Replies

The Obots out in force means they are worried. Some of the old names haven't appeared for months. When they descend is in this thread what often happens is that they gradually outnumber the ligitimate questions. Remember that this is what some of them are paid to do, disrupt discussions of eligibility, to keep those new to the possible validity of such questions confused. Getting angry with them serves their purpose. Note that as we learn more about our founders, framers, and Constitution, they simply repeat the same old lies. But it does serve the purpose of restoring our Constitution to explain some of their lies.

First, the old Wong Kim Ark - common law - natural born subject is a natural born citizen shibboleth; Justice Gray begins by citing Chief Justice Morrison Waite's explaination of natural born citizenship from Minor v. Happersett. Here is the relevant quotation:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 parents who were its citizensbecame themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Anyone believe Gray will blatantly contradict what Morrison Waite said was “never doubted?” Anyone doubt that had Gray's citation contradicted Waite's that challenges would have appeared in 130 years? Justice Gray determined that Wong Kim was a citizen. His whole case is a somewhat grandiose treatise on the 14th Amendment, including an irrelevant history of British citizenship. (Some wonder if all the verbiage about common law wasn't to help cloud the ineligibility of the only other ineligible officeholder, Chester Arthur, who appointed Gray, and deliberately concealed his birth certificate to distract political enemies from his British subject father.) All Gray's citations of Calvin's case show is that Obama was born, as Obama himself said, and British law confirms, a natural born subject of the British Commonwealth - obviously not a natural born citizen/subject of both countries.

What affect did the 14th Amendment have on the definition of natural born citizenship? Here is the explanation from the Congressional Globe (Record) by the principal author of the 14th Amendment, Congressman and Judge John Bingham, of natural born citizenship:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….

Subjects are not citizens. Someone pointed out that citizens can become president but subjects can never be king. Perhaps the most eloquent explanation comes from framer and founder, Dr. David Ramsay, who wrote a dissertation on citizenship in 1790. He said:

A citizen of the United States, means a member of this new nation. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people was also changed from subjects to citizens.
The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.
Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure; but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.

One obot claimed that no one had objected to presidential candidates born of non-citizen parents. Breckenridge Long, a Missouri Attorney and subsequent FDR State Department appointee, wrote a lengthy analysis of former Justice Charles Evans Hughes’ failure to satisfy the natural born citizen requirement for the Chicago Legal News, the largest law journal in the country, in 1916 (Thanks to Sharon Rondeau of Post & Email). Long's essay can be found on “Scribd”. It only confirms Jay, Washington, John Marshall in The Venus where he cites Vattel, Waite, Story, Kent, Bingham, and Horace Gray of Wong Kim Ark who cites Waite's statement above. Sadly, one example of "Ruling Class" arrogance is that Justice Hughes, who was reapponted Chief Justice, wrote the decision in Perkins v. Elg in 1939, citing Justice Waite's Minor v. Happersett definition. Hughes knew he was ineligible!

Whether arrogance, political expediency, or fear, every Senator, Democrat and Republican, including Obama, signed his/her agreement with Pat Leahy and Michael Chertoff in Senate Res 511, Apr of 2008. No one in Congress could not have known that Obama’s father, the source of his dreams and allegiance, was a non-citizen. Chertoff said, trying to cover for McCain's questionable eligibility:

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”

It doesn't get more clear. We must, in time, bring every legislator to account for failing his/her oath to The Constitution.