Article III sujects naturels 3. Founders translation: natural born
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.
The choices are:
Psyops
Hireling of one sort or another
Regular leftist volunteer
Weirdo
No, I say it codified NBC via it's appeal to English common law and the tradition of jus soli. No redefinition at all.
you still have not shown in the deciding opinion where that occurred in the holding of the case
I guess I can quote the relevant part again:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
That pretty much lays out that English common law is jus soli and that such legal position was the standard within the United States since the time of the Declaration to the time of the Ark case.
one Constitutional Amendment does not redefine another unless expressly written in the text and there is not one notation as to that effect.
What is being redefined? NO WHERE does the Constitution define what a natural born citizen is, so how can the 14th Amendment change that definition?
definitely off your rocker and are only in this fight for your own personal agenda which does not include patriotism to our country
So we get back to insults and assumptions. You have no means of actually discussing the points, you have no basis for your claims, so you will call names and call me a traitor.
Sir, you are the worst example of a conservative I have ever seen. You have no logic or reason, you are an emotionally driven, spiteful man. You know nothing of me, you are working against the Constitution and the betterment of these United States by your fanciful insistence to ignore the rule of law and to shun logic. In truth, you are no better than the fascist residing in the White House today; your goals may be different but your actions are as despicable and evil as his. Good day.
Tin foil on sale at Costco - stock up while you can!
Your opinions are not carved in stone, nor can you make the Constitution say anything you wish. At some point, it has to become connected with reality.
That reality suggests NBC is defined by common law, or by a French philosopher a few years after the Constitution was written. Remember, the Constitution does NOT call for the candidate to be “indigenous”, which is the term used by Vattel.
At a bare minimum, it ought to be possible for you to acknowledge that someone can disagree with your definition of NBC without being an Army or CIA psyops agent, or a paid employee of Obama.
Here’s where you are at:
Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, every member of Congress, every Governor, every state legislature and the Supreme Court are all CIA psyops agents,
OR it is possible to disagree with you without being a traitor or an Obamabot.
BTW - the horses have been exercised, and if I were a bit more ambitious I’d be out digging some 5’ x 2’ holes to plant olive trees near the road.
“Which end of that horse is the source of your posts???? :)”
My wife of 23 years would tell Uncle Chip that MOST of my opinions come from the aft end of the horse...and who am I to argue with my wife?
“It’s the “read this and like me again” defense.”
One of the nice things about having a life is that I don’t need to seek emotional reassurance from Internet posters...have a nice day.
Or not.
Your choice.
Now there's an intelligent answer from someone who has his head stuck so far up the arse of ignorance he can not see or think straight. It is you who continually refuses to adhere by the rules in which a law is to be interpreted. You cast away the founders who framed & penned the law. We do not bring you our opinions, we continually bring to the debate intelligent & fact based historical evidence of law. There was over 100 years of US case law & US State & AG Ops on the subject of citizenship, the immigration laws were such that "children of aliens" was worded in a way the no doubt could be derived that it meant all inclusive, not exclusive and there was also plenty of congressional record of debate from the framers of the 14th that Gray used in 1884 when writing the deciding opinion in Elk. You still have yet to answer what changed between 1884 & 1898 that sent Gray ignoring the rules and over a 100 yrs of US case law. What happened in that time that changed his opinion thereby reverting to old English feudal law instead of civil natural law of our country whose court he sat upon. The 14th was passed to right the wrong done to the black slaves, not any wrong done to some foreigner who happened to have a child born onour soil. Like it or not, that is the way it was & is. We are ot going to sit silent while progressive global socialist try to destroy & rewrite our heritage.
WE DO NOT CONSENT
If you didn’t need our “reassurance” why did you post your “look at me....I have a horsie” pic on this thread?
That show and tell stuff only impressed people back in third grade.
Go dig your holes so you have a place to stick your head into.
Can we add an 'All of the above' button????
Article III sujects naturels 3. Founders translation: natural born
They can indeed overlap.
Some of the 0bama toadies are getting agitated today.
His head already is in a - personal - hole.
These toadies just repeat the same exact defeated crap over and over and over again. That’s all they do. Other than act all offended when anyone calls them on it.
They aren’t even pretending to be anything other than 0thugga toadies at this point.
These guys have no interest in understanding anything. They’re just doing a job.
Post 228 settles this drama. Getting it to the public is another matter.
Where did yo find that 1787 edition of the Law of Nations?
The same one printed for Messgsr. Berry and Rogers?
Maybe any time any of the toadies says anything about NBC, post 228 should just get put up, over and over again.
Check out post 228. I think you’ll like it.
Have so many files relating to Vattel..not sure what I have or where obtained..yesterday was in the 1773 print edition of the Virginia Gazette..Vattel was referenced..
My computer, on almost a daily basis gives me warnings naughty files are attempting to invade..
Obamabots are saying the 1928 Bouvier Law Dictionary cannot be in my possession and I edited the native, native citizen definition.
Have to review my files..to answer your question.
What I do know..there is a concerted effort to hide this information.
It is getting a waste of time..for many of us to post..what we locate..it sits on free republic and rots.
“If you didn’t need our “reassurance” why did you post your “look at me....I have a horsie” pic on this thread?”
It was a REPLY to Uncle Chip.
It was NOT an attempt to convert UC, for I’m certain he disagrees with me every bit as strongly as he did before. However, I was trying to explain that I actually spend little time on these threads, and why...and 3 horses makes for a pretty big time-killer in my day. Add in corral work, and planting trees (2 holes for the olive trees are now dug, and I’ll plant them tomorrow), and my time on FR normally comes when I’m too tired to want to do anything else.
I hope Uncle Chip understands that I strongly disagree with him, but bear him no animosity or ill will. I’m confident he does what he does out of strong conviction, and believing that in doing so, he supports our country. I don’t know if he’ll grant me good intentions on my part, but that remains his choice, and your opinion is yours.
At 52, I don’t spend a lot of time worrying anymore about converting people. If nothing else, posting on the religion threads taught me I can explain my position, but others will do as they see fit. It would be nice if they would accept my good intentions, if not always granting my intelligence or reasoning, but that is their choice and their problem.
page 794 was from the French Foreign Minister.
please note the heading of the Founders translation..seems to be misleading..can find nothing about waggons..almost passed it over..in the Congressional record..not if it has been tampered..seems unlikely..but..
That appears to be the case....
I hope your realize the phrase “sujects naturels” has a different correct translation than “indigenes” or “natives”...
A natural born subject is what is being referenced, unlike when Vattel wrote ‘indigenes’.
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.