Replies

“...just curious, why would you dismiss the court cases sited to back up two parent NBC”

There are not any. Minor said two parent NBC was agreed, but that others had a broader definition, and that they would not try to settle it.

The problem is that, at the time of the approval of the Constitution, NO ONE had suggested two citizen parents were a requirement. All the law prior used the phrase ‘natural born subject’ - and that phrase was used interchangeably with natural born citizen for at least a few years after the Constitution.

All agree that the definition of natural born subject included those born to alien parents. The first suggestion otherwise appeared in a poor translation of Vattel 10 year AFTER the Constitution, when ‘indigenes’ was translated ‘natural born citizen’ - although indigenes is an English word as well as French, with the same meaning in both languages.

The WKA decision has a long discussion of the meaning of NBC, and birth citizenship. While many here dislike the decision, it certainly has been an influential one. It won’t be overturned by people who ignore what it says. You can read the full text here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

“It doesn’t help that birthers on this thread have made dishonest statements that they know are dishonest.” / “Care to list them? Just a few, maybe.”

Sure. In post 16, Spaulding wrote, “Of course all of our Senators signed SR511 in April 2008, all acknowledging that a natural born citizen is born to two citizen parents (though the testimony showed some sophistry by never citing Supreme Court cases and by citing the 1790 Nationality Act without noting that it was entirely replaced with no mention of natural born citizenship.”

Now, what Spaulding knows - because it has been pointed out to him many times - is that SR511 dealt with children born overseas to American parents. He pretends it means that all NBC require two citizen parents, even tho he knows that was not the subject of SR511. That is dishonest. Nothing in SR511 in any way applied to those born in the USA.

Frankly, there is a stronger case for Obama being a natural born citizen than there was for McCain. There has been legal doubt all along concerning those born to US citizens abroad. The confusion caused by the mistranslation of Vattel in 1797 was settled by the WKA decision in the 1890s, but the case for McCain is weaker.

Sure. In post 16, Spaulding wrote, “Of course all of our Senators signed SR511 in April 2008, all acknowledging that a natural born citizen is born to two citizen parents (though the testimony showed some sophistry by never citing Supreme Court cases and by citing the 1790 Nationality Act without noting that it was entirely replaced with no mention of natural born citizenship.”

Now, what Spaulding knows - because it has been pointed out to him many times - is that SR511 dealt with children born overseas to American parents. He pretends it means that all NBC require two citizen parents, even tho he knows that was not the subject of SR511. That is dishonest. Nothing in SR511 in any way applied to those born in the USA. Frankly, there is a stronger case for Obama being a natural born citizen than there was for McCain. There has been legal doubt all along concerning those born to US citizens abroad. The confusion caused by the mistranslation of Vattel in 1797 was settled by the WKA decision in the 1890s, but the case for McCain is weaker.

OK, I'll accept your comments with respect to Spaulding as being true, but where are the others?

You said, “It doesn’t help that birthers on this thread have made dishonest statements that they know are dishonest.”

That's birthers plural, so where are the others?

@The only similarity between him & Obama is that Obama was eligible for UK citizenship, but refused to claim it - which, when it transferred to Kenya, he would have needed to do by his 18th birthday.

You're doing the same thing! Look at what you just said!
In order for him to be eligible in the first place he had to qualify as one able to do so. A natural born citizen would never qualify much less be eligible to either claim or refuse it!
You've also just established that he has dual nationality, whether it was claimed or not, and isn't a natural born citizen.

Is SR511 law?

There are not any. Minor said two parent NBC was agreed, but that others had a broader definition, and that they would not try to settle it.

No, it said that Two Parents was definitely settled, and that "Some Authorities" (implying the minority) would go further.

The problem is that, at the time of the approval of the Constitution, NO ONE had suggested two citizen parents were a requirement.

And that is because any other formulation WAS NOT LEGALLY POSSIBLE at this time! Split citizenship parentage did NOT BECOME POSSIBLE until 1922! You might as well suggest that they didn't mention the parents had to be male and female! OF COURSE NOT! NO OTHER POSSIBILITY EXISTED!

All the law prior used the phrase ‘natural born subject’ - and that phrase was used interchangeably with natural born citizen for at least a few years after the Constitution.

And according to John Adam's Law book, that meant having Parents who were in Actual Obedience to the KING! (Owing allegiance to England.) As that meant exactly the same thing as the Vattel definition, there was no need to specifically mention it.

I am not going to fool with the rest of your comment. I can only take so much crap at one time.