Posted on 02/04/2012 3:17:29 PM PST by rxsid
That’s all you got?
Actually, US law does not recognize dual citizenship. We know it exists, but we don’t worry about it. And the idea that Obama owes the UK allegiance over the US is just STUPID. He hates England. He has lived the large majority of his life in the US, and has never shown any concern for England. In any case, Minor said citizens were either born or made, and Obama would be a citizen born.
That is incorrect. The United States recognizes dual citizenship, and has for quite some time. The Department of State not only processes dual citizenship differently, they raise concerns about the over-abundance of dual citizens in this country.
Regardless of how much Obama may "hate" the United Kingdom, he still is a citizen of the UK. The UK requires an explicit renouncement of citizenship, much like the United States.
As far as the citizen born argument you mention, it is complete hogwash. Either one is a Natural Born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States. The Constitution is quite clear as to these two distinct citizenship classes. Being born and being Natural Born are two distinct concepts. Amendment XIV confirms this because it could not confer Natural Born Citizenship to slaves as their parents were not citizens at the time of their children's birth.
Quite frankly I find it amusing that many people feel that Amendment XIV confers something that is simply not there. Nowhere does it state Natural Born Citizen. If what you are saying is factual, Amendment XIV would have said this:
All persons born in the United States are Natural Born Citizens. All persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. All citizens of the United states are citizens of the state wherein they reside.
That would have been easy enough to do.
Notice the words Kind and Natural.
Kind and natural have the same meaning.
Kind and natural have the same meaning.
Shakespeare: “were all thy children kind and natural?”
The question is...who are the natural children?
When you can grasp ‘who are the natural children’ the mystery will be solved.
natural born citizen.
By the time of the 14th, using ‘natural born’ was no longer common.
From the DISSENT in Dred Scott, one of the few cases that ever resulted in a Constitutional amendment to overturn it. Notice he uses the term ‘native born British subject instead of natural born subject.:
“The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in the case of the State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. and Bat. 20, has declared the law of that State on this subject in terms which I believe to be as sound law in the other States I have enumerated, as it was in North Carolina.
“According to the laws of this State,” says Judge Gaston, in delivering the opinion of the court,
“all human beings within it, who are not slaves, fall within one of two classes. Whatever distinctions may have existed in the Roman laws between citizens and free inhabitants, they are unknown to our institutions. Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects — those born out of his allegiance were aliens. Slavery did not exist in England, but it did in the British colonies. Slaves were not, in legal parlance persons, but property. The moment the incapacity, the disqualification of slavery, was removed, they became persons, and were then either British subjects or not British subjects, according as they were or were not born within the allegiance of the British King. Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the laws of North Carolina than was consequent on the transition from a colony dependent on a European King to a free and sovereign State. Slaves remained slaves. British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen. Foreigners, until made members of the State, remained aliens. Slaves, manumitted here, became freemen, and therefore, if born within North Carolina, are citizens of North Carolina, and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. The Constitution extended the elective franchise to every freeman who had arrived at the age of twenty-one and paid a public tax, and it is a matter of universal notoriety that, under it, free persons, without regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise until it was taken from free men of color a few years since by our amended Constitution.”
...The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been in conformity with the common law that free persons born within either of the colonies were subjects of the King that by the Declaration of Independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, except so far as some of them were disfranchised by the legislative power of the States, or availed themselves, seasonably, of the right to adhere to the British Crown in the civil contest, and thus to continue British subjects....”
Notice again the dropping of natural born from the legal formula.
And remember, at the time of the Constitution and in the early years after it, NBS & NBC were used interchangeably:
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
“Natural Born” was no longer common?
It was never “common” to begin with. Natural Born has nothing to do with where you are born. None. It never was and never will be. It has nothing to do with Amendment XIV. It is a requirement for the Commander in Chief position only. The residency requirement handles the citizenship aspect.
That is why it was placed in Article II. Nothing more, nothing less. We can argue all day long about terms, phrases, and concepts. The fact still remains. Mr. Jay asked Mr. Washington for a strong check for the Commander in Chief position, and a guarantee for allegiance to the United States to prevent a military coup in the United States. His request was granted for obvious reasons.
Who are the natural children?
Are the natural children John Jays strong check?
“Regardless of how much Obama may “hate” the United Kingdom, he still is a citizen of the UK.”
Obama is not now nor has he ever been a UK citizen under the facts that we know at this time.
This might change IF there was a wedding to Ann and IF Obama Sr has divorced Kezia prior to that wedding and had no other wives. Under these circumstances the law may have allowed him to be a citizen with an affirmative act. I am not sure about this particular set of laws under this particular set of facts.
