Obama has no natural born right to be President. He is a squatter occupying the White House

A New Dictionary of the English language ^ | 1836 | James Richardson

[bushpilot1]

hello there Mr. Alinsky..

[edge919]

You keep quoting Madison without understanding what he’s saying. Place of birth is the ‘most certain’ criteria, but not the ONLY criteria nor the only CERTAIN criteria. This simply means it’s easier to establish where someone was born than what the parentage was (especially with someone like the bastard Obama). Place of birth DOES apply in the United States, but it is not the ONLY criteria that applies, which I’ve shown in quoting the Charter of New England in this thread.

[edge919]

You quoted WKA earlier in the thread (incorrectly I might add) and perhaps you would understand that it included at least one race component. That was the whole point of the case — to determine whether someone whose parents were LEGALLY excluded from citizenship by race could be a citizen himself. The court said, "Congress never authorized the naturalization of any but 'free white persons'" and "... all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States." Notice it doesn't say natural-born citizens. On that term, it says, "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

[edge919]

Obama is claimed in Kenya, Indonesia and Switzerland too. Unfortunately few people claim him in the United States.

[allmendream]

You left off the tail end of the quote. That it was “never doubted” that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens were “natural born” is nice, but it doesn't establish that this is the ONLY criteria, as the fuller quote makes clear.

Selective quotation is the birthers best friend.

That and apparently racism. Sheesh. White. Kind. Race. White descendants of Europeans. etc. This thread is absolute garbage. Birtherism reduced to its most absurd and racist (which prior to reading this thread I thought was an absurd allegation).

[edge919]

You left off the tail end of the quote. That it was “never doubted” that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens were “natural born” is nice, but it doesn't establish that this is the ONLY criteria, as the fuller quote makes clear

For people who know how to read, the rest of the quote doesn't change the definition of natural born citizen that is used. "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." This says, there is NO DOUBT about its definition of natural born citizen and rejects other definitions because there IS doubt.

But for the benefit of a faither in denial, let's continue: "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." The reason the original court said this in Minor V. Happersett is because it was rejecting the need for the 14th amendment to establish citizenship for persons who were natural born. IOW, if your citizenship depends on the 14th amendment, you CANNOT be a natural born citizen. You would understand this if you read Minor, who says, "There is no doubt that women may be citizens. ... But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position." And goes on later to say, "The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption."

In contrast, the citizenship of the plaintiff in WKA is entirely dependent on the 14th amendment. "It does not appear to have been suggested in either House of Congress that children born in the United States of Chinese parents would not come within the terms and effect of the leading sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment." And "The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, 'All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'"

That and apparently racism.

There's a lazy and baseless allegation. You had no problem citing a Supreme Court case filled with references to race - one that acknowledged that some persons could not legally be naturalized at the time because of their race. By your standards, this would mean you were being racist, so the only absurdity here is on YOUR part.

[jamese777]

Obama is claimed in Kenya, Indonesia and Switzerland too. Unfortunately few people claim him in the United States.

---

Sure, if we don’t count the 69,456,897 who voted for O’Bambam, then you’re absolutely right that only a “few people claim him.”

[edge919]

“I’m not recommending for every future president that they take a shellacking like I did last night.”

[jamese777]

You keep quoting Madison without understanding what he’s saying. Place of birth is the ‘most certain’ criteria, but not the ONLY criteria nor the only CERTAIN criteria. This simply means it’s easier to establish where someone was born than what the parentage was (especially with someone like the bastard Obama). Place of birth DOES apply in the United States, but it is not the ONLY criteria that applies, which I’ve shown in quoting the Charter of New England in this thread.

---

Strange then that in more than 80 lawsuits challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility, not one single judge or justice out of more than 120 judges or panels of justices to look into this issue (including 8 appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States) has agreed with your interpretation of James Madison’s statement, the law of the land or the Constitutional intent of Article II, Section 1.

Madison concludes his statement by saying that place is the most certain criterion and it is the criterion of allegiance that applies in the US and that “therefore” it is unnecessary to investigate any other criterion of allegiance here in the US. The obvious context of James Madison’s point of view is that other nations have parentage as THEIR primary criterion, but not in the US.

