"The plain truth of the matter is that the term “natural born citizen” is ambiguous (at best) in our current day vernacular. That is why SCOTUS needs to definitively declare what an NBC is (or isn’t). SCOTUS HAS NEVER RENDERED A DECISION AS TO THE DEFINITION OF NBC."?
Your response:
I cannot help but note your qualification "in our current day." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell all of us here have been arguing about original intent at the time of the Framing.
My new response:
Of course we are, you twit ...
My point (that you OBVIOUSLY did not grasp) is that what was obvious to the Framers (definition of NBC) may not be so obvious to most citizens today.
And it IS the province of SCOTUS to rule on such a case - as long as it is properly filed, presented for consideration, and accepted by SCOTUS.
Your response (continued):
The Supreme Court does not need to "render a definition" when the controversy is fake. They are proscribed from doing so by the "cases and controversies" clause.
My new response:
US Constitution, Article III, Secton II, Clause I:
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party ...
A petition for a writ quo warranto, properly filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia WILL end up before SCOTUS. Whether it will be accepted for review is another matter ...
Your response (continued):
"And, as for his assertion that children of foreigners who are born in Britain are natural born subjects – DON’T FORGET THAT HE INSERTED THE CAVEAT “GENERALLY SPEAKING” IN THE DEFINITION."
And we all know the exceptions that warranted the caveat. he expresses them explicitly; children of foreign diplomats and occupying armies.
My new response:
WRONG !!!
Here is what Blackstone wrote (including the next two paragraphs):
... The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.
A denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: ... A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may. A denizen is not excused from paying the alien's duty, and some other mercantile burdeens. And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown.
NATURALIZATION cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king's ligeance; except only that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, etc.
As someone wrote to you in another post - you are picking from a Chinese menu, keeping what you like, and IGNORING what does not agree with you.
" From my original post:
I suggest that you read further as to his definition of a “denizen” – who is a citizen that is born in Britain, but has divided loyalties."
Your response (continued):
"Denizen" has no meaning in American Constitutional law. You will not find the word anywhere in the Constitution. We continue to speak here about "natural born citizen" and the only definition for it that existed at the time of the Constitution's framing.
My new response:
Blackstone never referred to "natural born citizen" - he referred to "natural born subject". But we all know what he meant ...
Denizen is not referred to in the Constitution, but it is referred to in Blackstone. It is also referred to in Calvin's Case (one of the English Common Law cases referred to in the Ark decision).
You should read the Calvin Case, like I suggested previously, but that you obviously did not do ...
I have not included citations for denizen from Calvin, but they comport to the definition in Blackstone ...
But, I have included citations from Calvin regarding natural born subjects.
From Calvin's Case:
Report Date: 1608
3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because, though the King of' England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. And therefore if any of the King's ambassadors in foreign nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the common laws of England they are natural-born subjects, and yet they are born out-of the King's dominions. But if enemies should come into any of the King's dominions, and surprise any castle or fort, and [7-Coke-18 b] possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the King's ligeance or obedience. But the time of his (a) birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the King of England, unless at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the King. And that is the reason that antenati in Scotland (for that at the time of their birth they were under the ligeance and obedience, of another King) are aliens born, in respect of the time of their birth.
4. It followeth next in course to set down the reasons wherefore an alien born is not capable of inheritance within England, and that he is not for three reasons. 1. The secrets of the realm might thereby be discovered. 2. The revenues of the realm (the sinews of war, and ornament of peace,) should be taken and enjoyed by strangers born. 3. It should tend to the destruction of the realm. Which three reasons do appear in the statute of 2 H. 5. cap and 4 H. 5. cap ultimo. But it may be demanded, wherein doth that destruction consist; whereunto it is answered; first, it tends to destruction tempore belli; for then strangers might fortify themselves in the heart of the realm, and be ready to set fire on the commonwealth, as was excellently shadowed by the Trojan horse in Virgil's Second Book of his Aneid, where a very few men in the heart of the city did more mischief in a few hours, than ten thousand men without the walls in ten years. Secondly tempore pacis for so might many aliens born get a great part of the inheritance and freehold of the realm, whereof there should follow a failure of justice (the supporter of the commonwealth) for that aliens born cannot be returned of juries (a) for the trial of issues between the King and the subject, or between subject and subject. And for this purpose, and many other, (see a charter worthy of observation) of King Ed. 3. written to Pope Clement, datum apud Westm 26. die Sept. ann regni nostri Franciæ 4 regni vero Angliæ 17.
Now when the whole was under the actual and real ligeance and obedience of one King, were any that were born in any of those several and distinct kingdoms aliens one to another? Certainly they being born under the obedience of one King and sovereign were all natural-born subjects, and capable of and inheritable unto any lands in any of the said kingdoms.
2. Whosoever are born under one natural ligeance and obedience due by the law of nature to one sovereign are natural-born subjects: but Calvin was born under one natural ligeance and obedience, due by the law of nature to one sovereign; ergo, he is a natural-born subject.
Calvin declared that place of birth was highly desirable, but that ligeance to ONE SOVREIGN was paramount.
While the US Constitution declared Obama to be a citizen via the 14th amendment, the British Nationality Act of 1948 ALSO declared him to be a British citizen.
This puts him at odds with the definition in Calvin, which declares liegeance to ONE SOVREIGN AND ONE SOVREIGN ONLY ...
My original post:
"The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law was written in 1758 – and John Adams said that any lawyer worth his salt kept a copy on his night stand …
And, FYI, Vattel died in 1767 – I hope you are not claiming that he wrote the book more than 20 years later "
Your response:
You come late to the conversation. The copy of Law of Nations on John Adam's nightstand said nothing about natural born citizens. Neither did any other edition until it was inserted by an unknown translator into the 1797 London edition.
My new response:
Potato, Potahto - Toamto, Tomahto ... JFK used to say Baaaahstad when he shanked a golf ball - but we all know what he meant ...
That leaves Obama out... next!
STE=Q
WiggOut is a paid twit.