In this paper, I prove the original intent of the "natural born Citizen" (NBC) clause at Art. II, §1, cl. 5.
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vatt...
David J. Edwards is the one who found the evidence that our Founders & Framers relied on Vattel!
It is not WHERE one is born, but rather the citizenship status of one's parents, which determines whether one is "a natural born Citizen" w/in the meaning of Art. II, § 1, clause 5, U.S. Constitution.
This article has relevance to the NBC status of obama, rubio, etc.
It is also relevant to the NBC status of John McCain: it matters not one whit WHERE he was born, b/c his parents were U.S.Citizens at the time of his birth.
It is also relevant to the citizenship status of the Mexicans born within these United States of parents who are here illegally. They are not NBCs!
Tags: natural born Citizen
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on I am here to answer questions, dear.
Permalink Reply by David J Edwards on According to my reading on John "Rick" Santorum's background:
His father, Aldo, was born (1923) as a citizen of Riva del Garda, Italy and arrived in the USA at age 7. Aldo may have served in the US military or other government job during WWII. Then, he seems to have worked for the Veteran's Administration until he retired. Rick's mother, Catherine, was born in the USA in 1918. Her parents had Irish and Italian ancestry, but she has been deemed to be an American citizen from birth (whether "natural born" or not, her citizenship is being accepted as correct for the purposes of the mother of a POTUS candidate).
At some point before Rick's birth (1958), Aldo may have been naturalized. Rick's mother (now over 90 yrs of age) claims she has the documentation of Aldo's naturalization. If that is the case, and the naturalization documents pre-date Rick's birth, then Rick is a "natural born Citizen".
I am not aware if anyone in the RNC, DNC, Congress, Election Boards or anyone else has tried to verify Catherine Santorum's documents of Aldo's citizenship, or found copies in Federal archives. Doing so would be advisable. Putting that off could create problems, depending on how the coming Primary Elections and Caucuses go.
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on Yes. Very good analysis of the Facts and application of the Facts to The Law!
Permalink Reply by David J Edwards on Thank you PH,
Once the proper steps are clear and known, they really are not tricky. Determining eligibility fits onto a simple, one-page logic flow chart.
"If this___, then that___, if that, then...(etc.)."
The hard part is wading through all the nonsense people have generated out of ignorance, wishful thinking, and premeditated lies used by some to promote their favorite (ineligible) candidates.
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on You nailed it! That is the formula for analysis I use in every single problem I face. It's a chain of logical reasoning which takes one from the statement of the problem all the way to the solution. And if the Facts are correct, then so is the solution.
And yes, wading thru the nonsense is the hard part and takes up much time.
Permalink Reply by ANGELA EIGENRAUCH on Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on Permalink Reply by Phillip J. Barker on Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on Oh no! The supreme Court justices themselves vote on the petitions for writ of cert. [i.e., petitions where the party who lost in a lower court asks SCOTUS to review a decision of one of those lower courts. Not some Clerk at the supreme Court!
No, the petitions for writ of cert in the "birther" cases (i.e., asking SCOTUS to hear an appeal) raised valid constitutional issues which SCOTUS should address. But it takes 4 justices (when all 9 vote) to vote to grant cert. So our side can't even get 4 judges to agree to hear these cases.
There is a big book written on supreme Court practice!
Permalink Reply by Phil Hoffman on Permalink Reply by Phil Hoffman on © 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
