Replies

Danae,

I again point out the following incontrovertible facts.

1. There was only one definition of "natural born citizen" in the English language at the time the Framers wrote Article II of the US Constitution. That was the definition provided by three centuries of English common law. There was no other.

2. That definition is that anyone born on national soil who was not the child of a foreign diplomat or occupying army was a natural born citizen.

3. More than half of the Framers were lawyers who had practiced under English common law and were familiar with the phrase as a term of art. Its selection was not an accident... it was a well known, well understood and completely unambiguous term. They made no effort to indicate that they were using it in any new, innovative or anomalous way.

4. Not a single Founder or Framer can be shown to have (even once) argued that natural born citizens could not be dual citizens, or that natural born citizens had to have two citizen parents.

5. De Vattel was never once referenced in the Federal Convention's debates regarding eligibility for any office.

6. De Vattel himself never wrote the phrase, and no copy of his book included the phrase until thirty years after he was dead and ten years too late to have influenced Article II or the US Constitution.

7. In 250 years, an English edition has never been published of de Vattel's book that translates "naturels" as "natural born citizen." Every single one that includes the phrase does so as a translation of "indegenes."

8. At least one Framer (James Madison) is on record as saying that the rule in America for citizenship at birth is jus soli. There are exactly none who have said it is jus sanguinis.

9. The only American court that has ever directly and explicitly ruled on the definition of "natural born citizen" in relation to Presidential eligibility was the three judge panel in Indiana last year that wrote:

"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Let me know if you come up with money to make that bet.

1. There was only one definition of "natural born citizen" in the English language at the time the Framers wrote Article II of the US Constitution. That was the definition provided by three centuries of English common law. There was no other.

The undeniable facts are that the Founders could read French, and that the Founders used Vattel's definition as the meaning and intent for Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, the Natural Born Citizen clause, in the US Constitution.

We see below that it does say 'Natural' in French highlighted. It's no denying it - there it is:

"incontrovertible

Only in your mind. Here is an example from today that blows your argument right straight to where it belongs. Please note, just because you believe something does not make it correct, in this case not only are you incorrect, you are way off. This is an example from today. Try to recognize that this concept was not developed in 1941, or 48, or even 1888. Its been around a LOT longer than that:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

Dual Nationality

The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country's embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.

WiggieTingles

again, wrong. Enlish law covers subjects, like Obama.

Obama’s father was not a diplomat.

No facts, just lies, deceit, and kool-aid.

Better get out that Prayer rug and point to Obama;

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