citizenship gone wild

[washamericom]

man, this is one of those things that lands squarely in the elephant in the room category.

it's the first poll i've seen quite like this:
Shock: CBS News Poll; 75% Said We Should Not Change
U.S. Constitution; Only Natural Born Citizens For POTUS

Read more at Shock: CBS News Poll; 75% Said We Should Not Change Constitution; Only Natural Born Citizens For POTUS - Birther Report

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) comments:

We the People innately understand the natural security purpose of the requirement that the President and Commander in Chief of our military had to be a special type of citizen, one with sole allegiance to the USA at birth. But this news story in its commentary on the poll results gets it wrong when it talks about who truly is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. A “natural born Citizen” is not either a person Born in the USA (without regard to the Citizenship status of your parents) or a foreign born Citizen at Birth by statutory law. A “natural born Citizen” of the United States as defined in the legal treatise used by the founders and framers to write our founding documents is a person Born in the USA to parents who are born U.S. Citizens (born or naturalized) when their child is born in the USA, i.e., a person born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship to the USA and only the USA. “natural born Citizens” make up the overwhelmingly largest proportion of U.S. Citizens. They are by far the super-majority group/sub-set of all U.S. Citizens. And it is from this group we are to choose our President. A “natural born Citizen” is a subset of the super-sets of all U.S. Citizens and “born Citizens”. No person born with dual-Citizenship at birth is a “natural born Citizen”. Ted Cruz who was born in Canada and thus with Canadian citizenship, to a Cuban father and thus he inherited Cuban citizenship, and to a U.S. Citizen mother and thus inherited U.S. Citizenship; is a tri-Citizen at birth and is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Marco Rubio was born in the USA and thus is a U.S. Citizen at Birth to two Cuban citizen parents and thus he inherited Cuban citizenship from both his parents; is a dual-Citizen at birth and is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

Read this excellent legal essay by Atty Mario Apuzzo on the difference between basic Citizenship (born, citizen at birth, or naturalized later) and one being a “natural born Citizen”: A Citizen is One Thing, But a Natural Born Citizen is Another | Atty Mario Apuzzo

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
protectourliberty 114 uploads | Scribd


image: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Cohw2PdnT1s/Vso0XSyyK8I/AAAAAAAAlGk/3pBTxox4inU/s1600/euler-logic-diagram-citizenship-supersets-and-subsets%2Bbirther%2Breport.jpg


Read more at Shock: CBS News Poll; 75% Said We Should Not Change Constitution; Only Natural Born Citizens For POTUS - Birther Report

Comander Kerchner i can say is one of the premier and most knowledgeable birthers in the arena.

since hillary can't go after Trump for so many things because of her enormous closet of skeletons, foreign policy, women's rights, past real estate deals... you get the idea. rubio and cruz are on thin ice with this, i don't think there would be enough time to litigate, especially now with the supreme court new gang of eight.

personally, i'd like to see it addressed. proponents continue to tout the one parent born anywhere, and no parents necessary if born here. i continue to believe it's unsettled, that the founding fathers named specifics to these two American jobs. no other job in the world requires "natural born" to be the American CIC.

but if anyone out there thinks it wouldn't come up in the general election, because either it doesn't matter or the democrats are too nice, i respectfully disagree.
except for syrius, starkey and skylar, with whom i just disagree.

 

[007]

man, this is one of those things that lands squarely in the elephant in the room category.

it's the first poll i've seen quite like this:

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) comments:

We the People innately understand the natural security purpose of the requirement that the President and Commander in Chief of our military had to be a special type of citizen, one with sole allegiance to the USA at birth. But this news story in its commentary on the poll results gets it wrong when it talks about who truly is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. A “natural born Citizen” is not either a person Born in the USA (without regard to the Citizenship status of your parents) or a foreign born Citizen at Birth by statutory law. A “natural born Citizen” of the United States as defined in the legal treatise used by the founders and framers to write our founding documents is a person Born in the USA to parents who are born U.S. Citizens (born or naturalized) when their child is born in the USA, i.e., a person born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship to the USA and only the USA. “natural born Citizens” make up the overwhelmingly largest proportion of U.S. Citizens. They are by far the super-majority group/sub-set of all U.S. Citizens. And it is from this group we are to choose our President. A “natural born Citizen” is a subset of the super-sets of all U.S. Citizens and “born Citizens”. No person born with dual-Citizenship at birth is a “natural born Citizen”. Ted Cruz who was born in Canada and thus with Canadian citizenship, to a Cuban father and thus he inherited Cuban citizenship, and to a U.S. Citizen mother and thus inherited U.S. Citizenship; is a tri-Citizen at birth and is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Marco Rubio was born in the USA and thus is a U.S. Citizen at Birth to two Cuban citizen parents and thus he inherited Cuban citizenship from both his parents; is a dual-Citizen at birth and is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

