[STE=Q]

A man has a quote “natural right” under natural law to belong to “A SOCIETY” as man can not exist without it. Now naturally that would be the one he was born into through his parent's membership in that society, but ultimately it is his choice. The term “Natural” "ONLY" comes into play when the parents do not belong to another society, thus there was no foreign society that could claim the child as one of their own.

This was not the case of Obama. He clearly had a choice between 2 societies in which he was born into according to current US interpretation of the 14th. The 14th was NOT law in 1789 when A21C5 qualifications were written because at the moment of his birth to married parents, the father being British, Great Britain could claim him as one of their own if war should break out between the US & GB.

US Circuit Court, District of Columbia, 1808: Contee v. Godfrey, 6 Fed. Cas. 361 (#3140) (U.S.C.C. D.C. 1808), denied that the British-born daughter of an American antenatus who had chosen the British side could claim citizenship under the statute 7 Anne c. 5 (discussed in Kettner, Am. Citizenship, 20) which in English law had extended subjectship to the foreign-born children of subjects. In this case, the parent’s choice of alienage (before the daughter’s birth) clearly affected the descendant.

Ah so!

Very interesting.

I hope that Mr. Apuzzo will take a look at your argument.

STE=Q

[patlin]

The international law and custom of ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 1 By Coleman Phillipson (1911)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zb0yAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA264&dq=Rome,+natural+born&hl=en&ei=JhnWTPbyEpGonQe1koHBCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false