Pin pulled. Grenade tossed. Wait for results.
Why don't they just ask, "Should we ignore the Constitution?"
This is the “hyperlink” for the WJ call-in segment:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/OpenPhones7290
Our forefathers certainly didn’t mean born and raised muslim.
What is a Natural Born Citizen? Not Barack Hussein Obama.
It’s what the Supreme Court says it is..
(If a case ever makes it that far..)
Once again, we have to remind people here what ‘Natural Born’ means:
When one is born, his citizenship is determined by one of two criteria:
1. Where he was born (the ‘Native’ claim) AND;
2. Of what country was the citizenship of his parents.
If both factors result in the citizenship of only one country, then there are no conflicting loyalties, and the newborn is ‘naturally’ a citizen of where he was born.
Thus the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ was created.
The fawning media has been careful to continue to hide the fact that Obama’s father’s nationality disqualified him all along.
Get it?
To be eligible, B Hussein Obama needed both parents to be Americans (and be born on US soil of course). One parent was not American.
If the electorate was educated, Hussein would have never had the chance to usurp. If elected officials, had what it takes to lead instead of what it takes to take what they can from Americans, they’d have declared Hussein was not eligible due to parentage.
We have a corrupt gov’t and an idiot liberal electorate large enough to elect a usurper, and they don’t even know what “usurper” means. That’s how dumb they are.
As can be seen from reading these threads concerning NBC, there are differing opinions..some seemingly more well-reasoned and better supported than others. But the fact remains that there is NOT agreement among legal/constitutional scholars.
Thus, as is quite apparent, this issue will remain “unsettled” until the USSC eventually settles it.
Yes!! Please read article!! esp. (Excerpt) "Read more at boston.com" *************************************************************************** Free Republic Skip to comments. Elder Obama denied Harvard PhD The Boston Globe ^ | April 29, 2011 | Sally Jacobs, Globe Staff Posted on April 29, 2011 8:14:48 AM PDT by Gondring (Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ********************************************************* This states that Obama Sr. "did marry" Stanley Ann Dunham.... Thus, this makes Obama Sr. ..... The "Legal"..... father of Obama II . ******************************************************************** This makes Obama II a "Kenyan with British Citizen" !! ....(de Vattel's Law of Nations) ************************************************************** (The Law of Nations was written by Emmerich de Vattel (April 25, 1714 - December 28, 1767). In it he discusses the natural born citizen.) ************************************************************************* (excerpt) The "country of the fathers" is "therefore that of the children"; and these become "true citizens" merely by their tacit consent. *******************************************************************
Michael Dukakis: qualified?
John Valentine, the 1844 decision was not anonymous. If you would read, the author is clearly identified. The WKA decision, which is also pretty clear and which you dislike and therefor wish to ignore, wrote:
“That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.”
They, at least, knew who wrote it.
JV prefers “The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” While that might be his personal preference, it has no bearing on US law - in spite of JV’s misuse of the Venus case.
Why did Justice John Marshall use Vattel in discussing the Venus case? Because the Venus case was about this:
“This is the case of a vessel which sailed from Great Britain with a cargo belonging to the respective claimants, as was contended, before the declaration of war by the United States against Great Britain was or could have been known by the shippers. She sailed from Liverpool on 4 July, 1812, under a British license, for the port of New York and was captured on 6 August, 1812, by the American privateer Dolphin and sent into the District of Massachusetts, where the vessel and cargo were libeled in the district court...
...The great question involved in this and many other of the prize cases which have been argued is whether the property of these claimants who were settled in Great Britain and engaged in the commerce of that country, shipped before they had a knowledge of the war but which was captured after the declaration of war by an American cruiser ought to be condemned as lawful prize. It is contended by the captors that as these claimants had gained a domicile in Great Britain, and continued to enjoy it up to the time when war was declared, and when these captures were made, they must be considered as British subjects, in reference to this property, and consequently that it may legally be seized as prize of war in like manner as if it had belonged to real British subjects.”
The Venus case was not about something that happened in the USA, where US law applies. It was a matter of INTERNATIONAL LAW - a matter of the “Law of Nations”. When discussing what is legal on the high seas, international law applies - not the US Constitution. The US Constitution recognizes that
by giving Congress the power to “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations” - because the Law of Nations - INTERNATIONAL LAW - applies on the high seas.
The dicta of Vice Chancellor Sandford has held up for over 160 years. As Sanford noted, no one in any state ever asked a would-be voter if his father was a citizen. No one applying for a passport was asked about his father’s citizenship. If he was born in the US, that was all that mattered under US law.
I’ll repeat: in the USA, there was no legal basis for saying citizenship by parentage was primary over citizenship by birth! No state government and no federal law ever suggested someone born in the US was only a citizen if their father was a citizen.
Vice Chancellor Sandford points out that the states, prior to the Constitution, had already started revising their laws to replace “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen”. The WKA decision discusses a number of state decisions recognizing that NBC = NBS. At the time of Independence, every NB subject became, in the law, a NB citizen. 100%.
Birthers and WorldNutDaily like to pretend that the phrase NBC sprang out of nowhere, or that it came from a bad translation made 10 years after the Constitution. It didn’t. Many of the writers of the Constitution and many of the states ratifying the Constitution had already started switching the wording in their laws, but none of them had changed the meaning. Everyone who had been a NBS automatically was a NBC.
That was US law, and no one tried to claim it wasn’t until the Lynch case in 1844. And they lost the case.
READ Lynch. Read WKA. You are not required to like them, but the courts have not followed Vattel on citizenship. Some people thought they should, but the courts have consistently followed the Lynch decision, not Vattel. Vattel wrote on international law, not the law of the USA.
That is why the Indiana court wrote:
“The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”
It’s clear that the meaning and implications of “Natural Born Citizen” are debatable, even here on FR.