A Prayer For The Presidential Health

Posted on | September 6, 2010 | 46 Comments

by Smitty

Those on the right should answer firmly, in a positive way, any sort of negative talk concerning the Presidential health:

Almighty God, we pray that President Barack Obama should pass old, dignified, and full of years, calm in the knowledge of the abject falsehood of his policies.
We pray he grasp that foreign policy need be neither feckless nor ignorant of history.
We pray he grasp that domestic policy must be founded upon sane, mature economic principles, not mistaking the cart for the horse.
We pray he grasp that traditional American politics model human nature in an exceptional, optimal way; that FDR’s notion of “freedom from want” is the political equivalent of crack cocaine; and that a leader is someone with followers, while his current course is an increasingly lonely one.
In summary, we pray for a Road to Damascus moment for this President, so that the nadir of American history be reached before We The People usher into his office someone or something more effective, even a lowly pushbroom.
Amen.

Category: Barack Obama, humor

Comments

46 Responses to “A Prayer For The Presidential Health”

Mick
September 6th, 2010 @ 1:44 pm

If only so he doesn’t become a martyr before he is thrown out for ineligibility. He is not a Natural Born Citizen, since his father was not a Citizen when Obama 2 was born (even if it was in Hi.). The real travesty is either was the other other Mccain, since he was born in Panama. Natural Born Citizens are those born in the US of US Citizen parents, or as Laurence Tribe says, “those born WITHIN a Nation’s territory AND ALLEGIANCE.”
Obama has fulfilled the foundres fear that foreign influence has invaded the WH and a charismatic man, w/o the prerequisite Allegiance and Attachment to country has assumed the Presidency. G. Washington warned about a man like Obama in his farewell address.
Mick
September 6th, 2010 @ 9:44 am

If only so he doesn’t become a martyr before he is thrown out for ineligibility. He is not a Natural Born Citizen, since his father was not a Citizen when Obama 2 was born (even if it was in Hi.). The real travesty is either was the other other Mccain, since he was born in Panama. Natural Born Citizens are those born in the US of US Citizen parents, or as Laurence Tribe says, “those born WITHIN a Nation’s territory AND ALLEGIANCE.”
Obama has fulfilled the foundres fear that foreign influence has invaded the WH and a charismatic man, w/o the prerequisite Allegiance and Attachment to country has assumed the Presidency. G. Washington warned about a man like Obama in his farewell address.
FenelonSpoke
September 6th, 2010 @ 2:21 pm

I like the prayer and agree with its sentiments. On the other hand, I don’t want to be judged for heaping up too many empty phrases, so I just pray, “God, please keep Obama and his family safe. May out of the fullness of his heart his mouth speak so that more people will recognize him for who is truly is. Please protect our country, Lord.” It’s not the most gracious or graceful prayer, but it works for me. That was part of my prayers before I opened my eyes this morning.
FenelonSpoke
September 6th, 2010 @ 10:21 am

I like the prayer and agree with its sentiments. On the other hand, I don’t want to be judged for heaping up too many empty phrases, so I just pray, “God, please keep Obama and his family safe. May out of the fullness of his heart his mouth speak so that more people will recognize him for who is truly is. Please protect our country, Lord.” It’s not the most gracious or graceful prayer, but it works for me. That was part of my prayers before I opened my eyes this morning.
FenelonSpoke
September 6th, 2010 @ 2:23 pm

Your prayer also made me laugh, Smitty; Thanks. ;^)
FenelonSpoke
September 6th, 2010 @ 10:23 am

Your prayer also made me laugh, Smitty; Thanks. ;^)
datechguy
September 6th, 2010 @ 2:45 pm

For Catholics who say a regular Rosary a good place to pray for this or any president in on the 3rd sorrowful mystery, the crowning with thorns.

The traditional grace that is asked for is: “Contempt for the world” meaning that one should do the right thing no matter what the world thinks.
datechguy
September 6th, 2010 @ 10:45 am

For Catholics who say a regular Rosary a good place to pray for this or any president in on the 3rd sorrowful mystery, the crowning with thorns.

The traditional grace that is asked for is: “Contempt for the world” meaning that one should do the right thing no matter what the world thinks.
Jeff Weimer
September 6th, 2010 @ 3:26 pm

Give it up Mick. That train never left the station. You would think that smarter people than us, say the Hillary Clinton team in March of 2008, would have worked Obama out of the race had that premise actually existed.

