Yup Ms Rogers. fits the profile:
An actual entry from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary
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.
Rogers ranks up there with ender wiggens.....hmmm.
- - - - - - - - - - -
"To: Mr Rogers
He used two words, "Naturels" and "Indigenes". The Royal Dictionary from near the period in question, indicates that the two words may *both* be translated as "naturals", but Naturels may also be translated as "natives". The way they are used in both the original French and the way the translated terms are used, it's clear they are being used as synonyms. Thus natives and naturals, but used to refer to the "citoyn" or "citizen" in the previous sentence. Thus "natives or natural born citizens is not a bad translation. It's certainy better than the one which left "indigenes" untranslated. When it was finally translated in the 1793 eddition, it was not translates as "indignious" but, as one would expect from the dictionary, as "natural" born. Our founders did not need the earlier translation. They could read the original French for themselves. Dr. Franklin was particularly adept in French, having found it useful with the French ladies, some of whom were quite well educated, when he was representing the "rebels" there.
- - - - - - - -
It is kind of hard to understand how a person born on an Indian reservation, tribal government or not, and thus at least as "subject to the jurisdiction" as a legal resident alien, would not be a citizen, while the alien's child would be.
I would not even mind the WKA ruling, IF it weren't generalized to the children of parents (or parent) illegally in the country. How are they, the parents, subject to the jurisdiction of the US? The don't pay federal taxes, (if they can help it, they often are subject to witholding and SS taxes, to accounts not actually theirs) and they are subject to immediate deportation.
I could buy the "everyone but foreign diplomats" arguement on "subject to the jurisdiction, on it's face anyway, if it were not for the "Indians" thing.
And of course the fact remains that the intent was to ensure that the newly freed Blacks, who were in no sense "aliens", would not be denied citizenship by the states.
It would be a horse race on who could spew the most BS.
Okay, I'm in....you giving odds?
{;^)
I did a computer search for natural born...I don’t have time or inclination to read each possible decision in detail.
So look at your quote:
Vattel is “not very full to this point” although he was “more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands” in 1814.
He does NOT define NBC, but “The natives, or indigenes” - interesting, isn’t it? Even in 1814, Vattel was being quoted by the Supreme Court and NOT with the term NBC.
And he treats Vattel, not as a legal dictionary, but a philosophy work as he tried to grapple with what a citizen was 25 years after the Constitution was signed. And he agrees that citizens born of citizens are...citizens.
He makes no attempt, nor does Vattel, to define the child born in the US to an American mother with a foreign father.
WTF?????, you're an idiot and a troll.
Please splain it to us birfers how SCOTUS can amend the Constitution.................waiting.
You might want to go back and read my reply to that post.
Another partial quote to distort what I said. I wrote they did so by fiat, and made it clear I disapprove of that behavior.
Of course, you seem to have problems with reading entire sentences...
Yup Ms Rogers. fits the profile:
An actual entry from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary
Your post:
To briefly return to the topic - you are correct, the Supreme Court has never formally ruled on NBC. I was surprised when they passed in Dec 2008, and now I doubt they will ever rule. I’d be happy if they would roll back some of WKA, which IMHO amended the Constitution by court fiat in ignoring the whole ‘under the jurisdiction’ phrase. Of course, it is a safe bet that the ‘wise Latina’ added recently would never vote for that...
Of course, you seem to have problems with reading entire sentences...
That's the problem with being a liar and a troll, you forget the lies you told.
And another thing, I don’t need to edit your posts to expose you, you do a fine job on your own.
stop right there, you can not make a claim like that without proof positive. Where did Kent ever say native - natural born. Until you do, you are merely twisting Kent’s words and thus proves you are an obot detractor.
Furthermore, the quote I provided, in which you conveniently left out Kent's reference to 25 Edw III & the statute of 4 Geo. II which stated that children born out of liegiance to fathers who were British subjects, were themselves British subjects and that law of 4 Geo. II was still in place when Obama was born in 1961, therefore, he was British at birth for purposes of A2S1C5 and census data dating back to 1790 proves it. A person was either a citizen at birth due to being born to citizen parentS or you were an alien born who wasn't considered a citizen until the parentS were naturalized or by an act upon coming of age, the child now an adult, took an oath of allegiance to the US.
OF ALIENS AND NATIVES.
We are next to consider the rights and duties of citizens in their domestic relations, as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant. To these may be added, an examination of certain artificial persons created by law, under the well known name of corporations. There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives, and to the consideration of them our attention will be directed in the present lecture.
(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives ; their social tie being coeval with the existence of the nation.
And Kent on allegiance:
To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born, not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government.
you see, one can be born in a country and still NOT acquire the allegiance required to be a citizen. Birth alone does not equate to complete allegiance as required by the 14th Amendment.
Not really Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) used the Vattel definition:
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. These were natives, or natural-born citizens
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814), uses the Vattel definition in it's earlier translation, which left indigenes untranslated and may have reversed the terms, depending on which word from the French was translated as "natives" and which as "natural born citizen" in the later translation. Vattel is explicity cited several times in this opinion, Blackstone not at all.
Both those cases predate WKA, and Minor was decided *after* the 14th amendment was passed. In fact the 14th amendment was the baisis of Ms. Minor's complaint. (She was born in the US, was a person and said that Missouri was denying her right to vote. The court ruled that the right to vote is not a privelege and immunity of US citizenship.)
Now those are all dicta, but so is the "English Common Law" definition as applied to the Natural Born Citizen definition.
you post opinions from who knows where and then you do not give a link/links to those so called quotes so that one can research those findings of yours. I must say you have learned well from politijab & Dr Conspiracy aka FOGGY
Please explain in your infinite wisdom what they meant by the differentiation......
You may want to reread post 562 as anticipated your predictable drivel.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2513818/posts?page=562#562
This is truly an amazing thread. The anti-birthers keep saying crap and then get it handed back to them again and again like a pie in the face.
And like a windup toy bumping into a wall, they do it over and over and over again.
(Apologies to anyone I left out. I just be part of the audience, trying to follow along.)
You too!
;)
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.