Replies

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.

Birth of a Notion, Pt. 2 - Barack Obama and the XIV Amendment

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.

Beauseant!

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

Duh. But why?

From John Jay's letter:

" ... to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government."

Not "a strong check to the admission of dual citizens" or a "strong check to the admission of split allegiances"

"Foreigners!"

"Calvin's Case clearly states that a natural born subject has one allegiance to one sovreign and one sovreign only.

Exactly. But it also explains how allegiance is determined. And by its rules, Obama has allegiance to the United States 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)."

Dicey still admits that those children are born outside the allegiance of the Crown. It acknowledges that this is the result of legislation that contradicts the common law per Calvin's case. But it's not a total miss. While it is of no help in your campaign against Obama's status as an NBC, it provides great support in favor of McCain's.

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

Sure he can and dual allegiances have nothing to do with it. He is a natural born US citizen because he meets the requirements of the common law as enshrined in the Constitution. Whatever the UK wants to call him under their laws is completely up to them, but they cannot and do not claim his natural allegiance which is exclusively that towards the US.