Assertion is not argument. Find the statute, court decision, whatever legal item, that supports that case.
Jeff Weimer
September 6th, 2010 @ 11:26 am

Give it up Mick. That train never left the station. You would think that smarter people than us, say the Hillary Clinton team in March of 2008, would have worked Obama out of the race had that premise actually existed.

Assertion is not argument. Find the statute, court decision, whatever legal item, that supports that case.
Joe
September 6th, 2010 @ 3:33 pm

Mick? Give that nonsense up.

As for President Obama’s well being, of course I want him to be okay. He is a bad president, not a bad human being. He seems to be a very good father and husband. There is a difference.

Obama would hate the comparison, but on a personal level he and George Bush have far more in common than he does with Bill Clinton.
Joe
September 6th, 2010 @ 11:33 am

Mick? Give that nonsense up.

As for President Obama’s well being, of course I want him to be okay. He is a bad president, not a bad human being. He seems to be a very good father and husband. There is a difference.

Obama would hate the comparison, but on a personal level he and George Bush have far more in common than he does with Bill Clinton.
Mick
September 6th, 2010 @ 3:44 pm

Jeff,
There is LOTS of evidence that Natural Born Citizen means Born in the US of 2 Citizen parents, as defined by Vattel’s Law of Nations in 1758.
No SCOTUS case has been directly on point about the subject, but there have been cases that defined it in DICTA, including:
The Venus (1814)
Dred Scott (1854)
Minor v. Happersett (1874)
Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Perkins v. Elg (1929)
No SCOTUS case has EVER defined Natural Born Citizen as anything less than Born in the US to 2 US Citizen parents.

For Example, from Minor v. Happersett (1874):

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their

Page 88 U. S. 168

parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

It says that the definition is not in the USC, which means that it’s not in the 14 Amendment either, since the case was in 1874 and the 14A was 1866.

Then there are the words of the principle writer of the 14A, John Bingham, who defined it in 1866 as:

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or the color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.[vi]”

And no, the Clinton team is not smarter than me.
Mick
September 6th, 2010 @ 11:44 am

Jeff,
There is LOTS of evidence that Natural Born Citizen means Born in the US of 2 Citizen parents, as defined by Vattel’s Law of Nations in 1758.
No SCOTUS case has been directly on point about the subject, but there have been cases that defined it in DICTA, including:
The Venus (1814)
Dred Scott (1854)
Minor v. Happersett (1874)
Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Perkins v. Elg (1929)
No SCOTUS case has EVER defined Natural Born Citizen as anything less than Born in the US to 2 US Citizen parents.

For Example, from Minor v. Happersett (1874):

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their

Page 88 U. S. 168

parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

It says that the definition is not in the USC, which means that it’s not in the 14 Amendment either, since the case was in 1874 and the 14A was 1866.

Then there are the words of the principle writer of the 14A, John Bingham, who defined it in 1866 as:

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or the color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.[vi]”

And no, the Clinton team is not smarter than me.
james nicholas
September 6th, 2010 @ 4:48 pm

“We pray he grasp that foreign policy need be neither feckless nor ignorant of history.”

That is too funny! In dark times, it’s good to get a laugh now and again. Thanks for cracking me up, Smitty.

@ Mick

You may very well be right, but it is an argument that will not have acceptance in the general public, and that can easily be used to undermine other, solid objections to this president.

“And no, the Clinton team is not smarter than me.”

Love that, though. : )
james nicholas
September 6th, 2010 @ 12:48 pm

“We pray he grasp that foreign policy need be neither feckless nor ignorant of history.”

That is too funny! In dark times, it’s good to get a laugh now and again. Thanks for cracking me up, Smitty.

@ Mick

You may very well be right, but it is an argument that will not have acceptance in the general public, and that can easily be used to undermine other, solid objections to this president.

“And no, the Clinton team is not smarter than me.”

Love that, though. : )
Mick
September 6th, 2010 @ 4:59 pm

@ James
There is no more important issue to be decided than Obama’s eligibility. Both sides of Congress are committing Treason, and the general public needs to be educated.
They are attempting to change the eligibility clause of A2S1 by precedent, not ammendment.
It will strip a security measure out of the USC. Do you see this POTUS as having the neccessary Allegiance and Attachment to this country? His ineligibility is where it all starts, and when unseated everything he signed, and everyone he appointed will be rescinded.
Mick
September 6th, 2010 @ 12:59 pm

@ James
There is no more important issue to be decided than Obama’s eligibility. Both sides of Congress are committing Treason, and the general public needs to be educated.
They are attempting to change the eligibility clause of A2S1 by precedent, not ammendment.
It will strip a security measure out of the USC. Do you see this POTUS as having the neccessary Allegiance and Attachment to this country? His ineligibility is where it all starts, and when unseated everything he signed, and everyone he appointed will be rescinded.
Granite
September 6th, 2010 @ 6:48 pm

Re: “He is not a Natural Born Citizen, since his father was not a Citizen when Obama 2 was born (even if it was in Hi.).”

