Posted on 02/12/2010 12:35:44 PM PST by syc1959
Ahh... Bingham again. 80 years late and a dollar short.
You do know that that 2nd Quotation contradicts the de Vattel definition, right?
I posted this on another forum; I will post here
Let’s connect the dots for giggly-Puff;
That is why when the United States was formed out of several independent states, [think of Holland] that the citizens followed the condition of their father.
I have been saying all along, that citizenship flowed from your father, that was the Founding Fathers intent, even in the 1790 Naturalization Act, it is clearly stated;
And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Let me parse this;
1: And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States
A: Children of ‘citizens’ - plural, not singular
B: Born beyond sea or out of the limits [territorial limits - 12 miles usually] - note that this is the same condition as was stated in SR511 - born outside the United States. If this is an exception, then what is the upheld condition? Born in country.
C: Considered as [if born to citizens, born in country - backing the definition of Vattel]
D: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States - The father was required to be a citizen of the United States to pass citizenship to his offspring.
Again, backing Vattel; 212 As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Following the condition of their fathers. The mother/wife automatically took the condition of her husband and if from another nation was ‘naturalized to that country. This is the confusing part to the Obama supporters, the part they have never gotten.
BK 2§ 115. Marriages of aliens. (118)
There exists no natural impediment to prevent foreigners from contracting marriages in the state. But, if these marriages are found prejudicial or dangerous to a nation, she has a right, and is even in duty bound to prohibit them, or to subject to certain conditions the permission to contract them: and, as it belongs to the nation or to her sovereign to determine what appears most conducive to the welfare of the state, other nations ought to acquiesce in the regulations which any sovereign state has made on this head. Citizens are almost everywhere forbid to marry foreign wives of a different religion; and in many parts of Switzerland a citizen cannot marry a foreign woman, unless he prove that she brings him in marriage a certain sum fixed by the law.
Again;
BK 2 § 107. Foreigners continue members of their own nation.
The citizen or the subject of a state who absents himself for a time without any intention to abandon the society of which he is a member, does not lose his privilege by his absence: he preserves his rights, and remains bound by the same obligations. Being received in a foreign country, in virtue of the natural society, the communication, and commerce which nations are obliged to cultivate with each other (Prelim. §§ 11, 12; Book II. § 21), he ought to be considered there as a member of his own nation, and treated as such.
Barack Huseein Obama Sr, never intended to ‘domicile’ himself in the United states, he remained an alien/foreigner to the United States and that condition followed and carried on to Barack Hussein Obama.
Whatever citizenship was [if any] aquired from his mother is only speculation, as there is no proof of any being bestowed upon him. Only confirming Barack Hussein Obama’s place of birth, if Hawaii would provide ‘Native’ status, based on being born in the US, but once again, there is the ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ and that is not a conditional statement, it means complete and undivided.
Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.
and again;
Justice Ginsburg: Suppose Congress wants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our Nation’s history, that the father’s citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the mother’s?
The only thing that has changed is that two parents. If you have a foreign mother or father, that is not sole jurisdiction.
There has been no amendment to the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ clause or sole jurisdiction requirement under the 14th Amendment or Title 8, if there had been Barack Hussein Obama would have produced and paraded his documents long ago. But instead he refuses to, and continues to pawn forged papers, a criminal act.
here’s another Obama lie for you to chew on
I’m grateful President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old,” he told chuckling leaders.
The Bay of pigs happened in April 1961, Barack Hussein Obama ‘claims he was born on Aug 4th, 1961. How is this possible?
Might this be another reason, wiggie’s redeemer refused to prove his eligibility.
The leaders agreed the Organization of American States should take up the question of Cuba’s return to the regional body at its June meeting in Honduras. But the lack of fireworks over the Cuban issue reflected recognition of the promise of a new direction in US-Cuba relations under Obama. The summit followed new measures announced by the Obama administration last week loosening some restrictions on US contacts with Cuba.
In response, Havana let be known it was ready for dialogue on all issues between the two estranged countries. But disagreements remain over who should act next, suggesting progress will be slow.
