Also, if you read the link to the Lynch case, the judge gives a detailed review of the law concerning natural born subjects and natural born citizens, and concludes:
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
Not even CLOSE to a "conclusion".
Did you notice that Lynch v. Clarke which you quote goes on for pages and pages and pages past that? Your quote is from p. 246.
Here are some other quotes from your OWN article...
which you conspicuously left OUT.
(p. 248)
“The inconsistency of holding that Julia Lynch is a citizen here, when it is conceded on all hands that by reason of her parents being British subjects she is also a British subject; was strongly urged. The inconsistency, however, IS nothing but the occurrence of a double allegiance, which exists in the tens of thousands of our naturalized citizens, who were once subjects of the crown of Great Britain. We recognize its existence, because we adopt them as citizens, with full knowledge that by the law of their native country, they never can put off the allegiance which they owe to its government. “
Hmmm, there's that dual-allegiance idea, right in your own pet case. Which is by definition relevant to the Presidency.
(p. 249)
“In this state, naturalized citizens are eligible to every public office, except that of governor. In most of the states, laws have been enacted to give aliens all or most of the rights of citizens, in respect of ,the acquiring, holding and transmission of property; and I believe in all of the states, there are frequent instances of such laws for the benefit of particular aliens and classes of aliens; while in several of them, the disability to inherit lands is entirely done away.”
The Lynch case concerned property rights, not eligibility for the Presidency...and running for political office is a privilege, not a right. (One is not "eligible" for redress of petitions, or free speech.)
(p. 255)
“I do not find that the rule derived from the public law, is so clearly in favor of the complainant, as was contended by him. Mr. Justice Story, who is familiar with the Continental writers upon public law, says ‘that certain principles (relative to national domicil) have been generally recognized by tribunals administering the public law or the law of nations, as of unquestionable authority. First; Persons who are born in a country, are generally deemed to be citizens and subjects of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be, that it should not apply to the children of parents, who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health, or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert, that in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.”
(Story’s "Conflict of Law” 47, § 48.)
Recall that Barack’s dad was an Records: Obama’s father forced out of Harvard">illegal alien, subject to deportation who went back to Kenya, after Harvard and the govt. forced him to leave.
Game, Set, Match.
(I'm losing all respect whatsoever for Harvard, by the way.)
But wait...there’s MORE:
(p. 257)
“In 4 Dane’s Abridgement, 701, ch. 131 ; art. 2, § 8, he says: ‘And now, if an American citizen goes abroad and marries an alien wife, and have a child by her in a foreign country, that child is not alien, but may inherit his estate in the United States. But if an American woman, a citizen, go abroad and marry an alien husband, and have a child by him so born, that child is an alien, and cannot inherit her estate in the United States. And upon the same principle, if an English subject comes into the United States, and marries an American wife, and has a child by her *born here, it cannot inherit her estate here, because this child follows the allegiance of its father, and may inherit his estate in England.”* Manifestly a non sequitur, because in the case first put, the child, if born in England of an American father, unquestionably owes allegiance in England, is a subject of that country, and may inherit there. Yet he is, as the author says, a citizen of the United States also. And by the same rule, the child born here of the English father, is a citizen here, and may inherit here as well as in England. In short, both are cases of that double allegiance, which is effected by the rule of the common law, and which Mr. Reeves says is not a novelty, nor peculiar to that law.
See -- the problem is double-allegiance, which even YOUR source acknowledges. And Lynch doesn't settle that, it is a property rights case.
Nice try though, troll.
(And yes, I know your signup date. Who did you buy the account name from?)
Cheers!
Good job! Mr Rogers gets pwned!!!
“Did you notice that Lynch v. Clarke which you quote goes on for pages and pages and pages past that? Your quote is from p. 246.”
Why, yes - as I’ve pointed out to others elsewhere, it runs nearly 30 pages. That is why I gave the page numbers of my selections, which I chose because they were very explicit.
Dual allegiance:
“We recognize its existence, because we adopt them as citizens, with full knowledge that by the law of their native country, they never can put off the allegiance which they owe to its government.”
Correct. We acknowledge that. He admits fully that Julia Lynch is a full citizen of England. She had lived there since just a few months old - yet he also found she met the qualifications for a natural born citizen.
The Founders didn’t say someone had to live in America to be a NBC. Suppose my parents, after giving birth to me in the USA, and moved to Spain and raised me there, and at 18 I elected to return to the USA. Could I have run for President? Could Elg, in Perkins v Elg have done so?
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
What about Steinkauler, mentioned in P v E:
“”Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages.”
“Hmmm, there’s that dual-allegiance idea, right in your own pet case. Which is by definition relevant to the Presidency.”