Answer: It WAS in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate and the repeated confirmations ofthe officials (most recently the Republican governor) shows.

The citizenship of Obama’s father or even of two parents has no effect on Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status, which stems simply from the fact that the was born in the USA.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
Granite
September 6th, 2010 @ 2:48 pm

Re: “He is not a Natural Born Citizen, since his father was not a Citizen when Obama 2 was born (even if it was in Hi.).”

Answer: It WAS in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate and the repeated confirmations ofthe officials (most recently the Republican governor) shows.

The citizenship of Obama’s father or even of two parents has no effect on Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status, which stems simply from the fact that the was born in the USA.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
Jeff Weimer
September 6th, 2010 @ 8:04 pm

Mick, you’re reading Wong Kim Ark improperly. That was the case the defines birthright citizenship as being born on US soil. It’s the precedent we currently use to define eligibility – born on soil is Natural Born Citizen, and no amount of previous precedent is going to change that.

And just because you think the Clinton (or any other candidate for that matter) team is not as smart doesn’t change the fact they probably already looked at it more deeply than you and came up with nothing. They had standing to challenge.
Jeff Weimer
September 6th, 2010 @ 4:04 pm

Mick, you’re reading Wong Kim Ark improperly. That was the case the defines birthright citizenship as being born on US soil. It’s the precedent we currently use to define eligibility – born on soil is Natural Born Citizen, and no amount of previous precedent is going to change that.

And just because you think the Clinton (or any other candidate for that matter) team is not as smart doesn’t change the fact they probably already looked at it more deeply than you and came up with nothing. They had standing to challenge.
Roxeanne de Luca
September 6th, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

that FDR’s notion of “freedom from want” is the political equivalent of crack cocaine

Well, the best way to achieve freedom from want of necessities is capitalism, but we will never be free from want. Anyone who has spent time around the semi-rich who are pissed because they can’t afford private planes knows that there is no possible way to satisfy everyone’s every desire.
Roxeanne de Luca
September 6th, 2010 @ 4:11 pm

that FDR’s notion of “freedom from want” is the political equivalent of crack cocaine

Well, the best way to achieve freedom from want of necessities is capitalism, but we will never be free from want. Anyone who has spent time around the semi-rich who are pissed because they can’t afford private planes knows that there is no possible way to satisfy everyone’s every desire.
Mick
September 7th, 2010 @ 1:08 pm

@Granite (or Smrstrauss),
Of course it is nonsense that the founders relied on British Common Law, that was the philosophy of governess that the founders were Revolting against. Their philosopy was rooted in the “Laws of Nature”, as stated by the Declaration of Independece. We are citizens, sovereign and endowed with Natural God given rights. Blackstone was talking about “subjects”, subjected to the rule of the state. Vattels Law of Nations was relied upon heavily by the framers, this is undoubtedly true. It’s definition of Natural Born Citizen has been quoted by the SCOTUS over hundreds of years. Even today, in 4/2008 Laurence Tribe described it as “one born in within the territory AND Allegiance” of a Nation. Obviously if simple birth in territory was all that was neccessary, the he wouldn’t have to say allegiance. Our own State Dept. consider Dual Citizens to have multiple allegiances,

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

and those with multiple allegiance cannot be “within the allegiance” of the US. Obama has admitted that, at birth, his citizenship was governed by Britain due to his father’s Kenyan citizenship and the British Naturalization Act of 1948 at “Fight the Smears”:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Obama’s dual citizenship at birth, due to his father’s Kenyan Citizenship makes him a Non Eligible NON Natural Born Citizen, no matter if born in the Whithouse on the 4th of July.

As for Hatch and Graham, they have demonstarted their lack of knowledge of the USC many times.

