You mean like this guy?
It is possible the words Kind and natural are above your pay grade...
No, but vexatious seems to be.
Posted on 11/02/2010 6:06:02 PM PDT by bushpilot1
The purpose of this thread is an attempt to explain a natural born citizen.
Lets begin with the words of Vattel in 1758.."Les Naturels ou Indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens" the natural born or natives are those born in a country whose parents are its citizens.
When the United States was formed..the natives or naturals were American or United States citizens. This established a family of Americans, a class of American citizens. A group of Soverign U.S. citizens.
There is a word I recently learned, it is called Kind. Kind as an adjective means natural or native.
Kind (natural-native) comes from the old english word gecynde which comes from the latin jure hereditario which means by hereditary right.
From the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: "KIND (O. E. ge-cynde, from the same root as is seen in “kin,” a word in origin meaning birth, nature, or as an adjective, natural. From the application of the term to the natural disposition or characteristic which marks the class to which an object belongs."
Apparently neither...
"vexatious"
The sun was in my eyes...I didn't have my bowling shoes...I was a victim of identity theft...
Where is the cut and paste.
I stand corrected...
Vexatious copy-and-paster.
Better?
“Les Naturels ou Indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
“KIND (O. E. ge-cynde, from the same root as is seen in “kin,” a word in origin meaning birth, nature, or as an adjective, natural. From the application of the term to the natural disposition or characteristic which marks the class to which an object belongs.”
This upsets u?
It is possible the Founders limited the President to the descendents of the White Europeans who formed the country. It is possible the words Kind and natural are above your pay grade...
You mean like this guy?
It is possible the words Kind and natural are above your pay grade...
No, but vexatious seems to be.
Can Obama say he has kindred blood with the Founders..with..the majority of United States citizens?
Kenya explain your question a little more??
This getting a little complicated..and confusing..but looking at the word natural..linked with born..citizen..its really very simple.
A natural born citizen is more than jus soli..it is heritage..it could be heritage from the original citizens..it could be from a certain race..I have a 1926 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary..American is defined..descendents from Europeans who were born in the US, 53 Conn 493.
Have posted Roman citizenship laws..two citizen parents and a Roman citizen married to a foreigner. Comments were made Roman law has no basis in American law..they referred to Blackstone..but Blackstone quotes Roman law.
There is more to it..with naturels..natural..linked with Kind.
“Kin is Old English cyn “family, race, kind, nature,” from Proto-Germanic *kunjan (source of German kind “child”), from the Proto-Indo-European root *gen- “to produce.”
The adjective kind is Old English gecynde “natural, native, innate.” The original sense is “with the feeling of relatives for each other,” and it comes from the same source as kin.” (a copy paste)
You are not actually suggesting that we implement a racial requirement for the Presidency, are you? Seriously?
Websters describes the word history of Kind as meaning natural, in-born, inherent.
Natural born citizen is inherent.
The term “natural born” has a precedence in English law, as cited in Kim Wong Ark, that being the term “natural born subject”.
Americans have always been of any race. There is no “race” component of being an American.
And 0bama is by right of birth and descent, the lawful and rightful native kin of Dick Cheney; an eighth cousin to be exact.
Why are 21st Century Americans trying to rely on the legal opinions of an 18th Century Swiss legal scholar?
The framers of the American Constitution were perfectly capable of spelling out EXACTLY what THEY meant by “Natural Born Citizen” and they were capable of amending the Constitution within their lifetimes to further define who is a natural born citizen.
After all, it was Congressman James Madison who proposed an amendment to the Constitution in 1789 that wasn’t ratified until TWO HUNDRED AND TWO YEARS LATER, in 1992, the 27th Amendment.
Vatell was used as a legal reference for one of the Obama eligibility lawsuits. The lawsuit was Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels. This suit challenged Obama’s right to receive Indiana’s electoral votes because Obama’s father was not an American citizen.
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that: “...persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”
Our law should, in principle, be a reflection of, in obedience to, and with respect towards natural law. U.S. citizenship law (power given to Congress directly via the Constitution) states requirements for citizenship at birth that recognize BOTH “jus soli” by right of the soil, and “jus sanguinis” by right of blood.
Moreover we have the precedence of the 2008 election where one major party candidate had citizenship at birth only through blood, and the other only through soil (the law at the time wouldn't have recognized the blood claim through his mother if not for the soil).
As such it seems obvious that there will not be a finding that to be a “natural born citizen” requires both “jus soli” and “jus sanguinis”.
But that was my opinion long before Obambam came around, and I have yet to see a convincing legal argument why I should change my opinion.
But I do wonder at how lax we are about actually looking at the qualifications under Article II Section 1. I suppose it didn't occur to anybody that a party with any chance of winning would run an unqualified candidate.
“There is no “race” component of being an American.”
1926 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary..American is defined..descendents from Europeans who were born in the US, 53 Conn 493.
What does 53 Conn 493 mean?
The English law precedence cited in KW Ark said that any born on the soil were natural born. Natural born subjects. It is much more obvious that American law, like our language, came from English example, and the language of “natural born” from the English law concerning “natural born” and not from a mistranslation of “natives or indigenous” by a treatise from Swiss philosopher circa 1758.
Either way, I find it increasingly unlikely that any US court will ever have a finding that any US citizen at birth is anything other than “natural born”.
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.