Sunday, December 21, 2008

L.A. Times Deletes the Lead about Schwarzenegger & Presidency, After Drudge, Free Republic, I.O. Feature it; Could it be... Obama?

Los Angeles Times caught red-handed

2nd Update, Monday 12/22, 4:02am CT

This entry was formerly entitled, "Elect Schwarzenegger President? Obama Says Yes We Can! Dear L.A. Times..."
It was comprised of the letter shown below, which I also emailed to the Los Angeles Times, yesterday evening, in response to their Web article, "Schwarzenegger reveals tricks of the trade on '60 Minutes.'" I had found their story via Free Republic. Then, something very peculiar happened. Here is the story of the story.

After posting and sending the email, I found from a comment to this post, by Ted, that the very same L.A. Times article was featured in Drudge Report, entitled "Schwarzenegger: I Would Like To Be President!" And then, later in the evening -- poof! The lead disappeared! All references to Schwarzenegger not being a natural born citizen, thus not eligible for the U.S. Presidency were deleted. Funny how such a thing can happen, eh?

Was it because of the implications this has, at such a sensitive time -- what with cases before the Supreme Court clearly showing Obama to be a fictitious candidate, not a natural born Citizen at all? And with Congress yet to certify the vote? You can click the image above to enlarge it and see the article before it was so drastically edited. Then, click the image at the left, to see what it became, after the Drudge - FR - I.O., etc. hub-ub began to bubble.

Below is the initial I.O. post, the open letter to the L.A. Times and then my first update, when I learned of the redaction and before learning from Ted that Drudge ha
d linked to the story. That is when the big picture came into focus.

<<<<<<<<<<<<>I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dear L.A. Times Editors and Michael Rothfeld,

Sorry, but something that's getting way anachronistic showed up today in your article, "Governor reveals tricks of the trade on '60 Minutes.'" You wrote there that Gov. Schwarzenegger wants to be able to run for president but he can't, because he "is not a 'natural born citizen' of the United States, as required by the Constitution."

Hey, not to worry. I mean, if Congress and the Supreme Court allow Barack Obama to be our next president, next month, then the way is free and clear! You see, his father, Barack Obama I, was a Kenyan and a subject of the United Kingdom. He even passed on his citizenship to Barack II. The sites that your colleagues in the media defer to about Obama confess to it: Annenberg's factcheck.org and Obama's own fightthesmears.com.

To be a natural born Citizen, according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, one must be born in United States territory and his parents must be U.S. Citizens. That is what the term meant to the Constitution's framers and therefore continues to mean, to honest people. You see, they wanted to do what they reasonably could, to assure that a true blue American would control our military -- one with no other allegiances at all, ever.

But, the joke is, John McCain was never legitimate for the office either, since he was born in Colon, Republic of Panama. And what's really ripe is, five states had a Nicaraguan on their presidential ballots: Roger Calero. Do you think it's a fad -- unconstitutional presidential candidates -- "the new black?" Over 120,000,000 American voters were presented a pair of fictitious candidates by the two parties that control our politics. Isn't that funny?

Please issue a correction and let your readers know the Constitution is becoming even more obsolete -- so all things are now possible! I trust the California governor may be pleased. Arnold in 2008! Maybe eventually he'll run against Vladimir? Mahmoud?

There's a whole world of possibilities, with our "Citizen of the World" at the White House door. Spread the word!

Regards,
Arlen Williams

PS: You could read about this, here -- and there is a whole incinerator-full, here.

ht: FReeper, curth

<<<<<<<<<<<<>I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

1st Update, Monday 12/22, 1:20am CT

Since the L.A. Times article was excerpted in FReerepublic.com and written about here, it has been drastically edited. All references to Schwarzenegger's presidential ambition have been eliminated from it. Here is what the article used to say (and I've saved it in a "screen print" and posted the image file, below):
By Michael Rothfeld
4:46 PM PST, December 21, 2008
Reporting from Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger hasn't said whether he would pursue another job in politics after his final term ends in two years. But there's at least one position he might be interested in, if he were eligible for it: president.

"Yeah, absolutely," Schwarzenegger said in an interview airing tonight on "60 Minutes" on CBS, when asked by correspondent Scott Pelley if he would like to be president. "I think that I am always a person that looks for the next big goal. And I love challenges. I always set goals that are so high, that are almost impossible to achieve."

Budget standoff carries big risks, marginal rewards for California governor
Where Schwarzenegger goes, money follows
Gov. Schwarzenegger: Budget gap has increased by $3.6 billion

At the moment, becoming president would be impossible. Schwarzenegger, who was born in Austria and became a U.S. citizen in 1983, is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States, as required by the Constitution.

Talk of amending the Constitution was a hot topic in California and Washington during Schwarzenegger's first couple of years in office, when some of his backers waged an "Amend for Arnold" campaign and members of Congress proposed changing the rule. Schwarzenegger has said he would welcome such a move but has mostly joked about running when asked about it publicly.

Matt David, his spokesman, noted that on "60 Minutes," the governor was responding to a theoretical question.

In the interview, the governor also lifted the veil on some of his tricks of the trade, both in his cinematic and political careers. With Pelley lifting weights as they spoke, Schwarzenegger said that when he played a muscle man in the movies, he just pretended to lift 300 pounds. [excerpt; article continues]
Odd that they decided to redact the lead paragraphs from their Web article. Do you suppose they wanted to shorten it, to save you from scrolling?