@Jeff W–

No I am not reding WKA wrong, read the case. Wong was considered a “Citizen” because he was born to UNNATURALIZABLE domiciled legal resident aliens. Justice Gray compared Wong to the children of Unnaturalizable slaves born before the 14A. WONG was NEVER considered a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS.
Mick
September 7th, 2010 @ 9:08 am

@Granite (or Smrstrauss),
Of course it is nonsense that the founders relied on British Common Law, that was the philosophy of governess that the founders were Revolting against. Their philosopy was rooted in the “Laws of Nature”, as stated by the Declaration of Independece. We are citizens, sovereign and endowed with Natural God given rights. Blackstone was talking about “subjects”, subjected to the rule of the state. Vattels Law of Nations was relied upon heavily by the framers, this is undoubtedly true. It’s definition of Natural Born Citizen has been quoted by the SCOTUS over hundreds of years. Even today, in 4/2008 Laurence Tribe described it as “one born in within the territory AND Allegiance” of a Nation. Obviously if simple birth in territory was all that was neccessary, the he wouldn’t have to say allegiance. Our own State Dept. consider Dual Citizens to have multiple allegiances,

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

and those with multiple allegiance cannot be “within the allegiance” of the US. Obama has admitted that, at birth, his citizenship was governed by Britain due to his father’s Kenyan citizenship and the British Naturalization Act of 1948 at “Fight the Smears”:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Obama’s dual citizenship at birth, due to his father’s Kenyan Citizenship makes him a Non Eligible NON Natural Born Citizen, no matter if born in the Whithouse on the 4th of July.

As for Hatch and Graham, they have demonstarted their lack of knowledge of the USC many times.

@Jeff W–

No I am not reding WKA wrong, read the case. Wong was considered a “Citizen” because he was born to UNNATURALIZABLE domiciled legal resident aliens. Justice Gray compared Wong to the children of Unnaturalizable slaves born before the 14A. WONG was NEVER considered a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS.
Granite
September 7th, 2010 @ 3:14 pm

Re: “Of course it is nonsense that the founders relied on British Common Law, that was the philosophy of governess that the founders were Revolting against. ”

All you have to do is find a founder who says that Natural Born means “two citizen parents.” The conservative justices of the court are originalists. That means that they will search for the meaning of the term at the time that the article was written.

As for the common law, as I said, the phrase “natural born” was in common use at the time. The meaning comes from its common use, not necessarily from the common law.

But you are wrong on them revolting against the common law. John Jay was the principle writer of the first constitution of New York (1777), and the common law was written right into that document, which said that until state statutes were enacted that changed the law, the common law applied.

Want to see the quotation?

re your insistence that Vattel was relied on heavily by the founders. He was not mentioned AT ALL in the Federalist Papers. The founders did not follow his recommendation that every country should have a state religion (they may have laughed at that one), and there are no letters from founder to founder (actually, they are called “framers”) saying “let us follow Vattel on the two-citizen idea.”

Yes, John Jay said that the top job should only go to a Natural Born Citizen. But he didn’t say “A natural born citizen as Vattel defined it.” Being a lawyer, unless he actually defined the word, the reference was to how it was used in the law. A book even more popular than Vattel among the framers (who were mainly lawyers and judges) was Blackstone, and he always used Natural Born to mean two citizen parents.

The Wong Kim Ark case ruling stated clearly that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born. It also ruled that Wong was a citizen. What kind of a citizen was he? If he was left-handed, he was a left-handed citizen. If he was six-foot (he wasn’t), he was a six-foot citizen. What we KNOW from the ruling was that he was Natural Born. Hence he was a Natural Born Citizen. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen is simply the combination of Natural Born and Citizen.

Turning now to dual nationality. Did you know that Thomas Jefferson was naturalized by France? He received FULL (not honorary) French citizenship, meaning he could vote and run for office in France. He was hence a dual national, but it did not seem to affect his job performance.

The idea that dual nationality can affect the Natural Born Citizen status of a US-born person would be laughed at by the conservative members of the Supreme Court. They tend to believe that foreign laws have little or no effect on US law. Yet to believe that dual nationality even COULD have an effect means that you believe that when a foreign country has a certain kind of law a child born in Texas might not be eligible. If that country repeals the law, the child becomes eligible. If it passes the law again, the child again loses eligibility. We cannot and do not allow foreign laws to jerk us around like that. Our law is what counts.

I have actually seen a couple of JAG (Judge Advocate General) rulings in which it has been shown that a person can be a Natural Born Citizen of two countries, us by our rules (which the JAG pointed out was “birth in the country”), and the foreign country by its rules, which in these cases was Germany, and was determined by the parents of the person). And neither law or situation affected the other.

I only give Hatch and Graham as examples of the OVERWHELMING consensus of opinion on this matter. If Hatch and Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is just one who is born in the country, then the chance of getting five votes on the Supreme Court that it requires two citizen parents is, as they say in New York, dreck.
Granite
September 7th, 2010 @ 11:14 am

Re: “Of course it is nonsense that the founders relied on British Common Law, that was the philosophy of governess that the founders were Revolting against. ”

All you have to do is find a founder who says that Natural Born means “two citizen parents.” The conservative justices of the court are originalists. That means that they will search for the meaning of the term at the time that the article was written.

