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 Kingdoms 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'
Not a chance there pal.The ones of us with a clue know what this guy would do to this country.Are you just that dense not to see that?
Thanks. I had a fun talk with Mom and Dad last night, about how they knew that although I was born in the US, that I was not NBC.
Dad, said INA 1952 and it was reiterated to them verbally when they were naturalized.
He sure makes a distinction, doesn’t he?
All native-borns are NOT natural-borns.
The following is a clear definition of a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as one born to two parents (plural) in the House of Representitives
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:32:./temp/~ammem_lD1x::
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1838-1839
MONDAY, January 28, 1839.
Mr. Heman Allen submitted the following resolution; which was read, and debate arising, it was laid over, under the rule, viz:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the law on the subject of naturalization, as to exclude those from the privileges of natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents who have been removed, or shall remove, from the United States, and have taken or shall take the oath of allegiance to the Government in which they so reside, until such person shall become naturalized like other foreigners, agreeably to the laws that now do or hereafter may exist on that subject.
Good find. It’s been a while on these threads since the McCarran-Walter Act has come up.
Why are you concerned with who gets credit?
How about God has answered our prayers... and saved our country from an incompetent -- DANGEROUS -- American hating impostor: groomed by those who are worse than he is!
Whether he leaves under the(ostensible)umbrella of NBC... We don't care, as long as he leaves!
He can join the UN or become "a citizen of the world."
Unlike some, I wish him no personal ill will.
I want what's best for America.
That's where the rubber hits the road.
Instead of expending energy, feeding your ego by arguing with "birthers," go and organize to "vote him out?"
No one here is standing in your way... and many would help you, I'm sure.
Obama's plan is to divide and conquer... if you also want him out why do you play into his hands by arguing with others, that also want him gone?
Why don't you turn your low order sophistry and mediocre dialectics on the enemy, instead of being a nuisance on these threads?
Don't give me that crap about "principles" and "honer"... people that disagree with you can also have "principles" and "honer".
What did you learn at the academy?
Did you learn leadership?
We are at war and you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy -- under the guise of defending the constitution.
The Problem is if this guy turns out to be as "dirty" as we think he is there soon may not be a constitution to defend.
Now go "vote him out" ... do something constructive ... we got other things to do besides arguing with a "wall" ... someone that can't tell the difference between friendly and enemy fire.
Night All!
STE=Q
You too, LucyT!
STE=Q
In 1952, President Truman vetoed the McCarran-Walter Act, which passed despite Trumans veto. You may find this interesting, too. Doing some deep research into our Founders’ intent, I came across what is likely the FIRST proposed Amendment meant to modify the "Natural-born Citizen" requirement under the Constitution, just three years after the Naturalization Act of 1795. Unlike very recent proposed Amendments which have attempted to water down the "Natural-born Citizen" requirement for the office of President, the first proposal sought to EXTEND it! |
Ive been reading your posts and you are disingenuous (to say the least)
The plain truth of the matter is that the term natural born citizen is ambiguous (at best) in our current day vernacular. That is why SCOTUS needs to definitively declare what an NBC is (or isnt). SCOTUS HAS NEVER RENDERED A DECISION AS TO THE DEFINITION OF NBC.
Your assertion that it was settled in the Ark decision is WRONG. True, the issues background was discussed at length in the decision and Justice Gray even stated HIS PERSONAL belief that Ark was an NBC. HOWEVER, the decision was rendered SOLELY on the basis of the fourteenth amendment and nothing else. That is what the justices voted on. It is EXPLICITLY stated in the last paragraph of the opinion. AND THE DECISION SIMPLY DECLARED ARK TO BE A CITIZEN. I suggest that you read the original cases/citations cited in the Ark decision and NOT rely on Justice Grays words. For, he bastardized several of the conclusions that were reached in those cases/citations. See Calvins Case and Dicey, specifically.
As for Blackstone, his writings are commentaries on English Common Law and not the law itself. And, as for his assertion that children of foreigners who are born in Britain are natural born subjects DONT FORGET THAT HE INSERTED THE CAVEAT GENERALLY SPEAKING IN THE DEFINITION.
I suggest that you read further as to his definition of a denizen who is a citizen that is born in Britain, but has divided loyalties. A denizen enjoys most, if not all of the rights of citizenship EXCEPT THAT OF HOLDING HIGH OFFICE.
As for Vattel being too late to have influenced the writing of the Constitution
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law was written in 1758 and John Adams said that any lawyer worth his salt kept a copy on his night stand
And, FYI, Vattel died in 1767 I hope you are not claiming that he wrote the book more than 20 years later
Obviously, my opinion is that Obama is not an NBC - but it is the province of SCOTUS to make a determination. However, it has skirted the issue in multiple cases over the course of 220 and some odd years ...
I've forgotten about "a denizen"...well probably since when you last posted about it here on FR.
Oh Wig, you using Blackstone to argue your next to nothing case has been sucked into a blackhole. :-)
William Lawrence and James F. Wilson
This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates
the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.
Interesting. The case against Obama being a natural born citizen appears to be massive.
Here is a link (below) to “Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS” - Supreme Court’s oral arguments from about 10 years ago.
NBC is discussed and it appears that Kennedy and Stevens know what Article 2, Sec 1, Clause 5 means.
The link. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument
However, Ruthbuzzy Ginsberg...well she’s out there. When it gets too close to what Buzzy doesn’t want to hear about a natural born citizen, she cuts in over Scalia speaking to the lawyer. Buzzy thinks Paris is part the United States - LoL! The Nags Orgs. for Women lawyer Ms Davis loses in the end the guy gets deported. Davis I think even contradicts herself saying she believes that jus soli is enough to be a natural born citizen then a few minutes later says jus soli and jus sanguinis is a natural born citizen.
You can read and hear the oral arguments that is about an hour long. The first 20 to 25 minutes the NOW lawyer argues her case and the Gov lawyer takes most of the 2nd half. Listen to the first half... you may get a sense of how an NBC case may go if an Obama eligibility case ever reaches the Supreme Court.
And it doesn’t look good for Obama and crew.
Oh... be serious. Even the most hard core Birthers agree that Blackstone's definition and the definition of English common law is exactly as I described it. Let's assume for argument's sake that Vattel was NOT used at all and the Founders relied on Blackstone ALONE to define “Natural Born Citizen” from “Natural Born Subject” ... Don't you understand that Obama Jr, being born a British Subject, is STILL a British Subject AT THIS VERY MOMENT?! It does not matter WHERE Obama Jr was born; it matters VERY much that Obama Sr was a British subject at the time of Obama Jr's birth. Don't take my word for it, take Blackstone's: By EITHER Blackstone's or Vattel's definition of Natural Born Subject/Citizen, Obama is an unConstitutional president. |
He was incorrect in his statement that Vattel was never quoted during the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. Vattel was quoted on one topic relating to state sovereignty. His position on natural-born citizenship was never mentioned, so EnderWiggins would be correct in saying that Vattel's definition of that was never discussed during the convention.
And born overseas
Again it is you that doesn't even understand the standard.
Let me type slowly so you understand.....
It....
includes....
even.....
those.....
Children....
Born......
Across.....
The......
Seas.....
in......
the.....
Definition.....
Of......
what.....
a........
Natural.....
Born.......
Citizen.....
IS.......
The......
Child.....
Of......
Citizen......
Parents.....
that......
is.......
Plural.....
Meaning......
Both......
Parents......
Must......
Be........
US........
Citizens!!!!!!!
That was the legal definition that even extended to Children born outside of our borders, and it still holds true today, it is this legal standard that the Senate used to qualify John McCain as eligible for the office of the presidency in a resolution sponsored in part by Barack Obama(who cannot pass the same legal standard of eligibility applied to McCain).
0.O
SOMEBODY RING THE BELL!
I saw you looking for Section III of that act, and that it was hard to find. I take it you found it.
This is brilliant work Velveeta!
Bingo:
http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_III.html
This is Section 3
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.