Replies

The one aspect of his background that is so overlooked (or not looked at), is that fact that Barry inherited foreign citizenship...at birth, from his foreign national father. Regardless of where he was born.

The US has always held its own citizenship laws in a superior position to the citizenship laws of all other nations. What this means, is that the US determines the citizenship of people within its boundaries by its own laws, not the laws of other nations.

Another nation may well recognize you as a citizen of their country, but that determination doesn't have any bearing on your US citizenship, as far as our laws are concerned.

In Barry's case, if he was indeed born within the territory of the US, then he is a US citizen, regardless of what status any other nation confers on him, because his mother was an American citizen.

However, that does NOT make him a Natural Born Citizen of the US, due to the fact that his father was a British subject.

People can argue the definition of what a Natural Born Citizen is until the cows come home, but any objective reading of Vattel's Law of Nations, which undergirds our Constitution, reveals exactly what is meant by that phrase.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, wrote to George Washington about this very issue, and was quite clear in his understanding of what it meant. He insisted that the NBC clause be added to the US Constitution to protect that office from foreign influence.

It's unreasonable and convoluted thinking to arrive at the conclusion that the Founders meant that "Natural Born Citizen" means anything other than a child born of a mother and a father who are BOTH citizens of the US.

Barry is not NBC. He is an illegal president. Period. End of story.

Barry inherited British citizenship from his father. U.S. law can not prevent a foreigner from "passing" his foreign citizenship to his children.

If Barry was born in HI, he would have been born with US citizenship by way of being born in HI as well as inherited from his mother. However, he would also have inherited his fathers British citizenship as well and there is nothing U.S. law can do to "prevent" that from happening. The only way U.S. law can "cause" someone to have their foreign citizenship "removed" from them is by way of Naturalization...and that of course, is an individual voluntary act. Bottom line, if Sr. was his legal father when he was born...no matter where he was born, he was born with British citizenship (& possibly US citizenship, if born in HI).

For the lurkers...

Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well.

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: dregs has this company by certain duties and subjected has its authority, they take part with equality has its advantages."

French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

The same defintion was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss