Posted on 05/14/2010 3:21:18 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Meandering through my 1928 Edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary on page 833, Native, Native Citizen is defined:
Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens.
If Obama does not meet the standards of a native citizen how can he be a natural born citizen.
I know many blacks who were born under Jim Crow laws; does that mean they accepted those laws? What matters is does he claim to be a British citizen. THAT is the crux of the matter.
Don't let your dislike for the man (and I immensely dislike him personally and his policies) cloud your mind about law.
All fluff, no stuff. I guess you still don’t realize how desperate & ignorant you sound.
The definition of natural born has never changed and citizen does not equal ‘natural born’ citizen. Also, the 14th Amendment did not alter or change A2S1C4 in any manner as it was merely a reflection of the 1866 civil rights Act which was to finally put in the law that blacks were in fact citizens.
According all the historical evidence from the time of the founding & from papers of the founders/framers, dual citizenship was not an option. The only citizens were those born to a citizen father(wife followed the condition of the husband) therefore the child was born with 2 citizen parents, out of wedlock to an American mother or they became citizens by naturalization(consent). There were NO natural born citizens at the revolution, because every person at the time of the declaration owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign. If ‘natural born citizen was merely a changed of verbiage that still held the same definition, then the founders born in America would have considered themselves to be natural born, but they did not. They had to be grandfathered in. Dissertation by David Ramsay, founder, framer & signer of the constitution, teacher & physician.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29342214/Ramsay-Natural-Born-Citizen-1789
It was common practice during the entire 17 & 18th centuries that dissertations were the equivalent of books used to teach and it was the study laws of nature & laws of nations that sparked the fuel for the revolution in the minds of the founders, not some personal vendetta to break away from England and form their own Monarchy with feudal laws.
http://www.archive.org/stream/educationofthefo028335mbp#page/n7/mode/2up
Barack Obama, on the other hand, admits and acknowledges that he was born under the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that it GOVERNED his citizenship status. He is assenting to the fact that it governed his citizenship status.
Does the 14th amendment override our Treaties with Great Britain?
Ok, I'll bit. Let's explore that law approved March 26, 1790:
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any Common Law Court of Record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon ; and thereupon such person,shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any State, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act: of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
There was no distinction as to the birth location of children born to aliens in the 1790 Act. Therefore, there was no such thing as birthright citizenship based soley on jus soli without regard to the citizenship of the parents. Had there been they would have said children of aliens born abroad. I say again... there was NO DISTINCTION as to the birth location of a child born to an alien. They were NOT citizens until the parents themselves became citizens.
Unless one that we thought was one of our people assents to that claim by another nation.
IMHO, yes. Rights recognized in the Constitution cannot be removed by any act of Congress; otherwise a treaty with the UN regarding firearm possession would eliminate our 2nd Amendment.
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens
This CLEARLY is opposite of Vattel's definition of natural born citizen. Thus the first Congress regarded citizenship differently than Vattel. That's the point.
To get the position you hold, you must show that Vattel was the definition intended for natural born status. We see the first Congress' act regarding such status to be counter to Vattel, and we find Ark to confirm English common law - not Vattel - as the foundation for citizenship.
Again, I ask: can you point to statute or legal decision that supports the definition of natural born status as set forth by Vattel? Because by the 1790 statute and the Ark and Elg and subsequent cases we find the English common law status being the basis for what a natural born citizen is.
Can you show where Obama claims he is a British citizen? Saying that Britain claims you as a citizen and saying you abide by that claim are two VERY different things! In relatives in Ireland and Germany still claim me as family and "one of their own", and my friends in China claim me as a "白中的兄弟" - a white Chinese brother. Yet I am not Chinese nor related to them in any way.
Just last night I received an e-mail that claimed I owed a shipping company hundreds of dollars and should contact them with my account and identity confirmation; of course, I recognize no such claim as I have never shipped anything to Nigeria!
We may soon put that to the test as you well know.
The Constitution is not "fluff." As for evidence, you're the one who can't cite any court cases that say the citizenship of someone born in America to an American citizen is trumped by a foreign law. It's the last position I'd expect to see on a conservative forum, but ever since Obama was elected, I've seen it expressed here time and time again. It's simply astounding.
That is exactly what another Troll used to do on these threads.
To deflect heat away from their anti-Constitution propaganda, they would switch to posting about the wonderful place they lived or the great food of the American south.
It's the “read this and like me again” defense.
LOL!
It is ridiculous of them to believe we won't remember the piles of poop they posted previously.
Brings up an interesting point. The highlighted portion is VERY relevant to President Obama, as it is now known that Barack Obama Sr. was not actually divorced from his previous wife, meaning his marriage to President Obama's mother was invalid (illegal within the US - null and void). He was born, legally, out of wedlock. I wonder how that plays into your statement here!
From the official Obama website Factcheck.org:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_07.html
I truly fear we will. Unfortunately the current regime believes in American mediocrity and subservience to the world at large, and may try to use such a tact to remove firearms from the general public.
And you would be wrong since there are divorce papers on file in the state of Hawaii acknowledging their marriage, its date, and that Barack is a child of that marriage.
Again, I ask:
Can you show where President Obama claims he is a British citizen?
Your post does no such thing. It is irrelevant, and has as much legal standing within the US as me claiming you are actually a Venezuelan citizen.
Can you tell me where President Obama recognizes and accepts the citizenship that Britain is attempting to force on him?
WKA was judicial verbicide in which Grey legislated from the bench with absolutely no constitutional authority to do so.
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.