Posted on 04/20/2010 1:35:31 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
But those who actually have one, as opposed to name brand snobs with a need to act out insecurities, all love 'em.
I read a bunch of reviews on the Hi Point tonight, and didn't find a single one that was negative. One guy said that his gun jammed on him when he first shot it, but since then it's worked perfectly for him.
That's good enough for me. All I need now is to pick the caliber and find a store that has them in stock.
I leave you to your views.
“The Founders did NOT use Vittal’s as a Bible. They used Blackstone more often than Vittal, since Blackstone was more authoritative.”
Pure BS...un/mis informed opinion.....
Blackstone uses the term “Subjects”
Vittal uses the term “Citizens”
The Constitution uses the term “Citizens”
Makes ya think doesn’t it? Why aren’t we American Subjects?
Vittal was a well respected 18th century jurist and thinker.... Vittal’s text was in continious printing until 1880s.....yet you think he is less respected than Blackstones? Ok, you’re entitled to your opinion....LOL
“If he is correct, Vittal’s didn’t mention NBC until 1797”
Looked it up....Vittal was born in 1714, noted jurist, wrote Law of Nations in 1758, died in 1767.....
He had been dead 30 years in 1797....aleksandreia is not correct, not correct, not correct, and wrong, wrong, wrong.....
And an illustrative reason why I don’t go to finge web sites......
Thanks anyway buddy.... nice try, but you make it easy... LOLOLOLOLOL
By the way Vittal didn’t coin the phrase NBC.....he just refined the definition......you know the one used by the Founders when they set out the requirements for President....
The old Romans coined NBC......
Had nothing to do with Blackstone’s, or his definition of a Natural Born Subject.
And perhaps Terry Lakin.
Thomas Jefferson inaugurated The Study of the Law of Nature and of Nations” at Williams and Mary College in 1779. The text, from 1779 until 1841 was Vattel’s Law Of Nations. Among Jefferson’s students was future chief justice John Marshall who cited in his concurring decision in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 at paragraph 289, Vattel’s Law of Nations and restated the definition of natural born citizen, “born in the country of citizen parents.”
I can provide a ton of other citations about the Use of Vittals Law of Nations AKA Law of Nature.....in various USSC decisions....note that in The Venus, John Marshall echoed Vittals Law of Nations.. 212. Citizens and Natives.
Blackstones....humph......
You need to understand the difference between ‘citizen’ and ‘NATUAL BORN citizen’. There are many postings that tell the Founding Fathers knew the difference when they made ‘NATURAL BORN’ explicit in the Constitution.
Actually the confusion about the definition of what a "natural born citizen" is was caused by the fact that until about the 1920s and 1930s it was impossible to have two married parents of different citizens so the constitution doesn't really envision what to do with this situation. Up until the 1930s women had what is called "derivative citizenship" which means that they had whatever citizenship their father or husband(if they were married)held. Thus if they a woman was a natural born citizen and she married a Frenchman, she became a French citizen ipso facto with no act of government required, but if a French woman married an American man she automatically became an American woman too. If a child was illegitimate, the child inherited the citizenship of the father, if the father was unknown then the child became whatever their mother was. Under the old system, it was impossible to have married parents of different citizenship. Consequently, almost everyone was a natural born citizen. The concept of dual citizenship was considered an irrational and impossible and you used to lose your US citizenship if you voluntary accepted another nations citizenship until 1967 when SCOTUS undermined US sovereignty by ruling that dual citizenship was possible in the case Afroyim v. Rusk.
As far as the interpretation of the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" goes now, we really are in uncharted legal territory.
First, Wong Kim Ark v. United States ONLY declared that Ark was a citizen.
Second, it is abundantly clear in Ark that Justice Gray was promoting HIS interpretation of "natural born citizen", as he found from English Common Law - to the extent that he bastardized, exagerated, and even flat out lied about the citations. He obviously felt that Ark WAS natural born, but lacked the votes to get that opinion - so he settled for citizen under the 14th Amendment.
NOW, lets see what Calvin's Case 1608, the seminal case on British subjectship, [cited in Ark] REALLY said:
"... 3. There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king. 2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other ..."
Actual obedience meant permanent allegiance [or permanent ligeance], and not just temporary obedience due by aliens to the sovreign while they resided in the country.
Furthermore, [although cited, but trivialized in Ark], Dicey's "A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws" stated:
(1) "British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance [See Note 1] to the Crown.
(2) "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.
(3) "Naturalized British subject" means any British subject who is not a natural-born British subject.
Note 1: "Permanent" allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes " temporary " allegiance to the Crown.
Additionally, Ark quoted Blackstone [which is a commentary on English Law - and NOT the law itself], but did NOT expound further on the following:
" ... The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such ...
Notice that Blackstone qualifies their status be writing "generally speaking". He does not state it to specifically exclude the children of aliens who are claimed as natural born subjects of their fathers' country, but he STRONGLY implies it further on by also stating that no subject can owe two [2] allegiances to two [2] different sovreigns.
