Posted on 11/02/2010 6:06:02 PM PDT by bushpilot1
The purpose of this thread is an attempt to explain a natural born citizen.
Lets begin with the words of Vattel in 1758.."Les Naturels ou Indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens" the natural born or natives are those born in a country whose parents are its citizens.
When the United States was formed..the natives or naturals were American or United States citizens. This established a family of Americans, a class of American citizens. A group of Soverign U.S. citizens.
There is a word I recently learned, it is called Kind. Kind as an adjective means natural or native.
Kind (natural-native) comes from the old english word gecynde which comes from the latin jure hereditario which means by hereditary right.
From the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: "KIND (O. E. ge-cynde, from the same root as is seen in “kin,” a word in origin meaning birth, nature, or as an adjective, natural. From the application of the term to the natural disposition or characteristic which marks the class to which an object belongs."
Obama isn't WHITE so he isn't our “Kind”. If his father were Bjorak Bjobamasson, a foreign national from Norway, I suppose he would be our “kind”, but not if the guy is from Kenya! NEVER!/s
How about me taking it up with the guy who says that only WHITE descendants of the European settlers of the USA are actually American, and that the founders wanted only WHITE people in the Presidency?
That very same sentence is followed imediately by a sentence linking birthright to one's ancestors. You can pretend it isn't there, but that's all you have: your imagination.
What part of “Madison’s statement, the law of the land and the Constitutional requirements of Article II, Section 1” didn’t you understand?
Only that you're willfully quoting the wrong part of the Constitution. Madison's comments were about Article ONE, section TWO requirements. He is, after all, addressing whether Mr. Smith can be a member of the House of Representatives, not the president. "So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature."
Could you please be so kind as to provide a quotation from any Framer of the US Constitution or any Founding Father of the United States of America which states that two US citizen parents are required in order to be considered a natural born citizen?
Don't be silly. You know as well as I that it only takes one parent to be a citizen: the FATHER. Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, so your request is moot. But if you want a quote from a founder, we can look at what was written by David Ramsay in 1789, "[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens…” This falls right in line with the Constitution being "We the people ... for ourselves and our posterity ..." It's not "We the inhabitants ... for those who happen to be within the territorial limits at any given time and just happen to be born within its geographical boundaries .."
Sorry, but you don't seem to get it. The 14th amendment had just passed. The Supreme Court had a chance to put a clear, indelible stamp of approval on that amendment, but chose not to. Instead of talking about where there are definitions for which there are no doubt, the court could have said the 14th amendment now redefines what it means to be a citizen. Instead, the court said the amendment was not necessary and that they could already establish citizenship for those persons born here of citizen parents. Justice Waite cited a definition of natural born citizen that is verbatim from Vattel. The definitions of 'other authorities' he said were doubtful. Justice Gray in WKA found himself bound by precendent and thus quoted and upheld Waite's definition. He could not apply it to his own plaintiff. Instead Gray had to create a justification for saying the 14th amendment creates citizenship for those persons for whom it wasn't originally intended ... which was basically non-white, non-slaves who were born in the country. You didn't seem to have a problem with the racism inherent in that decision when you cited it earlier, so you now you come across as hypocritical and petty in trying to sling the race card at the OP. It's nonsense and you know it.
It's highlighted because that's what Google Books does when you do a keyword search on their database. BP1 didn't highlight it using Photoshop or any other program. And his keywords search in that page-grab image so clearly shows that it was "natural kind."
His search was not "white kind" or "brown kind" or "purple kind" or "psychedelic kind" - it was 'natural kind.'
Racism here is not there there.
How about me taking it up with the guy who says that only WHITE descendants of the European settlers of the USA are actually American, and that the founders wanted only WHITE people in the Presidency?
A non sequitur. That was their intent, but the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution settled and changed the race issue as it made blacks as citizens of these United States. And no, that does not mean that it made them instant natural born citizens, but their children or "KIND" would become natural born citizens and therefore became eligible for the Presidency.
No, it is the entire basis of his argument that 0bama is not of our “kind” and that, because he is not the WHITE descendant of the European settlers of the USA he is not an American and not qualified for the Presidency.
As Edge919 said in his post to you,
"Sorry, but you don't seem to get it. The 14th amendment had just passed. "
The 14th Amendment says nothing about race. Many Northern free blacks during the time of slavery in the USA were full citizens with property rights, and voting rights.
And the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with the insistence that the Presidency and Americanism is somehow limited to the WHITE descendants of the European settlers of America.
Right, it didn't but you are the one who brought up race. As we all know, there were many former slaves in the South who were made US citizens.
And the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with the insistence that the Presidency and Americanism is somehow limited to the WHITE descendants of the European settlers of America.
I'll give you an "A" for effort at diversions and at Red Herrings.
You have no qualifications to piss on this thread or anything bushpilot1 posts.
They seem nervous.
It would be interesting to see of any of the toadies posted in the last couple of days, happy about the elections like normal freepers.
I bet they didn’t.
:-)
I’m sure many of the toadies are still pouting about the election drubbing they received.
It is the premise of this entire thread and the poster of this inane vanity that only the White descendants of the European settlers of the USA are truly American or eligible for the Presidency. My responses on the subject of race have been in RESPONSE to this inane bit of racist rhetoric.
That’s why they are in such foul moods, seem worse than usual.
Hee hee.
That very same sentence is followed imediately by a sentence linking birthright to one’s ancestors. You can pretend it isn’t there, but that’s all you have: your imagination.
It is strange that no court in the entire country has ruled that Obama is ineligible due to not having a father who was an American citizen.
Let me make this simple..
natural means to descend..
A natural born citizen..means to descend from citizens.
US citizens were made after the ratification..their descendents are natural born citizens.
The child of a US citizen mother and a foreigner cannot descend into a natural born citizen just because Obots say they can.
"This getting a little complicated..and confusing..but looking at the word natural..linked with born..citizen..its really very simple.
A natural born citizen is more than jus soli..it is heritage..it could be heritage from the original citizens..it could be from a certain race..I have a 1926 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary..American is defined..descendents from Europeans who were born in the US, 53 Conn 493.
Have posted Roman citizenship laws..two citizen parents and a Roman citizen married to a foreigner. Comments were made Roman law has no basis in American law..they referred to Blackstone..but Blackstone quotes Roman law.
There is more to it..with naturels..natural..linked with Kind.
“Kin is Old English cyn “family, race, kind, nature,” from Proto-Germanic *kunjan (source of German kind “child”), from the Proto-Indo-European root *gen- “to produce.”
The adjective kind is Old English gecynde “natural, native, innate.” The original sense is “with the feeling of relatives for each other,” and it comes from the same source as kin.” (a copy paste)" "
- - - -
You are making race the issue over dictionary definitions:
"Americans have always been of any race. There is no “race” component of being an American."
And
You are the first one to say "White Europeans" - not from a dictionary.
Your post 45 to BP1:
"You brought race into it. I responded to YOU opining that “It is possible the Founders limited the President to the descendents of the White Europeans who formed the country”. "
The Founders did, but the 14th Amendment changed who are the citizens of these United States, which overturned Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).
BP1 brought up dictionary definitions.
Your inference of BP1 being racist about dictionary definitions that he posted is out in deep left field.
Natural law recognizes BOTH “ju solis” and “ju sanguinis”, citizenship via right of soil and right of blood.
Now how about you make it simple and explain why you think the Presidency and Americanism is reserved only for the White descendants of the European settlers of the USA.
Because an old law dictionary says so and you like what it says?
How do you think that comports with equality under the law?
Some animals are ‘more equal’ than others now?
When I attack that line of reasoning, I am the one bringing race into it out of left field?
Amusing!
Not strange at all. It's a big decision and most don't have the balls to take on Obama's lack of eligibility issue at the moment. There may be a day soon that the courts see that the "ripeness" issue has come.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.