Obama is not a Native US Citizen

Bouvier's Law Dictionary ^ | 1928 | William Edward Saldwin

[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.

[BP2]

> Vattel’s NBC is a “phrase found in a poorly translated philosophy book”.

Bwa-ha-ha!

You do realize that Vattel's "Law of Nations" — your so-called "poorly translated philosophy book” — is cited in hundreds of SCOTUS and Federal court opinions, INCLUDING the recent DC v. Heller case in 2008 ... which has not a thing to do with International law:

I told you that I was just giving you an opportunity to embarrass yourself ... and behold, you did!

I'm starting to wonder about you Mr Rogers. If your real intent is to discredit the Obama-supporting After-Birther movement ... sweetie, you're doing a bang-up job!

[1010RD]

It happens to be where he is living right now. Isn’t that the purpose of that page?

Is an American serving in Iraq or Afghanistan suspect because they fly those countries flags indicating where they are?

Can you see how we’re chasing our tails and eating our own by dint of our preoccupation with Obama?

Better to neuter Obama & Co. by electing a Republican majority lead by conservatives. Then his agenda doesn’t really matter at all, does it?

[Lmo56]

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.

Actually, it MIGHT get to court WITH standing ...

There are several eligibility laws being considered [in 5 states, I believe]. Some will require ALL the documents for a candidate to be eligible. Since NBC is a requirement [and it has never been defined], Obama [who CERTAINLY has standing] would have to go to court for a ruling - if the state SOS found that he could not certify him NBC [again, since NBC has not been defined, a state SOS COULD NOT declare him so].

It would have to go to SCOTUS ...

[Lmo56]

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!

Inferior courts only count in horseshoes and hand grenades. Thats why we have courts of appeals and SCOTUS.

In the Indiana decision, they decided not to appeal, feeling sure that they would be shot down on the same basis - NO BASIS OF CLAIM.

[Uncle Chip]

It happens to be where he is living right now.

Is it???

Can you see how we’re chasing our tails and eating our own by dint of our preoccupation with Obama?

Ohhh please, the MSM is Obama 24/7. Are they chasing their tails as well??? Get over it.

Better to neuter Obama & Co. by electing a Republican majority lead by conservatives.

Ahhh -- that same old song right out of the Obama political handbook. Let's all elect some more faux conservatives who will grovel at his feet for crumbs from his table.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Or, you can use that initial law to show that the founding fathers did not adhere to Vattel’s definition, since they explicitly went around it (born outside the territories of the US). Add to that the Supreme Court decisions in the 1800s after the passage of the 14th Amendment where English common law (jus soli) is referenced, and we are left with a strong case that Vattel’s definition is questionable at best as what was intended by the founders.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Actually, it MIGHT get to court WITH standing ...

I agree, it should go to the Court for definition, especially given the ease of travel we have today. However it is defined though - Vattel or English common law - it won't be retroactive to President Obama, meaning he was eligible based upon the inconclusive phrase as it exists today.

At best, he may be prevented from running in 2012, but there is nothing that'll toss him out now because his eligibility is changed at some future point.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Ahhh -- that same old song right out of the Obama political handbook. Let's all elect some more faux conservatives who will grovel at his feet for crumbs from his table.

I see. You probably voted 3rd party in 2008, right? And you hate the current GOP because they're just cronies for Obama, right?

Which GOP Representative or Senator voted for Obamacare? Has supported Obama's pitched cap-and-tax? Joined his call for higher taxes?

Who's your ideal conservative politician?

[Red Steel]

Or, you can use that initial law to show that the founding fathers did not adhere to Vattel’s definition, since they explicitly went around it (born outside the territories of the US). Add to that the Supreme Court decisions in the 1800s after the passage of the 14th Amendment where English common law (jus soli) is referenced, and we are left with a strong case that Vattel’s definition is questionable at best as what was intended by the founders.

American common law is written in the US constitution and is not the same or does it have the same meaning and intent of English common law. The overwhelming facts weigh heavily against Obama or Wong Ark being a natural born citizen. In fact all the nutsos on the left can do is point to scant cherry picked evidence and say that's it.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I guess we have to agree to disagree. Vattel is not the foundation of all our citizenship (as the 1790 act and WKA ruling explicitly show); at best it may be a component of NBC, but there isn’t a legal definition right now.

[Uncle Chip]

Wrong, Wrong. Throwing an occasional bone to the dog does not make one a Conservative. The ones who know the meaning of the word “NO” and how to say it.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

OK, so who didn’t say no to Obama? You seem to hold them in disdain, surely you can name at least one GOP Senator who did not say “no” to Obamacare?

And who is the ideal conservative politician today?

[BP2]

We fought a war in 1812 in part to reject the idea that once a British subject, always a British subject - yet you claim that Obama was ruled by that principle in 2008? You’re a nut!

Are you sure that it was “rejected” as part of the War of 1812? Once again, you don't do your homework do you?

This from the preamble of the Expatriation Act of 1868, enacted nearly 90 years after the Constitution was ratified and all of the Framers had since passed away (the last to die was Madison in 1836):

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed;

But again, this doesn't matter as the SCOTUS must apply common law in use at the time of the Framing to determine the meaning of "natural-born Citizen" as it appears in Art II, § 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.

[bushpilot1]

“the founding fathers did not adhere to Vattel’s definition, since they explicitly went around it (born outside the territories of the US)”

How did the Founders not adhere to Vattel regarding born outside the territories?

[lentulusgracchus]

You are insulting those who are defending the CONSTITUTION who do, indeed, have **legitimate** questions about Obama’s eligibility.

No, not at all. The point I was making is that there has to be some sort of filter function to keep their shows from spiraling down into something like Art Bell/George Norrie's [sp?] "Coast to Coast", an audio-only Maury Povich/Jerry Springer phreakshow.

As it is, if they don't keep their listeners, and their ratings fall, then program directors are going to go the infomercial route -- it's spreading in AM radio as well as TV. Guy standing there with a wad of chumps' money in his hand and a dynamite 4-hour infotainment tape for Bob's Hair-Renu ..... what's it going to be, Mr. Program Director?

[Lower55]

“I suspect he’d be glad I didn’t turn out to be an ass like you...”

I don’t think you’re man enough to make any comments about what your dad would think. You seem to be a coward and a liar. Not saying you are, you just seem to be.

Get defensive much?....lol

[Lower55]

“He got real pissed when I asked him, if his children now in the service would be proud of his bashing his own military comrades!!! “

Noone would be THIS invested in defending the usurper unless there is a really good payoff. He will NEVER convince me or anyone here, I suspect, that the usurper is above releasing ANY information of his past.

There’s more to his goals. I’m sure of it. He thinks he’s protecting us from ourselves.....yeah right!....LOL

[Uncle Chip]

The ones who know the meaning of the word “NO” and how to say it.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

See the 1790 Act (passed by the first Congress); a person born outside the US but to two US citizens was considered a natural born citizen. Clearly against Vattel!

[wintertime]

No, not at all. The point I was making is that there has to be some sort of filter function to keep their shows from spiraling down into something like Art Bell/George Norrie's [sp?] "Coast to Coast", an audio-only Maury Povich/Jerry Springer phreakshow.

You are doing it again! You are, again, insulting those who are care deeply about the Constitution! There are LEGITIMATE questions regarding Obama's eligibility? When did a LEGITIMATE issue need a filter???