“It was never “common” to begin with. Natural Born has nothing to do with where you are born.”
Try to stop being a fool long enough to think thru a few sentences. The phrase “natural born subject” was commonly used in the 1600s & 1700s, and every Founder was familiar with it. It was legalese for ‘a subject due to birth in the realm’.
With time, the natural born part was dropped, and today the British talk about subjects. Natural born citizen was the American equivalent for a person whose citizenship came from birth within the US (or, following British common law, to those born of two citizen parents abroad). With time, the words natural & born were dropped, and citizen remained.
The founding fathers were all too familiar with the term natural born subject. They understood the shackles it laid onto anyone born within the realm. They also understood Natural Law. They detested the crown. They detested the fact anyone born within the realm was immediately a subject without recourse, protection, or representation. They had no choice. Even the War of 1812 was fought based on this principle.
No, UK citizens do not consider themselves subjects. They have not considered themselves subjects since the mid 1800’s.
You do bring a valid point to the table, however. Natural born meant “no allegiance to any other” within the realm of the crown’s dominions. The King laid sovereign claim to all those born within his jurisdiction, and demanded their allegiance for war and taxation purposes. The colonists had great antagonism against these claims as they felt the King did not consider them true subjects, even though he taxed them and bound them to chains (see the Declaration of Independence).
The “natural born” was never dropped because being natural-born in the United States still meant “no allegiance to any other crown, nation, democracy, or republic”. It was never a popular term within the colonies after 1789. However, all those in the colonies understood the concept behind its meaning as stated within the Constitution. They were intelligent enough to understand why the president should not be a “subject” of the crown of another nation.
Surely one of your intellect should understand this concept. If you can, please speak your opinion not based on prior legal battles, court cases, or reams of worthless legal paperwork. Put yourself in the shoes of the Framing Fathers, and decide your position of presidential merit based on ethics at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. I ask you, would you allow a man of questionable allegiance at the helm of your nation’s military, especially after a long, arduous war with the very nation which you previously considered your nation?
Obama is not now nor has he ever been a UK citizen under the facts that we know at this time.
That is incorrect. Based on what we know, Obama's father was a Kenyan colonial citizen, i.e. a British citizen. Married or not, UK citizenship does not follow U.S. statuatory or naturalization citizenship. If one is born to a U.K. citizen, one is a U.K. citizen.
Mr. Obama had UK citizenship at the time of his birth. In 1964, he gained Kenyan citizenship, but never lost his UK citizenship. Kenya could never have removed this citizenship as it had no authority to do so (he was under the age of 21).
Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship after the age of 23, but never renounced his UK citizenship gained at birth. This means he is still a citizen of the United Kingdom to this very day.
I have not.
Who are the natural children in Shakespeare’s Henry the V
Haven't a clue. Who were they? I'm sure the founders had read Shakespeare even if I haven't, except when forced, and that was MacBeth and a very long time ago. I have liked the plays I've seen, even in the same "Olde English" than I really struggle to read. I guess I need to rent some videos of the plays.
"This is really a silly argument. Eligibility is no great hurdle. Nor was it designed to be. The vast majority of Americans over the age of 35 are eligible to be President. Electability is a whole different matter, a task so enormously difficult that only 43 Americans in the history of this country have been successful at. Statistically, you have a better chance at winning the Powerball than you do at being elected President. "
I note that nowhere in your ridicule followed by keen analysis on bookmaking did you ever deny that under the NBC definition being espoused by Malihi, the Ankeny ruling he's cited, and apparently yourself, the foreign prince is, at least thoretically, eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States of America.
Given that back when the Constitution was drafted, the threat of a money-backed Just-Soli born offspring of a foreign-born parent was a very real fear held by the founders (Jay, et al), and there is no way in the Halibut that they intended to allow anyone but a person with no presumed loyalties to any country but the United States by virtue of their being born on US soil to persons who were themselves citizens to assume the presidential levers of power, including command of our armed forces. It simply flies in the face of basic logic.
I realize that your impressively long tenure at FR lends you a certain amount of "street cred", but on this issue, in these terms, you're just plain wrong or misguided, if not being deliberately disingenuous or obtuse for whatever reason.
One last thing: "Given that back when the Constitution was drafted, the threat of a money-backed Just-Soli born offspring of a foreign-born parent was a very real fear. . ." Oops! Turns out their fear was well-founded, based on what I'm seeing happen before my very eyes to our country. Why do you think "Obama" constantly does so much that is unconstitutional, hmmm? Perhaps it's because, knowing that he's unconstitutionally usurping the Office to begin with, and knowing that all those who could stop him also know it and yet keep silent about it, he can pretty much crap on the Constitution at will, and no one will stop him.
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.