Posted on 07/27/2009 11:38:14 AM PDT by Poparhoid
Read article...it’s in the “law of nations”.
And yes the founders relied on this doc.
Both parents.
No hearings and the SC will never touch it. The classic definition of a constitutional crisis. We shall see.
Please direct your question to the 98 eminent Senators of the U.S. who incorporated this definition in their Senate Resolution 511.
But apparently, he's a citizen of Texas.
This from file. I believe the parents need only be citizens not Natural Born citizens as the author of the article has written.
from;
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
The Chart referred to here is at that link and didn’t make the paste.
The
Issue The question that the court must decide is whether a person governed by the laws of Great at the time of their birth could be considered a natural “born citizen” of the United States as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of our Constitution.
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.
The question remains unanswered in any United States court.
The Chart
People are confused because they don’t understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms. This chart shows the elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in caselaw by the Supreme Court.
For each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. under the of , Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and the 14th Amendment, Section 1, and the relevant federal law under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). As you can clearly see, Obama is a citizen of the United States, but he’s not a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was not a U. S. citizen.
Obama... is not a “natural born citizen” because his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject. To be a natural born citizen, a person’s parents must BOTH be citizens of the United States of America. Further, that person must be born in the United States.
is a “citizen” because his mother was an American citizen. There are question about his birthplace and whether he was naturalized after his period of time as an Indonesian citizen.
may be a “native born citizen” — a child born in the United States of foreign (non-citizen) parents. He will have to release his birth certificate, which he hasn’t, to ascertain this status.
John Jay The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book “Law of Nations.”
That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.
John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Law Of
Nations
Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work — The Law of Nations — applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.
The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.
Many have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel’s Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase. It nails what is meant by the “natural born citizen” phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.
It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not 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 a 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.”
It’s About
Loyalty The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.
At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution in 1787 considered THREE “presidents” in the Executive for “checks and balances.” They considered a “natural born citizen” clause for Senators as well. Debating those issues, they felt that a “natural born citizen” clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to “jump start” the newly-formed republic.
In the end, the Framers compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years, while striking the “natural born citizen” clause for the office.
The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs. THREE. But to ensure “checks and balances,” the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 1, Clause 5: “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...”
The natural born citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn’t just a “political” issue. Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution.
1st U. S.
Congress
Parents (pl) In the official copies of the THIRD (1795) margin notes state “Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3.” referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).
Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, “...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...” (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: “How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents” Document margin note: “Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.”) See Attachment A.
Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
“...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...” (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: “Their children residing here, deemed citizens.” Document margin note: “Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.”) See Attachment B.
Document THREE: the actual text of the Constitution from the and the , 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,
“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…” See Attachment C.
Source
Boy, you are you stupid. By that logic, no one could ever have been a natural born citizen of the USA.
I didn’t write the article you bonehead......go back and teach your students how stupid YOU are..............
I guess this is what happens when a gangster from Chicago gets elected as the nations leader...and the bad thing is - all of it is true...great roll-up
It does appear that the the senate passed a resolution which incorporated a definition in which both of one’s parents must be citizens of the U.S.; NOT that both of one’s parents must be “natural born” citizens of the US.
I’m still not sure they are correct, but there is a BIG difference between the two definitions. By the definition posted in the original article (in which it was stated that BOTH of one’s parents must be “natural born” citizens) it would be impossible for ANYONE to be a natural born citize of the U.S.
However, even with that said, senate resolutions of the type you mention are NOT legally binding. Only the Constitution and the CFR contain our laws.
Huh? Both of my parents are natural-born citizens, WayneS.
All four grandparents, all eight great grandparents, and other than native Cherokee ancestors, every single one of them going back to ratification of the Constitution.
And, I'm not special or exceptional in any way. That just about describes every native southerner in the United States.
The definition (”Fact #2) used in the article states that to be a “natural born” citizen BOTH of your parents have to be natural born citizens.
By that definition, if anywhere in your direct family lineage there is someone who was not a “natural born” citizen of the United States then that person’s progeny, and THAT person’s progeny, etc. etc. (down to and including your parents and you) are NOT “natural born” citizens.
At the ratification of the U.S. Constitution there was no such thing as a “natural born” citizen; that is why the presidential qualifications include the mention of persons who were “citizens...at the time of ratification...”.
I was merely pointing out that the definition used by the person who wrote the article is not only correct, but illogical, since it makes it impossible for anyone to be “natural born” citizen.
The correct definition of “natural born” citizen MAY be that BOTH of one’s parents must be citizens. However, I am unaware of any ratified Law which actually defines it that way.
SORRY “...not only INcorrect...”
Citizen parents are required for natural-born citizenship, and that includes citizenship via naturalization. On that you and I agree. This overly strained “definition” is just another red herring, in order to confuse.
Senate Resolution 511 was not making new law but simply making a determination based upon the Constitution and the CFR and case law -- and Barack Obama and every other senator signed onto it.
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.