Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

nobarack08 | Feb 12, 2010 | syc1959

[DoctorBulldog]

Excellent information. I had not known about J. Patsall’s usage of Natural Born Citizen.

Thanks for the info.

Cheers

[BP2]

> I had not known about J. Patsall’s usage of Natural Born Citizen.

YES, and two years before the American Revolution in 1776.

Slowly, and with many a backward glance at traditional ideas, Americans began to argue that when "Subjects" became "Citizens", they gained the right to choose their allegiance, hence they began calling themselves “citizens” instead of “subjects”.

British courts and public officials resisted this innovation. They could not deny that the former colonies became sovereign, independent states and that they were no longer bound as political communities to the mother country. Parliament itself had authorized the king to make peace by a statute of 1782, and the final Treaty of Paris acknowledging the sovereignty of the new states could not be disputed. Yet the British could challenge the legitimacy of the revolutionary governments and laws between 1776 and 1783, and they would continue to question the effects of independence on the legal status of the American antenati.

[Danae]

BRILLIANT POST and fantastic Research!

There should be awards for this level of work!

[DoctorBulldog]

“Yet the British could challenge the legitimacy of the revolutionary governments and laws between 1776 and 1783, and they would continue to question the effects of independence on the legal status of the American antenati.”

And, let us not forget about the War of 1812. Using Blackhole’s*** Common Laws concerning “natural born subjects,” England thought it was their right to conscript United States’ citizens into their military.

P.S. - RE: “antenati.” -— Great word! I’ll file it my memory-bank for later usage.

Cheers

***I’ve been using the term “Blackwell” to describe Blackstone, but someone on this thread used the term “Blackhole” and I loved it! So, I’m cribbing it. Sorry that I have yet to go back through all the comments and attribute this stroke of brilliance to the original author. I’ll correct that in the future.

[EnderWiggins]

"A law is a Legal definition and the US constitution is a definition of what our Government consists of."

No. A law is not a legal definition. A law is a written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Some laws contain definitions, some laws do not.

The 1790 Naturalization Act did not contain the definition for natural born citizen. We know this because it would exclude anyone born on American soil from being an NBC and that would be moronic. The First Congress were not morons.

[BP2]

> If by “dual loyalty” you actually mean dual citizenship,
> you are quite wrong. Go read the State Department's
> website. They're not all warm and fuzzy on the concept,
> but they recognize it none the less.

The US State Department is A LOT more than “not all warm and fuzzy on the concept” of dual citizenship, for cripes sake!

You keep trying to make light of a very serious matter. In the case of the Executive Branch, there are NO internal safeguards.

In the Legislative branch with its two Chambers, the House has 435 members, so a few foreigners or dual citizens among them really do not make that much difference. The Senate only consists of 100 Members, so 1 or 2 out of 100 again is something else. Even the Supreme Court has nine members.

Alone, the Executive branch of our Government is vested in a single person. The Second and Third "Committee of Eleven" in summer 1787 contemplated THREE Executives, but opted for ONE Executive with the understanding that the office would have the UNIQUE safeguard of only permitting a "Natural Born Citizen" to act as the President. A few States in the Republic have had the "Natural Born Citizen" for various offices well into the 1800s, but the office of President is the ONLY office that has this qualification at the National Level per the US Constitution.

This is how it was addressed in 1990 in this English translation of a US State Department communique to the Russian embassy when the US began to acknowledge “dual citizenship” for the first time:

Official. U.S. position with regard to dual citizenship, which is guided by State Department, has been set forth in this telegram am. consulates and embassies on April 16. 1990. (67 Interpreter Releases 799, 23.07.90, 67 Interpreter Releases 1092, 01.10.90).

- snip -

At the same time, it is assumed that a person with dual citizenship are equally loyal to the United States and another State. They are required to obey the laws of both countries and each country has the right to enforce its national laws there are.

- snip -

U.S. has no treaty on mutual recognition of dual citizenship with other countries. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the United States ratified a number of treaties on nationality (the so-called «contract Benkrofta», on behalf of a well-known am. Diplomat J. Benkrofta), but their goal was just the prevention of cases of dual nationality by automatic deprive a person of U.S. citizenship when adopting the State of nationality of the counterparty under the contract, and vice versa. As a result, as many decisions Am. Supreme Court's dual citizenship, these contracts were not feasible, and to date the U.S. got out of all.

[EnderWiggins]

"Actually you are wrong, the naturalization law at the time Obama was born did not allow dual citizenship, and today's law on the dual citizenship concept is not retroactive."

