court and that is "standing" to file the lawsuit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=0

There was one lawsuit filed challenging McCain's natural born citizenship in California and that, like many of the "birther" lawsuits, was dismissed by a federal judge do to a lack of standing by the plaintiffs.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?...ip_Is_Highly_Probable&slreturn=20130409104703

According to legal presedent simply being a citizen or taxpayer does not provide "standing" in challenging a presidential candidates eligibility and without standing all lawsuits are summarily dismissed before any arguments are presented. At the sametime I have to question the Judge Alsup's claim that this matter could be addressed after the election as that would leave little time for the Supreme Court to address the matter.

Be that as it may we do know of one hypothetical situation where a person would have standing. Let's assume a situation similiar to the Leeland Davidson case where he was born in Canada to US citizens but did not obtain US citizenship until he was an adult. We can imagine that someone that had been a Canadian citizen since birth but only later became a US citizen under our statutory laws as an adult being denied the right to run for president. A person in this situation would have "standing" as an individual to file a lawsuit to establish their eligibility to be president as a natural born citizen. We can go one step further and assume that this person never even lived in the United States prior to becoming a citizen but instead lived in foreign countries but was later as an adult was granted US citizenship based upon Title 8 USC § 1401 (c) which is how both John McCain and Leeland Davidson became a US citizens and that they also met the 14 year requirement of living in the US prior to running for president.

It would be a very interesting case where the individual has standing to file the lawsuit and I can only base my opinion on the Supreme Court decision in the United States v Kim Wong Ark where statutory law did not override the enumerated provisions for natural born citizenship as established by the 14th Amendment.

Based upon the 14th Amendment and the legal precedent of Supreme Court decision in the US v Kim Wong Ark I don't believe that the Supreme Court would side with the plaintiff and instead would state that becoming a citizen under the statutory provisions of Title 8 USC § 1401 (c) does NOT establish "natural born citizenship" of the person and the plaintiff would not be eligible to be the President of the United States.

It does remain an unresolved Constitutional issue though and we can each have our opinions. I would ask how many believe that someone that was born of US parents but lived from birth as a foreign citizen in a foreign nation for decades after birth and was later made US citizen because their parents were US citizens under exactly the same law that allowed McCain to be a US citizen should be allowed to run for president of the United States?

Personally I'd actually rather have someone that came to the US as an infant, grew up as an American, and became a naturalized citizen to be the president because I would assume that they have "American" political values as opposed to someone born in the United States, is a natural born US citizen, but grew up in a foreign country and doesn't have "American" political values. Currently even a natural born US citizen that grows in in Yemen and becomes a radical Islamic fanatic could become the president of the United States. Not likely they would be elected but they would certainly be eligible based upon the US Constitution as long as they spend 14 years living in the United States immediately prior to running for office.

 

No, the ratification of the Constitution established that fact.

It did no such thing.

Not at all, but this is the sort of drivel that must be expected from those who willfully divorce themselves from any understanding of natural rights by their denial of the existence of the Grantor of such rights.

Which of course is of no moment whatsoever, since a state which confers citizenship on someone born abroad exercises no such authority ipso facto.

What a surprise.

No federal statute is cognizable under the Constitution that is not made in pursuance thereof. With that in mind, I look forward to you, or anyone, citing the constitutional provision(s) which authorize(s) Congress to confer citizenship by birth on the foreign born.

 

And yet it is in fact dependent on many other people.

To be sure.

 

This is ignorant drivel.

The Congress of the United States did not exist prior to the Ratification of the Constitution by the first nine States. Congress cannot Amend the US Constitution (only the States can ratify a Constitutional Amendment under Article V of the Constitution) and has no authority over it but must comply with it.

Inalienable Rights are inherent in the Person and cannot be "granted" by any person or entity. That which is "granted" is a Privilege and not a Right as it can be withdrawn by the same entity that granted it.

In the Supreme Court decision in the United States v Kim Wong Ark the Supreme court determined that Kim Wong Ark had the (inalienable) Right of Citizenship established by his birth in California which was a State at the time of his birth. His "natural" citizenship based upon his birth in the United States and that he was under the jurisdiction of the United States at birth, which met the criteria of the 14th Amendment excluded him from denial of his Right of Citizenship under statutory law. Kim Wong Ark was a natural born citizen of the United States not subject to any statutory laws that would deny him this citizenship.

Natural born citizenship cannot be denied or granted by statutory naturalization laws passed by Congress because it is an Inalienable Right of Citizenship of the Person based upon Jus Soli and is protected by the 14th Amendment.

