SoftBonds
Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
Chester A. Arthur
Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada.[46][47] This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Arthur's family history, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his presidency. Arthur was born in Vermont to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland, who was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 and 1824,[48] Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880[49] that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications.[50] Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot.
Sounds like either parent works. Also, why do you keep quoting something from 1802 when the relevant law is from 1790? Or does your law mention "Natural born citizen" anywhere in it? Oh well, no matter as I will show below...
But just for giggles, lets look at your law. Section 4: "children of persons who are now, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided in the United States." Two things, one, so if Obama's momma was a US citizen, and his father lived in the US once, he qualifies under your rules? Just making sure.
Second, the relevant text from the 1790 law is extremely similar, which at first glance would tend to encourage you, but... well, lets look at the text first:
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227
"and the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided in the United States."
OK, so the father still has to be a resident, but ONLY to allow citizenship, not to allow natural born citizenship. This is an important legal distinction, as if something changes the requirement of citizenship applying to only children whose fathers were citizens, it would invalidate this clause, but not the preceding clause.
Now, rather than dig through every law regarding citizenship, lets just look at the current law, according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=8554a3ac86aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=8554a3ac86aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD
Huh, nothing about the Father being the important parent here... Must have been repealed at some point in the intervening years...
So, only the clause saying "and the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens" is still valid.
Notice, that is the ONLY mention of natural born citizens in US law. Don't like it? Ask your congressperson to change it. But lacking a law regarding natural born citizens, the 1790 law is all we have to go on...
It does not have to be defined it was common knowledge and well understood.
First because they did that with Chester A. Arthur only stands that they did something and certainly does not show any relevance in law. That is that what they did was lawful. Lets look at lincoln, you could claim that because lincoln suspended the constitution that threfore its a-ok for them to do that. No not true.
The overseas gig presumes that both are us citizens. If both are not then the citizenship falls on the father. In fact the UK claims the child if the father is brit.
The reason it is not mentioned about the fathers is because women had no suffrage. They were kept barefoot and pregnant. No need to mention or define it.
As for residence that is according to each state, and the object of these rules were to keep brits and other aristocracy out of key leadership positions in government. That said any interpretation to the contrary or not in step would be highly suspect.
Its a gross oversimplification to assume that residence which meant property ownership in those days was just moving into an apartment as it is today.
So your analysis skips over several key material matters resulting in an erroneous conclusion.
I bolded the key quote in what you said...
Lydia Taft (1712 – 1778), a wealthy widow, was allowed to vote in town meetings in Uxbridge, Massachusetts in 1756[3]. No other women in the colonial era are known to have had the right to vote.
New Jersey in 1776 placed only one restriction on the general suffrage, which was the possession of at least £50 in cash or property (about $7,800 adjusted for inflation), with the election laws referring to the voters as “he or she.” In 1790, the law was revised to specifically include women, but in 1807 the law was again revised to exclude them, an unconstitutional act since the state constitution specifically made any such change dependent on the general suffrage.[4]
So, according to you, the reason we should not read the law as written, and instead apply it to only apply to fathers, is because women didn't vote back then. Except, you know, that they did... Granted, that was New Jersey, but still. If women in Jersey were voting, and they passed a law about citizenship to define who could be president, don't you think the Jersey precedent would matter? I mean, heck, Jersey explicitly made women's suffrage an issue the same year the law was passed!
Now certainly a child's father can also grant citizenship. I think a minor in the US can have up to 4 legal citizenships, father's, mother's, nation born in, and if they are Jewish they can claim Israeli citizenship too! They have to pick and choose among them when they hit 18 I think...
Which brings us back to:
Did you prove Obama wasn't a natural born citizen before he turned 18???
Statute of limitations ya know...
notice the term "wealthy". the exception proves the rule, and without looking I would bet she was a land owner by dowery therefore elector.
You believe then the law is expostfacto? I asked that before.
yeh statutory limitations not common law and certainly not when for the presidency.
since when does the burden of proof lie upon the employer.
ah so then you are cheering for the complete abrogation of the protections built in by the constitution and the organic law.
Since the burden of proof is in fact upon the trustee, why then havent the courts allowed for a full investigation and discovery? How can that be or dont we give a rats ass about the law? What will it take? MAss executions?
Oops.
Sorry that I left the thing about the only woman who was known to have voted before the existence of the US in with my point that the entire state of New Jersey allowed women to vote. If response to your question about burden of proof, I have a question about standing to bring suit. Specifically, if you are right, who has standing to bring a lawsuit alleging that the President is not a Natural Born Citizen?
My admittedly limited research suggests that only the US Congress has such standing. So you can either whine, or talk to your congressperson/senator.
AKA, what you are doing right now isn't affecting the price of tea in China.
|
RE: The newest wrinkle from the Birther front - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread