Justice Ginsburg
Jus soli citizenship is based on the land of birth and jus sanguinis is citizenship based on parentage. In the oral arguments of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (No. 99-2071), Justice Ginsburg made it clear that her view is that natural born citizenship can be conveyed by parentage alone and doesn’t necessarily require birth in the United States. She rejected the formulation of de Vattel, in The Law of Nations, that birth in the country of citizen parents is necessary for naturels.
Here is the relevant section from the transcript:
Justice Ginsburg: …My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents. I had never considered him a naturalized citizen of the United States….
Justice Ginsburg: There is a debate over whether my grandson is a natural born citizen. I think he is.
Listening to the transcript points out how detached from reality are the denialist lawyers like Apuzzo and Donofrio, trying to rewrite American history and citizenship law.
After Ginsburg came out recently and admitted that she must have misunderstood the basis of Roe v. Wade, I wouldn’t put much stock in what she thinks.
She thought Roe v. Wade was about population control – you know, ‘those people’, those ‘undesireables’ that we wouldn’t want to contaminate the gene pool with. WTF?
Talk about someone detached from reality – you have it front and center with Ginsburg.
Link please, with those specific words – not hearsay.
Sandy won’t be able to. Come on Sandy. Do you not research even slightly what you post as fact?
Or is copypasta good enough for you to form actual thoughts.
Poor Sally, making up stuff without providing any context while also arguing that the other side should provide sufficient context.
Have you no shame?
What Ginsburg did say
And the right wing smears
The correct quote is from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=all In bold are the parts that people latched upon.
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.
—————-
I interpreted that as Justice Ginsburg said she thought there was a strong sentiment in the country (not her own feelings at all) at the time of Roe v Wade that some people wanted to use government programs like Medicaid to fund abortions in order to stop poor/minority women from having babies, thus shrinking their numbers. When the Hyde amendment was upheld, she then realized that her initial assumption about that sentiment was incorrect. The last answer makes that clear — government has no business making those decisions for anyone.
Read in context. It helps give all of us a better understanding of what people mean.
It this a joke.
Is this a question??
Must have been a tough awakening, either that or it is Luigi, Mario’s brother 🙂
Who are you offering that we look to instead of Ginsburg, Orly Taitz? 😯
nbc,
I agree. It did read like some confused video game.
gnite mario
“Have you no shame?”
No she doesn’t.
SATSQ.
At the risk of going over well-trod ground, we need to hammer the point that dual-citizenship (actual or potential) has nothing to do with the NBC status and the eligibility for the presidency.
To postulate otherwise would automatically exclude vast numbers of US citizens who might be dual citizens either via parentage or marriage.
Judge Land grants Taitz’s motion to withdraw as counsel, with conditions:
1. Rhodes still potentially liable for costs;
2. OSC re: sanctions still applies to Taitz;
3. Judge Land has to spell it out for Taitz that she can’t break attorney-client confidentiality to defend herself, and that whether Rhodes expressly authorized the motion for stay was irrelevant.
From our friends over at the birthers…
http://www.birthers.org/
I guess the natives are getting restless awaiting their decision to see if Mario has a clue or not….
“There is one single case that an answer this question with out prolonged and excruciating pain to our national psyche. It is the case that Mario Apuzzo put together for Charles Kerchner. We have no idea why Judge Simandle has not rendered a decision, even though a decision is nearly 2 months late. As can be seen from Justice Marshall’s opinion, delays that inspire cowardice by the judiciary, can border on treason to the Constitution.”
Judge Ginsburg has a vote on the SCOTUS. Which is one more than most of us, and certainly more than myself. We can all agree that she does not have all of the votes on the SCOTUS. Her opinion is important, but it is one SCOTUS opinion.
When you read the text of Ginsburg discussion in this case, (the one you listed) she does not contest that no legislature or judge can make you Natural Born Citizen, nor can it be retroactive. You are either born “Natural Born Citizen” or you are not. The answer appears that if there is a ‘question’ to your nationality at birth, something that has to be adjudicated or legislated (see text of discussion in your referenced document), you are not NBC for the purposes of POTUS eligibility.
I think it is obvious that everyone is born with at least one country making a claim to them, when it is only one, you are Natural Born Citizen of said Country. No one disputes these individuals are Natural Born Citizens. When you are born with multiple citizenships, multiple sovereign claims to your birth, judges and legislatures determine your ultimate citizenship and rights/obligations. Judge Ginsberg in the discussion states that this is covered under “naturalization citizenship”, and repeats this several times.
The POTUS can never have been claimed or served another master or sovereign unless they were born before 1790. I find it interesting that framers of the Constitution had no demands for sex, race, creed, or religious preference for office but clearly had one for NBC to prevent foreign claims on future United States commander in chief.
Justice Ginsberg seems conflicted by her family member who she believes is NBC, even though they were born under a foreign power claim on them (France). Obviously, there can be adjudication as to if her family member is NBC, but by her own words would place them under naturalization. Finally, Justice Ginsberg in her discussions also accepts that the 14th Amendment and Kim case, there is a legislative citizenship claim, which means no NBC, which is supported by the discussion on the Kim case.
You might ask how this applies to what you posted? Lets suffice to agree that if your birth cannot be claimed by any other country, you are Natural Born Citizen. When your birth is contested by multiple countries and claimed by multiple sovereigns, you may be native born (like Kim) citizen but you are not NBC. Thus, Natural Born and Native Born are two distinct things as it applies to the US Constitution and prior SCOTUS opinions. You can thus be Native Born and not Natural Born, and you can be Natural Born but not Native born (offspring of a diplomat on foreign soil). The citizenship rights of all Citizens are equal, except as it pertains to POTUS requirements.
McCain, as the democrats investigated and legislated on, cannot be a NBC as Panama claimed his birth. Do we really need to discuss Obama?
I like the part about “There is a debate…”
Maybe we should get Ginsburg’s grandson to run for POTUS so that the Supreme Court would actually rule on this critical issue.
(BTW, great find!)
Wow, that’s an aggressive misreading of what Ginsberg said.
Pete: The POTUS can never have been claimed or served another master or sovereign unless they were born before 1790
But Pete, the Constitution doesn’t say that, nor did any of the people who wrote it, or any of them that debated its ratification. And indeed since the founding of our country courts have used natural and native born as if they were the same thing.
The essential problem with your position, I say, is that you are ceding to other countries the power to say who can and who cannot be president of the United States. As an American, I will not accept that. Even de Vattel would now allow that!
Irony, much?
“Many of Obama supporters are mentally deranged and in need of serious psychiatric help”
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=4524#comments
I’ve already had that leveled at me here, by Denialists. Water off a duck’s back. In fact, I enjoy irritating them.
So, Justice Ginsberg, the most liberal judge on the Supreme Court today has clarified that Barack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America because his father was British/Kenyan – not a US Citizen.
Justice Ginsberg agrees that NBC clearly requires two citizen parents. The only “debate” remaining is whether place of birth matters. This is the only point that Justice Ginsberg feels needs more debate. (She may have to sit this one out due to her self-proclaimed conflict of interest.)
Actually, more research will clearly lead the honest observer to conclude that place of birth mattered a great deal to our founders. I’ve done a lot of the research and would encourage the readers of this comment to do the same. It’s absolutely fascinating!
In the meantime one might also check out the remedy available to those who are loyal to our Constitutional Republic pertaining to Mr. Obama through a Pro Warranto in the 1st District Court of Washington, D.C. His ruse has run its course. It’s time for him to leave so we can get busy cleaning up his mess.
You’re funny. Of course, you do know that a quo warranto cannot be filed against a president.
Troll…
Quo Warranto has been tried, and failed. The so-called ‘american grand jury’ failed…
natural born citizen =
Read all the evidence here:
http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=1518.0
The place of birth is wholly irrelevant.
