What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means
Amazing Read

Hawaiian code:

“[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”

United States Supreme Court reports, Volume 15 By United States. Supreme Court, Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company

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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents and succeed to all their rights. Again, I say to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Click here

At the time of the drafting and ratification of the United States constitution, the definition of natural born citizen, combined both the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis.

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.

Emmerich De Vattel, (1714-1767,)
Law of Nations, 1758,
by ASA Vet

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.

For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
by edge919

Analysis provided by: bluecat6

The 1790 Act provides some valuable insight and in my view firmly indicates that jus sanguinis is a core part of meeting the requirement for natural born Citizen.

Here is the functional wording from the act:

“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:...”

I would like to point that the act did not directly bestow direct claim to being an ACTUAL “natural born Citizen” upon those meeting the criteria above. What the act did was to take those meeting the above criteria (children of citizens) and CONSIDER them AS “natural born Citizens”. There is difference between actually being something and being CONSIDERED as something. One is...well...’natural’ and one is artificial or man-made. But the wording indicates they are NOT exactly the same.

But the wording does show that jus sanguinis is a key, if not THE key, component of being a “natural born Citizen”. Essentially, the act waived any requirement of jus soli. This may be why those born to overseas citizens were not ACTUAL “natural born Citizens” but worthy to be CONSIDERED AS natural born Citizens. The lack of jus soli would explain why those that crafted this passage were careful not to bestow the direct status of those born overseas.

SR 511 does mis-state what the 1790 act says. Here is what SR 511 says:

“Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;”

Obviously this is a direct reference to the 1790 act. But as noted above. The act does not directly DEFINE ‘natural born Citizen”. It merely provides a criteria be CONSIDERED AS a natural born Citizen. And the criteria was two citizen parents - hence jus sanguinis.

So, in closing, I believe the 1790 act tells us that:

a) both jus sanguinis and jus soli were needed to have the actual source status of “natural born Citizen”. b) Congress considered jus sanguinis the dominate of the two and hence basically waived jus soli via the act.

In regards to the 2008 candidates - these conclusions would lead the fact that both candidates had nbC troubles. But at least for 5 years McCain would have legally been considered an nbC in the 1700s. And his issue is with the less dominate jus soli.

For Obama, the fact that the Congress clearly held jus sanguinis as critical creates his real problem, regardless where he was born. His legally acknowledged father (regardless of actual biology) is a Brit. He completely fails on the issue of jus sanguinis. He always has and always will. At no time would he ever have been ‘considered as’ a nbC by the 1790 Congress.

So the act of 1790 does not provide the definitive answer but it provides enough to address the issues at hand today.

Kenyan Born Barack Obama

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.

(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

The COLB, without any details of doctor or hospital proves nothing about the location of his birth, only his mothers legal residency in the state.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."

Speech by John Howard which we should follow in this country - WE ARE AMERICANS

‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans.’

‘This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom’

‘We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!’

‘Most Americans believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.’

‘We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.’

‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great American freedom,

‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.’

‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.’

Pass this on, this is my motto and I stand by it!