Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well let's see, you have probably the most high profile position in the history of man ( POTUS ) with an incredibly easy to remember standard for eligibility ( NBC, 35, 14 ). with those two factors not a single legal professional and/or historian has come forward to claim the "2parent" theory until leo donofrio raised the "de vattel" argument in his case against the new jersey secretary of state one week before the presidential election. even today, three years later, the only legal professionals that have promoted the theory are orly taitz, leo donofrio, mario apuzzo and 1 or 2 others ( not even berg and kreep have embraced it ).
occums razor is my proof........ assuming that you are gripping it by the handle.
Fair enough, the former dean of Pat Robertson's Regent School of Law thinks that you need two citizen parents. You did manage to find a (nominal) law professor to disagree with me.
I did listen closely to Titus here and both parts of his video. He cites some nebulous "law of nature" that requires that both parents be citizens. He cites no statements from the Founding Fathers or Framers, no case law, no statute, nothing except this extremely vague and malleable "law of nature" to support his view that both parents must be citizens in order to be a natural born citizen.
You found one. I'll show you what I found.
Gabriel J. Chin, Chester H. Smith Professor of Law, Professor of Public Administration and Policy, University of Arizona.
Quote:
The Supreme Court has held that there are only two ways to become a citizen: 1) birth in the United States, thus becoming a citizen under the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or 2) satisfaction of every requirement of a statute enacted by Congress granting citizenship to a class of people. The second category includes naturalization of individual adults or children already born; collective naturalization of groups, such as natives of territory acquired by the United States; and naturalization at birth of certain classes of children born abroad to citizens. Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens. There is also a strong argument that those obtaining citizenship at birth by statute are natural born citizens, well articulated by Charles Gordon in Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma. However, natural born citizenship can be acquired only at the moment of birth. As stated by the leading Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, ” ‘British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. . . . ‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.”Gabriel J. Chin, Commentary, Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 1 (2008)
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62 (1765)
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. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors….
Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves.
Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe
Quote:
“The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress…. and to the common law at the time of the Founding….These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance….”
” If the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a “natural born” citizen under the well-established principle that “natural born” citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States…Premising “natural born” citizenship on the character of the territory in which one is born is rooted in the common-law understanding that persons born within the British kingdom and under loyalty to the British Crown–including most of the Framers themselves, who were born in the American colonies–were deemed natural born subjects.”
“Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause….And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961–not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier. ”
Letter by Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe, reported in 154 Cong. Rec. S3645-46 (Apr. 30, 2008).
You may have a former dean of Regents, I'll take two of the leading constitutional scholars in the country in Olson and Tribe (from opposite ends of the political spectrum), and the most influential legal source to the Framers.
List Of Lawmakers Doubting Obama's Eligibility Growing:
1. U.S. Rep Steve King-IA
2. U.S. Rep Bob Inglas-S.C.
3. U.S. Rep Bill Posey-FL
4. U.S. Rep Dan Burton-IN
5. U.S. Rep Marsh Blackburn-TN
6. U.S. Rep John Campbell-CA
7. U.S. Rep Bob Goedlatte-VA
8. U.S. Rep Nathan Deal-GA
9. U.S. Rep Roy Blunt-MO
10. U.S. Rep Lawrence Rappaport-N.H.
11. U.S. Rep Ted Poe-TX
12. U.S. Rep John Carter-TX
13. U.S. Rep John Colberson-TX
14. U.S. Rep Randy Nuegebauer-TX
15. U.S. Rep Louis Gohmert-TX
16. U.S. Rep Kenny Marchant-TX
17. Senator David Vitter-LA
18. Senator Will Espero-HI
19. Senator Sylvia Allen-AZ
20. Senator Judy Burges-AZ
21. Rep Mike Ritz-OK
22. Tim Walberg-MI Congressional Candidate
23. Steve Pearce- N.M. Congressional Candidate
24. Cecil Ash-AZ House Candidate
25. Andrew Raczkowksi-MI Congressional Candidate
26. Anthony Tolda-NY Congressional Candidate
27. Marvin Scott-IN Congressional Candidate
Fair enough, the former dean of Pat Robertson's Regent School of Law thinks that you need two citizen parents. You did manage to find a (nominal) law professor to disagree with me.
I did listen closely to Titus here and both parts of his video. He cites some nebulous "law of nature" that requires that both parents be citizens. He cites no statements from the Founding Fathers or Framers, no case law, no statute, nothing except this extremely vague and malleable "law of nature" to support his view that both parents must be citizens in order to be a natural born citizen.
You found one. I'll show you what I found.
Gabriel J. Chin, Chester H. Smith Professor of Law, Professor of Public Administration and Policy, University of Arizona.
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62 (1765)
Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe
Letter by Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe, reported in 154 Cong. Rec. S3645-46 (Apr. 30, 2008).
You may have a former dean of Regents, I'll take two of the leading constitutional scholars in the country in Olson and Tribe (from opposite ends of the political spectrum), and the most influential legal source to the Framers.
Something interesting I found yesterday about Laurence Tribe and Professor Peter Spiro.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
