By now the well over two dozen women who have come forward to accuse current San Diego Mayor Bob “Filthy” Filner of sexual harassment and inappropriate touching, including his hunting for nookie amongst rape victims.
It has also been revealed that the Democratic party knew of many of these accusations yet did nothing. This is the same Democratic party that purportedly defends women (or at least their access to free abortions and enough contraceptives to sleep with all of Liechtenstein), are themselves waging a “War on Women.”
Why does Filner get a pass for his conduct? Simply, “he is an otherwise loyal soldier for the left. The more useful people are to the leftist cause, the more leeway they get.” This is because the “War on Women” isn’t about women at all, it is about the narrative. Attacking conservatives and Republicans serves that narrative, while attacking Filner would hamper it. Thus they blindly defend Filner, just as they defended President Clinton when he was accused of rape. It is also why they took Romney’s story of seeking out qualified women and even engaging in Affirmative Action for women, and turned it into a “Binders full of Women” anti-women meme!
If there is any doubt of this sentiment, San Diego Democratic Chairwoman Francine Busby eliminates all doubt. She made it clear that: “party leaders looked at Filner’s 30-year record of advocating for progressive causes when evaluating him as a candidate for mayor. Discussions involving Filner’s poor treatment of women never rose above rumor, she said.'”
So, who is really waging a “War on Women”?
As the Filner topic is one which I have had absolutely no interest in, I think this is probably a good place to continue our discussion of natural born citizen.
Before we get into swapping evidence or anything, I would like to know the answer to one question, because if we can’t agree on it, it would be pointless to argue anything further.
1. Can the meaning of the term “Natural born citizen” be altered? By this, I mean changed after the fact of it having been written down and ratified by the states. (Living Constitution v Strict Constructionist.)
The meaning of the term would not change, and it has always meant a person who was such at birth. Who and what that constitutes can change and also certainly vary.
I didn’t really want to get into what it meant just yet, I simply wanted an agreement that it’s meaning cannot be changed by subsequent acts of congress.
An Agreement that whatever it meant in 1787, it still means the same thing today. An Agreement that the 14th amendment did not alter it, that nor did the cable act of 1922, that nor did the Indian Citizenship act of 1924, and that nor did the Citizenship Act of 1934, nor any subsequent act.
That Congress cannot change the meaning of a constitutional term through any act of legislation. Do we agree on this?
An Agreement that whatever it meant in 1787, it still means the same thing today.
Agreed.
An Agreement that the 14th amendment did not alter it
Amendments DO alter the Constitution. While the 14th did not change the requirement that a President be born a citizen, it overturned Dredd Scott and thus reaffirmed those born jus soli as necessarily being born citizens, though it did not restrict it thereto.
That Congress cannot change the meaning of a constitutional term through any act of legislation. Do we agree on this?
Nor can Congress redefine the English language.
“While the 14th did not change the requirement that a President be born a citizen, it overturned Dredd Scott and thus reaffirmed those born jus soli as necessarily being born citizens, though it did not restrict it thereto.”
I agree. The 14th amendment was a deliberate rebuttal of Dred Scott v Sanford. However, you keep using the phrase “born a citizen” which is true if regarded in the correct manner, but misleading if not.
“Born a Citizen” does not mean today what it meant in 1787. Today, one can be “born a citizen” through a naturalization act passed by Congress which is operative at their birth.
This is distinctly different from being born as a natural citizen.
The example I provided before was Rogers v Bellei. The Court held that Bellei was a naturalized citizen, and as such was subject to the rules and conditions placed upon him by congress when they created the act which granted him citizenship.
Bellei was born a citizen, but he had his citizenship stripped away because he didn’t adhere to the conditions required to keep it.
Natural born citizens have no conditions to be a citizen. Their claim on citizenship is incontestable. Conditional citizenship is not natural citizenship.
“Today, one can be “born a citizen” through a naturalization act passed by Congress which is operative at their birth. This is distinctly different from being born as a natural citizen.”
There is no actual distinction between “born a citizen” and “natural born citizen” actually used anywhere in the U.S. law. The only difference is that one phrasing fell out of use and another was used instead.
Being born a citizen is always conditional. Being born in the U.S. is one such way to fulfill that condition.
“There is no actual distinction between “born a citizen” and “natural born citizen” actually used anywhere in the U.S. law. The only difference is that one phrasing fell out of use and another was used instead.”
US law doesn’t define the term. We agreed to that above. 🙂
“Being born a citizen is always conditional. Being born in the U.S. is one such way to fulfill that condition.”
Not according to history. The Children of British Loyalist born in the United States after 1776 were recognized by both sides as British Subjects, not American citizens. These numbered 100,000 by one estimate.
Slaves, born in the United States, were not recognized as citizens until 1868, and only thereafter through the operation of the 14th amendment. We have a Supreme court ruling (Dred Scott as also mentioned above) which states explicitly that they could not be citizens because they were not members of that group of people which created the government. (Yes, an odious ruling, but legally consistent at the time. The 14th amendment was the only LEGAL way to rebuke it. )
Indians did not acquire citizenship by birth in the US until the Indian citizenship act of 1924. In all, you have perhaps a hundred million exceptions to the rule that Jus soli was the rule in effect throughout our History.
Sure, there are a lot of legal authorities which CLAIM the rule is jus soli, but if you research these claims as well as I have, you notice a curious thing. They all seem to converge on a particular period in history, and it is NOT the founding era. It is much later. I point out that it was 60 years before we elected the first “natural born citizen” as President. (Martin Van Buren, born 1782.) For sixty years, it didn’t really matter what “natural born citizen” meant because up to that time, everyone who served, met the conditions of the grandfather clause.
Authorities from the founding era tend to indicate that the rule adopted for FEDERAL citizenship is partus sequitur patrem. I’ll give you examples in another posting.
US law doesn’t define the term. We agreed to that above.
Congress doesn’t define the term “natural born citizen.” Congress does not change it. The term just means “born a citizen.” Congress can not change that, and neither can either of us. What that comprises, OTOH, can be addressed legislatively.
Under Dredd Scott, slaves were not citizens, it is true. That judicial error was corrected by the 14th Amendment. In regards to the Indians, the tribes were sovereign. That is why the 14th Amendment excluded Indians not taxed.
After further thought, I do not believe I can make any inroads towards changing your opinion on this topic regardless of what evidence I show you.
With that in mind, I think i’ll cease any further efforts in this regard.
Cheers.