So there you go. You have just completely taken Obama off the hook. Because he was born in the US and was not the child of a foreign diplomat or occupying Army, he was solely subject to the jurisdiction of the US at birth. If, as you insist here, the US did not recognize dual nationality then his "British citizenship" does not exist in the eyes of US Law.

He is therefore a natural born American citizen.

I remain completely puzzled by all the fake Constitutional conservatives in this thread like Danae and Syc who repeatedly insist that United States law is inferior to British law on this subject, and that foreign countries can ignore our sovereignty and involuntarily take away an American's natural born citizenship. What genuine patriot would bend over to any foreign nation like that and say, "please sir, may I have another?" Because that is exactly what all of you are doing every time you assert that British Law had jurisdiction on Obama when he was born.

Of course, the US Supreme Court has called BS on that, too. Again quoting from that font of Birther despair and anger, the brilliant and authoritative decision in Wong Kim Ark:

"The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. "

But that's the opposite of what you are guys are saying... you are denying that the jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is exclusive, or absolute. Hell, you are saying it is not even as good as that of other nations.

There's not a one of you who really gives a damn about the Constitution at all. The Founders would spit you guys out like so much lukewarm water.

[STARWISE]

Thanks, BP ... quite an interesting, suddenly engaged and entrenched jouster. Could be usuper courtroom and stalking points advocacy practice.

Maybe it's Siddarth Velamoor ...or no, probably too 'Chicago' in the abrasiveness of tone that naturally seeps into verbiage.

Personally, this is what I'd like to see on billboards everywhere:

WHO'S YOUR DADDY?

[EnderWiggins]

"No I was taking about dual (loyalty) NOT dual(citizenship)

Why do you play dumb and conflate the two?"

Well, obviously I didn't conflate them, or I wouldn't have asked that question. Instead, I asked specifically which you meant because most Birthers depend on that conflation to make their bogus case that a dual citizen cannot be an NBC. If you do not, good for you, but it pretty much renders the entire "split allegiances" argument meaningless. Don't get me wrong. I'm perfectly cool with that. It has always been my explicit opinion that the argument was meaningless. You confirm it here.

"ANY COUNTRY CAN CONFER CITIZENSHIP... HOWEVER, ANY COUNTRY CAN’T CONFER LOYALTY!"

Exactly... and that is why the British Nationality Act is irrelevant to any discussion of Obama's loyalty. They can confer citizenship on anybody they want. But they cannot confer loyalty, and so it is no consequence to Obama's eligibility to be President no matter how many other nations grant him citizenship.

[EnderWiggins]

"LOL, you don't seem to get the point. I've asked you three times now to define the difference and you won't."

I have directly answered it each time you've asked. It is not entirely my fault that you dislike the answer so much that you are pretending I never gave it. Certainly, you must actually understand it after all since you then you on in your next paragraph to draw conclusions from the answer I gave. And they appear to be the correct conclusions.

"By your logic, Putin could come over here, marry an American woman (who is a citizen), bear a child with her. then take him back to Russia and raise him to be a communist and an enemy of the US. Teach him how to undermine everything America stands for and how to become POTUS, send him back to the US to accomplish his dirty deed."

Ignoring that the kid would also have to live here for 14 years, be 35 years old, win his parties party nomination after a grueling season of primaries, and then win the general election... yes. That would be absolutely true.

"He wins, are you going to sit here and tell every one on this forum that his spawn would be a Natural Born Citizen and eligible for POTUS?"

Of course. Because unlike you I actually care what the Constitution says and would never be so disloyal to my nation as to try and overturn the Constitution to frustrate an election result I did not like. I do not know if you have served or not, but I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and not just when my side wins.

[EnderWiggins]

" My point (that you OBVIOUSLY did not grasp) is that what was obvious to the Framers (definition of NBC) may not be so obvious to most citizens today."

Not in this case.

In this case, what was obvious to the Framers remains obvious to the vast majority of citizens today. However there is also a small fringe led originally by leftist liberal feminist Democrats and then inexplicably joined by some conservatives who in the frantic effort to reverse an election they do not agree with tried to create a fake controversy where none genuinely exists.

"A petition for a writ quo warranto, properly filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia WILL end up before SCOTUS. Whether it will be accepted for review is another matter ..."

You provided right there the qualification that will forever keep this from happening. "Properly filed." That would require Birthers to find a competent lawyer... something they have not accomplished in two years. Why do you imagine it is going to happen now?

[EnderWiggins]

And one more time with feeling.

John Bingham’s opinion comes 80 years too late to have any significance whatsoever.