Beyond Cuba, the absence of hostilities stemmed from the relationship between Obama and Chávez, who had made a point of antagonizing President Bush at the last Summit of the Americas in Argentina in 2005. Obama crossed a room at an opening gathering Friday night to greet Chávez. In response, Chávez told Obama in Spanish, “I want to be your friend.” He later presented the US leader with a book – a tome chronicling 500 years of European and American exploitation of Latin America.
Obama refused to interpret the gift as baiting, quipping later: “It was a nice gesture to give me a book, I’m a reader.”
That determination to bury old antagonisms was also present when Obama responded disarmingly to an hour-long opening speech by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, in which the former leftist revolutionary reviewed US action against Cuba including the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. “I’m grateful President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old,” he told chuckling leaders.
The president’s openness to exchange with the likes of Chávez was already being condemned by some in Washington before he left Trinidad’s soil. But Obama said it is his view that America’s interests are served when it opens doors even to its adversaries.
“I did not see eye to eye with every leader on every regional issue at this summit,” he said before departing here [but] “we showed that while we have our differences we can talk together.”
I dunno, I didn't see any of the usual suspects on this thread, they typically attack just on the BC issues, where he was born, the validity of the one posted on the Internet etc. and especially the Orly threads.
IMO, even if it turns out that he was born somewhere other than in the US, it still comes down to him being a NBC though I think everyone, well almost everyone can see by this thread that obammie does not meet the definition no matter where he was born.
The usual disruptor's can't defend their messiah on this part of the issue so they seem to stay away, at least that's my take on what I've seen. Now we have a noob who is well versed in arguing it, albeit disingenuously, I find that curious.
It's interesting to me though that this part of it seems to be picking up steam
> I would not be. I am not now.
In the same manner your US citizenship cannot be
denied (with some exceptions that you would have
to undertake), neither can your status as a Subject.
Once a Subject, always a Subject.
In Obama’s case, it’s his birthright.
(Emphases mine) De Vattel INFLUENCED FRAMERS VIEWS on SOVEREIGNTY (as you state)
It would seem SOVEREIGNTY and CITIZENSHIP are intertwined.
A State could hardly divorce the question of who shall be, or NOT be, a citizen(or a Natural born Citizen)from considerations of SOVEREIGNTY, in relation to it's integrity -- as a STATE.
Therefore, it would seem reasonable (from your statement)that Vattel DID also influence the framers in regards to who is and who is NOT a citizen.
"I say,that in order be be of the country, it is NECESSARY that a person be born of a FATHER who is a CITIZEN, for if he is born there of a STRANGER, it will be ONLY the PLACE of his birth, and NOT HIS COUNTRY." (Vattel)
Haven't we been here before?
STE=Q
And in both cases... we are still eligible to be President of the United States per Article II of the US Constitution.
giggy-Puff
The 1790 Naturalization Act says exactly nothing about wives taking the citizenship condition of their husbands. Since that was the first naturalization act, your claim here is not supported by any law.
I never stated that the 1790 Naturalization Act, stated such. Wiggie - assumed.
WiggyFool stated Barack Obama was born on US Soil.
Where has he proven that? There is no confirmation based on a forged document. Where is the doctor’s or witness signiture verifing that Barack Hussein Obama was born anywhere on/in/around the United States? Where?
Again, being born also requires complete, sole, and undivided jurisdiction, which Barack Hussein Obama can never be under as he’s was already a British subject.
wiggie;
that because idiots like you, wanted proof that the Founding Fathers used Vattel, there you have it.
Do you have to remind yourself to breathe?
Did your mother have any kids that lived?
Do you suffer from shaken idiot syndrome?
Because you wiggie-fool is oxygen deprived
There are three main principles of judicial jurisdiction: personal (personam), territorial (locum), and subject matter (subjectam):
types of jurisdiction;
Personal jurisdiction is an authority over a person, regardless of their location.
Territorial jurisdiction is an authority confined to a bounded space, including all those present therein, and events which occur there.
Subject Matter jurisdiction is an authority over the subject of the legal questions involved in the case.
again you are so stupid that if you lived in Denmark, they’d have you on the sterilization list, to keep you from breeding.
Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?
Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?
Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?
Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?
I posted it a few times because
I know, your slow...
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.