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'
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
POOF!
I am still holding out for "Natural Born Citizen" because deep down, I know that the real BHO, Jr. paternal unit is Little Richard. Or Willie Mays.
According to the US Supreme court I am both.
Your response to the above was:
Of course it didn't. Blackstone merely is a source to show you what English common law said. But he is not the authority. English common law is the authority.
Well, you FINALLY stepped in it, Wiggy - I have been waitng for this ...
By your OWN WORDS, you admit that Blackstone is MERELY a source that explains English Common Law, and NOT the law itself ...
Add that together with your worshipful reliance on the Wong Kim Ark Case, and we have the following:
Justice Gray in Ark cited Calvin's Case (1608) as the relevant English Common Law. And Calvin's Case stated the following:
" ... 3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because, though the King of' England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. And therefore if any of the King's ambassadors in foreign nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the common laws of England they are natural-born subjects, and yet they are born out-of the King's dominions. But if enemies should come into any of the King's dominions, and surprise any castle or fort, and [7-Coke-18 b] possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the King's ligeance or obedience. But the time of his (a) birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the King of England, unless at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the King. And that is the reason that antenati in Scotland (for that at the time of their birth they were under the ligeance and obedience, of another King) are aliens born, in respect of the time of their birth.
4. It followeth next in course to set down the reasons wherefore an alien born is not capable of inheritance within England, and that he is not for three reasons. 1. The secrets of the realm might thereby be discovered. 2. The revenues of the realm (the sinews of war, and ornament of peace,) should be taken and enjoyed by strangers born. 3. It should tend to the destruction of the realm. Which three reasons do appear in the statute of 2 H. 5. cap and 4 H. 5. cap ultimo. But it may be demanded, wherein doth that destruction consist; whereunto it is answered; first, it tends to destruction tempore belli; for then strangers might fortify themselves in the heart of the realm, and be ready to set fire on the commonwealth, as was excellently shadowed by the Trojan horse in Virgil's Second Book of his Aneid, where a very few men in the heart of the city did more mischief in a few hours, than ten thousand men without the walls in ten years. Secondly tempore pacis for so might many aliens born get a great part of the inheritance and freehold of the realm, whereof there should follow a failure of justice (the supporter of the commonwealth) for that aliens born cannot be returned of juries (a) for the trial of issues between the King and the subject, or between subject and subject. And for this purpose, and many other, (see a charter worthy of observation) of King Ed. 3. written to Pope Clement, datum apud Westm 26. die Sept. ann regni nostri Franciæ 4 regni vero Angliæ 17 ...
... Now when the whole was under the actual and real ligeance and obedience of one King, were any that were born in any of those several and distinct kingdoms aliens one to another? Certainly they being born under the obedience of one King and sovereign were all natural-born subjects, and capable of and inheritable unto any lands in any of the said kingdoms.
2. Whosoever are born under one natural ligeance and obedience due by the law of nature to one sovereign are natural-born subjects: but Calvin was born under one natural ligeance and obedience, due by the law of nature to one sovereign; ergo, he is a natural-born subject."
***
And, it AIN'T a coincidence that John Jay's reservations to George Washington concerning an agent provocateur becoming Prsident STRONGLY adheres to Lord Coke's analogy of the Trojan Horse ...
| > According to the US Supreme court I am both. If you were president, how can you be loyal to both countries? How could the American public be sure who you'd place first? As the State Department clearly said in 1990:
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. |
Use your words. A huge cut and paste does not an argument make. Perhaps a comment regarding what point you were making?
Perhaps?
Or .. Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver. No actual telling as yet.
Wiggie, fashions himself as the Obama James Bond, the only thing he actually has in common with James Bond is, as a kid wiggie WAS shaken not stirred.
just like wiggie - demented and insane at the same time.
wiggie - told his doc that he was hearing voices,
doc told wiggie - turn doen the volume. MD by ObamaCare
I know you're a lunatic.
giggy-Fool
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…;
Typical libby remark - when you CANNOT back up your deluded position ... attack the opposition
You want my own words ??? Here goes ...
You hang your hat on ONE SCOTUS decision (Ark) and claim that it is the be-all and end-all ...
People show you other SCOTUS decisions that contradict your position - you dismiss them and you keep going back to Ark.
So, I take you up on it and show you that Calvin's Case (which Ark cited as the relevant English Common Law) declared that a natural born subject is born both within the sovreign's dominion AND under a SINGLE SOLITARY allegiance to that sovreign AND THAT SOVREIGN ONLY. And I even give you the relevent text by cut nd paste ...
Not only that, but you "cherry pick" from Blackstone that children born to aliens in Britain are "natural born subjects" (with the exception of foreign ambassador's children) to support it.
However, Blackstone had much more to say about "natural born subjects" - specifically "denizens", which can be children aliens born within Britain but with MORE THAN ONE allegiance and who ARE NOT natural born subjects ...
You would NEVER make it onto even an elementary school debate squad ...
"That Wiggy ... What a Maroon !!!
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
-Circuit Justice Swayne, in United States vs Rhodes (1866)
http://www.thecommentary.net/1861-circuit-justice-swayne-defines-na…;
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.