Posted on 11/12/2009 3:55:21 PM PST by Sibre Fan
Excerpt:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
(Excerpt) Read more at in.gov ...
Unfortunately, all we seem to be getting is the free POO-POO Platter, along with a very slow delivery driver.
Yes they did. Go read the Wong decision.
The Indiana Appeals Court believes they did, stare decisis and all that. And no, they didn't "make it up." The citations are duly noted in the opinion.
So, contrary to the Indiana court's ruling, Wong Kim Ark provided no "guidance" whatsoever as to who is a Natural Born Citizen "for Article II, Section 1 purposes."
It needs to be kicked up to SCOTUS, because their decision is wrong.
What a laugh! The Law of Nations written by Vattel is mentioned in the U.S.Constitution more than once - go ahead, read the document yourself.
No where, to my knowledge, is English Common Law EVER mentioned in the U.S.Constitution, and for good reason. English Common Law dealt with the relationship between a sovereign and subjects. The U.S.Constitution deals with the limits of government power over citizens, who ARE sovereign. The difference is awesome.
Thank you for alerting me to this!
You might want to go to Leo’s site,
http://www.naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Leo has already analyzed the decision and determined it is a real turkey.
And just in time for Thanksgiving, too!
OK. Show me the quote and reference from the USSC that says a US President can have a foreign father.
Remember the # 1 rule of politico’s, tyrants ,etc. ” When the Rules don’t fit CHANGE THE RULES ”
Is the Arkney decision the “official” start of revisionist history ?
They serve the poo-poo platter with some shiitake mushrooms on the side.
So, by your reasoning, the common law of the states is in no way based on the common law of England?
Hardly. "Revisionist history" has been used as a convenient weapon by statists to vindicate the power of the elite in government in the United States for decades, perhaps a century. Elsewhere around the world, it has been convenient weapon for tyrannical regimes probably going back to ancient times.
The citizenship requirement to be a NBC President cannot be derived from English Law because the children of English Subjects born overseas are English subjects also, and cannot at the same time be citizens of the USA. Therefor a different version of Citizenship was required, that based on Blood and Soil, ie the Law of Nations, natural Law per Vattel.
So now you’re talking about the law of the states? Indiana law is based on English Common Law? Is that what you’re claiming?
Really?
You mean we don't owe allegiance to Bam Bam?
... And I had so wanted SO MUCH to kiss his Royal ring, someday, but no, you had to come along and spoil everything!
Our constitution speaks to INDIVIDUAL sovereignty -- Not allegiance to a SOVEREIGN as SUBJECTS!
Great post, SatinDoll
STE=Q
Thanks!
TO All:
Excerpt from Leo’s site:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
...the Indiana Court chose to ignore the most relevant aspect of Wong Kim Ark where the SCOTUS clearly indicated that Wong Kim Ark was not natural born:
“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate… and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
That tells you right there that the child of the citizen and the child of the alien are not both natural born.
You are most welcome, SatinDoll
STE=Q
Yes, I am claiming the common law of Indiana along with every state other than Louisiana is derived from the common law of England. None of the states set out to reinvent the wheel at the time of independence.
What odds would you give on the SC agreeing with you? I put it at far less than 50%. If this came before the SC, they would agree with Indiana because it doesn’t upset the status quo. Regardless of any historical background, they would not be reaching that far to side with English common law (believe me law students read English cases in other contexts often), and since it is the side that won’t cause a constitutional crisis, that is the side they will be on. This is a court probably still stinging from the last time they stepped in to the electoral process. Which justice are you picking to be willing to be the next Roger Taney? Which 4 do you think will sign on to help him achieve that?
Whatever Obama’s faults are, he isn’t a king or in the employ of foreign governments which seems clearly the people sought to be excluded.
Maybe, maybe not; but that has nothing to do with Constitutional requirements for Presidential eligibility. I have no idea why you even brought it up.
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.