[LucyT]

Isn’t Barry a bastard child? I mean, from what I understand, Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham’s marriage was legally null and void since Obama Sr. was still married to Kezia Aoko back in Kenya when he supposedly married Ann. I say supposedly because I have not seen a marriage certificate, yet; only divorce proceedings...

So, I guess my question is; wouldn’t that put his citizenship status under U.S. Code Title 8, Ch. 12, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1409, entitled, “Children born out of wedlock?”

Now, I don’t know what the code was at the time of Barry’s birth, but the current code seems to imply that the consanguineal father is the one who passes on U.S. citizenship to children born out of wedlock...

More at #853.

[Thanks, DoctorBulldog.]

On television, Miz 0bama said Dunham/Soetoro/0bama's mother was young and unmarried when he was born.

[BP2]

> The First Congress were not morons.

How right you are! And many were also part of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and could read English & French (and other languages) too ... what a surprise.

That said, the dubious award of "moron" goes to someone else near and dear ...

[Las Vegas Ron]

You're freakin insane, you say Putin's spawn would be Constitutionally eligible for POTUS??

And you have the gall to say you care what the Constitution says?

The scenario that I presented was the very reason the Founding Fathers put in the Natural Born clause you idiot.

Don't even bother posting back, I'm through with you, you stink this place up, traitor.

[STARWISE]

Michelle Obama talks fatherhood
Posted: Thursday, July 10, 2008

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/10/1193601.aspx

###

Excerpt:

Obama used the roundtable audience, as she did yesterday, to describe her husband’s understanding of women’s issues through the prism of the strong — but sometimes struggling — women in his life.

His own mother, she said at the beginning of her remarks, was “very young and very single when she had him.” And, Obama added, he has observed his wife’s attempts to reconcile motherhood with her career aspirations.

[EnderWiggins]

"Which nonetheless contains much less information than the original "long form" birth certificate."

Absolutely true. That's why we have short forms in the first place; because the long forms contain a vast amount of useless information irrelevant to proving citizenship at birth.

"It contains virtually no information that would allow for verification."

That would only be a problem if verification was required. But the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution says it's not.

"With the long form, doctor's name, wether he/she practiced at the hospital indicated, wether the mother lived at the *address* indicated, can all theoretically be cross checked."

Until such time as you point out to me the presidential eligibility requirements regarding doctors, hospitals or mother's addresses, I can have only one reasonable response: So?

"Also given that the COLB is a computer generated abstract, it's ridicously easy to forge, since the forgery will also be computer generated form. Leaving only the seal and signature stamp to be carefully faked."

Thus explaining the requirement for a seal and signature stamp. Without them, even a long form is proof of nothing.

[DoctorBulldog]

Interesting... It would appear that the fissures in his official story are beginning to split open.

Cheers

[Candor7]

Obama may be a product of a union between his putative grandfather( father),and an as yet unknown black woman. Anne may have took Obama as a foster child and put Barak Snr into the spot of dad.

I sort of like this threory. It explains the striking resemblance Obama has with his so called grand father.It also explains why Obama called him "Pop."

[EnderWiggins]

Okay... that was certainly a unique and innovative post, and I commend you for the effort.

Why you spent so much time slaying again the already slain (i.e. that John Adams spoke French) is entirely beyond me. Everybody knows that both Franklin and Adams spoke French. We also know, however that no Birther has ever been able to show us where either of them did what no professional translator ever did before 1797... translate de Vattel to read "natural born citizen."

But the most entertaining part of your posts was this:

" Although it is unknown who is responsible for the 1797 London-based English translation of the French version of the "Law of Nations" on John Adam's nightstand in the 1770s through the mid-1790s, most experts (including myself) agree that London-based multi-lingual translator “J. Patsall” is likely responsible. There just weren't that many translators in those days with France and England as enemies."

Okay. Now explain to me again how a 1797 edition of de Vattel can possible have been on John Adam's nightstand twenty-years before it was published?

I gotta say... that's a pretty neat trick.

You then go on:

"And since J. Patsall first introduced the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” in 1774 — 23 years before the 1797 English Translation was available — the likelihood is very, very, VERY high that the Founders and Framers derived their use and understanding of the phrase from Vattel's French "Law of Nations", instead of from Blackstone ... who never used the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” in the first place:"

To recap you position here. A translator who you think (for no apparently good reason) might have maybe been responsible for the 1797 translation of de Vattel magically managed to go back in time and give the founders access to a translation he would not actually get around to doing for another 20 years?

Does that pretty much sum it up?