speaking on naturalization & defining those naturalized:
By the constitution of the United States, congress have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.
(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. (snip)
there was but one allegiance before the revolution. This principle was asserted by the same court in the case of Phipps, and I consider it to be the true and sound law on the subject (snip)
The principle which has been declared in some of our state constitutions, that the citizens have a natural and inherent right to emigrate, goes far towards a renunciation of the doctrine of the English common law, as being repugnant to the natural liberty of mankind, provided we are to consider emigration and expatriation, as words intended in those cases to be of synonymous import. But the allegiance of our citizens is due, not only to the local government under which they reside, but primarily to the government of the United States; (snip)
2.) An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States.(snip)
The act of Congress of the 14th of April, 1802, establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, affects the issue of two classes of persons: (1.) By the 4th section, it was declared, that “the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized, or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.” (snip)
It applies to all the children of “persons duly naturalized,” under the restriction of residence and minority, at the time of the naturalization of the parent. (snip)
This provision leaves us likewise in doubt, whether the act intended by the words, “children of persons,” both the father and mother, in imitation of the statute of 25 Edw. III.; or the father only, according to the more liberal declaration of the statute of 4 Geo. II. This clause differs from the preceding one, in being without any restriction as to the age or residence of the child; and it appears to have been intended for the case of the children of natural born citizens, or of citizens who were original actors in our revolution, and therefore it was more comprehensive and more liberal in their favour. But the whole statute provision is remarkably loose and vague in its terms, and it is lamentably defective in being confined to the case of children of parents who were citizens in 1802, or had been so previously. The former act of 29th January, 1795, was not so; for it declared generally, that “the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”
BO’s father was an alien, not subject to the jusrisdiction of the United States, therefore under the laws in place at the time, BO’s fathers children, would not have been citizens of the US, therefore under the intent of the framers, BHO could never claim to be a natural born citizen. Period.
All you have to do is reverse the context of the situation, BO’s fathers was a US citizen, BO was born in England, BO may have been a british subject, but he never would have been classified as a natural born british subject due to the fact his father was not of that country, his allegiance came from soil only aka a native, statute of 25 Edw. III: “children of persons,” both the father and mother
OOps, hit the wrong button...
so finishing, do you really think Britian would have allowed a US citizen to the highest office of their land when they didn’t even afford the subject, the same rights & priviledges of the natural born subject.
I think not.
“James Kent, commentaries on the Constitution 1826-1824”
The 14th amendment passed long afterwards, and as such his commentaries are irrelevant for our purposes.
“BO’s father was an alien, not subject to the jusrisdiction of the United States”
Since when are aliens, or illegal aliens for that matter, not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law?
“BO was born in England, BO may have been a british subject, but he never would have been classified as a natural born british subject due to the fact his father was not of that country”
I am not familiar with British law. Perhaps they explicitly define the term. We, however, do not. Which leaves us to interpret the words according to their obvious meaning. Namely, people who are born rather than made citizens.
Except that Obama's father was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He was living here and had he broken the law then he could have been arrested, tried, and jailed.