Posted on 04/27/2011 6:46:49 PM PDT by geraldmcg
At long last, Barack Obama Jr. released his long form birth certificate today, clearly proving he is NOT a natural born citizen. So, why has there been virtually no call in the Senate to begin impeachment proceedings? And why are so many news reporters acting as if all Obama needed to substantiate he was a Natural Born Citizen was to prove he was born in the U.S.A?
The U.S. Constitution and U.S. law, as of the time of Obama Junior’s birth, still required a President to have a father (pictured top left) who was a U.S. citizen. Clearly Obama’s father was a British citizen, as clearly shown on the very document Obama released.
Still not convinced? Let’s take a refresher course in U.S. history. Our founding fathers didn’t want any U.S. President to have mixed loyalties so they required that both parents of a President be U.S. citizens in order to qualify their son or daughter to be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen. Period. Simple. Not complicated.
Here’s the exact language of the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed by the first U.S. Congress: “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”
So there you have it. Obama is not eligible to be U.S. President and needs to be impeached and convicted quickly to avoid a constitutional crisis and to follow rule of law.
Bottom line: It doesn’t matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, which was actually a U.S. Territory at the time of Obama’s birth and not yet a U.S. state. What does matter is that Obama Jr.’s dad Obama Sr. was not a U.S. citizen and thus rendering his son’s Presidential aspirations patently illegal.
Need more proof? The founding fathers put the definition in writing from the defining documents of their day. Founding father John Jay used the definition of “natural born Citizen” straight from The Law of Nations (Vattel) that states: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…” (Vattel in Book 1, Sec 212)
LMAO He said what he said.
find the bit about being born of 2 foreign citizens. the child would not inherit citizenship from either parent, but would be naturalized. the child would also not be natural born, as he/she would have parents with foreign allegiances
parents with no foreign alliance at the time of birth would be required for natural born status.
strangely, most people can manage multiple topics at once.
it’s called being able to walk and chew gun at the same time.
s/gun/gum
“The terms were used interchangeably.”
Only by those who do not accept the intent of the founding fathers. (like democrats)
“Where is there is some third category where you are a citizen from the moment of your birth, but are not a “natural born” citizen?
It defies logic.”
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
“He said what he said.”
Yes, and apparently you are too stupid to understand his plain English. Not surprising, since you also don’t know what Vattel wrote, or understand legal terms used in the Constitution!
No, you’re a moron who can’t understand plain English. A fool too. And a jerk. Also a stupid nitwit. ;-)
You mean, like Kent?
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
Please tell us which part is mistranslated:
Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
“The natives, or natural-born citizens...”
The word “indigenes” was translated NBC in 1797, 10 years after the Constitution was written. It is NOT the French equivalent of NBC. That would be “sujets naturel”, as shown in contemporary documents.
Indigenes is obviously best transliterated, which is how it was treated in every translation of Vattel prior to 1797. Anyone can figure out by looking that it is the noun form of indigenous.
And the term “natural born citizen” was in use PRIOR to the Constitution, as the updated legal phrase replacing “natural born subject” in American law. It was NEVER used by Vattel, but it WAS used in American law. At Independence, every NBS automatically became a NBC.
WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
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 parents.
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
And in WKA, the US Supreme Court followed the example of Lynch v Clark, making national a ruling that NBC is rooted in the common law phrase “natural born subject”. That in turn requires what Lynch said outright:
“6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”
Minor left open the question since it had no bearing on the case. In WKA, it DID have bearing and was decided.
“Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English...”, and he didn’t use NBC!
And in using Vattel, he wrote that Vattel “though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands...”
The Lynch case went into much greater depth about pre-Constitutional law, and why the Founders and states were using a know legal phrase, not Vattel.
Get over it. You're not a lawyer. Focus on the real issues of the lousy economy and Obama's failure as a president..
Perhaps it is you that should not be practicing law.
You wrongly apply the Wong Kim Ark case and misinterpret the 14th amendment. Your entire argument would be debunked by even a rookie lawyer in a very humiliating (for you) manner.
First off, both the Wong Kim Ark case, and the 14th amendment deal with basic U.S. citizenship status, not "Natural Born Citizen" status. There is no argument that since the 14th amendment, any person born on U.S. soil is instantly a citizen. That is why we have "Anchor Babies."
Now, let's look at the difference between "Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen." The easiest way to do that is to look at the Constitution:
Article I, Section 2, paragraph 2:
"No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen."
Notice they talk about "Citizen."
Now, Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5:
"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."
Please note the additional standards required to become President as opposed to simply being a member of Congress. It is clear that a higher standard of 'Loyalty' was required to be Commander in Chief. The direct reference to "Natural Born Citizen" as opposed to "Citizen" of seven years clearly points out there is a difference between the two. What is the difference?
Back to the Constitution. Amendment XIV, Section 1, paragraph 1:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The 14th clearly states that ANY person born on U.S. soil is a "Citizen." It does NOT say they are a "Natural Born Citizen." Again, there is clearly a distinction between the two, and "Natural Born Citizen" status requires some extra requirements to be met.
Since "Natural Born Citizen" is not defined in the Constitution by a time frame, it can only mean that one or both parents must qualify as a "Citizen" at the time of birth.
We can now argue whether the Constitution requires one or both to be citizens at the time of birth, but the idea that the Obama eligibility case is closed is absolute fantasy.
Find the bit where? I showed you the legal definition of "naturalized." Why you continue to misuse the word is a mystery.
Why do you think someone can be from birth a "naturalized" citizen?
oh, so according to you, any anchor baby would have natural born status.
not even close
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.