Posted on 02/12/2010 12:35:44 PM PST by syc1959
go back to Obot Central and tell them, that your failing and between emails from those here, we’re getting a belly hoot laughing at your antics.
Giggles - proving once again - a fool and his brains are soon departed
Well, I’m still waiting for you to quote the Founding Fathers talking about Blackhole and the Natural Born Citizenship clause in the same breath.
Until such time, the weight of evidence is still on the side of Vattel as it most certainly was Vattel’s expansion of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s work that inspired the wording in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Cheers
EW You are a MORON.
If what you say is true, then why did Obama need THIS to be passed?
“This is the html version of the file http://www.jcics.org/natural%20born%20summary%20(word).doc.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
Natural Born Citizen Act Summary
PURPOSE: To define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in the Constitution to include three categories:
(1) Any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
(2) Any person born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who are eligible to transmit citizenship, and
(3) Any person adopted by the age of 18 by a U.S. citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child.
This bill is intended to clarify the term and end uncertainty about the eligibility requirements to run for the Office of the Presidency. The definition of this term is an issue that has been debated in legal circles for years and has never been ruled on by the courts. Clarification is needed before this becomes a real issue. Congress should be the institution that defines this term, not the courts.
Congressional Authority:
In the absence of a judicial interpretation of Constitutional language, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. A federal court would likely give great deference to Congress’ interpretation. The Congress also has broad authority regarding issues of citizenship. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution grants authority to Congress to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Several federal judicial decisions recognize Congress’ plenary powers regarding issues pertaining to citizenship that do not specifically fit under the Fourteenth Amendment. Notably Rogers v. Bellei (401 US 815) and US v. Wong Kim Ark (169 US 649) say that Congress has the power to regulate matters pertaining to citizenship not specifically defined by the Fourteenth Amendment.
In addition, Congress has previously used their naturalization power to define the term “natural born” as used in a statute. In the Naturalization Act of 1790 Congress defined “natural born” to include children born abroad to citizen parents. Although the language was not kept in later naturalization laws, that specific language was not challenged.
Persons Born Outside the United States to Citizen Parents:
This bill clarifies that the term “natural born Citizen” includes children born outside the United States to citizen parents. This provision provides comfort and certainty to members of the American military and foreign services, as well as expatriate families, that their children, too, are eligible to run for president. These children are no less qualified than children born on American soil, and they should not be treated differently. Of course, children born to American citizens abroad would only be eligible to run for president if they satisfied the fourteen year residency requirement in addition to the “natural born” requirement.
Support for the position that the term “natural born Citizen” should include children born outside the United States to citizen parents is particularly well articulated in a law review article by Jill A. Pryor entitled The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty. This article argues that “any person with a right to American citizenship under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States at the time of his or her birth is a natural-born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility.”
Persons Adopted by Age 18 by a Citizen Parent:
This bill also ensures that children adopted by citizen parents, who are full-fledged members of American families are treated the same as if they were the biological children of American parents born abroad. Under adoption law, adopted children are to be treated as natural issue of their adoptive parents. They are to be accorded the same rights, duties and responsibilities as biological children. They are being raised by Americans in America. Adopted children of American citizens should be allowed the same opportunity as biological children to pursue all their dreams. They should be afforded the chance to give back to this country by serving in its highest office.”
I don’t have to. I’m not the one trying to claim that the Founding Fathers could travel through time. The editions of Blackstone that the Framers accessed actually had the phrase in it. The editions of de Vattel they had access to did not.
To get past the time travel problem you have to actually find the framers doing what no professional translator would do until ten years too late. I. e. making even the most tenuous connection between de Vattel and the phrase “natural born citizen.”
I don’t have a time travel problem. In fact, I’m not even within three centuries of having one.
If you read my post you will see that the loyalty, in my view, would be transferred through the parent.
In obama's case, his father would have transferred HIS loyalty (jus sanguinis) -- as a subject of Britain -- to his son.
The idea that ANY country could exact allegiance -- by randomly "conferring" citizenship -- is bogus.
The question has ALWAYS been one of Loyalty.
I am not a lawyer but I think the logic behind my short post makes sense.
Child is to parent (of age) as parent is to state.
Just as the child is under the protection of the parent; the parent is under the protection of the state.
Concomitantly, allegiance (obedience) is expected (extracted) of the child toward parent; as allegiance(obedience)is expected (extracted)of the parent by the state.
This is NATURAL!
By the way YOUR system (jus soli ONLY)makes the STATE the PARENT... 1984 anyone?
But I digress.
Now if a baby is born in the united states to an American mother and a foreign national father: would the baby be considered to have a dual allegiance, or would his birth in the country of his mother OVERRIDE the allegiance transmitted by the father?
You would, of course, say that "place of birth" (jus soli) would override the allegiance to a foreign government transmitted (jus sanguinis) by the father.
Now if we were to weigh this on a scale you would be correct!
However, the key word here is SPLIT loyalty.
Even if something is split 90/10 it is still split.
One thing is undeniable... that is, the more "pure" two citizen parent rule (and born in country) avoids most of the above problems of split loyalty at birth.