As for the common law, as I said, the phrase “natural born” was in common use at the time. The meaning comes from its common use, not necessarily from the common law.

But you are wrong on them revolting against the common law. John Jay was the principle writer of the first constitution of New York (1777), and the common law was written right into that document, which said that until state statutes were enacted that changed the law, the common law applied.

Want to see the quotation?

re your insistence that Vattel was relied on heavily by the founders. He was not mentioned AT ALL in the Federalist Papers. The founders did not follow his recommendation that every country should have a state religion (they may have laughed at that one), and there are no letters from founder to founder (actually, they are called “framers”) saying “let us follow Vattel on the two-citizen idea.”

Yes, John Jay said that the top job should only go to a Natural Born Citizen. But he didn’t say “A natural born citizen as Vattel defined it.” Being a lawyer, unless he actually defined the word, the reference was to how it was used in the law. A book even more popular than Vattel among the framers (who were mainly lawyers and judges) was Blackstone, and he always used Natural Born to mean two citizen parents.

The Wong Kim Ark case ruling stated clearly that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born. It also ruled that Wong was a citizen. What kind of a citizen was he? If he was left-handed, he was a left-handed citizen. If he was six-foot (he wasn’t), he was a six-foot citizen. What we KNOW from the ruling was that he was Natural Born. Hence he was a Natural Born Citizen. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen is simply the combination of Natural Born and Citizen.

Turning now to dual nationality. Did you know that Thomas Jefferson was naturalized by France? He received FULL (not honorary) French citizenship, meaning he could vote and run for office in France. He was hence a dual national, but it did not seem to affect his job performance.

The idea that dual nationality can affect the Natural Born Citizen status of a US-born person would be laughed at by the conservative members of the Supreme Court. They tend to believe that foreign laws have little or no effect on US law. Yet to believe that dual nationality even COULD have an effect means that you believe that when a foreign country has a certain kind of law a child born in Texas might not be eligible. If that country repeals the law, the child becomes eligible. If it passes the law again, the child again loses eligibility. We cannot and do not allow foreign laws to jerk us around like that. Our law is what counts.

I have actually seen a couple of JAG (Judge Advocate General) rulings in which it has been shown that a person can be a Natural Born Citizen of two countries, us by our rules (which the JAG pointed out was “birth in the country”), and the foreign country by its rules, which in these cases was Germany, and was determined by the parents of the person). And neither law or situation affected the other.

I only give Hatch and Graham as examples of the OVERWHELMING consensus of opinion on this matter. If Hatch and Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is just one who is born in the country, then the chance of getting five votes on the Supreme Court that it requires two citizen parents is, as they say in New York, dreck.
Mick
September 7th, 2010 @ 3:52 pm

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #68, explaining the neccesity of the Natural Born Citizen requirement:

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? ”

He is espousing the age-old desire for a people to be governed by one of it’s own, an indigenous citizen, i.e born on the soil of citizens of the soil. A child of aliens is not a “creature of America’s own” but a creature of the country of the parents.
Your nonsense about “foreign law” is simply nonsense, smrstrauss, every country has the right to legislate the Naturalization laws of it’s citizens, but doesn’t have the right to say that a child born in the US of US Citizen parents, is a citizen of another country. Just like the US has laws making the children of 1 US Citizen born abroad a US Citizen (finalized by election at the age of majority), so do other coutries with children of their citizens born abroad, that’s natural Law (law of nations).
If the intention of A2S1C5 was to prevent foreign influence, then it is not possible that they include as eligible those born in the US of alien parents.

Or we can point to this, from Patrick Ramsey
(1749-1815), historian of the founding fathers, member of the Continental Congress and present during the Revolution.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1870&Itemid=28

In his 1789 essay, while not using the phrase “natural born Citizen,” Ramsay described the original citizens that existed during the Founding and what it meant to acquire citizenship by birthright after the Founding. The Constitution itself shows that the Framers called the original citizens “Citizens of the United States” and those that followed them “natural born Citizens.” He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.
Mick
September 7th, 2010 @ 11:52 am

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #68, explaining the neccesity of the Natural Born Citizen requirement:

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? ”

He is espousing the age-old desire for a people to be governed by one of it’s own, an indigenous citizen, i.e born on the soil of citizens of the soil. A child of aliens is not a “creature of America’s own” but a creature of the country of the parents.
Your nonsense about “foreign law” is simply nonsense, smrstrauss, every country has the right to legislate the Naturalization laws of it’s citizens, but doesn’t have the right to say that a child born in the US of US Citizen parents, is a citizen of another country. Just like the US has laws making the children of 1 US Citizen born abroad a US Citizen (finalized by election at the age of majority), so do other coutries with children of their citizens born abroad, that’s natural Law (law of nations).
If the intention of A2S1C5 was to prevent foreign influence, then it is not possible that they include as eligible those born in the US of alien parents.

