Comments on: Natural Born Citizen? What the phrase means http://www.bloggernews.net/114174 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:59:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Jimm Johnson http://www.bloggernews.net/114174#comment-422810 Jimm Johnson Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:25:00 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/114174#comment-422810 According to John Westlake's 1904 book on International Law. Childern born on foriegn soil to English soldiers were NOT "natural born." If the U.S. constitutional recognition of "natural born citizens" is an extension of the accepted English common law definition of "natural born subjects," it would seem that John McCain is not qualified. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=ecSDvP7vtUUC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=%2522natural+born+subject%2522++%2522jus+soli%2522&source=web&ots=b5x3GWSkT-&sig=4UJXIwfR51SsjT0bPGZrfsGX_x8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA213,M1 According to John Westlake’s 1904 book on International Law. Childern born on foriegn soil to English soldiers were NOT “natural born.” If the U.S. constitutional recognition of “natural born citizens” is an extension of the accepted English common law definition of “natural born subjects,” it would seem that John McCain is not qualified.

See:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ecSDvP7vtUUC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=%2522natural+born+subject%2522++%2522jus+soli%2522&source=web&ots=b5×3GWSkT-&sig=4UJXIwfR51SsjT0bPGZrfsGX_x8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA213,M1

]]> By: Oldflyer http://www.bloggernews.net/114174#comment-374954 Oldflyer Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:36:54 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/114174#comment-374954 It is strange that so many people have trouble understanding the written word. Both of John McCain's parents were United States citizens, that makes him a citizen of the United States by birth, i.e. natural born citizen. That is all that is required. So much for wishful thinking. It is strange that so many people have trouble understanding the written word. Both of John McCain’s parents were United States citizens, that makes him a citizen of the United States by birth, i.e. natural born citizen. That is all that is required. So much for wishful thinking.

]]> By: scottwww http://www.bloggernews.net/114174#comment-248653 scottwww Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:34:13 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/114174#comment-248653 Panama John - not a natural born Citizen of the U.S. ---------------------------------------------------- I'm starting to feel bad about this for John McCain. He has come so far and to have the very nature of his citizenship to be questioned would be miserable, especially after heroic service. But he is seeking the one occupation that explicitly requires that the officeholder be a "natural born Citizen." This can only be changed by an amendment that changes the Constitution from saying "natural born Citizen" to something that would include him as eligible, though he is a citizen by jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent). In presenting this constitutional matter, the purpose is to bring attention to the need for a remedy. This may also mean that the remedy would not be in place in time for Senator John McCain to be eligible to hold the office of President. U.S. Supreme Court SCHNEIDER v. RUSK, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, 1. [377 U.S. 163, 166] Consider more details if you doubt the seriousness of this matter: http://idacres.com/politics/mccain/natural_born_Citizen.html Panama John - not a natural born Citizen of the U.S.
—————————————————-
I’m starting to feel bad about this for John McCain. He has come so far and to have the very nature of his citizenship to be questioned would be miserable, especially after heroic service. But he is seeking the one occupation that explicitly requires that the officeholder be a “natural born Citizen.” This can only be changed by an amendment that changes the Constitution from saying “natural born Citizen” to something that would include him as eligible, though he is a citizen by jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent).

In presenting this constitutional matter, the purpose is to bring attention to the need for a remedy. This may also mean that the remedy would not be in place in time for Senator John McCain to be eligible to hold the office of President.

U.S. Supreme Court
SCHNEIDER v. RUSK, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, 1. [377 U.S. 163, 166]

Consider more details if you doubt the seriousness of this matter:

http://idacres.com/politics/mccain/natural_born_Citizen.html

]]> By: Mark http://www.bloggernews.net/114174#comment-245997 Mark Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:24:32 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/114174#comment-245997 Few problems with this post. First the "right wing extremists" are for Ron Paul, not supporters of John McCain. Second they are hardly extremists, unless you are a Socialist or Communist. The self-congratulatory tone and threatening attitude are in the vein of propaganda NOT news. Secondly you seem to not know, or care to know the Article in Question. ******* Art II Sect 1 ******** 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;... ****************************** It seems the rocket scientist err "lawyers" at the (unreliable) Volokh Conspiracy have problems reading the Constitution. You see if you were a citizen at the time of adoption you were qualified. So much for their legal expertise. Thirdly, the argument is idiotic. A citizen is not comparable to a subject. Subjects belong to a Crown, citizens do not belong to their country. That is the reason we have the U.S. Fourth, until the 14th amendment those not here legally, or here as Ambassadors, or Military of a foreign power, or having allegiance to another nation, or not descendents of citizens; were NOT citizens. The argument was that Slaves were never citizens so they did not have the same rights as citizens. That was correct. Unfortunately the 14th Amendment extended our (citizen's) rights to those who had not had it previously. Specifically illegal aliens, those born to subjucts of Crowns (why no one challenged it based upon this, is beyond me). Now you can fly in for a day and pop out a kid and rake in the money, privileges without any pain or taxes paid. It does not however apply to persons born of citizens overseas. You need to understand why the wording is the way it is. The founders did not want a foreign operative or sympathizer toppling America from the inside. Ironically this is exactly what the Dems are trying to do with Illegal Aliens and "anchor babies". Few problems with this post.

First the “right wing extremists” are for Ron Paul, not supporters of John McCain. Second they are hardly extremists, unless you are a Socialist or Communist. The self-congratulatory tone and threatening attitude are in the vein of propaganda NOT news.

Secondly you seem to not know, or care to know the Article in Question.

******* Art II Sect 1 ********
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;…
******************************

It seems the rocket scientist err “lawyers” at the (unreliable) Volokh Conspiracy have problems reading the Constitution. You see if you were a citizen at the time of adoption you were qualified. So much for their legal expertise.

Thirdly, the argument is idiotic. A citizen is not comparable to a subject. Subjects belong to a Crown, citizens do not belong to their country. That is the reason we have the U.S.

Fourth, until the 14th amendment those not here legally, or here as Ambassadors, or Military of a foreign power, or having allegiance to another nation, or not descendents of citizens; were NOT citizens. The argument was that Slaves were never citizens so they did not have the same rights as citizens. That was correct. Unfortunately the 14th Amendment extended our (citizen’s) rights to those who had not had it previously. Specifically illegal aliens, those born to subjucts of Crowns (why no one challenged it based upon this, is beyond me).

Now you can fly in for a day and pop out a kid and rake in the money, privileges without any pain or taxes paid. It does not however apply to persons born of citizens overseas.

You need to understand why the wording is the way it is. The founders did not want a foreign operative or sympathizer toppling America from the inside. Ironically this is exactly what the Dems are trying to do with Illegal Aliens and “anchor babies”.

]]>