Does this mean that the above rule would ABSOLUTELY guarantee the loyalty of a Natural Born citizen to his/her country... or that he/she would be MORE dedicated to his/her country than a naturalized citizen?
Of course not.
It's a screening process just like when one applies for a job.
We just disagree on how strict the framers intended the process to be.
One thing we CAN agree on -- whether we like it or NOT:
There can be -- 'NO DOUBT' -- that one born in the United States of Citizen parents IS a Natural Born Citizen, under both jus soli and jus sanguinis.
STE=Q
Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]
From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"
French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: dregs has this company by certain duties and subjected has its authority, they take part with equality has its advantages."
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"
Just to make it crystal clear;
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.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to 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 foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group who inhabit a geographic region with which they have the earliest known historical connection
ethnic; An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed
common heritage; Common Heritage of Mankind (also termed the common heritage of humanity,common heritage of humankind or common heritage principle) is a principle of international law which holds that defined territorial areas and elements of humanity’s common heritage (cultural and natural) should be held of trust for future generations and be protected from exploitation by individual nation states or corporations.
So how can a foreigner be part of a native/Indigenous people, that are part of a ethnic bond with a common heritage?
ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS;
Title 8 and the 14th Amendment both state; All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
So explain how “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.”
So to ‘what’ degree was Barack Hussein Obama under US Jurisdiction at birth? Knowing that he was already under British jurisdiction, and how that being only partial or to whatever degree you impose not being in conflict with “completely subject to”?
Mind you this is The Supreme Court that has stated complete and not partial to any degree jurisdiction.
giggly, can’t understand english, what makes anyone believe he has a chance at French.
The closest he ever can to reading French, is on the mustard bottle...
Yea, he co-sponsored with his pet dog Claire McCaskill it just to help out his Presidential Rival John McCain right? FAIL
And that was not the first time she and Obummer would try either...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2678
You fail so hard you make a whole new class of fail!
Here we go again...
hold on tight GigglyPuff;
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.
The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction is a requirement. Not partial, not to some degree, not to anything but complete, undivided, not contested, not polluted.
“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.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
OMG! That is the most outlandish thing I have ever heard my life! I can't believe Congress is even considering that!
It goes against the very definition of "natural:"
ME naturel < MF <--- Note to Wiggles: Middle English & French. (In other words, "No tranflation neceffary...")
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.
[...]
16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional.
[...]
17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc.
[...]
19. related by blood rather than by adoption.
[...]
23. being such by nature; born such: a natural fool.
[...]
What a bunch of natural fools we have in the government! They refuse to use a dictionary. Same problem with the whole conspiracy to redefining "marriage."
Good thing we are voting most of these morons out of office this year!
Cheers
See... that is what happens when teenagers first learn to drive.
The Bill has been introduced in almost every congress going back more than a decade to before Obama was even a Senator. And it was always introduced by Republicans.
Try this version on for size:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s108-2128
Yep there you go again.
But it has never passed.
Even if they attempted to granfather Obama in, none have passed.
Why do you think gigglePuff is crying. Borderline temper tantrum decause he’s not getting his way.
So there you go. Proof positive that he didn’t need it to be passed.
Perhaps the two of you should argue about it and I’ll just watch for a while.
Beyond question, by that act, national citizenship was conferred directly upon all persons in this country, of whatever race (excluding only "Indians not taxed"), who were born within [p682] the territorial limits of the United States, and were not subject to any foreign power.
And that view was supported by reference to the debates in the Senate upon that act, and to the ineffectual veto thereof by President Johnson in which he said:
By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races, born in the United States, is, by the bill, made a citizen of the United States.
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]
In United States v. Rice (1819), 4 Wheat. 246, goods imported into Castine, in the State of Maine, while it was in the exclusive possession of the British authorities during the last war with England, were held not to be subject to duties under the revenue laws of the United States because, as was said by Mr. Justice Story in delivering judgment:
By the conquest and military occupation of Castine, the enemy acquired that firm possession which enabled him to exercise the fullest rights of sovereignty over that place. The sovereignty of the United States over the territory was, of course, suspended, and the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced there, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the conquerors. By the surrender, the inhabitants passed under a temporary allegiance to the British Government, and were bound by such laws, and such only, as it chose to recognize and impose. From the nature of the case, no other laws could be obligatory upon them, for, where there is no protection or allegiance or sovereignty, there can be no claim to obedience.
4 Wheat. 254.
In the great case of The Exchange (1812), 7 Cranch 116, the grounds upon which foreign ministers are, and other aliens are not, exempt from the jurisdiction of this country were set forth by Chief Justice Marshall in a clear and powerful train of reasoning, of which it will be sufficient, for our present purpose, to give little more than the outlines. The opinion did not touch upon the anomalous casts of the Indian tribes, the true relation of which to the United States was not directly brought before this court until some years afterwards in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), 5 Pet. 1; nor upon the case of a suspension of the sovereignty of the United States over part of their territory by reason of a hostile occupation, such as was also afterwards presented in United States v. Rice, above cited. But, in all other respects, it covered the whole question of what persons within the territory of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
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.