Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: STE=Q
"We impose lot’s of “limitations” as to who may, or may not, be deemed a citizen within “the jurisdiction of the nation” (where else?)"

Lots? In point of fact, we apply exactly two. 1) Children of foreign diplomats and 2) Children of occupying armies. Since Obama was neither, and is was therefore solely and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the US at the moment of his birth.

"What you are arguing is that it’s possible to pass a law that does not “recognize” the danger of dual allegiance and, therefore — willy nilly — the danger does not exist!"

Not even close. What I am saying is that no such law exists in reference to the definition of natural born citizen. Your personal "danger" threshold does not create otherwise imaginary law.

"The very reason for the Natural born citizen clause — the “strong check” (as John Jay called it)was to preclude dual allegiance in the executive... a dual allegiance that could — POTENTIALLY — lead to usurpation of the presidency."

Why do Birthers find the urge to fraudulently rewrite John Jay's letter so irresistible? It mentions nothing about dual allegiances. It never even considers the concept. Instead, it opposes foreigners becoming president. Since dual citizens are not foreigners, his letter is of no help to you.


1,134 posted on 02/18/2010 9:52:58 AM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1080 | View Replies ]


To: EnderWiggins
Instead, it opposes foreigners becoming president.

WRONG !!! He opposes anyone who is not a natural born citizen.

From John Jay's letter:

" ... and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen."

***

You rely on Ark - I have no problem with that. Obama is a citizen, but he is not natural born.

Why, you may ask - because Ark relies on Calvin's Case (1608) for definition. Calvin's Case clearly states that a natural born subject has one allegiance to one sovreign and one sovreign only.

Ark further relies on Dicey and Dicey states that a child born outside of Great Britain whose father (or grandfather) is a natural born subject is also a natural born subject. This is clearly stated in the British Nationality Act of 1730 (4 Geo. II, c. 21).

Herein lies the rub - Obama cannot be a natural born citizen of both the United States, because of dual allegiances.

He is a citizen of both, and is best described as a denizen - as per Blackstone, Calvin, and Dicey. He is eligible to all the rights and privileges of a natural born citizen - except that of holding high office.

1,141 posted on 02/18/2010 10:42:35 AM PST by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1134 | View Replies ]

To: EnderWiggins
Maybe you missed this part:

"We impose lot’s of “limitations” as to who may, or may not, be deemed a citizen within “the jurisdiction of the nation” (where else?)"

Information on immigration and naturalization (see link)

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/oath-of-allegiance.html

The Oath of Allegiance is as follows:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

THERE IS WHOLE LOT OF "RENOUNCING" GOING ON FOR A COUNTRY THAT DOESN'T THINK DUAL ALLEGIANCE CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS!

... And of course -- as every American knows -- the the Natural Born Citizen clause was put in by the framers to prevent a possible SPLIT allegiance in the executive.

John Jay's letter to George Washington:

New-York, 25th July, 1787

"Dear Sir,

Permit me to hint whether it would not be WISE and seasonable to provide a STRONG CHECK to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a Natural Born Citizen.(Emphases Mine)

I remain, dear sir,

Your faithful friend and servant,

John Jay."

John Jay Letters:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay/

View abstract:

http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/app/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1

Now the question arises as to what would be the best "STRONG CHECK" to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government?

It would appear that A Natural Born Citizen -- born in country by citizen parents (Plural)-- would be the logical answer to the above question.

Nice try wiggie!

From now on EVERY time you PRETEND you can't read I'm just going to post the pertinent information for all to see.

Here's a special "bonus" package care of Freeper Beckwith:

re: "His Kenyan citizenship lapsed when he turned 21...”

It did not.

The (factcheck) report is not accurate as to Obama’s historical British Subject status in that the implication exists that British subject status was lost along with British citizenship back in 1963.

The proof of this exists in the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 (KIA) which states in Section 2(1):

2.(1) On and after the appointed day, the British Nationality Acts 1948 and 1958 shall have effect as if-

(a) in section 1(3) of the said Act of 1948 (which provides for persons to be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens by virtue of citizenship of certain countries) there were added at the end the words " and Kenya " ;

Now we must look at the British Nationality Act of 1948, Section 1:

1.-(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.

(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression 'British subject' and the expression 'Commonwealth citizen', shall have the same meaning.

(3) The following are the countries herein before referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.

According to the KIA, the words -- "and Kenya" -- are added to subsection (3) making all Kenyan citizens also British Subjects upon "the appointed day", December 12, 1963.

First, Obama could not have lost his Kenyan Citizenship on August 4, 1982. This means his foreign nationality issues were not only governed by the Kenyan Constitution, but -- as of January 1, 1983 -- he was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1981.

AND SO OBAMA WAS A BRITISH COMMONWEALTH CITIZEN AFTER THE BNA OF 1981 took effect Jan 1 1983, AND SO HE STILL IS, since he was not only governed by KIA63.

The ofuscation tactic is to make it seem as if his citizenship vanished, but it did not. Obama is STILL a Bobfuscationritish Citizen.

117 posted on Monday, January 11, 2010 2:45:31 PM by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

STE=Q

1,144 posted on 02/18/2010 10:56:02 AM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1134 | View Replies ]

To: EnderWiggins; syc1959; Lmo56; BP2; usmcobra; All

wiggie the palooka!

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/palooka.htm

STE=Q


1,156 posted on 02/18/2010 11:28:30 AM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1134 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson