Plus he always does this every chance he gets.
Posted on 02/01/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by Sallyven
Thanks
Plus he always does this every chance he gets.
Obama should have responded, in some fashion, perhaps through legal counsel.
You are wrong.
Not so fast — natural born citizen also means the person is free at birth from common law claims by other countries to a partial citizenship. Obama at birth was partly a British subject by common law. The NBC requirement of the constitution was meant to avert any such conflict of interest.
“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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
Does it matter that Barry seems to have attended college as a foreign student and lived in foreign student housing?
“The same definition was provided in all of the scholarly legal works at the time of founding.”
Hmmmm...
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)
“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)
“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)
Give the docket number for the case, that we may verify this claim.
Cheers!
However, the RULES to achieve Citizenship at Birth have changed.
Would you give your opinion on the passage as written, since it was also quoted by Mr Rogers in post #79? He has a contrary opinion.
I scanned your link to Justia. The article implies that the “anti-birthers” scrubbed the site.
None required at this time. Consider it my ‘opinion’. And I ask you, would anyone with evidence of this criminal villain’s HIGH TREASON bring such forward in light of what runs the unJustice Department and the way good faith efforts have been dealt with to this date? Why would anyone at this time challenge the State of Hawaii when it is plain that that state had committed fraudulent acts to cover for the criminal in the White House? fugeddaboutit What is at stake is no less than absolute power over the most powerful nation in human History. The players will do anything to gain and hold that power. The courts of this nation are no longer credible for Justice. I will cease commenting on this topic hereafter.
#41: Check on the document known as a “capious” (capeous?), some type of interstate subpoena. Delaware has it. It is used to get arrested out of state drivers who don’t show up for a local traffic court (otherwise known as speed trap courts).
Nixon was subpoened in California as mat wit but case was dropped before he appeared...
You’ll get quite a few chuckles here ..
Now, you need no law degree to understand the quote you posted. You only need logic and English language understanding.
First, your quote is not exclusive. It clearly states who IS (was at the time of publication) a Natural Born Citizen. Nowhere in your quote does it exclude others, does it?
And now, as a point of Law? Common Law is Moot, Case Law is MOOT, when Legislation conflicts, later on.
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.