Natural Born Citizen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 ^

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Respected constitutional scholar and lawyer Herb Titus sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is. Herb Titus credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. Titus gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to Herb Titus in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Barack Obama are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.

[SvenMagnussen]

As we have seen with many other cases against Obama on his eligibility, a plaintiff must be able to demonstrate a particular harm caused by the negligence of the defendant in order to survive a motion to dismiss.

If a motion to dismiss is overruled, the discovery process begins. The discovery process began in the GA Election Ballot Case and Obama ignored subpoenas for discovery. This tells me his records have not been scrubbed or edited. It’s reasonable to assume all subpoenas for discovery will be ignored by Obama. Ignoring subpoenas is contempt of Court and grounds for a default judgment. In a default judgment, the Court will rule the allegations for the complaint have merit and a hearing on damages begins.

A plaintiff who cannot show personal damage will not be allowed to proceed past a motion to dismiss. Which brings us to the De Facto Officer Docrine. The De Facto Officer Doctrine protects the governing authority from harm cause by a usurper assuming control as a government official. The De Facto Officer Doctrine does not protect the usurper from criminal liability, keep the usurper in office or make him legal.

Also, the De Facto Officer Doctrine does not apply if a person charged with a crime, assessed a tax or ordered to pay a fine due to a law signed by the usurper if the person complains the law is voidable because it was signed by a usurper and the usurper is still in office. A person charged with a crime, assessed a tax or ordered to pay a fine due to a law signed by the usurper has a particular harm to highlight for the Court. SCOTUS is very clear. A defendant is entitled to adjudication for a claim against a usurper if the defendant raises their concern before the trial begins.

[bgill]

For those who don’t or can’t watch the video:

He states, as many have stated, that to be a natural born citizen one must have been born in US and of US citizen parents.

[Tau Food]

The Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to interpret and/or define the terms and meanings of all aspects of the Constitution BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF ORIGINAL INTENT.

Rather than providing a summary of what you believe the Constitution should mean, why don't you just quote the provision of the Constitution that says what you say it says? Don't freak out if you can't find that provision. It's not there.

[SvenMagnussen]

“Do you believe that there is anyone who can demonstrate such a particular harm?”

Yes! Anyone charged with a Federal crime for violating a law signed by the usurper can challenge the law if they complain of the usurper before trial begins.

Anyone who has a proposed adverse action to be taken against them presented to an appointee of the usurper can challenge the appointment if they complain of the usurper appointment before a decision has been made.

For example, a Judicial appointment by Obama can be challenged if the challenge is made before trial begins. Appointments by a usurper are not valid if the challenge is made before adjudication begins.

Of course, the Judicial branch always has the option of reassigning a judge that wasn’t appointed by Obama to the defendant complaining the Obama appointed judge is not valid.

[melancholy]

Conscience of a Conservative asked SvenMagnussen:

“And do you have any evidence that any such Certificate of Naturalization even exists? Or are we supposed to just take your word for it?”

SM answered in #60 :

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2995763/posts?page=60#60

“To: Conscience of a Conservative
Why would I post specifics without personal knowledge? And why are you desperate to discredit any evidence that would expose Obama as ineliglible?” ........

Snip the regergurated legalese garbage....

......”you don’t want to give OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers an opportunity to discredit the evidence before it is presented to the Court.”

There are two URLs in my post to Fred Nerks, #592, that tell the story about the Todd Rodriguez/SvenMagnussen multiple screen names.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2991236/posts?page=592#592

Followed by TheOldLady’s post #595

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2991236/posts?page=595#595

Here’s my last post to svenMagnussen, #771

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2991236/posts?page=771#771

I got no answer, of course! My questions were about naming the so-called “ OBOTS, ConcernedFreepers” [sic] and the Todd Rodriguez (zotted) Affair.

Canadian Lurker is asking SvenMagnussen the same questions that many asked him and is met by the same blinding dust storm of legalese but no answers. It’s only a matter of time before CL, if he persists and doesn’t give up because of the non-sequitur legalese answers, is leveled with the charge “OBOTS, ConcernedFreepers” [sic]

Admin Moderator,

As far as I know, FR frowns upon:

- accusing conservative FReepers of being OBOTS, ConcernedFreepers, etc. = trolls, by more than implication. CHECK.

- deception by using multiple screen names as in Todd Rodriguez. CHECK.

SvenMagnussen’s “I know, but I won’t tell you *OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers*” shouldn’t stand.

Regards.

[Ray76]

Sven,

You assert that "Obama is ineligible because he naturalized in 1983". When later you are asked if you have any evidence that any Certificate of Naturalization even exists you reply "Why would I post specifics without personal knowledge?".