Read this excellent legal essay by Atty Mario Apuzzo on the difference between basic Citizenship (born, citizen at birth, or naturalized later) and one being a “natural born Citizen”: A Citizen is One Thing, But a Natural Born Citizen is Another | Atty Mario Apuzzo

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
protectourliberty 114 uploads | Scribd


image: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Cohw2PdnT1s/Vso0XSyyK8I/AAAAAAAAlGk/3pBTxox4inU/s1600/euler-logic-diagram-citizenship-supersets-and-subsets%2Bbirther%2Breport.jpg


Read more at Shock: CBS News Poll; 75% Said We Should Not Change Constitution; Only Natural Born Citizens For POTUS - Birther Report

Comander Kerchner i can say is one of the premier and most knowledgeable birthers in the arena.

since hillary can't go after Trump for so many things because of her enormous closet of skeletons, foreign policy, women's rights, past real estate deals... you get the idea. rubio and cruz are on thin ice with this, i don't think there would be enough time to litigate, especially now with the supreme court new gang of eight.

personally, i'd like to see it addressed. proponents continue to tout the one parent born anywhere, and no parents necessary if born here. i continue to believe it's unsettled, that the founding fathers named specifics to these two American jobs. no other job in the world requires "natural born" to be the American CIC.

but if anyone out there thinks it wouldn't come up in the general election, because either it doesn't matter or the democrats are too nice, i respectfully disagree. except for syrannis, starkey and skylar, for whom i just disagree.

If it mattered, then obama wouldn't be president. Not even his ass kissing worshipers can deny the fact that his father was a Kenyan, a British citizen, so no matter where obama was born, he'd be born with DUAL citizenship, which would make him constitutionally ineligible to be president. This was obviously ignored, which now has set precedent. You can't have obama in the white mosque for two terms and then dredge this constitutional requirement stuff up for subsequent candidates. Either obama is illegally holding the office now, or the other's are all fine and dandy to run, one or the other.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a bunch of nonsense. Obama and Cruz and McCain were and are qualified per the Constitution to run for president. Those who disagree should be made to take and pass a constitution course before they are allowed to vote again.

 

[washamericom]

What a bunch of nonsense. Obama and Cruz and McCain were and are qualified per the Constitution to run for president. Those who disagree should be made to take and pass a constitution course before they are allowed to vote again.

just so i'm clear, one or both parents have to be "a" citizen if they are foreign born ?
would those who agree with you get to take the "ah constitution course" pass fail ?
wouldn't that be like a poll tax, or repression ?

Main article: Voter suppression in the United States
Because elections are locally administered in the United States, voter suppression varies among jurisdictions. At the founding of the country, most states limited the right to vote to property-owning white males. Over time, the right to vote was formally granted to racial minorities, women, and youth. However, throughout the latter 19th and early 20th centuries, Southern states passed Jim Crow laws to suppress poor and racial minority voters; among other things, such laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses. Most of these voter suppression tactics were made illegal after the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

wouldn't it be easier just to define natural born, than to try to restrict the voters jake ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only you want to suppress voters, wash.

Obama was born in Hawaii, his mom was an American, so he passes.

Rubio was born in Miami and qualifies under the 14th Amendment.

McCain was born in Panama to American citizens.

See, that is not difficult, so what is wrong with you?

 

[washamericom]

Only you want to suppress voters, wash.

Obama was born in Hawaii, his mom was an American, so he passes.

Rubio was born in Miami and qualifies under the 14th Amendment.

McCain was born in Panama to American citizens.

See, that is not difficult, so what is wrong with you?

it's obama math jake, your way works without the expression natural born. which would render that part of article two superfluous.

i don't see the expression natural born here, do you. i don't see the 14th amendment transcending the qualifications in article two, i think it really wasn't about who was running for president or vice.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

what you have going for your argument, is that it's never been challenged to the level of the supreme court. so dual citizens of foreign nationals and anchor babies seem fine for now. but i see it being challenged in the future. maybe won't happen. it could be amended to strike the clause, so it's just any citizen, the people might like that better. but right now it's a great big constitution matzah ball hanging out there.

making up your own definitions doesn't count, it's still in question.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that, wash, is why you will never make a Constitutional scholar, wash.

SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in Article III.

Your definitions don't count, SCOTUS opinions do.

Just the way it is.

 

[Avatar4321]

There are two types of citizens. Natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.

No one is disputing that Obama, Cruz, Rubio, or even Trump are citizens. And no one disputes that none of them were naturalized.

That means they were born citizens.

Case dismissed

 

[washamericom]

And that, wash, is why you will never make a Constitutional scholar, wash.

SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in Article III.

Your definitions don't count, SCOTUS opinions do.

Just the way it is.

and madison v marbury
actually that's fine cause i just nominated toro to be Trump's running mate.
you can be the secretary of bullshit. but you did raise a great point.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.




President Obama Attacked the Supreme Court, But His Political Rhetoric Is Simply False
OBAMA PUBLICLY CRITICIZED THE SUPREME COURT IN BACK-TO-BACK EVENTS

President Obama: “I’m Confident That The Supreme Court Will Not Take What Would Be An Unprecedented, Extraordinary Step Of Overturning A Law That Was Passed By A Strong Majority Of A Democratically Elected Congress.” (President Barack Obama, Press Conference, Washington, D.C., 4/2/12)

• President Obama: “The Burden Is On Those Who Would Overturn A Law Like This.” PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce—a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal. And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At Associated Press Luncheon, Washington, D.C., 4/3/12)

BUT HIS ATTACK WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY HISTORY OR LEGAL PRECEDENT

FactCheck.org: “President Obama Is Being Forced To Modify His Absurdly Wrong Claim That It Would Be ‘Unprecedented’ For The Supreme Court To Strike Down The New Health Care Law.” “President Obama is being forced to modify his absurdly wrong claim that it would be ‘unprecedented’ for the Supreme Court to strike down the new health care law. He made that statement April 2 in a news conference…As any number of others were quick to point out, there is ample precedent for the Supreme Court voiding laws passed by Congress. In fact, overturning unconstitutional laws has been part of the Supreme Court’s job description for more than two centuries. And the health care law wasn’t passed by a ‘strong’ majority, either. In the House, the final vote was 219 to 212, with all Republicans and even 34 Democrats voting in opposition.” (Brooks Jackson, “Obama Eats His Words,” FactCheck.org, 4/4/12)

you and obama... heh... both pretending constitutional scholars....

natural born will keep coming up in this election jake, and forever till it's resolved. sorry amigo.

 

[JakeStarkey]

heh . . . your inter is your interp

 

[washamericom]

heh . . . your inter is your interp

well said.

 

[007]

There are two types of citizens. Natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.

No one is disputing that Obama, Cruz, Rubio, or even Trump are citizens. And no one disputes that none of them were naturalized.

That means they were born citizens.

Case dismissed

Not really. If you want to include "naturalized" citizens, then there are three different types...

Natural Born Citizen vs. Native Born Citizen

 

[007]

Obama was born in Hawaii, his mom was an American, so he passes.

There is no tangible, hard copy evidence that can be held in hand, examined, verified for authenticity and presented to the world to see of obama being born in Hawaii, period, end of story.

He was born in Kenya.

 

[Rustic]

What a bunch of nonsense. Obama and Cruz and McCain were and are qualified per the Constitution to run for president. Those who disagree should be made to take and pass a constitution course before they are allowed to vote again.

It seems to me to be a natural born citizen, both parents born IN the country and the child of BOTH parents born IN in the country??
Makes sense...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama was born in Hawaii, his mom was an American, so he passes.

There is no tangible, hard copy evidence that can be held in hand, examined, verified for authenticity and presented to the world to see of obama being born in Hawaii, period, end of story.

He was born in Kenya.

This type of argument has long ago been dismissed as nonsense. 007 is far more likely to have been born in Kenya than Obama.

Rustic, you have your opinion: it's wrong.

 

[washamericom]

look jake here's elizabeth warren to explain it for you, she's way more expert at this than you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You continue to demonstrate that you are drug addled, wash.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Only you want to suppress voters, wash.

Obama was born in Hawaii, his mom was an American, so he passes.

Rubio was born in Miami and qualifies under the 14th Amendment.

McCain was born in Panama to American citizens.

See, that is not difficult, so what is wrong with you?

Correct.

The notion that a natural born citizen is only someone born in the United States with both parents US citizens is unfounded idiocy.

There are only two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized.

If one realized his US citizenship absent the naturalization process, then he's a natural born citizen.