Replies

Danae,

We know what your position is, so baldly repeating it ad naseam is hardly productive. What we might benefit from is actual evidence that your position is the right one. But still all we get is impossible assertions of time travel by Ben Franklin or Swiss philosophers returning from the dead.

The demonstrated facts however are these:

1) At the time of the framing of the Constitution there was one and only one definition of natural born citizen in the English language, and that was the definition of English common law. Most of the framers were practitioners of that law and pointedly familiar with the phrase as a specific and well known term of art.

2) At the time of the framing de Vattel was 20 years dead, and no edition of his book existed that included the phrase. It would be another ten years before a translator (not de Vattel) inserted the phrase into an edition of the book for the first time.

3) Not a single Framer of the Constitution, or even a single American contemporary of them ever referenced de Vattel when discussing citizenship. Not in the debates in the Federal convention, not in their private writings, not in the Federalist Papers.

4) Not a single Framer of the Constitution is on record as having entertained for a second the requirement that two citizen parents were needed to be a natural born citizen.

5) James Madison (a Framer and eventual President) is formally on record that the rule of citizenship in America was jus solis, not jus sanguinis.

So you can tell us all day that "It's just that simple." The universe is overflowing with things that are "just that simple" and still not true.

) James Madison (a Framer and eventual President) is formally on record that the rule of citizenship in America was jus solis, not jus sanguinis.

Back to square one, right. OK Lets make it simple.

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.

Title 8 and the 14th Amendment both state; All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So explain how “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.”

So to ‘what’ degree was Barack Hussein Obama under US Jurisdiction at birth? Knowing that he was already under British jurisdiction, and how that being only partial or to whatever degree you impose not being in conflict with “completely subject to”?

Mind you this is The Supreme Court that has stated complete and not partial to any degree jurisdiction.

Now, back to your corner wiggie and chant the montra;

The Obot Creed

I believe in Barack Obama, the bearer of Hope and Change

And in his rhetoric, and tales of woe

Who was born of the mother Stanley, in a place unknown

In the sixth year migrated to Indonesia

He ascended to the Senate, and unqualified, usurped the Presidency

Who suffered under Orly Taitz and was slurred by racist birthers

I believe in spreading the wealth

Of the taxes and levies therein,

the loss of freedom, that cost doesn’t matter

That healthcare is free

As long as I don’t have pay