NOW, your own words betray you ... "You need to look at the law in effect at the time, and as decided in court cases during the years since.
The Founding Fathers had been British subjects - and were, thus, brought up under British Law.
They were also aware of the British Nationality Act of 1730 [which governed British citizenship at the time of the American Revolution] that stated:
" ... the Children of all natural-born Subjects, born out of the Ligeance of her said late Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, should be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born ... May it please your most Excellent Majesty that it may be declared and enacted, and be it declared and enacted by the Children of natural-born Subjects born out of the Allegiance of the Crown, declared to be natural-born ... That all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited Clause in the said Act of the seventh Year of the Reign of her said late Majesty, and of this present Act, be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever ..."
Furthermore, there is John Jay's letter to George Washington in 1787, stating:
"... Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen ..."
There was NOT MUCH “American Statute Law” in place at the time. When the separation from Great Britain was complete, ALMOST ALL of the law used in the United States was British Law [except that which we disagreed with].
The lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers were trained either at English Law Schools, American Universities [which taught English Law], or studied under established attornies [who, themselves, were trained at English or American Universities that taught English Law].
Therefore, a "natural born citizen" is born within the dominion of the United States and owes a single, permanent allegiance to the United States at the moment of his birth. That single, permanent allegiance is conveyed through the parents. The only way the parents could convey such allegince was for them to be citizens [natural born or naturalized] themselves.
Since the British Nationality Act of 1730 [and subsequent British Nationality Act of 1948] conferred natural born subject status upon children born outside of the British dominion - there IS NO WAY the Founding Fathers would consider Obama to be natural born - citizen, yes ... natural born, no.
Given this, in tota, there is only one reasonable definition that the Founding Fathers intended and that is: A natural born citizen is born within the dominion of the United States AND of two [2] citizen parents, who each owe a single allegiance to the United States.
BTW: There is no SCOTUS case law that defines "natural born citizen". The fact that an Indiana Court did is moot - that court is subserviant to SCOTUS and SCOTUS has never ruled on it ...
Well, there you have it! Congratulations!
You're eligible if you're over 35 and have moved back at least 14 years. BTW, the reason is your parentage, not the US installation fact.
Of course, a lot of birfers would disagree ... but that leads to absurd results, such as US military should be penalized for serving abroad by having their progeny ruled ineligible to be president.
Thanks for your post that was a lot of work, and I appriciate your efforts...hope that you had it ready at hand.....some of it I have read before, sans your illuminating explainations...those were great!
There is still a lot of food for thought left isn’t there?
My IQ surely raised up a couple of points to 7, I’m gonna be dangerous now!.....lololol
That's true. But they've never ruled on NBC as it relates to presidential eligibility. When it comes to guessing how they might rule in such a case, studying oral arguments is better than nothing.
It's also useful to help trash a blithering birfer article author.
Since when do other countries get to decide which of our citizens is eligible?
Granted, Zero doubtless thinks we ought to respect their opinions in that matter and others. But he's our first anti-American president, so that's hardly a surprise.
Are your eyes still blue? lololol
“BTW: There is no SCOTUS case law that defines “natural born citizen”. The fact that an Indiana Court did is moot - that court is subserviant to SCOTUS and SCOTUS has never ruled on it ...”
Doesn’t the USSC in Perkins v Elg back into the NBC definition by declaring Elizabth Elg not only a citizen because of her birth in the US, but also a Natural Born Citizen because both her parents were US (naturalized) citizens? (1933)
You are correct in that the SCOTUS has never ruled on NBC as applied to the Requirements for POTUS.....still there are many instances where they refered to the term and gave some understanding as to what NBC should mean....
Your comment?
Thirty-four of the fifty-five delegates to the Constitutional Convention were lawyers. Don't know how many actually signed - but they would have been heavily involved in the drafting
. FYI: Twenty-two of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence were lawyers - another nine were judges ...
Yes, the Constitution and other laws was/were the start of American Statute law, we did not go the Common Law route...
No - we did not go the Common Law route, with one exception. Many SCOTUS cases declare that when American Law is found lacking, resort must be made to English Common Law - from whence American Law was derived. There was a famous patent and trademark case about this ...
Here! Here!
I wish I had your elegance of thought...... spot on man!
Unfortunately, the concept of being "natural born" [citizen or subject] was almost universally known at that time. That is why the Founders did not have to expound on it.
Had they thought it was going to be a problem, they would have written [my addition in italics]:
"No person except a natural born Citizen [having solitary allegiance to the United States], or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Quite likely FMD (which would ice the eligibility question, wouldn't it??). On the other hand, BHO, Sr., probably died thinking he was the dad. But it wouldn't surprise me that both sampled the merchandise, Stanley Ann being quite the 'ho', you know!
That is a good question - conceivably, it could. We won't know unless it happens ...
But, for now, Obama could evade questions about his eligibility in 2012 [assuming a state passes an eligibility law] by simply not running ...
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.