“Ginsberg seems conflicted by her family member who she believes is NBC, even though they were born under a foreign power claim on them (France).”
The LAWS OF NATURE are higher and above any man-made laws!
Too bad the Courts disagree.
Or, how about John McCain to run for POTUS?
John McCain was born in Panama to American Citizens. He fits under the same definition. Supreme Court didn’t rule on it.
Not to mention Justice Scalia. And Justice Ginsburg was talking about people born outside the United States, and whether or not citizen-at-birth meant Natural Born Citizen. I agree with Justice Ginsburg. It does.
There’s been no definitive ruling that it does. However, there has been absolutely no ruling that has ever held that someone can be a citizen at birth, and not a Natural Born Citizen.
There’s of course a question of whether or not congress can retroactivly declare someone a Natural Born Citizen as well. That’s a much tougher issue.
There go the Jews.
Bravo, Pete! It’s a twofer! (Two minorities excluded and counting.)
You realize this is rubbish?
First, the notion that in order to be a NBC one has to be born from TWO US citizens, as opposed to just ONE would automatically disqualify/downgrade millions of Americans.
Two, one would then have to justify the difference (by this I mean, who is eligible and who isn’t) between a parent who is an alien and one who has dual citizenship. (I think at this point you’re sailing into unconstitutional waters.)
Three, then, you would also have to justify the difference between a parent who is a US citizen, and one who is a US Citizen with the potential of being a dual citizen (which his child would inherit).
Honestly, have any of you considered the ramifications of what you’re suggesting?
“citizen-at-birth meant Natural Born Citizen. I agree with Justice Ginsburg. It does.”
The language is CLEAR, PRECISE, DEFINITE.
There is no room for argument or interpretation.
Only room for application.
Read the evidence here and go get a LIFE or hire an attorney:
http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=1518.0
I have all the evidence, do you?
“citizen-at-birth meant Natural Born Citizen. I agree with Justice Ginsburg. It does.”
Dude, the constituion sys, natural born citizen, NOT citizen at birth.
Do you know what “natural” means?
Go do your homework.
I literally do NOT understand what you mean.
Please explain:
(All of the following assume birth on US soil. Sex is irrelevant.)
1) A child is born to a US Citizen and a non-US citizen. Is he a NBC according to you?
(That one I think I get — your answer would be no.)
2) A child is born to a US citizen and a dual US-other citizen. Is he a NBC according to you?
3) A child is born to a US citizen and a US citizen who is not a dual citizen but would be considered a citizen from another country if he traveled there. (In other words, he would be eligible for dual citizenship but has not applied for it.) Is he a NBC according to you?
4) A child is born of two US citizens, but because of ethnic or religious factors due to parentage, he would be eligible for dual citizenship were he to apply later. Is he a NBC according to you?
5) A child is born of two US citizens recently naturalized (who are therefore dual US-other citizens). Is he a NBC according to you?
6) A child is born of two aliens naturalized after the birth of said child. Is he a NBC according to you?
A simple series of yes and nos will do.
Beware of this stupid filthy OBOT site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “Dr Conspiracy”’s http://www.obamaconspiracy.org
Posted here FOR ALL TO SEE:
http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=4242.msg18593#msg18593
I have now had the time to follow the link you provided, and I must say that I have rarely seen such a heap of lunatic, racist garbage.
Rev. Manning:
There also seems to be posts there advocating armed insurrection; I have no standing to contact your Secret Service, but I think your coterie of lunatics ought to be investigated by the authorities.
Thanks, I hope you post ads for my web site widely.
rtcr: There is no room for argument or interpretation.
When I read that, I hear you making an assertion that you are right, and you can’t make an argument to support your view.
rtcr: The LAWS OF NATURE are higher and above any man-made laws!
The problem with this view is that everyone writes their own prejudices into what they feel ought to be the laws of nature.
That fake dictionary article is cute. I should do an article all the fake evidence the birthers have manufactured: fake classmates.com entries, fake birth certificates, fake citations from historical figures, fake Wikipedia articles, and now even a fake dictionary.
