[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".

"Enter Harris, Stage Lef"t

Official describes the moment a Butler officer confronted the Trump shooter

Jesse Watters: Don’t buy this excuse from the Secret Service

Video shows Trump shooter crawling into position while folks point him out to law enforcement

Eyewitness believes there was a 'noticeable' difference in security at Trump's rally

Trump Assassination Attempt

We screamed for 3 minutes at police and Secret Service. They couldn’t see him, so they did nothing. EYEWITNESS SPEAKS OUT — I SAW THE ASSASSIN CRAWLING ACROSS THE ROOF.

Video showing the Trump Rally shooter dead on the rooftop

Court Just Nailed Hillary in $6 Million FEC Violation Case, 45x Bigger Than Trump's $130k So-Called Violation

2024 Republican Platform Drops Gun-Rights Promises

Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details

Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit

AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution.

Rare Van Halen Leicestershire, Donnington Park August 18, 1984 Valerie Bertinelli Cameo

If you need a Good Opening for black, use this.

"Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now"

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles

Title: The Dirty “little” Secret Of ...The Natural Born Citizen Clause --- Revealed.
Source: naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
URL Source: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress ... -born-citizen-clause-revealed/
Published: Jan 27, 2012
Author: Leo Donofrio
Post Date: 2012-01-27 14:14:32 by BorisY
Keywords: native, naturalized - immigrant, natural - parents
Views: 101216
Comments: 232

Natural Born Citizen

Respecting the Constitution

The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born.

The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed.

I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States.

Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language:

Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.”

Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.”

(While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.)

The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific.

Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.

Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President.

According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.

It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored.

Now let’s see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about the rule:

“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).

The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).

This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”.

Is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B?

Yes. The Constitution tells us that any Citizen can be a Senator, or Representative, but that to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen”. The Constitution specifically assigns different civic statuses to “Citizens” and “natural born Citizens”. Therefore, not only is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B, it is absolutely required by law, and no court has the ability to circumvent the rule.

Had the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause. Additionally, had the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to declare that every person born in the country was a “natural born Citizen”, then the 14th Amendment would contain clear and manifest language to that effect. But it doesn’t. Therefore, each clause must be given separate force and effect.

Deputy Chief Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of candidate Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein his opinion of the Court stated:

“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.’ Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). ‘Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.‘ Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).” Order On Motion To Dismiss, Deputy Chief Judge Malihi, Jan. 3, 2012, pg. 3. (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, the term “natural born” must be considered as requiring something more than simple birth in the country. And Judge Malihi states, quite clearly, in his ruling above, that the Court “is not authorized to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” The rule is the same for election statutes in Georgia as it is for the Constitution of the United States.

The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)

If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous. And its specific provision would, therefore, be governed by the general provision of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is inadmissible to even make that argument.

Any genuine construction of the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[For a more detailed analysis of this issue, please see my Amicus Brief entered in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases.]

[See commenting rules here.]


Poster Comment:

People who can't figure this out shouldn't be allowed to vote - citizenship !

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 59.

#10. To: BorisY (#0) (Edited)

Had the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause.

Bullshit.

They used "natural born" to distinguish from those born prior to the USCON's adoption.

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.

war  posted on  2012-01-27   15:28:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: war (#10) (Edited)

At the time are exempt - grand fathered !

After ...

Age - resident - NATURAL BORN (( parents )) !

BorisY  posted on  2012-01-27   15:32:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: BorisY (#11)

Parentage has nothing to do with it. Citizenship laws in the US are based first jus soli... Citizenship was conferred at the adoption of the USCON regardless of where they had been born or who their parents were. Given that, the Framers were hardly going to parse from thereafter to a most restrictive definition.

war  posted on  2012-01-27   15:40:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: war (#14)

Higher office - higher qualifications !

GROW THE FUCK UP !

This isn't about voting !

BorisY  posted on  2012-01-27   15:43:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: BorisY (#16)

Higher office - higher qualifications !

One either acquires citizenship at birth, is natural born citizen; or acquires citizenship later in life, is a naturalized citizen. There is no third category of citizenship.

lucysmom  posted on  2012-01-27   15:55:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: lucysmom (#17)

Natural (( parents )) ELIGIBLE ... native (( anchor status )) - naturalized (( immigrant )) --- INELIGIBLE !

BorisY  posted on  2012-01-27   16:02:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: BorisY (#18)

Natural (( parents )) ELIGIBLE ... native (( anchor status )) - naturalized (( immigrant )) --- INELIGIBLE !

What in the world does that mean?

lucysmom  posted on  2012-01-27   16:10:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: lucysmom (#19) (Edited)

1 - Natural (( parents )) ELIGIBLE ... native (( NO parentS - anchor status )) - naturalized (( immigrant )) --- 2 & 3 INELIGIBLE !

4 - Divine - royalty - obombammies !

BorisY  posted on  2012-01-27   16:17:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: BorisY (#20)

1 - Natural (( parents )) ELIGIBLE ... native (( anchor status )) - naturalized (( immigrant )) --- 2 & 3 INELIGIBLE !

Oh I see, you're creating a third class of citizenship.

Good luck with that!

lucysmom  posted on  2012-01-27   16:28:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: lucysmom, BorisY (#22)

BorisY: 1 - Natural (( parents )) ELIGIBLE ... native (( anchor status )) - naturalized (( immigrant )) --- 2 & 3 INELIGIBLE !

Bimbo: Oh I see, you're creating a third class of citizenship. Good luck with that!

Your willful ignorance is getting old.

Boris is right. You're wrong, so shut up.

