It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by aptness
If by McCain’s citizenship “having to be proven” you mean the Senate passed a non-binding resolution, then yes, I guess it was ‘proven.’ In any event, the resolution is describing McCain’s situation, not the requirements for natural born citizenship.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I liked the thread about John McCain's citizenship having to be proven.
Because in that thread, it is shown that the Constitution's use of the term "natural-born citizen" or etc. was actually defined as someone who was born to two parents who are BOTH American citizens at the child's time of birth. .
Even if it was defining the requirements for natural born citizenship, it couldn’t, since a non-binding resolution has no legal force.
The Supreme Court unequivocally said anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen, over a century ago.
Let me quote you from one of the Obama eligibility lawsuits that actually addressed the merits of the “two citizen parents” theory, Ankeny v. Governor of the state of Indiana—
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens."
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs' arguments fall under the category of "conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions"
Ouch.
Originally posted by dizzie_lizzie79
I am a great judge of character and man...something about that look in his eye !
Originally posted by Gixxr1rider
Aloha ATSers
Im new just signed up today and give my 2 cents on this issue. To be a Natural Born Citizen it requires 2 US Citizen parents and child born on US Soil and heres why. What if OBL or any other non us citizen father gets an american girl pregant and that child born in ohio could that child become president? Where would that child loyality be with the terrorist dad or the US? Thats why the it takes 2 citizen parents no conflict in alegiance. Read what john jay wrote to GW and what john bingham who is the father of the 14th add. on the house floor around 1862 or 1866.
Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by Char-Lee
But that gets to the heart of my question. Would anyone be upset if he actually became President?
Originally posted by Char-Lee
I would assume simply because it is the USA law. The law may have been because our presidency can be bought, so if you let people who were not born American citizens it would be much easier for an enemy country to pay for a planted presidential runner?
Nice summaries, from which website did you copy that? I see they are posted on freerepublic verbatim.
Originally posted by Brassmonkey
In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. ...
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "legality," "obedience," "faith" or "power," of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim, protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. ...
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. ...
The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established. ...
Mr. Justice Curtis said: "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, `a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth."
In United States v. Rhodes, (1866) Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England." "We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
Originally posted by Shadowalker
Its funny no one can accept the WH document at face value.
I mean really folks, its stamped right at the bottom as being a true copy or abstract of a TXE record.
Of course it a TXE record. Never doubted it for a moment.
As one commenter, Jon Lafferty, put it:
Until 1980, all foreign and domestic births recorded here received a COLB from Hawaii. In 1981, Hawaii started to issue a certificate of foreign birth for babies brought here from another country. I know a woman who came here from the Philippines as a 15 year old in 1982 and she has a COFB from Hawaii. This is why Maya, who came here in the 1970s has a COLB from Hawaii. I think Obama may have been born here and is hiding the rest of his records because he attended Punahou, Occidental, Columbia and Harvard as a foreign student receiving US government aid. If he did, he defrauded the US government out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
WWW.THERIGHTSIDEOFLIFE.COM
Originally posted by aptness
If by McCain’s citizenship “having to be proven” you mean the Senate passed a non-binding resolution, then yes, I guess it was ‘proven.’ In any event, the resolution is describing McCain’s situation, not the requirements for natural born citizenship.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I liked the thread about John McCain's citizenship having to be proven.
Because in that thread, it is shown that the Constitution's use of the term "natural-born citizen" or etc. was actually defined as someone who was born to two parents who are BOTH American citizens at the child's time of birth. .
Originally posted by j2000
It says on the bottom that the Source is from the AP.
And nowhere in the Constitution is the requirement having two citizen parents.
Originally posted by bsbray11
You see the word "Constitution"?
Yes, that is a "binding resolution." It's the freaking Constitution.
McCain’s birth wasn’t investigated.
No one is saying this is a law that was invented when McCain's birth was investigated.
Originally posted by General.Lee
Exactly. That's the idea. Just like his many SS numbers. Create enough of confusion and distraction, people will get either frustrated or bored and the issue will go away.