Must be a full moon.
Funny that you should mention classmates.com. I’ve doen some research on AA Nevedomskiy, owner of the IPs where these .cn malwaresites that have been infecting Orly Taitz Esq’s webite were located. It seems Mr Nevedomskiy has in the past been found phishing logins and passwords from Odnoklassniki.ru, the popular Russian, or really Soviet version of classmates.com. So, perhaps we know now how Orly got infected.
Americangrandjury.org steals this posting.
I think I will indict them for stealing my thunder.
👿
Rtc, Dude,
Make a real argument. I won’t go blindly following links to sites. If you can’t make a concise presentation of your viewpoint, you will be ignored.
Oh yeah- I know what a Natural Born citizen is- I learned it in school, it was in my text books- Natural Born citizen means at its simplest level, born in the United States.
Dr C., it looks like you don’t have any fans over at the “oil for immigration” site…
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=3563
“Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg says her grandson born in Paris is a “natural born” citizen…
… and the fruitloops just keep getting jucier and jucier!
Of course this was posted on an Obot’s website. You can google it if you want. I will not give credence to this website but I will darn sure explain that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is wrong!”
Interesting diatribe by the author…Of course he does not agree with our esteemed SCOTUS justice…
I was really surprised how this “non story” caused such a stir. I almost didn’t publish it. I’m so glad I did.
Oil for Immigration (The Betrayal) has had no reservations about posting links to here, so that article was no doubt copied from somewhere else (The American Grand Jury site or somewhere up or downstream from it).
I posted this reply:
I absolutely LOVE this comment left at The Betrayal:
veteran78 // Sep 29, 2009 at 6:48 pm
This guy has a genuine link to reality.
A Native or Natural-Born are those born in a Country to Citizen Parents. His Father was not an American Citizen. Therefore he never met the requirement of Natural Born. Who Educated these people?
Who educated you? Sorry, but anyone born on US soil, irrespective of parents’ status, is NBC and can grow up to be president. Anchor babies are NBC, and someday one will become president.
Don’t like that? Write your congressman and senators. I don’t care what you read on some website – they are wrong. If you don’t believe me, write your senator.
So how did this status of Obama not being a natural-born citizen slip past McCain and Clinton (who also went one of them fancy law schools)?
Margie: Who Educated these people?
Who educated you? It certainly wasn’t anybody who knew what they were talking about.
They were all paid off by Obama. They’re all part of the conspiracy. It’s as plain as day.
The last time Orly was in Israel, she said in interviews that he got around the NBC requirement by paying everyone off. No joke; I saw the videos.
The Israeli right wing is as nutty as the fundies here.
The last time Orly was in Israel, she said in interviews that he got around the NBC requirement by paying everyone off.
How much would someone have to pay McCain, Clinton, etc. to take a dive? And then pay everyone working for McCain, Clinton, etc. not to ever, ever mention this dive taking?
I’m sure the Framers of the Constitution REALLY wanted a British subject at birth (in this case, Obama) to be president. Bush was bad enough but at least he wasn’t a British subject.
If only the Framers had written this down!
But, instead, the Framers chose a phrase, “natural born,” which had more than 400 years of history behind it! In more than 400 years, it had always meant “born here,” regardless of the parents’ citizenship.
And, instead of choosing some other term, indigenes, for example (since they were such big believers in Vattel), or ultra-super citizen, or something these stupid founders choose a word that has a definite, fixed meaning and don’t tell a soul that they’re changing the meaning.
It’s not like they didn’t know how to change meanings of commonly accepted terms. They used the term “treason” in the Constitution, but, while common law allowed criminal prosecution for thinking bad thoughts about the government, the Constitution required an act.
It would be like if you and I signed a contract for me to deliver bicycles, but I deliver cheese sandwiches instead, arguing that clearly the contract meant cheese sandwiches because Isaac Newton once said that there is no difference between bicycles and cheese sandwiches!
