Posted on 02/12/2010 12:35:44 PM PST by syc1959
Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.
Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition Under Jus Soli, the following is written "The Supreme Court's first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the court held, mean "not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange." Most Indians could not meet the test. "Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102. It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the 'Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.
The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Barack Hussein Obama did not have sole jurisdiction under the United States.
Title 8 and the 14th Amendment clearlt state the following;
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
Note: 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'
They made it the law of the land and defined it as such.
That is what Congress does.
According to them, our Founding Fathers, in the First Congress, a Natural Born Citizen is one born to Citizen parents.
Twist it anyone you want, they made it the law of the land and legally defined what a Natural Born Citizen is!!!!!
And OBAMA does not meet their definition of Natural Born Citizen.
Yes, indeed, a case in which Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was not at issue or discussed. As recently as 1963, the Supreme Court hasa affirmed that 14th Amendment citizenship has no effect on the eligibilty requir3ement for the presidency. I see you still cite no common law authrfity for your assdertions. Really, they need to educate you trolls better. It may be that you and your master Soros will destroy our constitutional system which he hates so, but maybe not just yet. If he does it will be a he says, no doubt the omost satisfyng achievmenet of his life, better even than betraying other Jews in 1944. He and the Ci-cago gang seem to be losing the edge on their tool.
Ignorance bliss much?
I can’t imagine.... Actually I am having to face it. My dad has stage 4 Lung cancer which is in his brain and liver as well. We are staying in state of love as much as possible. I cant help him or my mom much if I wallow in fear and grief.
I can’t contemplate losing them both in a year.... I really feel for you and your family.
You see I don’t have to define what Vattel meant in his writings, I don’t have to prove what the Founding Fathers thought of Vattel’s writings either, I don’t even have to show what their Opinions were on this issue.
They wrote their definition into the law of the land to be the standard by which all citizens are judged according to the law.
I had never thought about this from that angle, but I think you are right. Unless specifically changed it stands.
He's partly right. No quote from Vattel was submitted in any discussion on natural-born citizenship.
wiggieFool
As you ‘claim’ “”””And anybody born on American soil (who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or occupying army) is completely subject to US political jurisdiction, owing our country direct and immediate allegiance to the United States of America.””””
Once again, Barack Hussein Obama is not, was not, nor still is ‘completely subject to US political jurisdiction’ as he was, is, still under British jurisdiction with the British nationality Actt of 1948, and that has never changed.
Pssst. Do the Brits know that?
Was it on any other topic? There were several committees that were tasked with different issues, the Details committee for instance.
Why is it that Franklin had a copy and made sure that another made it to the University of Virgina (Forgive me here, I am going from memory, I believe it was the university of Virgina) if it was not relevant to what they were trying to accomplish?
Alexander Hamilton was greatly influenced by Vattel, and he wasn’t the only one. http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id5.html
Here is a snippet from that site:
“The concept of judicial review, which Hamilton had championed in Rutgers v. Waddington, was included in the U.S. Constitution. In {The Federalist Papers,} No. 78, ``The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,’’ circulated as part of the debate over the new Constitution, Hamilton developed a conception of constitutional law which was coherent with Vattel’s conception. Hamilton stated that it is a ``fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.’’ However, the Constitution can only be changed by the nation as a whole, and not by the temporary passions of the majority or by the legislature. Both to protect the Constitution, but also to ensure just enforcement of the law, the independence of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive branch is essential. The judiciary must be the guardians of the Constitution, to ensure that all legislative decisions are coherent with it. This idea championed by Hamilton, that the courts ensured that the Executive and Legislative branches followed the Constitution, was later established as a principle of American jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall. “
Yea they do, there have been a few articles in British papers. The question has been asked anyway.
Ummm hum. So, name the committee that was tasked with codifying the requirements for POTUS...
You might try following your own debate ruled friend. You can’t prove anything one way or another. You have an opinion, which you base on some set of values. That’s fine. But you have failed to prove affirmatively that your opinion is correct.
I also have an opinion. And guess what.... neither one matters a whit. Why? Because it will have to be brought to SCOTUS to decide. NOTHING at all is even slightly relevant until the Supreme Court makes a ruling on it. That is what I want. Post haste.
If I had the money, I would bet on SCOTUS agreeing with me, not you.
The founders CLEARLY wanted to prevent a person of divided loyalties from running the Nation. even YOU agree with that. Why you take the illogical position of arguing both for and against this is beyond me.
The point of the clause was to ensure the loyalty of the CIC to the best of anyone’s ability. That means knowing where he is from, who his parents are, and knowing that because of his/her inherritance of citizenship and being born on the soil of the Nation that this person was only ever singly and solely a citizen of the united states, and under the jursidiction of no other nation.
Sorry EW. Just being born in the states isn’t good enough. It wasn’t good enough for the founders, and that is the law they wrote. That’s the law we have.
Sorry bub, your buddy Bambi should be in prison orange and up for trial. I look forward to that day.
Save your banal insults for your regular simple-minded crowd.
American law is American law and it is not subject to any other Nations.
Don’t try to confuse people with such a lame argument. The “Law of Nations” was not a codified book of law of a given Nation or nations. It was a textbook. A textbook on how to effectively create and run a free nation, according to a concept called “law”. Using examples that had been successful the world over. Try reading it sometime.
Don’t be such a schmuck.
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.