You assert Obama naturalized then claim no knowledge of any naturalization.

You've been caught in a fib. And "why are you desperate to discredit any evidence that would expose Obama as ineliglible?" is just bluster and diversion since you have not presented any evidence to discredit.

You can wipe the cookie crumbs from your face now.

[Jeff Winston]

As a bunch of people have commented, Barack Obama is a "Constitutional scholar," too.

The funny thing is, I have followed the citizen-parent claims now for what, a couple of years?

And out of some 4,500 institutions of higher learning in the United States of America, with gosh-knows-how-many Professors and other "experts" in Constitutional law (If we say even a couple per college / university, that's at least 10,000), and in a country where we have 1.1 million licensed attorneys, Herb Titus is the ONLY person who even pretends to have any real Constitutional-type credentials that is making this claim.

Not one single other person in the entire country of any stature at all supports Titus and the two-citizen-parent birthers.

And his claim is based on a grand total of 6 and a half minutes of YouTube video, and on no authority except for his own OPINION as to what the "law of nature" is.

He cites not one single authority. He gives no evidence from history or any historical or legal authority at all to support his view.

It is simply his own opinion, and he gives no evidence at all that it is based on anything other than his own personal opinion.

That's not any kind of legal evidence at all. It is simply... nothing.

AND HERB TITUS IS THE "BEST" VOICE THAT BIRTHERS HAVE.

Against that, we have... well, the entire weight of history and law.

By the way, Titus is completely clueless about where "natural born citizen" came from. It came directly from "natural born subject" in the law of England, our mother country. And THAT did come from natural law, as explained at the bottom of the graphic at the end of the post I just referenced.

[Jeff Winston]

By the way, since Herb Titus gives NO evidence to support his position at all except for HIS PERSONAL OPINION, then citing him is simply a pure-bred Argument From Authority.

It goes like this:

1) Herb Titus is a Constitutional scholar.

2) Herb Titus says it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.

3) Therefore, it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.

It is simply an argument from Titus’ supposed authority, because he gives NO OTHER EVIDENCE AT ALL.

Even this argument is absolutely disastrous for the claim that citizen parents are required.

Why?

Because for every one Herb Titus that can be produced, DOZENS (at a bare minimum) or even HUNDREDS of similar Constitutional scholars can be produced who absolutely contradict him.

And in fact, it’s not even REMOTELY difficult to produce scholars who have FAR more stature and authority than Titus, who directly contradict him.

[Jeff Winston]

And yes, these include DOZENS if not hundreds of CONSERVATIVE Constitutional scholars.

[Ray76]

Too bad that the US federal govt is not founded on English common law.

Our Founding proclaims “all men are created equal”. Being subjected to an individual calling himself “king” is antithetical to our Founding principles.

America is exceptional because of our fundamental principles.

The state cases cited in the linked post are not relevant.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

What are your credentials compared to Dr. Herb Titus, Constitutional Scholar?

[Jeff Winston]

What are your credentials compared to Dr. Herb Titus, Constitutional Scholar?

What's the point of your question? That if I don't produce credentials "equal" to those of Herb Titus, he is to be believed over me?

Such an argument, again, is an Argument From Authority.

And as I have noted, that particular argument turns out very, very badly for birthers. Using that argument completely destroys their position. Because whatever my own credentials may or may not be, I can produce dozens (at a minimum) of authorities that are FAR better qualified than Mr. Titus to say what a natural born citizen is and is not.

But an Argument From Authority isn't really a good argument at all.

An argument from the actual EVIDENCE is what matters.

And since you seem to have missed it, here is the EVIDENCE of what "natural born citizen" meant in the time of the Founders and Framers and early America:

What "Natural Born Citizen" Meant in Early America

The sources listed include quite a few people very, very close to our most important Founders and Framers.

I understand this is a long post. But for those who want to know the evidence from early America as to what "natural born citizen" meant, THIS IS IT.

Some quotes are from translations of our Constitution into other languages, particularly French. We were pretty close to the French. As noted earlier, 3 of our first 4 Presidents (1, 3 and 4) had dual citizenship with France WHILE THEY WERE SERVING AS PRESIDENT. This fact, along with the fact that they never required Presidents to live more than 14 years of their lives on US soil, completely destroys the meme that they pulled out all the stops to ensure "pure and undivided loyalty."

It is obvious that the first thing that anybody translating the phrase would do, if they had the slightest doubt what it meant, would be to ask for clarification. So the foreign-language translations are probably a pretty good source for what people understood the phrase to mean. But they are far from the only source.