(Click the picture, if you wish to expand it.)

56 comments:

Arlen Williams said...

Oddly enough, a few minutes after I posted this, the L.A. Times removed from their Web-based article, the paragraph about Schwarzenegger's unrequited desire to be a constitutional president. This is what it read, as excerpted via FReeper, curth:

By Michael Rothfeld 4:46 PM PST, December 21, 2008 Reporting from Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger hasn't said whether he would pursue another job in politics after his final term ends in two years. But there's at least one position he might be interested in, if he were eligible for it: president.

"Yeah, absolutely," Schwarzenegger said in an interview airing tonight on "60 Minutes" on CBS, when asked by correspondent Scott Pelley if he would like to be president. "I think that I am always a person that looks for the next big goal. And I love challenges. I always set goals that are so high, that are almost impossible to achieve."

At the moment, becoming president would be impossible. Schwarzenegger, who was born in Austria and became a U.S. citizen in 1983, is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States, as required by the Constitution.

Ted said...

If 1/20/09 comes and goes with a usurper in the Whitehouse (that is, Obama is definitely NOT an Article II "natural born citizen" -- dad Kenyan/British citizen at BHO's birth -- albeit he MAY BE a 14th Amendment "citizen") with usurper enablers in Congress and the Supreme Court … God help us because many of the people will -- rightfully and under our Constitution and Declaration of Independence -- endeavor through other means to take back the Government from what is nothing less than a non-constitutional coup d’etat.

SCOTUS now does have the power to forestall that grim yet inevitable scenario, otherwise the blood and possible loss of our Constitutional Republic is SQUARELY ON THEIR HEADS.

Ted said...

LA TIMES DELETES REFERENCE TO SCHWARZENEGGER'S WANTING TO BE PRESIDENT AND CONSTITUTION'S "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" PROHIBITION AFTER DRUDGE REPORT POSTS STORY (obviously because its implications re Obama):

http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/dear-la-times-looks-like-schwarzenegger.html

Arlen Williams said...

Well, well....
Thanks, Ted. Mr. Drudge has a link to this article and its image file, now. It's going up in freerepublic.com, too.

Anonymous said...

I'm no fan of the MSM, but you are absolutely incorrect regarding the definition of a natural born citizen.

You are claiming that persons born on U.S. soil are not American citizens.

That is flat out false, and would be the first time in my 49 years that someone has claimed that the Constitution forbids me from being President one day.

Sorry, politics aside, you've got no case that would hold up in court.

-OIF and OEF veteran

Anonymous said...

Just to clear up my point, I'm saying that neither of my parents were U.S. citizens at the time of my birth, but I retain full natural born citizenship because I was born here in the United States.

My mother and father were both British and I am a natural born American citizen.

So yes I don't see how you have a case that will hold up in a U.S. civilian court.

OIF/OEF vet

Arlen Williams said...

Anon, I appreciate your concern and suggest you read the earlier articles in this humble Web log, which clearly show that to be a natural born Citizen according to the actual meaning of United States Constitution here, one must be:

1. born in U.S. territorial jurisdiction

2. born by two U.S. citizen parents, thus without foreign jurisdiction via "hereditary right."

I.O. summarized this in "The Donofrio 'Natural Born Citizen' Challenge" and referred to numerous articles written about it in, "Daddy Says No! - Articles Assessing the Constitution's 'Natural Born Citizen' Clause, Barack Hussien Obama I, and BHO II"

None of us were 'dere, Charlie. But, we have documented evidence of what those framers of the Constitution spelled out and why they meant it.

Arlen Williams said...

Anon, here is the clause:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

I am sure you were not a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The reason for that phrase was the necessity to "grandfather in" those born in your circumstances, but who were our original "founding fathers."

Thank you for your patriotic service to our nation. I hope it may yet abide by the Constitution you have pledged to defend.

Anonymous said...

No thanks Mr. Williams.

I didn't fight for my country to be spat on, condescended to, or derided as a "non-citizen."

Arlen Williams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Arlen Williams said...

Anon, you are likely an exemplary U.S. Citizen and I applaud your service to our nation. However, you simply may not become U.S. President, according the Constitution.

Then again, neither may Barack Obama, nor our national hero, John McCain.

But, if you believe the media and the two major parties (and, perhaps the Supreme Court -- they are Dems and GOP'ers, too) the honest truth wouldn't keep you out of the Oval Office, either. It can just be ignored.

PS: comment immediately above was mine, with a grammatical error.

Mr Gordon said...

Mikey Got Scrubbed! Mikey Git Scrubbed!

Get used to it folks.

Victor said...

In support of Anonymous, this analysis may be of use:

"Where Leo Donofrio veers off course is his suggestion that for purposes of the "natural born" language in Art. II there are three statuses: natural born, naturalized, and dual citizenship. In Donofrio's view, a newborn who has dual citizenship has divided allegiances. First, there is absolutely no legal support for the proposition that dual citizenship precludes one from being a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court, which has numerous times recognized that there are only two forms of citizenship (natural born and naturalized), is not going to buck more than 200 years of precedent and announce a new, hybrid form of citizenship. Second, from a practical standpoint, it is preposterous to suggest that a newborn infant has conflicting loyalties between two nations. The Justices, even the conservative members, are not such ideologues that they would allow this theoretical conflict to get in the way of real world sensibilities, particularly in this case where Obama's Kenyan citizenship expired on his 21st birthday. SCOTUS does not rule on hypotheticals."