Congress, under Article I Section 8 is delegated with the power and responsibility to create uniform laws or naturalization. No person born outside of the United States is a citizen "at birth" as citizenship for these persons must be applied for. If the parents do not apply for the citizenship of the child then the child does not become a US citizen and they cannot apply until after the baby is born. This is not to state that the "birth certificate" isn't retroactive but there is a time period between when the baby is born and when they are granted US citizenship. Once agian if the statutory laws granting citizenship to a child born to US citizens outside of the country is repealed then the child would not be a US citizen but if a child is born to ANY PERSON in one of the United States and is subject to the jurisdiction thereof (which excludes the children of diplomates exempt from US law and foreign armies of occupation) then the child is a "natural born citizen" of the United States and is not subject to the naturalization laws passed by Congress.

 

Who? An unknown woman can walk into a hospital and give birth in the waiting room and at the moment of birth she dies on the spot. No one knows who she is or was and no one assisted in the birth but the child is still a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. This is based upon the Inalienable Right of Citizenship established by the "Right of Soil" where the birth occured for the person. That inalienable Right is dependent upon no other factors or persons.

 

maybe one did.

 

What I'm missing, I'm afraid, is how any of this contradicts anything I said.

I am absolutely fed to the teeth with your tedious, interminable and ill-founded pedantry; so the next time you respond to me with a WoT that I have to rummage through to find something relevant to what I said you're on my i-list. Just FYI.

The people who maintain the jurisdiction to which one is born subject, and who have the unalienable right to dissolve that jurisdiction, obviously.

Yeah, I get it. You can only justify your conclusion by circular reasoning.

 

Well, then you will have a problem with quite a few of us in here. And this is a bit of a sidebar I admit, but it pertains to what you said.

You see, a great many of us do not simply throw out an "easily digested sound bite" and move on. We do not cater to the MTV generation, but approach things, well, as scholars or lawyers in order to give precedent, facts, and examples. And this thread is actually becoming a rather interesting case study in this.

Here you have Margot, Shiva, and myself Sometimes we agree with each other, more often I think we disagree with each other (or more accurately they do not agree with me). We may interpret things differently, or look at one instance and give it more value then another. However, you are rarely going to find us say to each other or anybody else "Dude, to much information!".

Myself, I am often accused of that I admit, but I also like to be clear. Pithy 1 or 2 sentence quips are normally not my forte, unless I am being humorous or sarcastic. And about the only time I reject such is when the source is highly questionable, or it is horribly off topic ("It's the fault of the joos!").

So if you do not want to get into such a debate with one of us (or many others, like RoccoR), then it is best to just not try to engage us. Because we will generally reference you to death.

BTW, just because I do not agree with somebody does not mean I do not respect them or their viewpoints. And in the same token, just because I agree with somebody does not mean I respect them. Many times I have found myself cringing when I agree on something with somebody who happens to be a freaking '**** racist. Other times I grin as somebody on the "Far Left" and I join forces against some '**** racist. It is one of the dynamics that I find fun in here.

 

Looky here, Marine: obviously all this is meant constructively. However, I submit that you labor under a handicap of ignorance in two respects:

1. Your posts in this thread suggest that for whatever reason, you are about as conversant in matters constitutional as I am in matters military. If that assessment is in the ballpark, you are at a serious disadvantage in this discussion, because citizenship is defined by codified law, and in the US the only federal statutes which are legally cognizable as such are those made in pursuance of the Constitution. Furthermore, while tanks and fighter planes can certainly be a legitimate topic of idle debate, if anything does NOT qualify as such it is surely the meaning of the laws under which we live, for to the degree that the meaning of the law is debatable, it serves as cover for those who would transform ours into a government of men rather than laws.

So perhaps I take such debates more seriously than most; and while I don't care a straw how much I am insulted or condescended to, I have not the slightest obligation to give more respect than I am given; and surely you can agree that implying an assertion is false and then continually "rebutting" it with information which contradicts it not at all is not respectful. Neither am I here to plow through haystacks of verbiage which is old news to me, in hopes of finding a needle that probably isn't there anyway. I'm here to challenge people to support their claims about citizenship law, and I haven't gotten a straight answer yet - assuming, of course, that such glaring insanities as citizenship being a natural right don't qualify merely by virtue of their lack of equivocation.

2. I doubt you have engaged Shiva much on constitutional issues, which would mean my read on him is way better than yours. I don't think the rules allow me to be any more truthful than that.