While I may have omitted some known quotes that didn't really say much of anything very clearly, I've tried to include pretty much all relevant quotes. I have not included quotes from David Ramsay, a favorite of birthers, because Ramsay's treatise on citizenship was the centerpiece of a self-interested sore-loser campaign, he had no legal training at all and therefore was not a legal authority, and (more importantly) he was voted down 36 to 1 after being directly and absolutely opposed in his claims by James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." (I have made additional comments on Ramsay elsewhere.)

The citizen-parent claims are ABSOLUTELY FALSE. As you read this list of quotes from early America, you will see why I can make such a strong statement. There are FAR, FAR more similar historical quotes, but I have cut it off before the year 1850 in order to keep in EARLY America. The last Founder died in 1836.

French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):

“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”

Equates natural born citizen with born citizen. And given the extremely close relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.

James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."

Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli and jus sanguinis here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

French translation by a friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):

“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)

Again, by another person who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. No mention whatsoever of parentage.

Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795):

"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by Presidents and Supreme Court Justices.

French translation, (translated, 1799):

“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”

Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."

Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):

“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”

In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. Except, of course, the claims of birthers.

Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):

“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”

Once again.

Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):

“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”

And again.

Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)

“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”

Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."

From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):

“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”

From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.

French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe, 1826:

“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”

This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been MADE a natural born citizen of Maryland. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a close friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.)

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

Once again, NATIVE.

French books on the Constitution:

“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)

Born citizen, born a citizen.

“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)

Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.

By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.

Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.

Justice Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):

“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. The man was LEGEND. And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.

American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:

“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”

Again: The rule was by the common law.

Another French translation, 1837:

“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”

Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.

State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):

“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. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”

Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.

From Spanish books on the Constitution:

“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)

Born a citizen.

“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)

Born in the United States. No mention of parents.

Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):

“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”

The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.

Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):

“...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”

America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.

Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):

“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”

Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.

Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)

“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”

Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.

The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)

“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”

A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."

Where are the opposing quotes from early America that say that citizen parents were required? Aside from David Ramsay, who was voted down 36 to 1 in a vote led by the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, THERE ARE NONE.

The birther claim is an absolute historical and Constitutional FALSEHOOD. And it is time that those who care about those Constitution stop indulging those who care so little about it that they are prepared to twist it for their own ends.

And yes: Ted Cruz is almost certainly eligible to be President of the United States.

I will leave you with the summary graphic, that sums up an accurate understanding of "natural born citizen:"

[SvenMagnussen]

“Do you believe that there is anyone who can demonstrate such a particular harm?”

Since civil suits only require allegations and not proof to be submitted with a complaint, Orly should allege Obama is ineligible for POTUS because he is not a naturalized citizen AND that she personally loaned Obama, as an individual, $100 Million. He agreed to pay back $125 Million by Jan. 01, 2013 and failed to do so.

Since Obama doesn’t file answers to civil suits, all allegations will be found to have merit by the Court. And it removes the obstacle of subject matter jurisdiction and justiciability.

[justiceseeker93]

Agree with Herb Titus! Try as the media might to alter the definition to push recent immigrants or children of recent immigrants into the highest office in the land, "Natural Born Citizen" still means what Vattel said it means, unless and until we amend the Constitution to get revised qualifications for the presidency. For now, Rubio and Cruz are constitutionally qualified for the Senate and are doing good jobs there, as is Jindal as Louisiana governor.

Obama was never qualified constitutionally to serve in the presidency regardless of where he might have been born, and admitted such when he said his father was never an American citizen.

Has any nation in world history coddled and pandered to its recent immigrants (including, in some instances, even illegal immigrants) like what is going on in the US today?

[SvenMagnussen]

Re-read the message. I’m asking the poster to explain to me why he/she thinks I would post the fact that Obama naturalized in 1983 without personal knowledge of that fact.

And then you claim I discredited myself by insinuating I don’t have personal knowledge of the facts.

This is similar to the attack on Tim Adams. Adams correctly asserted Obama’s long form BC didn’t exist among the vital statistics records of Hawaii DoH.

OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers attacked him for not having access, not showing proof, lying, etc ... And it turned out to be correct. Obama’s long form BC was sealed and archived by order of the Court. Access is limited and away from HI DoH employees because it is sealed.

Stop trying to find loopholes to protect Obama. He’s not eligible. He naturalized in 1983. The only legal way to prove it is to subpoena it after surviving a motion to dismiss. Allegations in complaints aren’t proven by the Plaintiff. Allegations must be defended by the Defendant.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Yes I believe Herb Titus. He is a authoritative figure on the subject of the true meaning of what a natural born Citizen is. He has the credentials to prove it.