The source of this post is:
http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/11/20/donofrio-vs-wells-nj-obama-citizenship-case-slated-for-scotus-conference/

Anonymous said...

Sorry, you can point me to links on the internet til the cows come home. The only one I care about is the one about the rule of law.

The law states that I, a citizen born in America and a lifetime public servant, am entitled to become President. In fact, it is probably not a coincidence that the first time I've been told I'm not a citizen and thus not qualified to become President is...when I was on the internet.

The lesson should be that readers should do their own research before believing a dodgy "source" on the internet.

Face it, I'm a citizen, Obama's a citizen, and anyone who was born in the U.S. is a citizen. Again, you can deny it til the cows come home, but it won't change the facts.

-OIF/OEF vet and citizen

Anonymous said...

That was a reply to Arlen. Victor is correct: one's birth in the U.S. automatically makes you a citizen, and contrary to the conspiracy theories, it doesn't matter if your father was or wasn't a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth.

This citizenship inquiry is insulting to all offspring of non-U.S. citizens. But it is not a threat to my rights, since I doubt there is any court that will hear such false claims.

-OIF/OEF vet

Anonymous said...

OIF/OEF Vet: Are you a citizen of the United States - yes. Are you a natural born citizen of the United States - no, you are not.

This makes you no less a patriot or fine public servant, nor does it take from your inherent human value. You are entitled to all rights and privileges of citizenship, save one: you may not be the President of the United States.

Natural relates, obviously, to nature and in the specific context of the framers intent as well as the subsequent ratification debates; only by natural law can a person be born a natural citizen. By definition,for a natural birthright, both parents must be citizens of the sovereignty. Natural law is unimpeachable by government or individual and collective ideals. The only unimpeachable method of being a natural born citizen (note, I did not say native born or bona fide - actual citizenship is not the question)is to be born of citizen parents.

Thanks for your service - a fellow vet

Anonymous said...

Face it, I'm a citizen, Obama's a citizen, and anyone who was born in the U.S. is a citizen. Again, you can deny it til the cows come home, but it won't change the facts.

Using your same argument, a couple can enter into the US illegally, have a child, and that child would automatically be eligible to run for President because he was "born on foreign soil."

-or-

A couple can enter into the US under student visas, have a child, and that child would automatically be eligible to run for President because he was "born on foreign soil."


Is that your final answer?

Anonymous said...

I meant on US soil

Anonymous said...

And, Obama was NOT born in the USA.

BerlinBerlin said...

Hi Guys,
IGNORE THE TROLLS!
This game of missunderstanding the terms "citizen" and "natural born citizen" on purpose is getting really old.
Now they even pose as veterans.
ja, sure!
The trolls just want to steal Your time and energy.
Ignoring is the only way

Anonymous said...

OIF/OEF Vet:

My father is a Vet wounded twice in Vietnam. No one has more respect for Vets than I do. The 14th Amendment states that everyone born in the US is a citizen. However even the writer of that amendment agreed that to be a Natural Born Citizen and thus eligible for POTUS you had to be born of two Citizen parents. You have to look at the framers intentions to see their reasoning for this. You where born to British parents right? Now lets make a Hypothetical out of that. Let's imagine that your parents were really Prince Charles and Princess Diana. Two British citizens who gave birth to a son during and extended visit to the US. Going by your argument then their son could grow up and be President and as a result we would have President who was also British royalty. That is the one thing that the Framers DID NOT want to happen hence the Natural born Citizen clause. Their INTENTION was to prevent anyone owing ANY birth allegiance to another country from being President. Hence Obama is not eligible

Anonymous said...

"However even the writer of that amendment agreed that to be a Natural Born Citizen and thus eligible for POTUS you had to be born of two Citizen parents."

Incorrect.

-OIF/OEF veteran

Victor said...

Further to the definition of "natural-born citizen," this section of U.S. Code (the body of Federal law):

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

- Anyone born inside the United States;
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe;
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.;
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national;
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year;
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21;
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time);
- A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Finally, a personal observation: the argument that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen seems to be based on some sort of "purity test" - he must have 100% American blood from 100% American parentage, or else he's "tainted."

Nowhere in US law is such an idea expressed. Nowhere.

Sources:
1. This discussion was originally posted on: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
2. U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1401: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html

Anonymous said...

Victor, you are correct. But don't let facts get in the way of a good tinfoil hate fest.

-OIF/OEF veteran

Anonymous said...

Sorry Victor, but I just checked the US Code and I'm not sure of your source (Cornel?) but for one thing the wording used isn't the same as what's in the actual code and the statement "Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example." Is not anywhere to be found which would make it an Opinion of the Professor who wrote what you quoted and not the actual law. The only statement given is...

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:"

Notice how "Natural Born" is NOT used.

Finally there IS no purity test here except to make sure that Our President has loyalty to only this country. That was the Founders intent!

Anonymous said...

OIF/OEF veteran,

It's easy to make simple comments and refuse to back them up with facts. It's even easier to resort to hateful insults. Yet When you do that, you've already lost the argument.

