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.
In other words, you don’t know.
No --
OK. So you won’t say...
Don’t you have something better to do????
In 1790 could Obama be President?
Which Congress promptly removed in the next Naturalization Act of 1795 because legislation cannot change the meaning and intent of the Constitution. They fixed their error.
But here is what was said though,
"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: . . . "
Here again, the father's citizenship via jus sanguinis is passed onto their child. And the wording should have been stronger than the word "considered". An unambiguous word to use, if Congress had no doubts, would be the word "are" in place of the word "considered". What was Obama's father again? That's right, he was Kenyan citizen and subject to Great Britain.
Sorry to point out the vacuous nature of your position... I’ll let you enjoy the solitude.
If he was living in one of the 13 States as a free man, yes.
The source of your questions was vacuous.
Is that the reason, or is that speculation?
Here again, the father's citizenship via jus sanguinis is passed onto their child.
I don't deny that, just like I don't deny US vs Ark was based on jus soli. But either is beside my point in that the act as passed by Congress was counter to Vattel, which required both jus sanguinis AND jus soli; Congress saw otherwise.
As a result, to claim that Vattel's position is what the founders meant is quite disingenuous simply by the actions of the founders in their first Congress. Vattel may have been a component, but it was by no means the exclusive guiding principle used at that time.
Then tell us who - a physical person - is your ideal conservative candidate.
It's an obvious conclusion. Those words have never appeared in any passed legislation since 1790. You cannot modify the meaning and intent of the US Constitution without an Amendment - not legally. It is the very reason there is judicial review of laws passed by Congress. SCOTUS strikes down unconstitutional laws all the time.
I don't deny that, just like I don't deny US vs Ark was based on jus soli.
And it would be falsely to conclude that Wong Ark was a natural born citizen just only that of a citizen.
Congress saw otherwise.
Congress did not see otherwise.
As a result, to claim that Vattel's position is what the founders meant is quite disingenuous simply by the actions of the founders in their first Congress.
They took it out because as I say...they made a mistake.
Obama’s campaign waived a statement that his father's children were governed by the BNA of 1948 like a red flag for all to see, yet he was inaugurated, which is a disgusting shame to me personally. I assign a probability near zero any chance that he will be removed or even prevented from running again by a SCOTUS ruling that Obama is not NBC due to his father.
Obama may have been so bold knowing that his parent's bigamous marriage might argue that he had sole legal loyalty to his single mother's country at birth and thus no legal foreign influence that John Jay warned about to Washington.
There remains, however, something that will toss him out and that is any proof that he was born outside the USA, which would also be an NBC violation, especially if if could be proved that Obama fraudulently concealed that fact. Other frauds, such as representing himself as a foreign student or social security number fraud could also trigger non-NBC risk of impeachment.
This is the eventuality that Obama shows every sign of fighting hardest to prevent, and he displays a high degree of conscious guilt that a non-USA birth is true by his refusal to release his contemporaneous HI vital records.
I believe that FReeper’s investigations and historical research do inform the legal cases that are still pending on both the paternal citizenship and birth location cases and can aid the lawyers in those cases in the fight to gain standing for discovery of the HI vital records. That is very much worth fighting for!
It is? They never defined militia because it was understood; perhaps the same thing with NBC? Why define what you know...
At best, it's a guess.
To me it means nothing; the US does not care what another nation claims on you, only what you claim for yours. If another nation claims you as their citizen, and you do not recognize that claim, then that is good enough. The "dual citizenship" is a non-issue because President Obama never claimed it as his own.
There remains, however, something that will toss him out and that is any proof that he was born outside the USA
On that I completely agree, and is the only reason I'd want to see the birth certificate. It has nothing to do with his father's citizenship or even the fact it was an illegal marriage (not recognized). If he wasn't born here then - by either Vattel OR English common law - he's not a natural born citizen.
Given that we’re on the same team you seem a bit suspicious.
BTW, what office are you running for? Is it a local, statewide or national election?
No, Congress attempted to modify the meaning of the Natural Born Citizen clause in 1790. That's a no no. The meaning is what it was in 1787 as it still is now when the Constitution was drafted and adopted by the Constitutional members.
At best, it's a guess.
It is best one out there based on facts.
“To me it means nothing; the US does not care what another nation claims on you, only what you claim for yours. If another nation claims you as their citizen, and you do not recognize that claim, then that is good enough.”
“...the US does not care...”?
You appear to have made this up as the founders certainly did care. See John Jay’s letter to Washington which appears to have directly resulted in the NBC clause in the Constitution.
It's clear from the words "that may" that the First Congress was trying to widen the definition to cover those born outside the country -- but it was still "children of citizens of the United States", as the Senate's SR511 noted.
We’ll see who steps up to the plate. Right now it’s the Governor of Arizona.
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.