Hi Doc!
You got “Offshore Jobs Bob Campbell” all wee-wee’d up with this post. 🙂 He did not have the courtesy to link your blog.
http://americangrandjury.org/supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-says-her-grandson-born-in-paris-is-a-natural-born-citizen
Greg earns the “Heavy,” which is awarded for excellence in trolling.
“I’m sure the Framers of the Constitution REALLY wanted a British subject at birth (in this case, Obama) to be president. Bush was bad enough but at least he wasn’t a British subject”
I find this funny, only because the first President’s of the United States were all British subjects at birth.
I like how there is all this speculation on what the Framers of the Constitution thought…when the vast majority of Americans think they have a clear understanding of what NBC means- because we were taught it in school- NBC means born in the U.S.. Nothing about citizen parents until the Nobama’s showed up.
Sorry Margie- nope.
Never heard of this theory until the Nobama’s came up with it.
I thank you, and the crack-addicted six-year-olds thank you.
Obama was never a “British Subject”. He was born a Citizen of the UK and Colonies (as well as a citizen of the United States).
It is interesting to me that part of the comment says that Ginsburgs grandson could not get into the country legally without paperwork. The paperwork is required. Where is the documentation for infant Obama and his entry into the US. Unless of course, -yes I know-he came back secretly on a Kenyan boat loaded with great coffee. Mom just stood behind a huge sack of coffee beans and walked back in the country with him. This is how preposterous this nonsense is. He was born in Hawaii folks.
“A Native or Natural-Born are those born in a Country to Citizen Parents.”
Where did you get THAT from???? It’s not true at all.
Even de Vattel says one parent is enough.
Obama never was a British subject. That’s rubbish.
Just being born (in the US) from a British dad doesn’t entitle you to walk into a British Embassy and get a passport.
Obame may have been entitled to British citizenship (dual in this case) but he would have to apply for it. Since he never did, he never was/is a British citizen. He can’t vote in England, etc.
Seems this document was brought to light over two months ago on Leo’s blog. It also seems that you have left out some very important parts because you know your readership probably won’t click the links and read the entire document.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/99-2071.pdf
loucon Says:
July 24, 2009 at 6:44 am
Hi Leo
I have been taking a break from all of this and pursuing other interests, but I just came across this and found it to be interesting.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/99-2071.pdf
I don’t know if you’ve ever seen it or what kind of response it even elicits in me. I just found it enlightening on certain levels.
loucon
[Ed. Apologies to all for not getting to your comments sooner… time has been hard to come by. That being said everyone should read the link provided by this commentator to see just how confused even SCOTUS is on the nbc issue. Some of the justices comments in this link show you just how incredibly uneducated even they are to the issue. You will see one SCOTUS justice even state that you can’t be President unless you were a natural born citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. And that is followed by laughter… it’s incredble. Read it. Pass it on. I may do a separate blog post on this readers comment. Nice job Lou.]
loucon
Kennedy was making the point that the phrase, if read literally, requires that one be a natural born citizen at the time of the founding:
A phrase set off by commas like that is a parenthetical, and generally the sentence can be read as excluding the parenthetical.
If they’d intended the “at the time of the Adoption” to apply only to the phrase that immediately precedes it, better drafting would have been to omit the comma after “States.”
Of course, the phrase can also be read in a more Shakespearean manner, to exclude only those who are born by C-section.
Leo has a huge amount of hubris to think that he’s the only one to have studied the issue and that the Supreme Court Justices are ignorant of the issues involved.
The fact is that this issue has been raised in numerous briefs before the justices involved here, and they’ve read extensively about it. They know that the only active debate is whether the child born of American citizens abroad is a natural born citizen. The rest isn’t a real debate, just recently created sophistry in order to attack a particular president.
Exactly! …and only those born abroad , within the Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States… can be natural born. AKA military bases (mccain), embassies, and ‘any other needful building’
Foreign Military bases and foreign embassies are not US territory.