Now in response to your "Incorrect" Comment...

In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. John Bingham (writer of 14th amendment) commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” This national law does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice but only recognizes citizenship of those born to parents who owe no allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.

Now of course this is only an opinion by Bingham but historically there have been more opinions and court rulings backing this up then there have been opposing.

Thanks for the fun discussion. I still respect you and your service to this country.

Victor said...

To the second Anonymous: the section of U. S. Code ended with the last bullet point ("A final, historical condition..."). The sentence following that ("Anyone falling into these categories...") resumes the original discussion as posted - please see sources, item 1.

You're right about the second source, which is also documented in the sources, item 2.

This section of U.S. Code fills in the gaps of the Fourteenth Amendment, which does discuss citizens by birth and citizens by naturalization. If you meet the tests of USC 8, 1401, you are a natural born citizen.

With regards to my opinion on the "purity test", please look at my first comment on this thread: the idea that a newborn infant would have conflicting loyalties is kind of preposterous. Dual citizenship is not a "third" form of citizenship alongside natural born and naturalized. If Barack Obama was born in the U.S., as he was, he qualifies as a natural born citizen, eligible for the office of the Presidency.

Ted said...

While the "October Surprise" credit crisis netted Obama the general election, a "January Surprise" constitutional crisis will NOT net Obama the Presidency!

Carlyle said...

@ Victor and OIF/OEF vet

Wow. You guys are really on a roll. Making stuff up a mile a minute. All the info you state and all the references are for clarification of expanded definitions of "citizen". None of them touch on NATURAL BORN citizen.

NATURAL BORN means that you are a citizen PURELY as a result of the conditions of your birth. If you are a citizen because of a law or statute, then you are NOT a natural born citizen. Furthermore this means that now law or other legal action can confer on you this status. This is the answer pure and simple. This is as it has always been. There has never been another definition of NATURAL BORN.

Perhaps you are confusing a related term: NATIVE BORN. Obama's website makes the same mistake. NATIVE BORN is an obvious concept: The subset of the class of citizens that were born on US Soil. Although perhaps a common enough phrase, there is no law that uses this distinction. All laws except one apply equally to all types of citizens. The exception is that the P and VP must also be NATURAL BORN.

Victor said...

Carlyle,

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

As you say, "native born" is not a third type of citizen. Neither is "dual citizenship". But no one is using a "native born" argument.

There are only two choices recognized under US law: natural born citizens ("citizens of the United States at birth"), and naturalized citizens. If you're a citizen, it's because you fall into one of those two (and only two) categories.

If you fall into the first category, natural born citizen, you are eligible to be President.

Anonymous said...

Victor,

Your statement of your first source is only a discussion of the law and not the law itself therefore it's just OPINION. Your second source is the law itself and once again no where is the term "Natural born" used. There are three terms mentioned in the constitution. Natural born citizen, citizen and naturalized citizen. Unfortunately there is no clear distinction between them therefore it comes down to the intent of the framers and what precedent has been set in the courts over the last 200 years. Now there has been enough opinions and court rulings to determine that the three are each separate definitions of citizenship. Which means this it something that has to be settled in court.

As for dual nationality? Of course a newborn will not have conflicting loyalties but he will have the influence of Heritage. Thats' what the framer wanted to avoid. Better to have the influence of two US citizen parents than that of parents who grew up loyal to another country and would express their opinions on their children.

Here's a statement written to George Washington by John Jay states the concern at the time and lead to Article II.

"Permit me to hint , whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government and to declare expressly that the Commander-in-Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a 'Natural Born Citizen'."

Like a Ping Pong game we can just go back and forth. It's up to the courts to decide but it HAS TO be decided once and for all.

Arlen Williams said...

Victor and the anonymous OIF/OEF'er (if he really is) can (how do I say this politely)... stop wasting their energy in error and read the documentation provided in this blog.

Go to the source.

Some don't like to go to the source for truth (it can be uncomfortaboe) but where there is a source there is originality and authenticity. Read the information which others and I have taken a lot of time to present, gents.

http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/donofrio-dual-citizenship-natural-born.html
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/articles-on-constitutions-natural-born.html

Anonymous said...

Like I said before, no thanks. I already know the law on natural born citizenship, and have known it long before I ever stumbled upon your blog.

My definition of a natural born citizen is what I am: a person born in the U.S.

OIF/OEF vet

Victor said...

Arlen and Anonymous 2,

Thank you for allowing dissenting voices on this thread.

Yes, I have read the other parts of this blog, and discussed it on other venues besides here.

Anonymous, yes, my first reply was a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact... except for the idea that there are only two types of citizen, and not three.

Arlen, the recitation of U.S. Code is quite literally going to the source, unless you're somehow suggesting that the "intent of the Framers" can overrule the law as currently written.

The Constitution creates the framework for our body of law. The U.S. Code fleshes that body out: look at the First, Second, or any subsequent amendment and the laws that have been written based on them.

Anonymous 2, there is indeed a clear distinction between natural born and naturalized, as specified in U.S. Code. As far as "influence of heritage," besides that being a non-issue in terms of law, that's an influence we all have.

It's a fine thing to be able to go back to source texts like the Federalist Papers and other writings when the law is unclear, or when there's a need to try and discern the intent of the Framers, but unfortunately, this is not one of those times.

