Obama's citizenship

Neither English common-law nor Blackstone had a definition or “natural-born citizen.” Hope this helps.

But both say that children born in the country are citizens from birth regardless of the nationality of their parents.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant? How so?

The term ‘anchor baby’ is a modern one and invokes a certain stigma. I do believe that the Founding Fathers would have been more likely to follow English Common Law and Blackstone in their definition of natural-born citizen, and under those definitions any child born here would qualify.
+++++++++++++++

In reference to anchor babies: What about the term ‘domicile’ for the parents? What about ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ What about Ark's reference to “including all children here born of resident aliens.” Do “illegal aliens” and their babies apply to this comment? Simply, no, because their neither legal and under the jurisdiction of the US, nor are they legally resident; not legally domiciled. I don't think those SCOTUS Jurists in the 19th C. could have possible conceived of the illegal alien problem we'd have in the 21st C.

In reference to BO, if he were born in HI, which he steadfastly refuses to prove to us, I will agree that he's a US citizen, however, he may have been a dual citizen of Great Britain/Kenya - which gets to the heart of the intent of the NBC status in the US Constitution.

You haven't shown us that the precedent on Article II, Section 1, has sufficiently handled that.

If BO was born in Kenya, to an 18 year old US citizen in 1961 - well he wasn't a US citizen under the prevailing law of the time. Then he's plum out.

Of course bammy himself has put us all in this position of guessing and informing ourselves on all matters of SCOTUS precedent (which in an of itself is not a bad thing) but for the sake of the POTUS is a NIGHTMARE of immense proportions. And the dim bulb party skips merrily along the way.

I will look for those other reference links for Jay's letter, etc.

In reference to anchor babies: What about the term ‘domicile’ for the parents?

What about it? Legally a domicile is a principle place of residence. It is determined by intent and it the place that a person has fixed as their ordinary dwelling without present intention to move. That doesn't change just because a person is here illegally. Many illegals stay here for years and years. But even if they intend to leave within a few months, that place where they reside in the interim is their legal domicile.

What about ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’

Again, what about it? Any person in the U.S., be they citizen or foreigner, is subject to the laws and the jurisdiction while they are here. A visitor from Japan cannot rob a bank and expect not to be punished if caught. The only exception to this are foreign diplomats or heads of state, who are protected by diplomatic immunity, or foreign enemy nationals or prisoners held here against their will.

What about Ark's reference to “including all children here born of resident aliens.”

What of it? As natural born citizens they would, theoretically, be eligible to run for the presidency. If they met all the other qualifications.

Simply, no, because their neither legal and under the jurisdiction of the US, nor are they legally resident; not legally domiciled.

That's your opinion, and not what the law or the Constitution says.

In reference to BO, if he were born in HI, which he steadfastly refuses to prove to us, I will agree that he's a US citizen, however, he may have been a dual citizen of Great Britain/Kenya - which gets to the heart of the intent of the NBC status in the US Constitution. You haven't shown us that the precedent on Article II, Section 1, has sufficiently handled that.

And you haven't shown the precedent or the clause of the Constitution or the federal law that questions it.

If BO was born in Kenya, to an 18 year old US citizen in 1961 - well he wasn't a US citizen under the prevailing law of the time. Then he's plum out.

I would not disagree with that.

Because, as already pointed out, there’s no definition for “natural-born citizen.”

If you want to stick to common law, Barry is a natural-born British subject. Which is why he is ineligible.

Your anti-American propaganda is usually irrelevant.

If you want to stick to common law, Barry is a natural-born British subject. Which is why he is ineligible.

If you want to stick to U.S. law, Obama is a natural born citizen. Which is why he is.

Your anti-American propaganda is usually irrelevant.

As are your rabid rantings.

Well, before you were sticking to British common law. You need to make up your mind.

Under the U S Constitution, Barry is not a natural-born citizen because his declared legal father was a British subject.

Hope this helps.

Well, before you were sticking to British common law. You need to make up your mind.

Well then as Justice Gray noted in the Ark case: "The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king."

So under precedent established by English Common Law, Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in the U.S. Under British law at the time, he also had British citizenship. Under U.S. law he was a natural born citizen. One does not negate the other.

Under the U S Constitution, Barry is not a natural-born citizen because his declared legal father was a British subject.

And where does the Constitution say that?

Hope this helps.

Not at all.

You just admitted there is no such thing as a natural-born citizen in common law -- hence no precedent there. Thus, your contradictory post here is not the result of ignorance, but of a mendacious lie.

And where does the Constitution say that?

Article II, Section 1: 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.

Under U.S. law he was a natural born citizen.

Another lie.

Why do you hate America?