The school pushed the story originally of how Shaw was at a family party in Palmdale, Calif., Saturday when jumped to save his 7-year-old nephew, Carter.
According to the Trojans’ website, Shaw claimed he had jumped from a second-story balcony onto concrete before dragging himself into the pool and rescuing his nephew, who doesn’t know how to swim.
Shaw has admitted that he lied after the LA Times uncovered that there was a police account sharply contradicting his story. On the night that he claimed to have jumped from a second-floor balcony to save his nephew there was a police report of a woman screaming at an apartment complex about 60 minutes from Shaw’s family function. A woman told police that she saw a man run across a balcony and provided a description. That description was read to another woman at the complex who said “Sounds like my boyfriend, Josh Shaw.”
After going national with the hero story, the university was livid. Head coach Steve Sarkisian stated “He let us all down . . . Honesty and integrity must be at the center of our program.”
Shaw, a senior cornerback and team captain, has retained a lawyer.
The question is the appropriate sanction for such a false statement. The most serious aspect is not the false public account but lying to the university. The indefinite suspension from the program is obvious but should there be the additional suspension from the school? I think the team suspension is more than sufficient and a very sad blow at a critical point in this promising career. Not only will Shaw miss key games to show his abilities but NFL teams are leery of athletes with off-field problems though it did not bar Manti T’eo ultimately in joining the San Diego Chargers as a linebacker this year. The suspension is indefinite, which raises the possibility that he may never play again for the Trojans.
I expect that this is a nightmare for Shaw and his family. Teenagers can do and say stupid things. Most of us are not held up to the national limelight on such occasions. There is no indication of a crime here, but there is a serious violation in not just lying but claiming to be a hero. As an academic, I find such cases very difficult because we have all seen good kids (and adults) who get caught up in a lie that snowballs out of control. I would have much preferred his admitting the lie before the LA Times debunked the story but I hate to see a young man like this crash and burn over such a scandal.
What do you think?
Source: LA Times
Oh, by the way. Vattel was Swiss in France. Law of Nations was in French. Washington spoke French as did, many if not most, Americans. French was the language of England until 1100 and the language of English law through the mid-19th century. I might speculate that Britain and America were sufficiently familiar with French to comprehend and implement much of Vattel’s law.
@John
So? It’s still not U.S. law, even if he were from Ork.
Maxcat, please take a moment to familiarize yourself with history and the fact that Americans became American CITIZENS not British SUBJECTS.
–Franklin, Law of Nations was “pounced upon” and “continually in the hands of founders.”
–“the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”
–“the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty…”
–“This copy undoubtedly was used by the members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policy of the United Colonies until the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution…”
******************************************************************************************
How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:
During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:
“… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents.”
Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment. Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:
“From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.” (page xxx) [emphasis added]
In footnote 1 on the same page, Lapradelle writes:
“… Another copy was presented by Franklin to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Among the records of its Directors is the following minute: “Oct. 10, 1775. Monsieur Dumas having presented the Library with a very late edition of Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations (in French), the Board direct the secretary to return that gentle-man their thanks.” This copy undoubtedly was used by the members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policy of the United Colonies until the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution of the United States, for the library was located in Carpenters’ Hall, where the First Congress deliberated, and within a stone’s throw of the Colonial State House of Pennsylvania, where the Second Congress met, and likewise near where the Constitution was framed …” [emphasis added]
“So! Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787.”
“Vattel on “natural born citizens,” “inhabitants,” and “naturalized citizens.”
“From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens. We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens. Vattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:
§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.
§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens.” By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.”
***********************************************************************************
CITIZENS not SUBJECTS
READ FOOTNOTES –
FROM SOURCE:
Monarchies have subjects. Republics are formed by citizens. We broke from a monarchy under which we were subjects; and with our War for Independence, were transformed into citizens!
The common law of England recognizes only subjects of the Crown. England has never had citizens. Her feudal doctrine of “natural born subjects” is set forth in Book I, Ch. 10, of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England:
“THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the … allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie … which binds the subject to the king …”
Under feudalism, people are possessions who belong to the Land in which they were born. So they are “naturally” subject to whoever owns the Land. They were born as subjects to the owner of the land [ultimately, the King] on which they were born.
With our War for Independence, We repudiated the notion of natural born subjects. As Citizens, We ordained and established Our Constitution wherein We created a federal government which was SUBJECT to us!