The law concerning natural born and naturalized citizens in pretty clear in this case.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't take a SCOTUS ruling to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama is not constitutionally eligible for POTUS. I am convinced the Republicans are keeping quiet so that they can run Schwarzenneger in 2012. Since the Saudis are carrying the US government's debt, It would not surprise me to learn that part of the payback is to put the offspring of a Saudi sheik in the White House.

Carlyle said...

@ Victor

Unfortunately for you, none of the information you quote has anything to do with NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. That phrase is used nowhere in what you cite. The laws you present simply expand and/or clarify the definition of a CITIZEN. You need to spend many more weeks or months in a law library before you are so sure of yourself.

Victor said...

Carlyle,

How else would you interpret the phrase "citizens of the United States at birth" as specified in U.S. Code, if not equivalent to "natural born citizen"?

Again, go back to the two types of citizenship: natural born, and naturalized. Which category would a "citizen of the United States at birth" fall under?

Carlyle said...

@ Victor

You have painted yourself in a corner by fixating on a self-made distinction that there are exactly two types of citizens: 1) natural born, and 2) naturalized. This distinction is no where in law or statute.

In fact, at this level of detail, there are many kinds of citizens - to name a few - naturalized, adopted, born to citizens abroad, emancipated, etc.

In the constitution (and specifically relevant to P and VP) there are indeed exactly two types of citizens - but divided up differently than you say. There are a special class of NATURAL BORN CITIZENS and all other citizens.

All of the categories defined by law and common practice (as I have listed above) are just different flavors of citizen. To be specific, your latest response defines NATIVE BORN CITIZEN. Such citizens are identical, under law, to any other type of citizen and obtain no special rights or priveleges. NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is something very special and is NOT the same thing as NATIVE BORN.

You will find no law or textbook or respected reference that agres with you. You are just making stuff up.

To expand on something I mentioned before. The word "natural" in a legal context means preceeding or outside the law. Natural rights, for instance, are exactly those unalienable rights that a person has by nature of being a human. One cannot create or bestow natural rights on someone. You can create additional rights via law, but they would not be natural rights. So the key thing here is that natural citizenship is by definition something that cannot be bestowed or defined by law.

The bottom line is that if you have to quote a law or a regulatiion to demonstrate your point, you are be definition NOT talking about natural born.

This is what the founders of the constitution meant. It has never been otherwise. It cannot be changed (even by democratic vote). If at some point We The People want to allow non-natural born P and VPs then we can change the constitution via the approved process. But we cannot choose to override it just by a popular vote.

Arlen Williams said...

Victor said: Arlen, the recitation of U.S. Code is quite literally going to the source, unless you're somehow suggesting that the "intent of the Framers" can overrule the law as currently written.

It is false interpretation of the Constitution, to say that any subsequent law may alter the Constitution's meaning. That is only a one way street, or a Constitution fails to be a constitution. That is nearly rule #1 in constitutional law. Change is not "fill out."

Victor, are you "Victor Abrahamson" in skewz.com?

Victor said...

@Carlyle,
It's not a "self-made" distinction of the two types of citizenship: it's a matter of definition.

Quoting:
"Citizenship is a status acquired by birth within the United States or through judicial proceedings known as 'naturalization.' One is also a citizen, even though born outside the United States, if both of his parents were citizens and one of them had a residence in the United States prior to the birth. The Constitution provides, that 'the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.' Art. 4, s. 2."

Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/citizenship/

Your listing of the many types of citizenship is actually a list of the ways an alien can be naturalized and gain citizenship - all subtypes of naturalized citizen.

If it's your assertion that there is a Constitutional or otherwise legal concept of "native born citizen" that does not fall under natural born or naturalized, I would ask to see your sources, either from the Constitution or from U.S. Code.

As to your assertion that a natural right is that which cannot be granted by law, yes, I would agree with that - but I disagree with your assertion that having to quote a law or regulation to prove one's point is by definition not talking about natural born. The law can recognize (identify) a thing without granting that thing.

@Arlen,

I'm not suggesting that the law can alter the meaning of the Constitution: the Supreme Court rules on legislation like that when it find things unconstitutional. My question was whether a theory of "intent of the Framers" is being used (incorrectly) to argue for a reading of the Constitution that does not correspond to either the Constitution or the law.

Yes, I'm a frequent commenter on Skewz, and go by my full name, VictorAbrahamsen.

Carlyle said...

@ Victor

The phrase Natural Born Citizen is not defined anywhere within the constitution or subsequent laws. It is clear that the framers thought the definition to be "obvious". A good way to think about this is a type of citizenship which is totally unassailable by any possible definition. Given that different countries had different ways of defining citizenship (jus sanquinous, jus soli, for instance), the one common denominator definition that works everywhere is born on soil to citizen parents (or specifically the father). Further the most influential legal tome of the time - on such matters - was Vattel's Law of Nations. This book was known to have been used by the framers and has been used in other USSC constitutional decisions. In Section 212 (1758 edition) we see:

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

Natural Born citizen has never been defined in any other way. That is why I claim you are making stuff up. Read the quote again - the second sentence and the last sentence not only hit the nail on the head, but explain why it can be no other way.

Arlen Williams said...

