“THE TRUE DEFINITION”
by Jesse T. Mims, from Facebook
(Feb. 23, 2014) — I first posted the following more than a year ago and it has been reposted many times by FB friends. However, there may be some who have not seen this and it’s important for everyone to know the truth about the eligibility issue no matter what candidate is being considered. Since I first posted this, I have also found some new information that I’ve added at the end.
Below you will find the true facts on the natural born citizen issue from the most reliable sources possible; including the U.S. Supreme Court! All pertinent information here is backed up with links to the sources with much more detail than there is room for here.
Two of the very best Constitutional lawyers in America today are Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio. They, and others with similar credentials, have independently done the necessary research to learn the true definition of the term, “natural born citizen;” and, each has proved the legal definition to be “one who is born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents.” See links provided below.
It’s so simple that you can apply that definition to any person on planet earth and determine if he/she is a natural born citizen and eligible to become president of the USA; as, long as you know their true birth details.
Anyone who wishes to, can argue with these facts all they want to. But, the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, has held the above definition to be the legal definition. Therefore, it is the law. In fact, it is more than “just a law.” It is a part of the Constitution itself; and, as such, it cannot be changed without a legally ratified Amendment to the Constitution. So, regardless of whether someone likes it, or whether or not it excludes a person’s particular preferred candidate is irrelevant.
Leo Donofrio has also proved that the Congressional Research service (CRS) deliberately sent misinformation about NBC to every member of Congress and also misquoted Supreme Court cases that legally define that term. That misinformation is still found on Wikipedia and is also often still used by the media and many leftist websites.
To learn the truth for yourself and also find out where most of the misinformation and the resulting confusion comes from, please read the information at the following links. Reading the comments under the articles at those links is also very interesting and informative.
[There’s a lot of information and it can be a bit tedious; but, it doesn’t have to be read and absorbed all at one sitting. I highly recommend that everyone bookmark this post and read the info a little at a time. Bookmarking it will also make it readily available so the information can be accessed any time questions arise on this topic.
To easily bookmark it, simply click the time posted at the very top and it will open in a new window with its own web address. Then bookmark it the same as any other webpage and when it is clicked on as a bookmark later, it will open into the same window. The same can be done with any FB post or comment.]
To read about the lies from the CRS, see http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/
For proof of the legal definition, see http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/
Not only did SCOTUS legally define NBC in Minor v. Happersett, that Court has also used the same definition to decide at least four other cases down through the years. See http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html#Supreme%20Court
For proof that, according to U.S. Law, “each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status,” see http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/
The CRS is not the only entity that has deliberately lied about the meaning of NBC. See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/justiagate-say-it-aint-so-carl-malamud/
Here is a good article written by Mario Apuzzo on this issue: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/08/atty-mario-apuzzo-responds-to-fred.html
Now… Who is NOT a natural born citizen and; therefore, NOT eligible to become president…
Here are some very well known names who fail the test:
1. John McCain: Born of two U.S. citizens; but, not born on U.S. soil. Rather than having been born in a U.S. Naval Hospital on a U.S.. Naval Base inside the Panama Canal Zone, as he often claims, he was actually born in Colon Hospital in the City of Colon, Republic of Panama! Even if he had been born inside the Panama Canal Zone, he was, by Panamanian law, still a citizen of Panama at birth. See the detailed explanation, including link to his birth certificate: “John McCain, citizen of Panama at birth” at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=John+McCain. Despite his lack of eligibility, McCain willingly allowed himself to be nominated as the GOP candidate for president in 2008.
2. Barack Obama: Possibly born on U.S. soil; but, even if he was born in Hawaii as he claims, he had only one U.S. citizen parent at birth; whereas two are required. He has never disputed the fact that his father was never a U.S. citizen. Despite his lack of eligibility, he willingly allowed himself to be nominated as the Democratic presidential nominee in both 2008 and 2012 and even accepted the title of president even though he can never be an Article II, Section I, paragraph 5 president; and, therefore, can never be anything other than a usurper.
3. Marco Rubio: Has never disputed the fact that neither of his parents became naturalized citizens until after he was born. But, because they did not, he is not a natural born citizen; even though he was born in Miami, Florida. Despite his lack of eligibility, he refuses to admit that he is not. Whenever asked, he says he is both a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so.
4. Ted Cruz: Born in Canada, not on U.S. soil, and had only ONE U.S. citizen parent at birth. He has never denied the details of his birth status. But, despite his lack of eligibility, he deceptively allows others to claim he’s both a natural born citizen and eligible to become president without correcting their erroneous claims; thereby, in effect, making the claim himself (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o–tQVrnPZA). He aspires to be president and is currently planning to run for that office.
5. Piyush “Bobby” Jindal: Born on U.S. soil in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to immigrants from India who arrived in America only six months before he was born. Since it takes years to become a naturalized citizen after coming to this country, it is impossible for Jindal’s parents to have completed the naturalization process before he was born. Despite his lack of eligibility, he maintains that he is a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so.
So, we have one who tried and failed, one who tried and succeeded, and three others (Republicans!) waiting in the wings to ride the coattails of Obama’s usurpation into the Oval Office.
Are we, as conservatives who are supposed to defend and uphold the Constitution that so many of our ancestors died for, going to allow one of “our own” to further erode that document just because Obama has seemingly gotten away with it? Dare we even trust these deceivers to faithfully carry out their duties in any elected position; regardless, of how wonderful they seem?