The author doesn’t seem to know the difference between being “a subject of a King” and “a citizen of a Republic”, as he equates the feudal concept of “natural born subject” with the Republican concept of “natural born Citizen”.
Maxcat,
Was the term “parents” as citizens REJECTED by any authority?
Was Vattel’s requirement of “parents” for “natural born citizen” rejected?
Please present here any rejection or correction of Vattel’s Law of Nations and his requirement of parents, including a citizen-father.
Did English law reject or correct Vattel in 1759 or thereafter?
Did the Writers, Framers or Founders reject or correct Vattel’s section stating the requirement of citizen-parents?
Did any authority in England or America reject or correct the requirement in the Law of Nations for parents (plural) for natural born citizenship?
Did Blackstone accept, reject or correct Vattel’s requirement for parents to establish natural born citizenship or an other form of citizenship in the Law of Nations.
@John
I’m basically done with your pointless arguments, but I will say two things. One, you’re an outright racist. I love Lincoln, and I notice that you fail to quote any of his later speeches, but that’s your logic – pick and choose.
Second, frankly, I don’t give a f**k about Vattel, and that’s how I need to phrase it to you. The arguments are juvenile and have proved to be without merit, or the law of the land would have been changed.
You’re not worth the time or the effort.
Maxcat,
“Is it the fact that none of these were of African descent that troubles you?” – your previous post.
As the debate to devolves to ad hominem attacks with racial facets, I would ask if you supported Lincoln, his Abolition and Civil War in particular, because I think Lincoln was one of the greatest Presidents with the greatest vision for the United States of America. To learn if you agree that Lincoln was the quintessential President with the best plan for America, I submit the following for your perusal:
Abraham Lincoln –
“If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”5
One of Lincoln’s most representative public statements on the question of racial relations was given in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857.6 In this address, he explained why he opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have admitted Kansas into the Union as a slave state:
There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …
Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, “must be effected by colonization” of the country’s blacks to a foreign land. “The enterprise is a difficult one,” he acknowledged,
but “where there is a will there is a way,” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.
Oh what an interesting discussion, Squeeky and Maxcat for the win! I’d like to hear his answer too.
@John.
You asked: What did Jay and Washington intend by increasing the requirement for eligibility from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” as they imposed a “strong check” to foreign influence and allegiance by the Commander-In-Chief?
Answer: To keep someone born outside the U.S. , who had to be naturalized to become a citizen, from becoming President. Since citizens are either natural born or naturalized, this restricted Presidents to being people born here, who are not children of invaders or foreign diplomats, and to people born overseas to American citizen(s) declared natural born citizens at birth by Congress.
There, see how simple it is to answer a question! Now you try it:
Do you believe that Obama is the legal POTUS?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I am discussing the writings of the framers which demonstrate their intent and the Constitution. These include the subject of the requirements for eligibility for the office of the president. That you cannot prevail on any given point or in this debate in toto, does not avail you of the opportunity to broach a differing subject.
Let’s simplify and have you respond to one question with one direct, succinct answer. Let see if you can do that.
What did Jay and Washington intend by increasing the requirement for eligibility from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” as they imposed a “strong check” to foreign influence and allegiance by the Commander-In-Chief?
@John
For the third time, Do you believe that Obama is the legal POTUS?
Are you afraid of answering this question??? Do you sense some kind of logic trap??? Whatever, I would appreciate if you would answer the question. If you lack the necessary understanding of the law to provide a meaningful answer, then that is nothing to be ashamed of. It does mean you ought to stop pontificating.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I apologize. I can’t answer your questions about Obama but I do know they erected and tore down a statue of him in Indonesia where he was, apparently, a citizen. I can only imagine there are papers related to Indonesian citizenship, visitation and international travel. Obama has not released papers related to matriculation, grades or financial aid at Occidental or any other institution.
You would be better served by addressing your questions about citizenship, national origin, college loans, etc. to Obama himself.
Did you hear of Kearns-Goodwin and Fareed Zakari? According to reports, frauds, one and all. It’s not like FRAUD and MISREPRESENTATION don’t happen all the time. Below, please find a report of fraud by a Montana Dem. Senator.
This senator was eligible until he WASN’T eligible. See how that works?
*******************************************************************************************
Montana Democratic Sen. John Walsh is dropping out of his Senate race after being dogged by allegations of plagiarism, potentially boosting Republicans’ chances of picking up the seat in November.
The senator made the announcement late Thursday in a message to supporters. Walsh said the plagiarism claims have become a “distraction” from the issues.