Or we can point to this, from Patrick Ramsey
(1749-1815), historian of the founding fathers, member of the Continental Congress and present during the Revolution.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1870&Itemid=28

In his 1789 essay, while not using the phrase “natural born Citizen,” Ramsay described the original citizens that existed during the Founding and what it meant to acquire citizenship by birthright after the Founding. The Constitution itself shows that the Framers called the original citizens “Citizens of the United States” and those that followed them “natural born Citizens.” He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.
Granite
September 7th, 2010 @ 4:30 pm

Re: Hamilton.

It can be shown that Hamilton, like all the other AMERICAN (not Swiss) writers and leaders at the time used Natural Born to mean “born in the country.” (Want to see some quotations?)

Sure, he was concerned about foreign influence, as he says. But what makes you think that a child born in the USA has any foreign influence? What makes you think that he thought it, or that any of them thought it.

By limiting the presidency to citizens who were born in the country, the were in fact limiting foreign influence. By requiring citizens to be president, they barred foreigners from being president. By requiring that the citizen be Natural Born, they barred naturalized citizens from being president.

But that is all that they did. There are no articles or letters between the framers or other American leaders at the time saying “let us limit it to two citizen parents.” And there is no such letter or article saying “let us follow the writings of Vattel on this subject.”

Want to see some Hamilton quotations showing that he used Natural Born like everyone else at the time?

Ramsay was discussing citizenship. He was not discussing the meaning of Natural Born. His views relate to who can become citizens. But they do not relate to who has the quality of being Natural Born. He wasn’t talking about that. Natural Born was used as a geographic term at the time, as we use Native Born or, say, Ohio-born today.

An opinion as to who can become citizens has no effect on the definition of native born or Ohio-born, and it had no effect on the meaning of Natural Born. No American leader, including Ramsay, can be found who uses Natural Born to mean “two citizen parents.”

Our current laws describe who are citizens at birth. And, the original meaning of Natural Born affects the phrase Natural Born in Natural Born citizen. Someone who is a citizen now and is also Natural Born according to the original definition is a Natural Born Citizen.

That is the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case, which confirmed the ruling of the lower court that Wong Kim Ark is a Natural Born Citizen, and also stated in its own ruling that Wong (like every child born in the USA) is Natural Born and that he is also a citizen.

That is why there have been MANY federal law cases in which the justices have described the US-born children of one or two foreigners as Natural Born Citizens. (Would you like to see the cases?)
Granite
September 7th, 2010 @ 12:30 pm

Re: Hamilton.

It can be shown that Hamilton, like all the other AMERICAN (not Swiss) writers and leaders at the time used Natural Born to mean “born in the country.” (Want to see some quotations?)

Sure, he was concerned about foreign influence, as he says. But what makes you think that a child born in the USA has any foreign influence? What makes you think that he thought it, or that any of them thought it.

By limiting the presidency to citizens who were born in the country, the were in fact limiting foreign influence. By requiring citizens to be president, they barred foreigners from being president. By requiring that the citizen be Natural Born, they barred naturalized citizens from being president.

But that is all that they did. There are no articles or letters between the framers or other American leaders at the time saying “let us limit it to two citizen parents.” And there is no such letter or article saying “let us follow the writings of Vattel on this subject.”

Want to see some Hamilton quotations showing that he used Natural Born like everyone else at the time?

Ramsay was discussing citizenship. He was not discussing the meaning of Natural Born. His views relate to who can become citizens. But they do not relate to who has the quality of being Natural Born. He wasn’t talking about that. Natural Born was used as a geographic term at the time, as we use Native Born or, say, Ohio-born today.

An opinion as to who can become citizens has no effect on the definition of native born or Ohio-born, and it had no effect on the meaning of Natural Born. No American leader, including Ramsay, can be found who uses Natural Born to mean “two citizen parents.”