Capitalist Eric  posted on  2012-01-27   16:35:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Capitalist Eric (#24)

There are 2 classes of citizens, Junior...natural born and naturalized. There is no difference between native born and natural born.

Period.

/asshole

war  posted on  2012-01-27   21:02:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: war (#44)

Another question worth asking; Why no media coverage of this hearing?

Granted, the mainstream or elite or whatever we’re calling them these days media lean hard to the left and it should come as no surprise that they refuse to give an eye blink toward this hearing. But what of Fox News and even their local Georgia affiliates? Why was nary a word of any broadcast given to today’s hearing?

I suspect it has a great deal to do with their prior position that the birth certificate was real…case closed. I also suspect, that should the Georgia judge find compelling reason to exclude Obama from the state’s 2012 ballot ... this WILL --- become a story.

http://www.conservativerefocus.com/blog5.php/2012/01/27/a-failure-to-appear- obama-s-eligibility-case-in-georgia-officially-unchallenged-by-president

BorisY  posted on  2012-01-27   21:47:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: BorisY (#45) (Edited)

Why no media coverage of this hearing?

If the media and everyone else knew that the Moon landings were faked would they have covered them? From what I understand, this is an administrative law judge and hearing. Any "decision" that he may make is, in fact, merely a recommendation to the SoS who is the final determinant of who may or may not appear on the ballot.

war  posted on  2012-01-27   22:04:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: war (#46) (Edited)

This ain't shitcago !

s - s he would follow the judge's decision !

To: geraldmcg

Dozens of threads on this over the past two days...and FYI, the GA. SecState has already publicly announced he will go with the admin judge’s recommendations.

8 posted on Friday, January 27, 2012 15:42:39 by IrishPennant (We don't want to work so we go to work to make enough money not to work...Huh?)

BorisY  posted on  2012-01-27   22:11:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: BorisY (#49)

s - s he would follow the judge's decision !

There is a HUGE difference between a process judge and a REAL judge. The burden of proof is on the complainants to provide proof that Obama would be ineligible to be on the ballot.

war  posted on  2012-01-27   22:18:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: war (#50)

To: geraldmcg; Danae

Do you think this has any substantiation in fact?

It was offered here:

The real issue in this is a President is not elected to these 49 United States, but Constitutionally must be elected by all 50 states, unless they have seceded from the Union as the Confederates did. Unless an event as that has taken place, the Constitution is not about Electoral Colleges or being ratified by Congress, but it is about the Union electing a President of all 50 states. Understand that any President can loose the popular vote as President Bush had, and win the electoral votes, along with numerous states, but no President can be President of these United States if he is not on the ballot or certified in all 50 states.

Scholars have missed this ultimate check and balance in the "silence of the Constitution". No state can keep any legal candidate off the ballot, but a state can keep anyone off the ballot who does not provide legal documentation they are qualified to be President. That is the Constitution at it's core in the Articles concerning the Presidency. 49 states can state a fraud can be President in their super majority, but if one state demands proof and the candidate does not provide that legal proof, the one state in checks and balances can negate a national Presidential Election.

...The experts will try to state that …….. can not override a majority vote by 49 other states, ……………..A President must be accepted by all 50 states according to legal Constitutional requirements. Any subject failing to provide natural born status can legally be rejected by any one state, and that one state in its minority rights will negate the other 49 states in the check and balance the Founders left silently in the Constitution to protect America from threats domestic and foreign.

.

Danae offers this from: Article II Section 1….

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

++++++++++++++++++++++ So if Obama is off the ballot in Georgia... the DNC MUST present another candidate somehow in that state! There must be 2 persons for electors to choose from! oOOOOOOOoooooo the Ante has just been upped!! So much is riding on Malihi's decision, and a Default judgment with Commentary based upon that validity of the evidence presented, and lacking any rebuttal.... Oh, there is no hiding THAT. The press will HAVE to take notice. ….. Danae

.

31 posted on Friday, January 27, 2012 16:59:31 by Elle Bee

BorisY  posted on  2012-01-27   22:21:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: BorisY (#51)

Do you think this has any substantiation in fact?

It was offered here:

The real issue in this is a President is not elected to these 49 United States, but Constitutionally must be elected by all 50 states, unless they have seceded from the Union as the Confederates did. Unless an event as that has taken place, the Constitution is not about Electoral Colleges or being ratified by Congress, but it is about the Union electing a President of all 50 states. Understand that any President can loose the popular vote as President Bush had, and win the electoral votes, along with numerous states, but no President can be President of these United States if he is not on the ballot or certified in all 50 states.

Scholars have missed this ultimate check and balance in the "silence of the Constitution". No state can keep any legal candidate off the ballot, but a state can keep anyone off the ballot who does not provide legal documentation they are qualified to be President. That is the Constitution at it's core in the Articles concerning the Presidency. 49 states can state a fraud can be President in their super majority, but if one state demands proof and the candidate does not provide that legal proof, the one state in checks and balances can negate a national Presidential Election.

...The experts will try to state that …….. can not override a majority vote by 49 other states, ……………..A President must be accepted by all 50 states according to legal Constitutional requirements. Any subject failing to provide natural born status can legally be rejected by any one state, and that one state in its minority rights will negate the other 49 states in the check and balance the Founders left silently in the Constitution to protect America from threats domestic and foreign.

It's 100% horseshit...

war  posted on  2012-01-27   22:28:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: war (#54)

...check and balance the Founders left silently in the Constitution...

That's very deep.

lucysmom  posted on  2012-01-27   22:42:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 59.

        There are no replies to Comment # 59.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 59.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com