“I am ending my campaign so that I can focus on fulfilling the responsibility entrusted to me as your U.S. Senator. You deserve someone who will always fight for Montana, and I will,” he said in the message.
@John
Totally off topic. Questions about Indonesia are hearsay at best, total crap at worst.
Fraud by others has nothing to do with the topic. Try reading Ben Carson or Dinesh D’Souza and get back to me about their accuracy. Total garbage.
What this has to do with “natural born citizens”? Absolutely nothing. Nice try, though. Thanks for playing.
I really am out of this. What you put forth is verbal vomit. There is no need to respond. It’s off topic and one sided, totally leaving off the crap on the other side. I’m writing in language you might understand. You’re a false witness, nothing more.
Go play with dolls.
@Squeaky
Should you choose to carry the flag, I’ll pass it. Other than that, I’m spent. Apparently John Jay in 1787 trumps all subsequent amendments and court decisions.
The clock stopped the moment the Constitution was adopted. I no longer have the right to vote.
Maxcat,
I provide this information for your perusal. You may not choose to acquaint yourself with the facts.
To summarize, the Founders responded to the Jay/Washington letter/proposal and enhanced, raised and increased the eligibility requirement from the “citizen,” proposed in the constitutional draft, to “natural born citizen” which was codified in the Law of Nations which Franklin said the Founders “pounced on” as George Mason declared that English law was NOT the law of the United States and that the Constitution was an important historical inflection point at which great jurisprudential innovation should take place.
*******************************************************************************************
“During the process of developing a new U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. He also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
Many of the founders and framers had a fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future be President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. The President was also to be the Commander in Chief of the military. This fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was particularly strongly felt by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements. John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word natural goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.
The below is the relevant proposed change language from Jay’s letter which he proposed to strengthen the citizenship requirements in Article II and to require more than just being a “born Citizen” of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President.
John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. ”
See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link. This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective “natural” making it “natural born Citizen of the United States” for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton’s proposed “born a Citizen”. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:
“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.”
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.
Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen”, to block any chance of the person with foreign allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.
Jay’s proposal recommended clause added the additional adjective before “born Citizen” that was proposed by Hamilton. And that word and adjective “natural” means something special from the laws of nature that modifies just being born a Citizen of the USA such as being simply born on the soil of the United States. Natural means from nature by the facts of nature of one’s birth. Not created retroactively after the fact by a man-made law. A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them. The added adjective “natural” comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the Law of Nations which was codified by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. In Vol.1 Chapter 19 of Vattel’s Law of Nations, the “Des citoyens et naturels”, Vattel in Section 212 explains to us (as it was translated to English in the 1797 edition) that the “natural born Citizens” are those born in the country to parents (plural) who are Citizens of the country when their child is born. These are the natural Citizens of the nation per universal principles of natural law for which no man-made law is necessary to explain or justify. Such a person, a natural born Citizen, is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil AND being born to two Citizen parents. The person who would be President must be a second generation American with no foreign claims of allegiance on them at birth under the law of nations and natural law, the child of two Citizens and born in the USA. This is a much stronger check to foreign influence than simply being born a Citizen say on the soil of the USA but with one or the other parent being a foreigner, such as is the case of Obama. The situation with Obama’s birth Citizenship status is exactly the problem that the founders and framers did not want. They did not want the child of a foreign national, non-U.S. citizen serving as President and Commander of our military. This was a national security concern to them. And it is a national security concern now.
Another founder of our nation and great historian of the American Revolution named David Ramsay contemporaneously defined in a 1789 essay what the term “natural born Citizen” means. Read a copy of Ramsay’s original dissertation at this link. Other research papers from history on the term “natural born Citizen” published long before the current controversy was created by the 2008 election debacle can be read at this link. The paper by Breckenridge Long in 1916 is a particularly good one.
Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be a born Citizen of the USA depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a “natural born Citizen of the United States” since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in their graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military.
The founders rejected acquisition of Citizenship by birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the military.
So, can a “born Citizen” be President of the USA? The answer is a resounding NO per the founders and framers. Being a “born Citizen the United States” is a necessary but NOT sufficient part of being a “natural born Citizen of the United States”. But only a “natural born Citizen” can be the President of the USA. Obama is not constitutionally eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.”
Maxcat,
Your allegation about “President Romney” is disingenuous and moot.
Chester Arthur was compelled to defraud to comply with the two-parent requirement for eligibility. Chester Arthur defrauded to obtain the office of President which demonstrates the force of the eligibility requirement for two citizen-parents.