Our current laws describe who are citizens at birth. And, the original meaning of Natural Born affects the phrase Natural Born in Natural Born citizen. Someone who is a citizen now and is also Natural Born according to the original definition is a Natural Born Citizen.

That is the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case, which confirmed the ruling of the lower court that Wong Kim Ark is a Natural Born Citizen, and also stated in its own ruling that Wong (like every child born in the USA) is Natural Born and that he is also a citizen.

That is why there have been MANY federal law cases in which the justices have described the US-born children of one or two foreigners as Natural Born Citizens. (Would you like to see the cases?)
Mick
September 7th, 2010 @ 10:06 pm

More relativist nonsense from smrstrauss. Ramsay was discussing Natural born citizenship, that which is given by nature. All Federal Statutes that make children citizens at birth are not describing naturally occuring or Natural Born Citizens, those born with no allegiance to any foreign nation, the most naturally occurring citizens, the indigenous citizens, those born within the allegiance of the US, and as Hamilton put it, “creatures of America’s own”. The POINT is that the framers did not use Hamilton’s “born a citizen” language. They used “Natural Born Citizen”, which has a meaning of it’s own that can’t be changed by the whim of Congressional Naturalization law.
Mick
September 7th, 2010 @ 6:06 pm

More relativist nonsense from smrstrauss. Ramsay was discussing Natural born citizenship, that which is given by nature. All Federal Statutes that make children citizens at birth are not describing naturally occuring or Natural Born Citizens, those born with no allegiance to any foreign nation, the most naturally occurring citizens, the indigenous citizens, those born within the allegiance of the US, and as Hamilton put it, “creatures of America’s own”. The POINT is that the framers did not use Hamilton’s “born a citizen” language. They used “Natural Born Citizen”, which has a meaning of it’s own that can’t be changed by the whim of Congressional Naturalization law.
Granite
September 8th, 2010 @ 1:44 am

Re: “Ramsay was discussing Natural born citizenship…”

Then show him using the words Natural Born Citizenship and not just citizenship.

Although Ramsay was discussing what at the time made citizens, he was not discussing the geographic term Natural Born.

Re: “All Federal Statutes that make children citizens at birth are not describing naturally occuring or Natural Born Citizens, those born with no allegiance to any foreign nation, the most naturally occurring citizens..”

Answer: Federal statutes have no effect on the geographic meaning of Natural Born any more than they could have an effect on Ohio-born. IF there were examples of Americans at the time of the writing of the Constitution who used Natural Born referred to the parents of the child, that would be evidence that that is that they meant. But there are none.
Granite
September 7th, 2010 @ 9:44 pm

Re: “Ramsay was discussing Natural born citizenship…”

Then show him using the words Natural Born Citizenship and not just citizenship.

Although Ramsay was discussing what at the time made citizens, he was not discussing the geographic term Natural Born.

Re: “All Federal Statutes that make children citizens at birth are not describing naturally occuring or Natural Born Citizens, those born with no allegiance to any foreign nation, the most naturally occurring citizens..”

Answer: Federal statutes have no effect on the geographic meaning of Natural Born any more than they could have an effect on Ohio-born. IF there were examples of Americans at the time of the writing of the Constitution who used Natural Born referred to the parents of the child, that would be evidence that that is that they meant. But there are none.
Granite
September 8th, 2010 @ 1:46 am

We are in entire agreement that a Congressional law cannot change the meaning of Natural Born. The original meaning referred to the geographic fact of birth within the country, and that is still the case. I said that current citizenship laws affect citizenship. I did not say that it affected Natural Born.

A change in the citizenship law changes Natural Born Citizen to the extent that if under the old law you were not allowed to be a citizen and the new law you are, you become a Natural Born Citizen under the new law if you were natural born. But, as I said, the definition of Natural Born did not change, and cannot be changed by statute.
Granite
September 7th, 2010 @ 9:46 pm

We are in entire agreement that a Congressional law cannot change the meaning of Natural Born. The original meaning referred to the geographic fact of birth within the country, and that is still the case. I said that current citizenship laws affect citizenship. I did not say that it affected Natural Born.