Carlyle, thanks for your persistence. The sources cited in the "Daddy Says No!" articles, researched by others but summarized in my "Donofrio 'Natural Born Citizen' Challenge" article spell it out with certainty.

Original meaning is original meaning and for the U.S. Constitution, that meaning is politically sacred and unassailable. The original meaning of the Constitution may only be changed by changing the text, and that, by amendment.

"Hereditary right" is utterly clear and is part of what is meant by "natural," i.e., self-evident. Daddy passes on his identity (hence last name) to kido.

Robert said...

"The bottom line is that if you have to quote a law or a regulation to demonstrate your point, you are by definition NOT talking about natural born. Game, set, match. Well put Carlyle. Again (to quote myself from a previous post); "Natural law is unimpeachable by government or individual and collective ideals." Thus, natural born requires no law to define or enforce it.

- a fellow vet

Victor said...

@Carlyle,

Thank you for providing the excerpt from The Law Of Nations - it's an important historical reference which adds weight and helps to hone your argument. By the way, are you the same Carlyle mentioned on the "Millard Fillmore's Bathtub" website? It's a pleasure to meet you.

The American legal system contains a built-in process for dealing with vagueness and uncertainty: if the law is unclear, consult the Constitution. If the Constitution is unclear, consult the Framers. If the Framers are unclear, consult contemporaneous documents. When all else fails, have Congress write a new law.

In the case of Barack Obama being a natural born citizen, is the law unclear? To answer, let's look at the relevant law: in this case, Title 8, Section 1041 of United States Code, which begins "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:" and is detailed in an earlier post in this thread.

Is the term "citizens of the United States at birth" equivalent to "natural born citizen"? Based on the case of Robinson v. Secretary of State Debra Bowen et al, yes it is (1):

Quote
"Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain's circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain's circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already."
End quote

The law is therefore clear: Title 8, Section 1401, U.S. Code defines the test of "citizen at birth", which is equivalent to "natural born citizen." Barack Obama meets the Section 1401 test, and is therefore a natural born citizen.

However, let's continue the line of argument. The next step is to ask if the Constitution is unclear. In this case, you're right - there is no specific definition of the term "natural born citizen" in the text. But - we also have the subsequent analyses of Supreme Court case law in the form of the US Constitution Annotated:

Quote
Qualifications

Clause 5. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

QUALIFICATIONS

All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. The principal issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause is whether a child born abroad of American parents is "a natural born citizen" in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. Whatever the term "natural born" means, it no doubt does not include a person who is "naturalized." Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States" are citizens. Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens ...." This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a "case or controversy" — as well as how it might decide it — can only be speculated about.
End quote

Does this clarify the definition of the term? Yes, it does - by pointing in the direction of British common law, not by pointing at The Law Of Nations. A discussion of the meaning of "natural born" within English common law may be found here, and includes definitions from contemporary publications as well as commentary from Blackstone:

Quote
"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it."
End quote

Blackstone's commentary continues to describe other examples, but in no instance does he describe the kind of patrilineal inheritance that Vattel does.

To summarize: Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen is confirmed by U.S. Code, and is also confirmed by the U.S. Constitution, in which the term "natural born" derives from British common law. While Vattel's work may have informed the Framers' thinking, there is no evidence that it has done so in this instance.


Sources:
(1) American Thinker, "Natural Born Pickle" by Randall Hoven: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/natural_born_pickle.html

Carlyle said...

@ Victor

1. Apparently I am indeed the "famous Carlyle" disected over at MF's bathtub. I never saw that before. I just went and read it. I was going to respond, but decided against it because it is such poppycock. Everybody supporting Obama so diligently is full of so many assumptions. And all of this could be so easily put to rest if Obama would just show the same documents everybody else has. Sigh.

2. Natural Born Pickle is a confused mess. I don't recognize it as a legitimate reference. Primarily because I hold this basic truth as undeniable: "if you have a law about it, it ain't NB".

3. Similarly the senate resolution trying to "bless" McCain is non-binding and falls afoul of the same dictum. Further this senate resolution was put forward by Obama and his friends. Anybody believing they did that because they are nice guys is naive beyond repair. They were trying to backdoor Obama - whom they knew to be not Natural Born.

4. Finally I don't accept the squirming and ratiionalizations of lawyers defending a case as legitimate answers. I will only accept a DEFINITION of Natural Born Citizen different than Vattel's (i.e. almost certainly what the founders believed) if such a definition is the RESULT of a legal proceeding in a Federal court. That is one of the reasons getting the USSC to rule on this right now is so important. It would either reaffirm Vattel or make a modern definition. In which case I will accept what they decide. In the meantime (since there is no such court case definition) I will stick with what the framers knew and loved. Like I said before, Vattel not only contains the facts, but the reasons. His reasons and logic are unassailable, IMHO.

Victor said...

@Carlyle,

When you say that "all of this could be so easily put to rest if Obama would just show the same documents everybody else has," I read that as having to do with the "long-form" birth certificate - but that isn't relevant to the Donofrio case. Donofrio concedes as fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. His argument rests on the theory that Barack Obama cannot be a natural born citizen because his father was not an American citizen, which leads us to the Vattel vs. British common law debate.

I'm citing the "Natural Born Pickle" article from American Thinker because that is where I first saw the description of Robinson v. Bowen. I'm not using it in an authoritative way, I'm crediting the author for their original work.