Here is the correction of your previous misrepresentation of the status of these Presidents:
JAMES BUCHANAN
The first President we must examine then was James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States. He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. He just missed out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and the only President never to marry.
His mother Elizabeth Speer was born in Pennsylvani. His father James Buchanan emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783. It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain. Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.
Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States. When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States. No formal naturalization was needed.
On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified. The Buchanans were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States. When James Jr. was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.
ANDREW JOHNSON
Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808. Wiki has this on his father:
Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County. The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.
The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US. But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born. The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization. The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.
Jacob Johnson also served as a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable. I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born. (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)
Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.
So, Andrew Johnson – born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence – natural born citizen.
[Chester Arthur would be next, but I shall save him for last.]
WOODROW WILSON
Born December 28, 1856 – the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.
Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England. His father was a US citizen from Ohio. Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,
“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]
This was called derivative citizenship. This act was enacted in 1855. Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856. He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens – natural born citizen.
HERBERT HOOVER
Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874. He was the 31st President. His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen. His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada. They were married in 1870. According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.
So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens – natural born citizen.
Wonderful scholarship, but you’re still evading a Constitutional amendment and a Supreme court ruling, both listed WAY above in this endless thread.
It’s like talking to a rock, albeit the rock may have attributes that endear it to the speaker. You just cut and paste at will, ignoring established law that doesn’t suit your narrative.
I could have the same discussion with a 4-year old who is ignorant of history, but I would expect better of an adult. If I stated “President Romney” please find the post where I did. I do remember specifically citing “Candidate Romney”, and as such, I have found no refutation in your argument. Nor have I found any for Ted Cruz, as much as I dislike the man.
Settled law has defined a “natural born citizen” as one who is born on U.S. soil. It has been undisputed until Barack Obama chose to run. Why was that, John?
It was briefly mentioned in the candidacy of John McCain, then dropped (wisely so), and then in the candidacy of Mitt Romney. However, with the candidacy and subsequent election of Barack Obama, a hailstorm erupted. Again, why was that so, John? Why were so many people willing to overlook 100+ years of settled law to dispute his candidacy?
I do love all the exceptions you came up with for all of the past Presidents, thought. Someone took a lot of time with that. Perhaps it was you, I don’t know, but it still doesn’t overturn the law.
You do understand that women can vote now, don’t you? That prohibition was overturned? That African Americans are full people? As with those changes, came the definition, and clarification by the Supreme Court, of natural born citizen. I don’t believe you’re stupid, I do believe you’re willfully obtuse.
John Jay’s letter doesn’t matter.
Maxcat, perhaps what Jay/Washington proposed was a “strong check”
to make sure they were making
“as Squeaky stated, an attempt to fall in line with English Common Law.”
@ John
Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. Previously, you denied that the Constitution had any link to English Common Law. Now, you are hanging your hat on a statement that Squeaky made concerning “falling in line with English Common Law”.
By the way:
Since you neither truly ask a question nor provide any context for your question, here’s an answer that will fit your style of questioning, courtesy of the Oxford Dictionary (yes, I deliberately went back to English styling):
(comport oneself) formal Conduct oneself; behave: articulate students who comported themselves well in television interviews
More example sentencesSynonyms
2 [no object] (comport with) Accord with; agree with: the actions that comport with her own liberal views
Note definition 2, which you should find humorous in it’s context.
As to Jay and Washington, what “act” are you referring to? To this point, you have cited a letter; no law, citation, amendment, hint of change of a clause of a minute point, nor anything else.
I would define your posts as grasping at straws, but I cannot even find evidence of a straw man or straw pile. Waving your arm in the air might be more to the point, but what are you waving at? You said I haven’t refuted any points, but to the point, you haven’t made any. You cite a letter; no more, no less. Should you come up with a law that overrides the Constitution, the subsequent amendment and the Supreme Court interpretation (the late 19th century one, nothing current), I find your “arguments” ludicrous. I understand you do not LIKE what has occurred as a result of settled law, but that’s unfortunate.
To go back to what Squeaky has asked you repeatedly: Do you regard Barack Obama as the legitimate President? I would go one step further – if not, can you cite ACTUAL law that de-legitimizes him. Not a letter from Jay to Washington, but settled law.
Thank you! I am glad you enjoyed it. I kind of based on one of the worst poets ever, William McGonagall, and his Tay Bridge series:
http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/gems/the-famous-tay-whale
If you don’t have a copy, you might want to look for The Stuffed Owl: An Anthology of Bad Verse.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Maxcat, you haven’t “locked horns.” You haven’t refuted any points.
