Posted on 09/20/2011 8:28:54 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
The critical issue for the 2012 election is whether or not a government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall perish from the earth.
The US Government has been hijacked by a self-serving, permanent political class, which considers itself above the law and elections as bothersome formalities temporarily interrupting their plundering of the nation’s wealth.
Having become comfortable with ignoring the will of the people, American politicians have created a culture of corruption in Washington, D.C., while they steadily whittle away at the Constitution to remove any remaining obstacles in their pursuit of personal power and affluence.
The rule of law has deteriorated to such an extent that it is now possible for Barack Hussein Obama to present a forged Certificate of Live Birth on national television, to use a stolen Social Security Number and forge his Selective Service registration without a single member of Congress raising an objection.
In 2012, these same politicians will ask voters to ignore Obama’s crimes like they have and endorse their endemic corruption.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Listen simpleminded, I am not taking your bait on the Cable act. You can either address the salient point, or STFU. You are adding nothing to the discussion but noise.
Oh, I know that I am not a lawyer, and that is why I rely on what the law case thingies say. Like:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
I did have a minor in English, sooo I bet that sentence says Obama is legal if he was truly born in Hawaii (or Connecticut). But, just to be sure, I also asked my mother’s lawyer and paid him $50 last year. Plus, my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq.
So yes. I am pretty confident.
“...we’ll try to help you understand why the founders wanted real Americans in the presidency.”
Yes. REAL AMERICANS like Rev Wright, Bill Ayers and John F’n Kerry (who served in Vietnam).
Not unreal Americans like Marco Rubio.
Pity the Founders didn’t just write, “born of citizen parents” instead of confusing things by using a well known legal phrase...
>> “Do you have ANY proof or reference from the Founding Fathers that they chose to explicitly change from English Common Law (Royal Subjects) to Natural Born citizenship?” <<
Over 160 years of American eighth grade students being taught that Natural Born meant that both of your parents had to be citizens should be a good place to start.
No other idea even existed until the last decade.
All of the SCOTUS cases that ever discussed citizenship were in agreement on that definition, and WKA, the court even had to coin a new term to hang on 14th ammendment citizenship (native citizen) so that they wouldn’t step on Natural Born, which has a different meaning.
Obiter Dictum, by definition and under the doctrine of stare decisis, is never binding in the U.S. It may be quoted in support of decisions but in and of itself is not binding.
Well Title 8 of the US Code says this: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Well grasshopper, the Constitution CREATED the courts, so it has superior power over them. They do not have power over it. Furthermore, the Intent of the Delegates at the convention and the Ratifying states is the ONLY thing relevant to the discussion. Subsequent court decisions that conflict with the Intentions of the Delegates and the States are NULL AND VOID.
Your miscomprehensions regarding the decisions of the court are not useful information to anyone that has superior knowledge of this issue. The courts Serve the meaning of the DELEGATES and RATIFYING STATES. The founders stated intentions are far superior information regarding the meaning of Constitutional law than is the non-contemporaneous court's opinions of the founders opinions.
Even so, several cases have been cited, still you remain obtuse. Historical information has been provided, still you remain obtuse. Logical arguments demonstrating the absurdity of your belief have been produced. Still you remain obtuse.
As for "tattle on your personal life", it isn't a secret you dufus, how else do you think anyone knows about it? Arguing with you can produce no "win" of any sort. It merely leaves one with the dirty feeling of having wrestled with a pig. Scratch that, a pig would be a more worthy opponent.
Now you may start your childish rant. It won't matter to me because I have responsibilities to deal with, and won't be around to look at it.
Slaves were property. Indians were considered part of a foreign nation living embedded in the USA.
Slaves could NOT become citizens. They needed to be freed first, since property could not be a citizen.
“Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the United States in every State that might desire it for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time if the slave escapes from his owner...The only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html
Again:
“Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,
if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,
and saying that such a child “was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354.”