When you say "if you have a law about it, it ain't NB," you're creating a legal paradox. Think it through: if the Constitution had provided a definition of "natural born citizen," your logic would invalidate that very definition, because we would indeed have a law about it.

The Senate resolution that you're referring to is used in Robinson v. Bowen. I've linked to the judge's Order above, and in reading it, you'll see further discussion of how "natural born" applies, including the case of Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815,828 (1970). Furthermore, 8 USC 1403(a) (the "McCain resolution" you referred to), is not a non-binding resolution - it carries the full force of law.

In your final paragraph, you state that you will not accept the "squirming and rationalizations of lawyers." In this case, you have to, unless and until you can document that the Framers used Vattel's definition of "natural born," and not the definition of "natural born" afforded by British common law (refer back to Blackstone's commentary above). You also say that "I will only accept a DEFINITION of Natural Born Citizen different than Vattel's (i.e. almost certainly what the founders believed) if such a definition is the RESULT of a legal proceeding in a Federal court," but you're not accepting the sections of U.S Code above, all of which are the results of decisions written, as you've asked for, in Federal courts. Finally, please go to the link for the Constitution Annotated above: you'll see not just the Constitution, but legal decisions based on the relevant articles and sections, including a very strong argument for using British common law when defining "natural born citizen."

Have a very merry Christmas,

Victor

Arlen Williams said...

Victor stated: When you say "if you have a law about it, it ain't NB," you're creating a legal paradox. Think it through: if the Constitution had provided a definition of "natural born citizen," your logic would invalidate that very definition, because we would indeed have a law about it.

When something is "natural" in legal terms, it is self-evident, that is, we do not need a law about it and it does not need further definition. Those who commented before and after the drafting of Article II did explain it, however and "hereditary right" was essential. And essential means centrally, definitively, and necessarily important, for those who need such things as reminders of what words mean. It is not the fault of the framers that some were oe moreso, now are ignorant
about what they deemed self evident. If one does not understand patrilineal, hereditary right, one can read about that primary tradition and ponder.

No paradox may mutate what the Constitution states, nor does the Constitution need to engage in the perpetually expanding task of defining everything what it states.

Victor stated: The Senate resolution that you're referring to is used in Robinson v. Bowen. I've linked to the judge's Order above, and in reading it, you'll see further discussion of how "natural born" applies, including the case of Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815,828 (1970). Furthermore, 8 USC 1403(a) (the "McCain resolution" you referred to), is not a non-binding resolution - it carries the full force of law.

Senate resolutions are of no legislative consequence. It is misfeasance at the very least and very possibly fraud and malfeasance for any court to state that such an opus may change the meaning of the Constitution.

Also, one should not confuse natural law with British Law, which Blackstone described in his commentary. That was the purpose of his opus; describing natural law was something he may have only done sporadically within his work.

Vatel was the more direct and thorough authority at the time in natural and international law.

And now, Victory:

Diverse opinions are appreciated, however obfuscation will eventually bring deletion in this site, especially when it becomes repetitive.

Victor, to someone who goes from site to site "trolling" for Sorosian positions, it should be asked: are you being paid? If so, by who (though one does not necessarily expect an honest answer).

Arlen Williams said...

Pardon the typos above. Getting on with Christmas and a happy one to you.

Arlen Williams said...

Since Randall Hoven is mentioned above, I will quote him, from his article in American Thinker, "Obama and the Natural Born Citizen Clause":

"But for all I know, there is a simple way to get past this. Perhaps some kind of retroactive re-definition of "natural born" that would handle Obama's particular technicality. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. I'm actually hoping someone knows a clean way out of this."

That article was included in the "Daddy Says No!" list of articles, basically because it was a fairly widely read article that would address this subject matter, while it tends to show the degree of merit in attempting to think of Barack Obama as a natural born Citizen -- if I can describe that as "degree of merit."

Carlyle said...

Let me apologize for a couple of possible errors and misconceptions in my previous post. Let me clarify.

The senate resolution I was refereing to is SR 511 of recent vintage.

In regards 8 U.S.C 1403, I need to expand: No one has ever agreed that "citizen at birth" and "natural born citizen" are the same thing. Further sub (a) might lend itself to stretching itself to mean NBC, if you forget the specific meaning of Natural. However, McCain was not born in Canal Zone but in Colon. This puts him under sub (c) which is even harder to construe as NBC.

As far as Robinson v Bowen, the following expansion is needed: The meat of this order is one of ripeness and jurisdiction. Everything else is preamble. I'm sure the justices involved would be first to agree that they did NOT define and clarify NBC. In fact the key phrase is "John McCain is PROBABLY a NBC".

Finally, you rightly claim that Donofrio did not address the breadth of material I am addressing. I should be very clear. It seems obvious and glaring to me that Obama is not a NBC. The courts (or congress) cannot retroactively make him one - i.e. grant him an exception or waiver. However the USSC has the power to once and for all provide a modern definition of NBC that could be broad enough to include Obama.

My own personal opinion - based on a lot of circumstancial evidence - is that Obama is not even a US Citizen. And before you deride my relying on circumstancial evidence, let me point out that the evidence that he IS a citizen is also only circumstancial - and IMHO more meager.

Bottom line: Just release the records already and clear everything up.

