Replies

Thats for the reply, you made my point. You repeatedly refer to “natural born subject”. We have no Natural Born Subjects in the United States. Our Laws do not follow the “King’s” Laws we are free citizens not subjects and our laws decide our issues, not English common law which followed monarchs. England still does not have a codified criminal law while the US does.

I hope you take the time to understand the difference between a subject and a citizen, we fought several wars to become and remain free citizens of a Constitutional Republic not a monarchy or fascist government who made their own rules. We the people allow ourselves to be governed only when those we temporarily grant power of government to follow our Constitution and wishes.

You can make all the argument you want and so can I, but the only decision that counts is that of the Supreme Court of the United States. They will have to decide the issue, and your court case and quotes despite your wishes does not.

You repeatedly refer to “natural born subject”. We have no Natural Born Subjects in the United States.

Agreed. But do you contend that the states did not adopt the principles of British common law, merely changing "natural born subject" to "natural born citizen"?

Are you aware that there are multiple cases in US history where children of two foreign citizen parents are referred to as "natural born citizens" even where, e.g., a parent is here illegally from Mexico?

The Heritage Foundation and others take the position that these and similar cases (such as Wong) are decided wrongly. But even the Heritage Foundation (and others) acknowledge that that is the law of the land today. They seek to change the law. But they don't try to argue that that is not the current law.

Thats for the reply, you made my point. You repeatedly refer to “natural born subject”. We have no Natural Born Subjects in the United States. Our Laws do not follow the “King’s” Laws we are free citizens not subjects and our laws decide our issues, not English common law which followed monarchs. England still does not have a codified criminal law while the US does.

In Great Britain - as with most monarchies - citizens are referred to as subjects; the words and phrasing mean the same thing. A person who's under the jurisdiction of their Government, whether power is vested with a figurative monarchy (such as England), or a representative Government (such as the US).

I hope you take the time to understand the difference between a subject and a citizen

I understand it, and your attempt to use it as a justification of ignoring the basis of English common law for the US is weak, at best. Legal and historical scholars and works will tell you that the specific word is representative of the persons of the country; you are throwing out red herrings to justify your point.

Look a post or two above - I just quoted Alexander Hamilton assuring the people of New York that the Constitution was based on English common law - that very law that uses "subject"!

You can make all the argument you want and so can I, but the only decision that counts is that of the Supreme Court of the United States.

On that I fully agree! And that means - until proven otherwise - the presumption of innocence, or in this case, citizenship, must be correct (a very English common law thing). It needs to be proven otherwise in a Court of Law, that is the American legal and constitutional system.

Until the SC weighs otherwise, we should assume President Obama is a natural born citizen. It is fine to support a challenge, but the creation by some of the bizarre twisting of the foundation of our legal system being NOT on English common law defies history and logic.