GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore has said he doesn't believe Obama is a natural-born citizen

CNN - Politics ^ | 8/23/2017 | Andrew Kaczynski and Paul LeBlanc

[GregNH]

Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, a Republican candidate for US Senate, has cast doubt on former President Barack Obama's citizenship repeatedly and as recently as December 2016, fueling the debunked "birther" movement that sought to delegitimize Obama's presidency.

Moore, who started questioning the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship back in 2008, last year told a meeting of the Constitution Party that he personally did not believe Obama was a natural-born citizen.

"My opinion is, there is a big question about that," Moore said when asked how he defines natural-born citizen as it relates to qualifications for president. CNN's KFile reviewed video from the event.

[MayflowerMadam]

“...guess that 20-percent of the public tends to agree with Moore’s belief...”

I’m going with 20% DISagrees with Moore on this. I’m in the south and nobody I know believes Hussein was born in America.

[DiogenesLamp]

Dealing with you is a never ending source of amusement.

I sometimes find you amusing, but most of the time, just tedious.

I can think of at least two different definitions that were commonly held at the time.

Well this is excellent news! Please produce this information forthwith!

[vetvetdoug]

I don't give a flying Fergus where Obama was born. His parentage and requirements for President were not fulfilled and he should have never even been eligible for the office. His Mother was under the required age and his accused Father was not a US National. The requirements are clear and Obama doesn't fit them. Also I am sceptical about his draft status because there is no proof he ever signed up for it and the questionability about the Fulbright Scholarship has not been settled. He lied before during or after his matriculation at Occidental College.

[DoodleDawg]

Well this is excellent news! Please produce this information forthwith!

You have Vattel, who said that parents were the determining factor of who was natural-born and who was not. And you had Blackstone, who said that where a person was born was the determining factor of who was natural-born and who was not. I would assume there were other sources who agreed with one or the other.

So which one does the Constitution use? Which one is the "self defined" definition?

[GregNH]

And he was dis-barred in IL for lying on the application, "Have you ever used a pseudonym."

[commish]

The commercial TURTLEBOY and his minions were running here in Alabama bordered on Ridiculous.

They attacked Moore for STEALING $175,000 a year (HIS SALARY) while serving as CHIEF JUSTICE (twice elected by enormous margins BTW) of the Alabama Supreme Court. It was his friggin state salary for crying out loud.

Then they further attacked him and his wife for making in EXCESS of $1,000,000 salary from their charity over the last TWENTY FIVE YEARS --- A WHOLE $20,000 EACH A YEAR!!!! EGADS!!!!.

[RegulatorCountry]

You had to be born a child of a citizen to even be a citizen at that time unless naturalized, such children were aliens resident or otherwise, so the debate is muddied by applying modern (and mistaken) standards regarding place of birth being tantamount. Claiming that both parents had to be citizens is a bit of an anachronism also, because females had derivative citizenship, first through their father, then through their husband. So, if a woman’s father was not a citizen then neither was she, unless and until naturalized. If a noncitizen female married a citizen male, she was then de facto naturalized, as were her and their children.

Additionally, citizenship was determined by the various States, with citizenship thereof constituting citizenship of the United States. Citizenship requirements varied from State to State, so a certain lack of definitive clarity upon the matter is perfectly acceptable, they were after all a confederation of states, having created a more perfect union under the Constitution than existed under the Articles of Confederation.

Given the vagaries and variation from State to State, it’s safe to say that in order to be eligible for the Presidency, above and beyond age, one had to be born a citizen under the legal understanding of that era, wouldn’t you agree?

Under the legal understanding of that era, when the Constitution was ratified, would you say that Barack Hussein Obama was born a citizen? Remember, derivative citizenship for females was the standard, and his legal patrimony was Kenyan.

The only logical answer that follows applicable law is to state that he was not born a US citizen under the legal standards of the Constitution. His father was not a citizen, he was a citizen of a British colony. His mother was underage, even if one were to throw out the notion of derivative citizenship.

I’ve always been of the opinion that place of birth was something of a red herring, because it is possible to be a natural born citizen while being born outside the country, or “beyond seas” as period acts described it. A natural born citizen has no other legal claims or restrictions placed upon him by some other foreign jurisdiction, simple as that.

If one is born in a jus sanguinis foreign nation, citizenship by blood, then there would be no competing claims of citizenship, therefore one would be natural born. If one is born in a jus soli foreign nation, citizenship by soil, then there would be competing claims of citizenship, therefore one would not be natural born.

Of course, all of this is wasted upon you because you’re plainly here as a leftist “minder” to reinforce the leftist narrative. But, others are reading and it’s for their edification, not yours.

[rxsid]

Thanks. The truth & the Constitution still matter.

[DoodleDawg]

You had to be born a child of a citizen to even be a citizen at that time unless naturalized, such children were aliens resident or otherwise, so the debate is muddied by applying modern (and mistaken) standards regarding place of birth being tantamount.

They can't be that modern since William Blackstone was saying that it was location and not parentage which determined natural born status back in 1765.

"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it...The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien."

[DiogenesLamp]

You have Vattel, who said that parents were the determining factor of who was natural-born and who was not. And you had Blackstone, who said that where a person was born was the determining factor of who was natural-born and who was not.