In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
19 How. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
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.
1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, speaking by Mr. Justice (afterwards Chief Justice) Sewall, early held that the determination of the question whether a man was a citizen or an alien was “to be governed altogether by the principles of the common law,” and that it was established, with few exceptions,
that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”
Garder v. Ward (1805), 2 Mass. 244, note. And again:
The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.
Kilham v. Ward (1806), 2 Mass. 236, 265. It may here be observed that, in a recent English case, Lord Coleridge expressed the opinion of the Queen’s Bench Division that the statutes of 4 Geo. II, (1731) c. 1, and 13 Geo. III (1773), c. 21, (hereinafter referred to) “clearly recognize that to the King in his politic, and not in his personal, capacity is the allegiance of his subjects due.” Isaacson v. Durant, 17 Q.B.D. 54, 65.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.
That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.
The same doctrine was repeatedly affirmed in the executive departments, as, for instance, by Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, 2 Whart.Int.Dig. (2d ed.) p. 394; by Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Opinions, 373, and by Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Opinions, 328, 382, 394, 396.
Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the “general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,” says:
Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
>> “Pity the Founders didn’t just write, “born of citizen parents” instead of confusing things by using a well known legal phrase” <<
.
Funny how congress and the state legislatures still have a bent toward using “well known legal phrases” in their legislation today.
Even more strange though, is the inability for supposedly educated people to see the difference between “subjects” that were the chattel of the sovereign, and citizens that are themselves a kind of sovereign, capable of creating, and limiting, a government of their own.
Until that government was created, there were no citizens at all.
Believe it or not, the Obummer Birth issue isn't a Conservative tenant. I can cite countless Conservatives that find this a non issue. Do you find Mark Steyn, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh phoney Conservative?
The Birthers shot the wad on this and came up losers. Corsi promised to have the smoking gun. His book was an absolute dud. Countless lawsuits and investigations yielded nothing. Now the few people on this are circling the wagons, to save face with people like Orly Taitz. She is a professional tin hat wearing nut. Look into her other conspiracy theories if you would like to see what that crowd looks like.
A lot of good will and faith was put into this concept of Obummers eligibility. That time and effort could have been better served investigating all the real corruption this Regime has been involved in while everyone was distracted with this. Just look at all the things like Gunwalker and Solyndra that have come to the surface since the BC issue went dead. To still be debating eligibility is ridiculous at this point.
“Until that government was created, there were no citizens at all.”
Hmmm. Then how come Vattle could write about “citizens” way back then???
>> “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.” <<
.
How did you miss this simple limiting clause in your own post?
“Jurisdiction and allegiance” are both required.
No parent citizenship, no allegiance.
FAIL!
Adults are having a discussion.
Ask your mommie to explain it to you when you get home.
Well, you have to make a distinction between Common Sense Suspicious Birthers and the Vattle Birthers. Because we are like the Michael Caine person in the movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, and the Vattle Birthers are like the Steve Martin “Prince Rupreck” person. LOL!!!
“Over 160 years of American eighth grade students being taught that Natural Born meant that both of your parents had to be citizens should be a good place to start.
No other idea even existed until the last decade.”
Really?
(page 246)
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
Was 1844 part of the last decade?
What about 1795?
““It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut - 1795
What about 1803?
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“...in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutution, note 274: “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. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866) in 1871
Yep, guess it is only in the last decade that anyone thought a NBC could have alien parents...
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ah Surveyor. You are battling for the honor and good name of the Birthers? I guess you needed a hobby and this one suited you.
I will have to hit that thread and see what types of stellar argument you are giving to put us all in our place.
>> “Not unreal Americans like Marco Rubio.” <<
.
Does respect for the constitution have to be based on hatred for Rubio?
Logical fallacies seem to be the framework of all of your replies.
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
“Logical fallacies seem to be the framework of all of your replies.”
Actually, court cases, cited and linked, are.
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.