A common misunderstanding of “natural born” citizenship comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, but a strict reading of the fourteenth amendment is quite clear that this only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship. Those born in the United States at the time of adoption and afterwards were only citizens. Those who wrote the amendment knew exactly what they were doing. Because of the distinctive use of “natural born citizen” and “citizen,” in Article II, Section 1 the simple fact that being born in the United States does not make one a “natural born citizen,” it only makes one “a citizen.”

The Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,

Section 1 - “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Obviously missing is the conveyance of “natural born” status to these citizens. In fact what is obviously included in the text is the term “naturalized.” This section has several clauses, the first deals with citizenship.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The second deals with prohibiting the states from passing laws denying the protection of citizenship from any citizen, “natural born” or naturalized.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The fifth section details something very important, it reads

Section 5 – “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Article 1, Section 8 enumerated the powers Congress has. The only power Congress has over citizenship is found here. It reads,

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.” This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.

To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The words “born or naturalized” are joined with the conjunction “or,” and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not “a natural born citizen.” This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” confers the coveted “natural born” status. If the term “citizen” did in fact convey a “natural born” status, then who were naturalized would be considered “natural born.”

Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring “natural born” status on anyone, it only confers simple citizenship and the universal rights given to all citizens, “native born” and naturalized. In fact, several Supreme Court Cases since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment restrict citizenship claims based on being born geographically within the United States, and bestows the coveted “natural born citizen” title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens.

1. The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

2. Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

3. Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” requires “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States, not just physical presence. “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”

4. Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Affirms that “natural born citizen,” is the child of an existing citizen. “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

5. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of “a native born person” of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.

As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred. If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.

While many patriots will argue with clear conviction “natural born” should be narrowly interpreted as to mean both parents must be citizens, giving birth to that child under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, they do accept that Jus sanguinis citizenship can be passed from one parent in accordance to the law of the land at the time of birth. So what was the law of the land at the time for giving a person Jus sanguinis citizenship?

There three ways for a person claim citizenship, what most of us think of first is called Jus soli, “the right of the soil,” which is the physical location your place of birth. The second is what is called Jus sanguinis, “the right of blood,” which you inherit from your parents. The third is a combination of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, and it is this combination that determines if one is a natural born citizen. Since any citizenship under Jus solis is codified by the Fourteenth Amendment, we only find laws for passing citizenship via Jus sanguinis on August 4th, 1961 in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act). This act states that in order for Obama’s right of blood citizenship to be passed to him, that since he only had one parent who was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14. Barack Hussein Obama, II fails the test for the right to claim “natural born citizen” status.

Common sense tells us that both Jus soli and Jus sanguinis are what the Founding Fathers intended when they penned the phrase “a natural born citizen.” For imagine foreigners owing allegiance to a foreign power, arriving in America, giving birth to a child and immediately returning home to their country with their child. This child is reared for 21 years in a culture that hates America and that wants to see America destroyed. On the child’s 21st birthday this child returns to the United States of America, claiming their citizenship based Jus soli. For fourteen years they live in the United States, supported covertly by these foreign powers, growing in wealth and stature until they reach the age of 35 years. This scenario cumulates with this child of the soil, not having one drop of American blood in their veins, becoming President and destroying this country. Considering that countries are a creation of mankind, and non-existent in nature, natural loyalties are too blood.

“To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. ‘In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.” Chief Justice Roger B. Taney

The Constitution directly specified 3 types of citizens, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as those who are “citizens,” those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. The architects of the Fourteenth Amendment had two to choose from in granting citizenship under this amendment, they choose just a citizen, and rejected “a natural born citizen.”

[SvenMagnussen]

It has been explained to you many times. Allegations in civil suits are not proven by the Plaintiff. Proof, certified documents, authenicated certificates, affidavits, and eye-witness testimony are ignored by the Court until the defendant files an answer.

If the defendant does not deny the allegations, the only option the Court has is to rule the allegations have merit. If the defendant denies the allegations, the discovery process begins. Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization can be subpoenaed. Internet postings and jpeg images downloaded from internet are ignored by the Court.

Stop trying to protect Obama. He’s ineligible because he naturalized in 1983. It’s a shame you can’t take my word for it, but I’ll continue posting the facts while you desperately try to quash the truth.

[Ray76]

First off there is no “attack”. Your posts conflict with themselves which is all I’ve pointed out.

You have also claimed to have seen a Certificate of Loss of Nationality http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2963803/posts?page=16#16

Assertions without supporting evidence are not credible. An affidavit attesting that you have seen either/both Obama’s Certificate of Loss of Nationality and Obama’s 1983 Certificate of Naturalization would be credible.

No need to reveal any information contained on these Certificates, merely attest that they exist.