Replies

“British Law has no force in the US.”

Odd. Birthers keep telling me that British law makes Barry a citizen of the UK forever, regardless of the fact Barry hasn’t ever claimed it or indicated any interest in it, and that this affects US law on who is eligible. But I agree with you - British law doesn’t determine US law. In WKA, it is cited as being the common law at the time the Constitution was written, and therefor instructive in what the Founders intended - original intent.

Now, let’s go thru some of the cases you cite:

Minor vs Happersett

“Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’”

This acknowledges that at the time it was decided (1875) there was not unanimity on the status of a child born of foreign parents in the US. Some said yes, some said no, and the court in that case did not make a decision.

At a minimum, this shows the birther claim that ‘everyone knows’ 2 citizen parents are required is false - everyone did NOT know that. And in 1875, the court left it open.

United States v. Rhodes (1866)

“To be a Natural Born Citizen one has to be born in a State, or Condition of, Allegiance to the USA. A person with Dual Nationality due to having parents of differing Nationality, who both acknowledged the Birth, is not so born. Their Allegiance is, by definition, divided. Subsequent acquisition of Nationality produces the same problem.”

I had a problem finding the text of this decision...seems it is a decision by the Circuit Court in Kentucky.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20825887/United-States-v-Rhodes-27-f-Cas-785-1866

When the Supreme Court cited it, they didn’t use the passage you want, but this one:

“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

I admit I may be missing something, since I haven’t read Rhodes carefully, but it seems the part the SCOTUS endorsed differs from what the Circuit Court found - and it is the SCOTUS that sets precedence for the USA, not the Circuit Court in Kentucky.

You then list:

“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vittal’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)

Actually, natural born citizen does not appear in the text. Neither does Vittel.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

You’ll have to point out the passage if I am to address it. I don’t have time to read every case in full searching for something the computer cannot find in the text.

SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vittal)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/242/case.html

Again, the computer can not find natural born in the text. I found this:

“The marriage of Ann Scott with Shanks, a British officer, did not change or destroy her allegiance to the State of South Carolina, because marriage with an alien, whether friend or enemy, produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife.”

but I doubt that is what you wanted. What passage proves your case?

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vittel)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html

Again, natural born citizen doesn’t seem to be found. Is there a passage you found relevant?

I did find this:

“For convenience, it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose, the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the states upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States.”

which supports the interpretation used in WKA that citizen and subject are interchangeable, depending on which country is writing, and that a natural born subject in English common law prior to 1789 is therefor instructional.

EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vittel)

Couldn’t find the text. Do you have it?

UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vittal)

Same - couldn’t find the text. What passage are you referring to?

I’ve had this list posted to me before, but I cannot find what the folks are referring to. If someone will post the text, maybe I can comment. Otherwise, I find WKA pretty clear - as did the dissenting opinion, as did the Indiana Supreme Court.

Opposed to this there are ZERO birther cases making any progress in the courts. Wonder why?

“Odd. Birthers keep telling me that British law makes Barry a citizen of the UK forever, regardless of the fact Barry hasn’t ever claimed it or indicated any interest in it, and that this affects US law on who is eligible. But I agree with you - British law doesn’t determine US law..........”

Yes it is odd! I’ll not ever say that to you......, the British Nationally Act of 1948 that some people cite, doesn’t make him a British subject, it only allows Barack to go before a British Court and claim British citizenship, because his father Obama Sr was a British subject...... As far as I know Barry has never done that, nor does it appear that he will do that in the near future.....

Still, it is a potential conflict of Allegience, one that the Founders sought to avoid in the Presidency, and the prime motivator for them to include NBC as a requirement for the Presidency. Neither of us can truely know what is hidden in Obama’s (or anyone else’s) heart....for all we know tomorrow he may apply for British or Kenyan citizenship...Likely....No, I don’t think so....possible....Yeah, it is.

The potential of that happening is what sets Barry’s status as a non NBC in conflict with the established Founder’s Intent.......

“In WKA, it is cited as being the common law at the time the Constitution was written, and therefor instructive in what the Founders intended - original intent.”***

You may want to review WAK again, and their citing of the Minor decision, and it’s acceptance of Vittals definition of NBC as being undisputed. That quality of citizenship, NBC, has never been disputed, the question has always been, in suits before the SC,...” what other qualities of citizenship are there?”

In WAK they found that WAK’s birth in the US to two legal resident aliens was sufficient to establish a quality of basic (non NBC) citizenship with rights equal to those of a NBC....

By the way Common Law is not operative in the US, we use a statute based law system......... futhermore, Blackstone’s is just one man’s commentary on, and view of British Common Law.....

***So your contention is that the Founder’s intent was to copy the Laws of the Country that they just successfully rebelled against? In effect establish Great Britain II.... Somehow, and maybe it’s just me, the logic of that is a bit well....uuhh, unsupportable? .....

I always thought the Founder’s Intent was to establish a Representative Republic using the ideas/ideals and thoughts of the greatest political thinkers/jurists of their time......have I been wrong all this time?

Back on point....

When you think about it, the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency are very simple...

1) Age... Have reached 35 years of age..... (have at least some minimum life experience as an adult, and hopefully some maturity in both thought and action.)

2) Residency...have spent his adult years in the US, and have been a participant in daily American life..... (21 years to be an adult + 14 years in the US minimum = 35 years old the required minimum age to be President.)

3) Loyality .....Have undivided loyalities to the United States. Heck, how can you insure that? Pretty hard to do wouldn’t you say? Well as a start, a basic minimum if you will, how about “birth in country to 2 citizen parents”..... just as Vittal, a contempory political jurist, suggests in his “Law of Nations? Doesn’t really insure complete loyality, but can you name a better way?

(see Barack Obama Jr’s “I am a citizen of the world.” statement..... but then he’s not NBC is he? (But he is an International Communist....not LOLOLOL))

Time to man up, Mr. Rogers... and take “THE CHALLENGE!”

Question.... If YOU were writting the Requirements for President at the Constitutional Convention, what things would YOU require to be eligible? Why do YOU feel YOUR requirements are important for the position of President? Give us the basis for YOUR reasoning......( you may cite others that are in agreement with your ideas...no Freepers allowed....just historical figures, and their writtings...)

Sit right down among the Founders... Madison, Franklin, Washington, Jay, Randall, et al... and put on your thinking cap....

No fair using the 3 requirements already used by the founders and leaving it go at that...LOLOLOL.. State in your own words, with your own reasons for the requirements you choose for POTUS......you may be as uncomplicated or complex as you choose, but you must be complete.......

If you do take up this Challenge you’ll be the first one to do so......No NBC deniers have so far, they’ve always wimped out....Maybe they just enjoy being in the catbird’s seat..”talk is cheap”...LOLOLOLOLOL