Replies

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.

“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.

The photo below is reportedly to have been photoshopped.

HOWEVER, one has to wonder what happens behind closed doors when the camera AREN'T present, as Obama still owes his OBEDIENCE to the Crown as a British Subject.

Nemo potest exuere patriam

Restated:

“Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth-right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign.”

As our current laws, as reinforced by the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch (US State Department “policy”), is that there could be no right of expatriation. And it goes both ways. Even the Brits in 1797, after the America's sovereignty was formally recognized by the King and Parliament via the Treaty of Paris in 1783, said:

“No British subject can, by such a form of renunciation as that which is prescribed in the American Law of Naturalization, divest himself of his allegiance to his sovereign. Such a declaration of renunciation made by any of the King's subjects, would instead of operating as a protection to them, be considered an act highly criminal on their part.”

On September 16, 1870, a treaty was entered into between Great Britain and the United States — the Convention between the United States and Great Britain [16 Stat. at L. 775] — provided:

I. Citizens of the United States of America who have become, or shall become, and are naturalized according to law within the British Dominions as British Subjects, shall, subject to the provisions of Article II, be held by the United States to be in all respects and for all purposes British Subjects, and shall be treated as such by the United States.

Reciprocally, British Subjects who have become, or shall become, and are naturalized according to law within the United States of America as citizens thereof, shall, subject to the provisions of Article II, be held by Great Britain to be in all respects and for all purposes citizens of the United States and shall be treated as such by Great Britain.

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.

Agreed. However, I'm cutting Wiggy a break here and giving him a mulligan about Obama's place of birth. My point is that even if Obama was born on U.S. soil, he is not a natural born citizen.

British Law is for British subjects.

35 of the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention were lawyers - trained in British Law. They got their legal training in one of three ways. Either their families were rich and could afford to send them to prestigious law schools in England, or they could have attended one of the few fledgling law schools in the colonies (which, BTW, were certified by England, or they could "read for the law" under established lawyers in the colonies (who, BTW, received their legal training in one of these ways).

My point is that the Founding Fathers were drafting a legal document at the Constitutional Convention and they relied on the lawyers amongst them for guidance. Concerning the term "natural born citizen", the lawyers most certainly would have relied upon their legal training and the principles as set forth in the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21], as it was the prevailing law concerning inheritance and citizenship (subjectship) for some 57 years. They also would have referred to Blackstone (but only as a summary of English Law) and Calvin's Case [7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377], which since 1608, was the seminal case concerning natural born subjectship. Calvin was as famous as Miranda v. Arizona is in American Law.

Now, did the Founding Fathers also refer to Vattel ??? My opinion is that they most likely did - as well as referring to Grotius, who founded the theory of Natural Law. But, again, I gave Wiggy a mulligan - saying that Vattel and Grotius (and a host of others, I am sure) were not necessary in order to determine natural born citizenship. Prevailing British Law in 1787, upon which the lawyers were trained, was sufficient to that end.

As a side note, had the Founding Fathers decided to change the British definition of natural born citizen (subject) as they had been taught in law school to understand, they would have noted the specific changes to that definition in the Constitution.

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

I guess that you completely misunderstood the meaning of my last post. I apologize for that. I wanted to strip down the issue to bare bones for Wiggy, removing any issue of conjecture, speculation, or debate from the argument. When stripped down to just British Law, which the lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers based their careers, Wiggy's arguments are unsuppportable and cannot be defended.

Was Obama born in the United States ??? I don't know. Did the Founding Fathers rely on Vattel, Grotius, and/or others ??? I certainly believe so. But even without birth evidence and the works of these scholars, the British Law under which all of the colonists lived until the end of the Revolutionary War precludes Obama from being a natural born citizen.