You conveniently left that part out.

[jamese777]

“I’m not recommending for every future president that they take a shellacking like I did last night.”

---

Amen, O’Bambam!

[edge919]

I didn’t leave any part out, but simply explained the obvious part of Madison’s comments that YOU left out. If you take the next part of his statement, it says, “Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.” Here Madison links birthright with his ancestors.

What you argue about the number of lawsuits is an empty argument unless you can show in each one that ANY of them cited this Madison quote as the basis for its decisions. Please feel free to do so.

[jamese777]

I didn’t leave any part out, but simply explained the obvious part of Madison’s comments that YOU left out. If you take the next part of his statement, it says, “Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.” Here Madison links birthright with his ancestors.

What you argue about the number of lawsuits is an empty argument unless you can show in each one that ANY of them cited this Madison quote as the basis for its decisions. Please feel free to do so.

---

Ha! You’re getting desperate! It is still clearly stated that Madison’s point of view was that “birth as the criterion of allegiance is what applies in the US and that it is unnecessary to examine any other.”

What part of “Madison’s statement, the law of the land and the Constitutional requirements of Article II, Section 1” didn’t you understand?

ALL of the lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility have based their legal arguments on either the current law of the land regarding “Nationals and Citizens of the United States at birth” in the US Code OR Article II, Section I.

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?

[allmendream]

Doubts is not the same as a clear denial no matter how you much you want to read it that way.

Racism is hardly a baseless accusation in this instance, and previous to this thread I thought it entirely baseless.

Read the garbage put out by the poster of this idiotic thread. To him 0bama is not qualified because he is not the WHITE descendant of the Europeans who settled here, and he is not of our “Kind” which he helpfully further defined as “race”.

[Red Steel]

Oh, look at the Obama trolls were ganging up on BP1 during the mid-term elections. LoL! ...IBTZ!!

Yes, "indigenous" is the same as "natural" in French as it says below, which is one of numerous examples that have been posted here over the last two years. The trolls don't want it to be - their delusions cannot change the fact.

What's the other stupid argument by them? Oh yeah, that the American 1797 versions of The Law of Nations is not the same as de Vattel's original version. Do the silly trolls want us to think that 'natural born' which took the place of "indigenous" was changed to fit our US Constitution?! Yeah that's the ticket - it is an 18th century CONspiracy! What a bunch of dumbnuts.

[Red Steel]

Read the garbage put out by the poster of this idiotic thread. To him 0bama is not qualified because he is not the WHITE descendant of the Europeans who settled here, and he is not of our “Kind” which he helpfully further defined as “race”.

Kind or Kindred - has further meaning of indigenous, native, or natural.

[bushpilot1]

Vattel published in 2008.

The law of nations, or, Principles of the law of nature, applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns, with three early essays on the origin and nature of natural law and on luxury
Emer de Vattel ; edited and with an introduction by Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore ; translated by Thomas Nugent.
Published 2008 by Liberty Fund in Indianapolis, IN .
Written in English.

Thomas Nugent lived cira 1700-1772..The edition in 1797 was translated by him..there was a manuscript available..this means there was natural born citizen in the manuscript prior to the Constitution.

http://openlibrary.org/works/OL3003691W/The_law_of_nations_or_Principles_of_the_law_of_nature_applied_to_the_conduct_and_affairs_of_nations_and_sovereigns_with_three_early_essays_on_the_origin_and_nature_of_natural_law_and_on_luxury

[bushpilot1]

C.S. Lewis

[Red Steel]

BP1, :-)

[allmendream]

Post #54 makes clear the poster, by “Kind”, is refering to race.

Moreover he insists that only White descendants of the European settlers of the USA are really American via his law dictionary, and supposes that the founders would have wanted to limit the Presidency to White people.

[Red Steel]

I also see in #54 that “KIND” means “particular nature; natural state; nature, natural determination; manner, way; sort.”

You can take up your argument with the ghost of Thomas Sheridan the author of “A general dictionary of the English language.”