Arlen Williams said...

Carlyle stated, Bottom line: Just release the records already and clear everything up.

Aye, but there is likely the rub. When Obama presents conclusive proof that his father is who he says he is, he presents conclusive proof that he is not an n.b.C.

I'd consider that he may even plead the 5th, to keep from showing it.

Victor said...

Arlen,

I have thanked you before for allowing dissenting opinions to be voiced on this thread. It's your blog, and your rules. If I have violated your terms, or done anything to make myself unwelcome, just say so, and I'll exit, gracefully and quietly.

However, I must take issue with some of the comments you offered in your post of 12/25 at 11:20 AM.

First, when you ask if I am being paid, then follow with the parenthetical comment that "one does not necessarily expect an honest answer," how can you expect an answer of any sort in reply? You're preemptively called any reply given untrue, and by extension, called me a liar.

Second, when you say that I go from site to site "trolling" for Sorosian positions, you're making two claims: the first, that I'm using the tactics of an Internet "troll" - someone who "posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion." The second claim is that I am somehow echoing "Sorosian" positions, and I must confess that I do not know what you're talking about.

With reference to my being a "troll", I believe the evidence in my posts proves otherwise. Yes, I do offer a dissenting point of view, but I have used the tools of civil debate to do so: arguing respectfully, building a case based on factual, logical argument, and pointing out the flaws I see in the opposing viewpoint. If you see evidence of obfuscation or repetitiveness in my posts, I would ask you to point them out to me.

Again, if I have made myself unwelcome, please say so. It's your blog and your rules. On the other hand, if I am still welcome, please understand that I will continue to offer my critique of the arguments presented here. If nothing else, it will help you forge stronger arguments in opposition.

Victor

Arlen Williams said...

Victor, saying that I have preemptively called you a liar does twist the truth. Self fulfilling prophesy, perhaps.

You are frequenting numerous blogs in order to push an agenda. That is trolling. The expression comes from fishing by rowing or motoring through various areas in a body of water.

Your posts have become obfuscatory (red herrings, rabbit trails). Your arguments do not address the central matter here, of Barack Obama clearly not being a natural born Citizen, as that term has been demonstrated to have been known at the framing of the U.S. Constitution and therefore as this continues to mean.

If you have actual evidence that actually refutes that, feel free, otherwise, obfuscation.

Victor said...

Arlen,

Issue 1: You posed a question: am I being paid? You followed that with the statement that "one does not necessarily expect an honest answer." Would you agree that it follows that any reply I offered would then be "not necessarily an honest answer," and therefore potentially dishonest? Or, stated differently, that I would possibly be offering a dishonest answer? Isn't that the very definition of a liar? You asked me the same "are you being paid" question previously on Skewz, and I answered no. Why would my answer change now?

Issue 2: If we accept your definition of trolling (as opposed to the definition I cited), then you and I are doing the same thing: arguing for our respective positions in various discussion fora. That's the sign of healthy debate, wouldn't you agree?

Issue 3: You claim that my replies are obfuscatory, but they are sourced and completely on point. You're free to argue the logic, and you're free to cite competing sources to argue your point, but to claim that a dissenting view is causing the issue to become clouded or confused is a dodge, plain and simple. If you can prove your case, the argument is yours. If not, then not.

Issue 4: Even before you can argue Framer's intent, you have to pass over the hurdles of existing law and written Supreme Court opinion. Those two hurdles have not been crossed yet. Debating Vattel vs. Blackstone becomes a moot point until then.

The Vattel vs. Blackstone interpretation of "natural born" is a really interesting legal debate, because it has never been tested, as far as I can find. If you can find sources that show a link from Vattel to John Jay, you've established some groundbreaking facts. But that's a big "if." Until then, Blackstone's "natural born subject" formulation must apply.

Victor

lecia said...

Short-sleeved polo ralph lauren is the father of the summer should be prepared to most commonly used item, it has both style and shape of lacoste polo shirts, and vest with a random function, so that in the short-sleeved burberry polos apply to both on many occasions, and the pink and black cheappolos color brought into effect. polo fashion integrates two types of luxury and leisure style, now more and more popular men’s polo logo, most designers have sought to perfect the cut with “cutting” polo shirts in vogue of bones of the body polo women clothing.

J&D said...

米蘭情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,飛機杯,自慰套,充氣娃娃,AV女優.按摩棒,跳蛋,潤滑液,角色扮演,情趣內衣,自慰器,穿戴蝴蝶,變頻跳蛋,無線跳蛋,電動按摩棒,情趣按摩棒


辣妹視訊,美女視訊,視訊交友網,視訊聊天室,視訊交友,視訊美女,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,視訊交友90739,免費視訊聊天室,成人聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊交友aooyy
哈啦聊天室,辣妺視訊,A片,色情A片,視訊,080視訊聊天室,視訊美女34c,視訊情人高雄網,視訊交友高雄網,0204貼圖區,sex520免費影片,情色貼圖,視訊ukiss,視訊ggoo,視訊美女ggoo


080苗栗人聊天室,080中部人聊天室ut,ut影音視訊聊天室13077,視訊做愛,kk777視訊俱樂部,上班族聊天室,聊天室找一夜,情色交友,情色貼片,小瓢蟲情色論壇,aio交友愛情館