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

To: EnderWiggins; All
We are a sovereign nation. We and only we get to decide who is our citizen, and who is our natural born citizen. Britain cannot do that for us. Neither can Kenya or Indonesia.

And that is the damn point, Wiggy ...

Since the term natural born citizen has never been defined either politically, through Constitutional amendment, or judicially, by the Supreme Court, the question devolves to original intent of the Founding Fathers – what did they know and how did they know it. The lawyers amongst them were trained, quite brilliantly, in English Law. In fact, many of them received their law degrees in England prior to the revolution …

Obama is a “citizen” of the United States by virtue of being born on United States soil, but he is also a “natural born citizen” by virtue of the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21].

Now, you may say that the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21] was “legislated”, and does not count. However, the definition of “natural born subject” in English Common Law was also legislated [7 Rep. 7], as well as the exception for children of English ambassadors who are born outside of the sovreign’s dominion [7 Rep. 18]. Should we discount these laws too? In fact, should we discard English Common Law completely since it was derived from Roman Law, and then discard Roman Law since it was derived from Greek Law, and then discard Greek Law since it was derived from Biblical Law ??? Of course not. BTW: Biblical Law recognizes citizenship through heredity only.

The Founding Fathers relied on Blackstone, the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21], and Calvin’s Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377 in their understanding of natural born citizen. That meant being born within the sovreign’s dominion and under a singular, exclusive allegiance to him. In the eyes of the Founding Fathers, the fact that English Law allowed natural born subject status to children born out of the sovreign’s dominion of natural born fathers [4 Geo. II, c. 21] would have necessarily negated Obama’s claim to natural born citizenship in the United States. If Obama had lived in the times of the Founding Fathers, he never would have been eligible to run for President.

1,211 posted on 02/18/2010 8:03:04 PM PST by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1191 | View Replies ]


To: Lmo56

Your claim “Obama is a “citizen” of the United States by virtue of being born on United States soil,”

There is no evidence that he was actually born in the United States. If there was he’d have released his records instead of hiding them.

Another Obot pawn; “The Founding Fathers relied on Blackstone, the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21], and Calvin’s Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377 in their understanding of natural born citizen”

British Law is for British subjects.

Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

The United States Supreme Court in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

“Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘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 indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

The Supreme Court did not reference Blackstone, Calvin, or BNA of 1730, why didn’t they if they were the source of the understanding of a ‘Natural Born Citizen’

Your attempt to keep repeating the same old lies to make them the truth has failed.

Your trying to re-invent the Founding Fathers intent and meaning, by attempting to change water into wine, making a purse out of a sow’s ear, or an illegal undocumented questionable ‘native’ into a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ of the United States.


1,212 posted on 02/19/2010 5:33:59 AM PST by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1211 | View Replies ]

To: Lmo56
"Obama is a “citizen” of the United States by virtue of being born on United States soil, but he is also a “natural born citizen” by virtue of the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21]."

You are almost correct.

Obama is a natural born American citizen by virtue of having been born on US soil (and not the child of a foreign diplomat or occupying army).

Whatever any British law calls him does not matter. If he is a "natural born British subject" by virtue of the British Nationality Act of 1730, it is of no relevance to his eligibility, because the US Constitution's requirement has already been met and we are a sovereign nation over whom Britain's citizenship laws have no effect..
1,215 posted on 02/19/2010 9:27:13 AM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1211 | 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