Since putting together the above information, I have learned that Rick Santorum is another Republican presidential aspirant who is not a natural born citizen.
Nikki Haley is still another. There used to be information available on the Internet showing that neither of her parents were U.S. citizens at the time she was born. I didn’t include her when I wrote the above because at the time I wrote it, I was not able to find the info I had previously seen; and, since it was based strictly on my own personal research, I had not seen it stated elsewhere that she was ineligible. I can only assume that her info has been cleansed from the Internet in the same way Obama’s has. That is troubling because it’s an indication someone has plans for her similar to the way Obama was inflicted upon us.
However, I am willing to mention her along with the others now because I have recently found that Mario Apuzzo has also stated that she is ineligible. Even though I have not yet found where he gives the exact details of her origin of birth, he does state that she was “born in South Carolina to two non-U.S. ‘citizen’ parents;” which, is what my earlier research had found. See http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html
It is of great concern to me that the GOP appears to be deliberately grooming so many Constitutionally ineligible persons for the office of president. Not even the Democratic Party has so many similarly ineligible persons waiting in the wings for any opportunity to become the next Usurper in Chief. I’m also greatly saddened by the fact that so many otherwise good conservatives are falling for the hype that this one or that one ineligible candidate would be a good president regardless of their lack of Constitutional eligibility.
The MANY dangers of allowing such persons to act as president can be found here: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
SLCraig, much of your comment has been sufficiently debunked by Leo Donifrio, Mario Apuzzo, and others at the links I posted in my article; so, I will refrain from unnecessarily rehashing what has already been established.
However, the manner in which you quoted one of Vattel’s comments about fathers gives me the impression you believe he said that a child can become a natural born citizen simply by having a U.S. citizen father; regardless, of the citizenship of the mother or where the child was born. That is a distortion of what Vattel stated.
Please see: https://www.facebook.com/notes/jesse-t-mims/logic-versus-rhetorical-nonsense-what-did-vattel-really-mean-by-children-natural/643548592360028
I agree that Leo and Mario have each fleshed out the essence of the ancient doctrines of Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli and the histories where they have been applied within the Courts of England and the U.S.
But I have also debated them each on the issue of the “LEGAL” definition of both the “Citizenship and POLITICAL Question” of who is and is not a (U.S.) natural born Citizen under U.S. Federal Law.
Aristotle was the 1st of the Western Civilization to express the “political” significance of the concept of “true Citizens” opining that they were of the 3rd or 4th generation of a “state” newly founded. (Politics, Bk III) Vattel suggested the more practical political position of the “child follows in their father’s footsteps” as the “natural” state of familial affairs.
Aristotle was the 1st of the Western Civilization to express the “political” significance of the concept of “true Citizens” opining that they were of the 3rd or 4th generation of a “state” newly founded. (Politics, Bk III) Vattel suggested the more practical political position of the “child follows in their father’s footsteps” as the “natural” state of familial affairs.
Both Leo and Mario RELY on the SCOTUS interpretations of the interpretations made by English jurists of the British Nationality Laws that began with the Queen Anne Statutes which sought to accommodate the needs found wanting when a small Nation embarks on Empire building across the seas.
Then, both Leo and Mario and others embark on a Justice Gray style jog around the mulberry bush chasing the red-herring wild goose citing each and every glimpse they might see of goose feathers.
The Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. A6C2
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, …………. throughout the United States; A1S8C4
It is a specious obfuscation to suggest the word “naturalization” used in the Constitutional mandate that gave the plenary power to the Congress was meant to be confined to dealing with aliens and only affected U.S. Citizens while they were abroad.
Being a “New Nation” among the Nations of the world the word “naturalization” MUST encompass “citizenship, nationality, immigration AND the processes that guides and confers, i.e., naturalization. The Constitution its-self acted “as if” a “collective naturalization Act” upon the Citizens of the several Adopting States. The VERY NAME of the current agency that operates under the authority of A1S8C4 is the “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service” and the statutes of 8 USC are variously titled Aliens and Nationality, Naturalization and Immigration, Nationality at birth and Collective Naturalization which encompasses ALL circumstances of the Political Concepts of Citizenship, save one.
The 1790 Act expressed in words, and words that required it, that a child of a married U.S. Citizen father was born a (U.S.) natural born Citizen no matter where in the world the child was born.
Stare decisis, the common law practice of “to stand by things decided.”, MUST begin with the 1st expressions of the Congress that exercised their plenary power over Citizenship, Nationality, Immigration and Naturalization as MANDATED by the words of the Constitution.
Blackstone, in the introduction of his Commentaries on the English Common Law advised students and readers to “learn the laws of their own Countries first” then apply the common law principles of jurisprudence when they apply.
Justice Waite in Minor v. intentionally stopped short of deciding the question at hand in a demonstration of judicial restraint, that question was NOT before the court.
But note the paragraphs before and after the determination that Virginia was a (U.S.) natural born Citizen and therefore a citizen sufficient for the case at hand. Justice Waite RESORTED to the 1790 – ’98 Acts.
The 1790, ’95, ’98 Act ALL retain the title, “an Act to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization”.
Which of you have attempted to construe just what THAT “uniform Rule” is within THOSE Act ???
Justice Waite found the “legal basis” for his determination there, shouldn’t we also look there 1st.