Posted on 01/14/2010 11:20:53 PM PST by patlin
So, did the framers really adopt a common law rule that automatically granted US citizenship upon birth as England did? Let’s take a look at what the US government had to say about certain children born on US soil at the time of the adoption of the constitution from recently acquired documents from the national archives. As I’ve stated in the past, one can not limit their research to such a narrow alley that keeps pertinent information from being brought out into the light. You can not define what ‘natural born’ means without looking into all the laws for all types of citizenship and therein lies the answer to the proverbial question: Is Barack H Obama constitutionally qualified to be president under the definition of ‘natural born’ citizen that was adopted & ratified in 1789 by the colonists?
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com ...
BUSTED!
I have no problem with it at all. Born here, a citizen. It should always be that way.
Newbie yourself. Any person born in the United States (with very few and specific exceptions) is a citizen of the United States. Period.
1) those children born overseas and who come with their immigrant parents to this country, and
2) those children born in the U.S. to immigrants, whether or not the immigrant parents ever become naturalized citizens themselves.
Those in category 1) formerly became naturalized when their parents became naturalized, now they have to apply separately. Those in category 2 have always been natural born Americans. At any rate, that's how the American government has been applying the law for about, oh, 235 years.
Remember to always get your legal advice from some anonymous blog on the internet. Never, ever, ever go to a legal expert who might actually know what the law is. The government relies on its own legal experts, which of course is why the government's wrong.
Since the 14th amendment...
Before that, there was no such thing as a “United States Citizen”, per se. You were, or were not, a citizen of the State you were born in, and the rules behind that was up to the State.
If you read back on early Supreme Court cases you will often see references such as “Citizen of the State of Iowa” or whatever.
That type of usage has almost disappeared in the last hundred years or so.
Married women, and children under the age of twenty-one, derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.
(an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.)
Under US common law, children born on US soil, even if the mother was a US citizen prior to marriage, did NOT automatically gain US citizenship & especially ‘natural born’ US citizenship.
A person might live in a common law state, but there is no federal common law. See Erie V Tompkins, 304 US 64
I have shown the law of 1790 as adopted by the US Congress and there was no middle ground. There was NO such thing as dual citizenship. You were either a US citizen through your parent and for married women, their husband.
We are defining the definition of ‘natural born’ citizen as stated in the constitution and you can not do that without researching ALL types of citizenship to see how they were all obtained.
Also, the reason I use the term ‘common law’ is that is the term every progressive going to bat for the Obama cause, including so-called constitutional scholar, Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law school, uses the argument that the definition of US citizenship & ‘natural born’ US citizen is derived from English common law:
In the analysis sent to the Senate Judiciary, Tribe & Olson write:
“These sources ALL confirm that the phrase ‘natural born’ includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within the nation’s territory and allegiance.”
What they conveniently fail to bring to the table is the fact that according to US law, that is clearly spelled out in the laws for Naturalization of 1790, at the time of the adoption of the constitution the US did not recognize citizenship for any and all children born on US soil.
As far as the US not having any federal common law, I have argued that case to no avail. When debating the heavy collide drinkers, you have to carefully word your arguments so there are no loopholes for them to jump through in their attempts to derail your argument.
oops...koolaide drinkers, I must have had my mouse to close to collide when spell checking.
“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. Slaughter- House Cases, 16 Wall. 74.”
U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542,@549 (1875)
Note that this decision occurred even after the 14th amendment was ratified.
Someone above casually claimed that being born on U.S. soil of non-citizen parents makes one a natural born citizen. That definition would require an amendment to The Constitution. Natural Born Citizen is defined, according to Alexander Hamilton, as part of U.S. common law, Vattel, and not Blackstone, being the most cited legal authority in U.S. jurisprudence between 1789 and 1820. The arguments by Chief Justice Waite in Minor V. Happersett repeat Marshall and Jay and Madison and all used Vattel. But Waite clarifies with a discussion of what allegiance means. Anyone think Obama has any allegiance toward our Constitution? Our Constituion is our nation, a nation of laws. Obama's purpose is to destroy it and run the lives of the proletariat with his comrades.
Hey, if the government says it, it must be wrong. But you're going to have to get the government to admit it's wrong.
Yes but not a natural born citizen.
ping...
Are you trying to insinuate that the court meant for word State to also mean foreign nation?
What I put forth was the LAW, not a court decision. There was no such thing as dual citizenship/dual nationality. Therefore according to US law, the only way to be a natural born citizen was to be born to 2 US citizen parents.
Sorry if this concept is too hard for you to understand, but it was the law and it was the definition for A2 qualification that was adopted & ratified in the constitution.
you probably would be very interested in this piece I did a while back. It is very indepth and the research took me 100’s of hours.
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/
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.