Replies

me thinks you doth protest too much.

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.

“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.

Yes, Tribe used the 1790 Nationality Act, the one which was replaced in 1795, with the extension of the definition of natural born citizen extended to include children born “across the seas” to U.S. citizens in the service of their country removed. Mario Apuzzo suggests that the 1790 Act was intended by lawmakers, and afterthought, to allow the children of founders, some of whom were representing the U.S. in Europe, to be natural born citizens. They knew from Marbury v. Madison that the Act could not prevail over The Constitution, which may alos be why it was repealed so soon. Tribe's paper had the purpose of legitimizing McCain so that Obama could run unchallenged, and perhaps appoint Tribe to the court. Tribe also conveniently ignored the several citations, for example, Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253, citing Vattel as the most concise source (and not the only one) of the definition “...born in the country of citizen parents”.

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.