Jay/Washington letter to impose a “strong check” increasing the requirement for eligibility in the constitutional draft from “citizen” to “natural born citizen.”
How did they affect the citizenship status for eligibility with that enhancement?
For what purpose did they increase the requirement?
What did Jay and Washington intend and accomplish by that act?
“comports well”
Seriously?
Or “me” happy.
@Maxcat06
Well, it is hard to back away from a battle once it is on. I have enjoyed having an ally in this argument. Yes, I wrote the Birther Bible, but I like to believe that it was Divinely Inspired! Whenever I get frustrated with the Birthers, I like to go a happy place. Last year, the Birthers had a campaign to hang IMPEACH! signs and IT’S A FORGERY signs off of Interstate Hwy overpasses while they stood above. Sooo, I made up this imaginary happy place:
The Overpass Of Broken Dreams
by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
The Overpass of Broken Dreams-
The haunted landscape fairly teems
With ghostly remnants, silent now
Among the kudzu, and the bough.
The Day of Sadness started fine,
With Birthers waiting, full of sign.
Yellow flags with snakes a’coiling
Waved in summer sun a’boiling!
“It’s A Forgery!” on cardboard,
Carried by the starred and barred horde.
Large white banners with an “Impeach!”
Raised aloft, in plaintive outreach.
Down below the streaming traffic
Strained to read the message graphic.
Strained, and thusly fell distracted,
Then, the concrete piers impacted.
So, a chain of fatal shaking,
Set the parapets to quaking,
Snapp’ed the threaded iron bars,
And launched the Birthers into cars.
Whilst others fell ‘neath semi-rigs
And livestock trailers full of pigs.
Others struck, as seems most fitting,
While in lawn chairs still were sitting.
By evidential weight compelled,
The Bridge Inspectors’ findings held,
The fault was Birthers’ all alone.
The least of them weighed 20 stone!
The Overpass of Broken Dreams
Lies silent now of Birther screams.
The heavy weight of Birther foot
Made engineering standards moot.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky Fromm
@Squeaky
I really enjoyed that. Quite evocative. Although not in Poe’s style, I kept on hearing the end line, “quoth the raven, nevermore”.
I need to find the mythic “happy place”. I get too bogged down in the “Sturm und Drang” of issues, which doesn’t help either my digestion or my sleep. I suppose my happy place would be off of the internet, but my fingers keep leading me back. Oh, well. Back to baseball, I suppose. That makes my happy.
@Maxcat06
Well, I have stayed away from the Birther stuff for almost a full year. They are never able to present a cogent case for the two citizen parent theory. Some just degenerate in complete “natural law” mode. Others use the cut and paste repetition approach. Others try to selectively edit Minor v. Happersatt (1875). In Court, it always ends the same. It is in The Birther Bible:
The Book of Lamentations
Chapter 1
1. This is the Song of our Lamentation, and the sound thereof.
2. Lo, though we goeth forth into battle against the Anti-Vattelites with songs of victory, always doth it seem we are sent packing.
3. Yea, though we goeth forth roaring like lions, we doth return always like small cats which meweth for milk in tiny voices.
4. Our heads are anointed with Cold Waters, and bitter rains doth drench our parade.
5. Gloom, Despair, and Agony, doth seem to be our constant house guests, which leaveth not, and yet payeth no rent, nor buyeth any food and drink.
6. Prithee, why shouldst this day be any different?
7. Though we rise with hope at Dawn, shall not Dusk only prosper those which wenteth long in the purchase of sackcloth?
8. Our ears doth ache from the sound of our own wailing, and our teeth are but nubs from the gnashing thereof.
9. So covered are we in ashes, that our own mothers recognizeth us not.
10. Truly it is said that we canst not win for losing.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@Squeaky
That is so true, and your “Book of Lamentations” is priceless. Did you do the adaptation yourself? Brilliant and hilarious.
I feel as if I should end the anti-birther fight, but I tend to lock horns too much. I would feel that even “natural law” would allow for someone who is born on the soil of a country to be counted amongst its citizens, but I haven’t been schooled chapter and verse in denial.
Thank you for so valiantly carrying the flag with logic and fact. I may end the fight here, unless hopelessly provoked, but then I would be just as foolish, I suppose.
You and I may lock horns, since, as I see, I can’t stay away from battle for too long. You’re a worthy ally, as well as a worthy adversary.