A change in the citizenship law changes Natural Born Citizen to the extent that if under the old law you were not allowed to be a citizen and the new law you are, you become a Natural Born Citizen under the new law if you were natural born. But, as I said, the definition of Natural Born did not change, and cannot be changed by statute.
Mick
September 8th, 2010 @ 2:23 pm

smrstraus’ (Granite) comments above are more nonsense from Obama internet operatives, sent out to all corners of the internet to counter any dissent of Obama, and to twist words and historical fact.
This country was founded on a political philosophy of Natural Law as evidenced by the Declaration of Independence, and God Given inalienable rights of the Bill of Rights. To think that the framers thought of citizenship of America in the same way that Britain thought of it’s “Subjects” is laughable, and an outright lie.
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #68, explained that the requirement for Natural Born Citizen was a security requirement and that the POTUS should be “a creature of our own”. That would certainly eliminate the children of Aliens (not our own) from consideration.
David Ramsay, a historian of the founding era, said that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….”.
He was speaking of Natural Born Citizenship, not citizenship as decreed by Congressional Acts.
The truth sets me free, and is acid in the face of the Obama internet operatives.
Mick
September 8th, 2010 @ 10:23 am

smrstraus’ (Granite) comments above are more nonsense from Obama internet operatives, sent out to all corners of the internet to counter any dissent of Obama, and to twist words and historical fact.
This country was founded on a political philosophy of Natural Law as evidenced by the Declaration of Independence, and God Given inalienable rights of the Bill of Rights. To think that the framers thought of citizenship of America in the same way that Britain thought of it’s “Subjects” is laughable, and an outright lie.
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #68, explained that the requirement for Natural Born Citizen was a security requirement and that the POTUS should be “a creature of our own”. That would certainly eliminate the children of Aliens (not our own) from consideration.
David Ramsay, a historian of the founding era, said that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….”.
He was speaking of Natural Born Citizenship, not citizenship as decreed by Congressional Acts.
The truth sets me free, and is acid in the face of the Obama internet operatives.
Granite
September 8th, 2010 @ 7:58 pm

Re: “This country was founded on a political philosophy of Natural Law..”

Yes it was. But Strict Constructionist justices do not insert “two citizen parents” into the meaning of the sentence just because one of many Natural Law philosophers thought that should be the case. (Especially when the natural law philosopher you refer to recommended that every country should have a state religion.)

And Originalist justices look for the meaning of the term at the time it was written, the AMERICAN MEANING, not the Swiss meaning. And in dozens of quotations at the time Americans always used the phrase Natural Born to indicate birth in the country, and never “two citizen parents.” In fact, the phrase does not refer to two citizen parents or one citizen parent or any parent at all; it refers only to birth within the country.
Granite
September 8th, 2010 @ 3:58 pm

Re: “This country was founded on a political philosophy of Natural Law..”

Yes it was. But Strict Constructionist justices do not insert “two citizen parents” into the meaning of the sentence just because one of many Natural Law philosophers thought that should be the case. (Especially when the natural law philosopher you refer to recommended that every country should have a state religion.)

And Originalist justices look for the meaning of the term at the time it was written, the AMERICAN MEANING, not the Swiss meaning. And in dozens of quotations at the time Americans always used the phrase Natural Born to indicate birth in the country, and never “two citizen parents.” In fact, the phrase does not refer to two citizen parents or one citizen parent or any parent at all; it refers only to birth within the country.
Granite
September 8th, 2010 @ 8:03 pm

In the selection you quoted, Ramsay was discussing the causes of citizenship at that time. He said that you had to have two citizen parents to be a citizen. But that is no longer relevant because the rules on what makes a citizen are now federal law.

Ramsay does not use the phrase Natural Born, so there is not a shred of evidence that he disagrees with the meaning of the term that John Adams and Hamilton and others used–which always referred to the place of birth.
Granite
September 8th, 2010 @ 8:03 pm

A Natural Born Citizen is a combination of a person who is a citizen under US federal law, and a person who fulfills the original criterion of Natural Birth, which is birth in the USA. (Some argue that birth in the the Canal Zone, which being owned by the USA at the time also allowed McCain to be included.)

Want to see some quotations from Hamilton and Adams and Wilson and others who wrote at the time?
Granite
September 8th, 2010 @ 4:03 pm

In the selection you quoted, Ramsay was discussing the causes of citizenship at that time. He said that you had to have two citizen parents to be a citizen. But that is no longer relevant because the rules on what makes a citizen are now federal law.

Ramsay does not use the phrase Natural Born, so there is not a shred of evidence that he disagrees with the meaning of the term that John Adams and Hamilton and others used–which always referred to the place of birth.
Granite
September 8th, 2010 @ 4:03 pm

A Natural Born Citizen is a combination of a person who is a citizen under US federal law, and a person who fulfills the original criterion of Natural Birth, which is birth in the USA. (Some argue that birth in the the Canal Zone, which being owned by the USA at the time also allowed McCain to be included.)

Want to see some quotations from Hamilton and Adams and Wilson and others who wrote at the time?