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.
GREAT! Thank you... This cuts to the chase of the entire (and similar) thread. We don't have a definition of Natural Born Citizen, so arguments about who is and who isn't is simply debating angels on the head of a pin.
We have a local guy here, Todd Schnitt who comes on right after Rush on the same station owned by Clear Channel, where Rush also broadcasts, he will call you names to high heaven if you ever touch the eligibility issue!!
He even block your e-mail after you confront him there, so no question that Mr. Rogers is the delusional one here!!!
Bottom line: it's not definitive yet so many here claim that Vattel - and Vattel alone - is the only acceptable definition. That is simply not true, as your own reference shows.
Vattel’s NBC is a “phrase found in a poorly translated philosophy book”.
As for the Original Intent, see WKA
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
and the Indiana courts
“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.”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
You may not LIKE their decision, but it is based on the law, not Vattel and not conspiracy nuts who think Rush, Palin, Coulter and others are a bunch of sell-out traitors!
Is that the poorly book President George Washington never turned back to the library costing thousand$ in late payments???
Your postings here classify you to fit right into that mole, Ms. Rogers!!!
I further believe that all the past cases were not on point as to NBC for Article II purposes so the case would be a case of “first impression”. As such it would involve more research than just a few similar but off point USC cases.
As for your one state case, that is exactly that one state case that has little or no precedential value.
While we are discussing NBC can you tell me who qualifies as an “inhabitant” of the United States?
It means that they don't want to touch this issue. Remember, they're constantly defending themselves against the MSM trolls.
Do you remember Garner Ted Armstrong or his daddy Herbert W. Armstrong on "The World Tomorrow" radio show in the 60's? How about "The Dan Smoot Report" on TV? No? That's what I'm talking about.
Preserving credibility is something they have to do jealously, and they can't afford to have Troofers calling in to say "Way to go, man -- and did you hear about how they're hiding a sasquatch at Mountain Home Air Force Base? In the base freezer, man! Awesome!"
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."
And that is because children born in this country at the time from parents who were not yet citizens but in the process of naturalization were considered to be aliens and foreigners for the five years until their father took his oath of citizenship or they were old enough to take theirs.
nobody born IN the usa has to obtain any kind of citizenship application.
OK, that's just funny! We need to get Mr. Bookman, Library Cop on the case!
A friend send this e-mail!!!
"Listen here good looking, I screw anybody, anytime, anywhere, your place, my place, in the car, front door, back door, on the ground, standing up, sitting down, naked or with clothes on, dirty, clean . . .
it doesn't matter to me. I've been doing it ever since I got out of college and I just love it."
Eyes now wide with interest, he responded,
"No kidding. I'm in congress too. What state are you from?"
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
See the bolded sections. Citizenship is bestowed by jus soli; NBC may or may not be. Go ahead and try to force it, but you cannot. Please see post 653 for more details.
Now consider the underlined section; it talks about natural born citizens as opposed to aliens or foreigners. If you are a citizen then you are NOT an alien or foreigner! The sentence you think is the key - about NBC - actually draws a line between aliens and foreigners (non citizens) and NBCs. It says NOTHING about citizenship AND NBC status.
Bottom line: there aren't any legal findings that define what a natural born citizen is; claiming otherwise is at best ignorant, at worst malicious.
I fully agree, and I bet Mr. Rogers does as well. It should be defined for the future. However, laws cannot be applied retroactively, and if a firm NBC definition is created between now and 2012 in which President Obama no longer qualifies, it would NOT negate his first term; it would only keep him from running again.
The dream of so many birthers that by proving Obama isn't an NBC and thus eliminate all his actions to destroy this nation simply cannot happen. At best President Obama is legally prevented from running again in 2012; at worst, he is not. But nothing will undo what has been done, short of a GOP majority Congress and President.
I am a big fan of pithy saying and this thread calls for one: "If an ass (donkey) bray at you, don't bray at him."
PSS has it right in his post #642
Has anyone here yet made the case that legally or by statute it was determined that Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen was what the founders meant when writing the Constitution? Because without that, the rest of this thread is irrelevant.
If every FReeper on these threads were to bring that passion, effort and energy to just a single race to elect a conservative in their home town America would be thousands of times better off.
These threads are like venting oxygen off your space craft. It only hurts you.
You are insulting those who are defending the CONSTITUTION who do, indeed, have **legitimate** questions about Obama’s eligibility.
And...If Rush, Beck, Coulter, OReilly and the rest can't see that they are:
1) STUPID
2) COWARDS
3) PHONIES
Since they aren't #1 that leaves answers #2 and #3.
As "distinguished from" -- Right.
And "natives or natural born citizens" were "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens." Period -- End of definition per the chief justice.
"Natives and natural born citizens" were at one end of the spectrum and "aliens and foreigners" at the other. But there was gray area in between. There were immigrants undergoing naturalization and and the children that they were having during that time of naturalization who were considered by the government as aliens and foreigners. That is a fact of history.
These children born here to naturalizing immigrants were at the time treated as "aliens and foreigners" just like their fathers until he took his oath to his new country. These children born to naturalizing fathers were the "aliens and foreigners" that "some authorities" wanted to be considered to be "citizens" -- not "natural born citizens". Read it. It says "citizens" not "natural born citizens".
But at the time those born in this country of fathers who were still not citizens were considered to be aliens and foreigners like their fathers,
Now reread that paragraph from the chief justice and see if it makes more sense to you now.
Does PSS also have it right with that ChiCom flag he is flying on his information page.
Look at it from another angle. Instead, look at the actions of the Founders and the action and laws enacted by the US government. The very 1st US Congress from 1789 to 1791 passed the 1790 Naturalization Act where the children of former alien fathers passed on their naturalized US citizenship onto their children upon the fathers who became US citizens. It did not matter if those children were born inside the United States since their fathers were still foreigners; the children did not become citizens until their father became US citizens. If for some reason a father of a child failed to become naturalized or was a unsuccessful applicant, the children of that child could apply for citizenship independently when he reached the age of 21. Jus Sanguinis was a dependent factor for children to become US citizens from their naturalized fathers. What was Obama's father - Kenyan right?
It was all the same under the tighter restrictions in the 1795 and the 1798 Naturalization Acts up until the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1 - “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
Nothing changed in the 14th Amendment except citizenship upon birth. It says citizens - not natural born citizen, and conveying natural born citizen because of the 14h Amendment is a complete fallacy. The Supreme Court 1898 decision of making Wong Kim Ark a citizen is a far cry from making him a natural born citizen. Who were the parents of Wong Ark? They were subjects to the Emperor of China. Even the celebrated by leftists everywhere in the highly flawed Indiana Appeals Court of Ankeny opinion admits that the Wong Kim Ark was not declared a natural born citizen. The accurate understanding of the 14th Amendment is that it conveyed naturalization at birth and not natural born citizenship.
Jus Sanguinis is just as important to becoming a natural born citizen as being born inside the United States since both of these factors have to be met. There is nothing from the liberal spin machine is going to change these facts in history.
the children of that child = the children of that father....
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.