Vattel defines "Des citoyens et naturels". Blackstone speaks of "Natural Born Subjects."

"Subjects" was the long existing and default term in the colonies. Were it intended to keep this sort of relationship between the state and the individual, the term "Subject" would have continued to be used.

That the term "Subject" was deliberately replaced by the word "Citizen", which at the time was an uncommonly used word in the English language and which possessed a different meaning at the time than what we now understand it to be, (A dictionary of the English language. by Samuel Johnson, 1768.)

clearly demonstrates that we replaced the existing paradigm with a new one.

So which one does the Constitution use? Which one is the "self defined" definition?

As the constitution does not refer to the people of the United States as "Subjects", but instead refers to them as "citizens", it demonstrate that we chose to follow the meaning implicit in the word that is derived from it's origin.

As the American usage of the word is not what was the contemporary English usage of the word, but is instead the Swiss usage of the word, we must therefore conclude that the Vattel definition applies.

Which one is the "self defined" definition?

The one that fits our usage and meaning. The English one does not fit. The Swiss one fits.

[DiogenesLamp]

And he was dis-barred in IL for lying on the application, "Have you ever used a pseudonym."

He was disbarred for that and for declaring on his bar application that he never used illegal drugs. The man bringing the complaint against him points out that in his own book he admits many examples of illegal drug usage.

Barack Obama's disbarment was a slam dunk. He would have been disbarred if he hadn't given up his license voluntarily.

[RegulatorCountry]

There was this little kerfuffle called the American Revolution that overthrew British rule and they were no longer subjects, you might want to make note of this historical milestone. Blackstone was trained in British law. Blackstone seems to have believed that US citizens were still British subjects, a conclusion that would be laughable to the point of outright offensive, seeing as how additional warfare would be required in order to throw off British claims and attempts to control or subvert this nation. There was this little kerfuffle called the War of 1812, you see, might want to make note of this historical milestone as well.

[rxsid]

"Obama himself touted the claim, repeatedly & pre-POTUS-aspirations, that he was born in Kenya"

He and some of his political allies also stated (correctly, assuming BHO Sr. was his legal birth father) that Barry's birth status was governed by Great Britain.

[DoodleDawg]

The one that fits our usage and meaning. The English one does not fit. The Swiss one fits.

Is that so? Well then some people sure didn't get the memo then.

William Rawle in his "A View of the Constitution of the United States" published in 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."

James Madison, 1789: "It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

James Kent, "Commentaries on American Law", 1826: "Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent."

[DoodleDawg]

See my reply 114. All made post kerfuffle(s).

[RegulatorCountry]

Parse the phrase “birth status governed by Great Britain” in hindsight. What does it say, and what does it not say?

It says Barack Hussein Obama was born a British subject, that Great Britain governed him. It does not say that Barack Hussein Obama was born a US citizen, or that the United States governed him.

Now, how did that manage to fly? Oh, that’s right, there was a full court press by the MSM, Democrats and even a number of Republicans, to tinfoil anyone who questioned the matter as total loons and possible xenophobes.

[rxsid]

"And where is natural-born citizen defined in the Constitution?"

As we all know, the Constitution isn't meant to be a dictionary where everything is spelled out.

We must look to the references they were familiar with at the time.

There was one such reference, a well know and respected legal treatise, that they read from and used during their debates while crafting the Constitution at Independence Hall, Philadelphia, and it defined a natural born Citizen.

[Elderberry]

Post on your own server. I've a Synology server that I've used for many a year as my movie and music repository. I've just started to use it to post images.

https://www.synology.com/en-us/solution/photographer

[DiogenesLamp]

I’ve always been of the opinion that place of birth was something of a red herring, because it is possible to be a natural born citizen while being born outside the country, or “beyond seas” as period acts described it.

This notion that birth in a place is part of English Common law derives from "Calvin's Case."

England had just been Unified with Scotland (1603) because a Scottish King (James IV) became the heir to the English Throne, and so United the two Kingdoms under one crown.

"Calvin's Case threw a monkey wrench into the peace and Union thereby achieved, because it threatened to make Scots into second class citizens who could not own property in England unless they were born to an English father.

King James I (English name for him) realized immediately that this was a serious problem that could cause Scotland to reject Unification, and so therefore he needed the law to be interpreted in such a way so that this problem went away.

He decided that there would be a trial, and Lord Coke was the primary advocate for the King's position. Little surprise that when all was said and done, the Jury of Judges decided exactly what the King needed them to decide, though there were some opposed to this interpretation of the "common law."

Subsequent English Common law rulings of Jus Soli are the consequence of this event. Prior to 1603, it is very apparent that the English followed the Roman law of jus sanguinus.

[RegulatorCountry]

Please review pertinent citizenship statutes of the various States and get back to me. Children of aliens were themselves aliens, born here or otherwise, in quite a few of them. They were also naturalized with the naturalization of their fathers, as were wives whose husbands naturalized. Did Barack Hussein Obama’s father ever naturalize, or even maintain a domicile in this country for long? No, he did not. He had no intent of ever becoming a citizen of the United States, he was here on a temporary student visa and was a representative of the Kenyan government as well, which very likely conferred diplomatic immunity upon any children he sired.