Really? What part of the Constitution addresses dual allegiance? How is it defined?
Do you think the Rev Wright, or Bill Ayers feels allegiance to the USA? The term NBC does not address dual allegiance. IN fact, why don’t you describe how Obama has shown any sign of allegiance to the UK...
“The Lynch case concerned property rights, not eligibility for the Presidency...”
Yes, and he based his decision on Julia Lynch meeting the criteria for a NBC. There were a number of cases involving property rights heard in the states in the early 1800s, and they all fell the same way as Lynch.
“Recall that Barack’s dad was an illegal alien...”
No, he entered on a valid visa and at the time of Obama’s birth was undoubtedly here legally.
“But wait...there’s MORE:”
Yes. The judge even addresses Vattel on page 256. He reviews a number of possible arguments against his decision, and deals with them.
The Constitution used the term NBC. There is no doubt but that NBC came from natural born subject, with the only change being in wording to reflect the fact that we have no king. It had an established legal meaning. If the Founders and the states didn’t want that meaning, they should have chosen different words.
No law or provision of the Constitution can prevent the American public from electing someone who hates America. Rev Wright is undoubtedly constitutionally qualified, yet he hates America with a passion. John Kerry ran for President, and there is no reasonable doubt but that he hates America - yet he was also a NBC.
At some point, the Founders had to trust the people not to elect someone who hates America. Obama’s election was a failure of the American people, not the Constitution.
This is fascinating stuff... really it is. I’m new here and I wanted to first tell you all that I appreciate the discussion here because it is pertinent to my situation in life generally. The legal background you are giving me here is extraordinary. It’s the first time I’ve seen or heard of much of it. So first off, thank you.
Let me tell you about my circumstances. As I alluded to in previous posts, I am English... in proper terminology, I am a UK citizen (technically the phrase British citizen is wrong). I was born in Singapore in 1964. Singapore had formerly been a British colony but attained independence in 1959, five years before I was born. I took UK citizenship when I was 10 years old, surrendering my jus soli Singapore citizenship at that point.
I moved to the USA when I was 23, in 1988. I married an American woman. We have, as I’d also pointed out in prior posts, two children aged 20 and 17. I’ve lived here 23 years.
I have two issues...
1) I recently discovered that my children, under British Nationality Law, are not entitled to UK citizenship. If I had been born in the UK, they would, but because I was born outside the UK, they are not. Citizenship by descent extends only one generation, and I used that up. So despite the fact that my father fought for his country in the war and was awarded the MBE for his service, his grandchildren, my children, are being ejected. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. I am infuriated by this.
(I should also add that in the reverse case, if I’d been American and gone to the UK, had children with an English wife, my children would be eligible for US citizenship as long as I had lived in the US for at least five years prior to them being born, and their right to citizenship would exist regardless of where I was born.)
2) I love the United States. It’s been very good to me. My wife is American, and my children are too. But I have never taken US citizenship for one reason only, that being that doing so involves raising my right hand and swearing the Naturalization oath that requires me to “renounce and abjure all prior allegiance” to my country. I can’t do that. And many of you American folks would have precisely the same heartburn if you were faced with the same thing in reverse. Friends tell me to cross my fingers and say it. But I can’t do that even.
So I am stunned and fascinated by the legal history of the concept of double allegiance. I’ve always wondered... why can’t you have allegiance to two things at once? Given the history of the United States, why does this oath even exist, especially when, back in the day, EVERYONE was English and supposedly irreversibly British subjects. So what happens if I take the oath? If the legal precedent in Lynch is right...
“We recognize its existence, because we adopt them as citizens, with full knowledge that by the law of their native country, they never can put off the allegiance which they owe to its government.”
What is stronger, the power of my naturalization oath, or the bonds that tie me in allegiance to my “former” country? Irresistible force and immovable object.
The two issues are related in that, if my former country is going to disown my children that quickly and that easily, that’s going to make it that much easier for me to disown them. Bring on the judge! I’m ready.
Also it’s relevant to the discussion here because there are analogies between my situation and the IMHO rather spurious claims that Obama is ineligible for the presidency because he’s basically a British subject. Although I have to laugh because strictly speaking it’s true. The thought that Obama has more claim to British subjectdom than my children is just weird to me.
Any and all comments and guidance is appreciated... I’ll tell you now, I’m not going to agree politically with many of you, in fact, I might just take this opportunity to say, concerning thecodont’s post earlier that anyone who goes around saying Hussein this, Hussein that and then follows it up with “(HINT: It’s NOT about skin color or race!)” clearly doesn’t know how much of a dumbass they’re making themselves out to be.
Sorry for the length of this post. And thanks again.