Posted on 05/14/2010 3:21:18 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Meandering through my 1928 Edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary on page 833, Native, Native Citizen is defined:
Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens.
If Obama does not meet the standards of a native citizen how can he be a natural born citizen.
I am copying zzeeman’s great comment here for your perusal:
The most “curious” aspect of all of this “anti-birther” propaganda that appears here is the simple question: why would anyone that claims to be “conservative” (most, but not all of them, do) ever bother to spend so much time and energy researching and posting all of this propaganda?
Without suspending disbelief and making a huge leap of faith, I can’t accept that there are any valid reasons for this activity, other than the simple fact that they wish to discredit and ultimately silence all discussion of the very serious issues that surround the background and Constitutional eligibility of the present occupant of the White House. The level of severity of this situation is very grave, arguably the most dangerous situation that has confronted our country since its founding. In my opinion, it is not too provocative or hyperbolic to acknowledge that we are currently living within the unfolding of a grave Constitutional crisis that began on November 4, 2008.
It is precisely the severity of this crisis, combined with the daily assaults on our Constitution, Freedom, Liberty, Society, and Economy that makes this an issue that no true Conservative would willingly battle against. I’m sorry, I don’t buy any of the excuse or motives that I’ve read here. I’ve read that some people have been “insulted” in these threads so now the argument has become “personal” for them. I’ve read that some have motives since they are a parent of a child that doesn’t meet the Natural Born Citizen eligibility requirements stated for the President and Vice President of the United States, so they somehow feel that they have a vested interest in somehow finding a way in having this sacred requirement subverted (just in case their child wishes to run for either of these 2 offices when they are 35 years of age). I’ve also read many times that they simply wish to redirect the efforts of fellow conservatives toward more “constructive” issues, causes, and pursuits (which absurdly presumes that no one can effectively multi-task at any given point in time). And of course we always hear about how “embarrassing” they believe it makes conservatives look to the “general public” and state-run media. (This last one is really a gem. What it presumes is that “if we conservatives just act normal and play nice, then the state run media will represent our issues, candidates, and politicians fairly.” To me, this is as sane as hearing the left wring their hands and whine “if we would just stop oppressing those poor people, then they would stop terrorizing us.” Both arguments are equally inane.)
I am not suggesting that every Conservative citizen, politician, or pundit needs to make this issue the forefront of their daily thought, deliberation, and speech. I respect the fact that some people may just not be “comfortable” with dealing with this issue, or speaking about it a public (or even private) forum. We all (still) have the right to what we deem important issues on which to direct our time, energy, and other resources. However, given the stakes of our collective situation, I can not fathom why any sane Conservative would spend an ounce of their energy trying to argue against a conclusion that would be of great benefit in our fight to overturn the oppressive tyranny that is being forced onto us on a daily basis. I readily admit that no one really understands how this issue may play out over time. At a minimum, hopefully it leads to more and more of our fellow citizens becoming more aware of the murky (to be kind) circumstances that surround virtually every aspect and period of the occupant’s life and background. And perhaps this increased awareness will lead to them becoming more active in pursuing truth and better understanding the travesties that are being unfolded on a daily basis by this regime and its supporters and enablers. Beyond that I can not accurately speculate on what may ensue. However, for all true Conservatives the ultimate outcome would be the invalidation and nullification of all (or at least most) of the un-Constitutional, immoral, and illegal acts that the regime has inflicted on our great and beloved Country.
So regardless of how any of us may choose to spend our time and energies, regardless of how plausible or “credible” we may see these issues to be, the only reasonable and logical (which are key underpinnings of Conservatism) reaction to these issues would be along the lines of a simple “No thanks, not for me; but Good Luck in your chosen battle, I hope that you succeed!” for any of us that choose not to be active in this pursuit. I am sorry, I just can’t make the leap from that sort of slightly apathetic (but still supportive) reaction to the incredible amounts of energy and time that we witness daily on these threads. I don’t have any quantitative measures to use as illustrative data points, but I know that I am not alone in being absolutely astounded at the amount of time, energy, and (perhaps most revealing) passion that I see being expended by those that are ostensibly arguing against the sane resolution of a whole host of issues that can only serve to provide strategic and operative victories (even if they are incremental in nature) in our struggle against tyranny.
676 posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 3:25:57 PM by zzeeman (Fighting to not be the amongst the last generation to enjoy Freedom & Liberty!)
Now that was funny!
I almost forgot about that historic meal.
Parsnip was welcomed jubilantly when he registered on Politijab recently - a hero’s welcome! Greeted most warmly by Milspec, who was recently banned on FR with the screen name MilspecRob. Many of these people post on leftist websites recounting their great successes of trashing us on FR.
And I’m not pinging him to this comment on purpose.
Actually, it's as opposed to being born not entitled to US citizenship and then later becoming a US citizen via the process of naturalization. For instance, Schwarzenegger, Granholm, and Kissinger are ineligible because they are naturalized. They were born in Austria, Canada, and Germany, respectively, and only later became US citizens.
The court could agree that it meant born of US parents but no judge is wanting to take that step for fear of igniting riots.
No judge has the power to take that step. Under the Constitution, the sole power to remove the President resides with two thirds of the Senate, acting on a motion to impeach passed by a majority of the House. The most the Court could do is cough up an opinion (and send John Roberts, in extra-fancy robes, down to the Senate to count the votes).
There is no excuse for the behavior.
If any of these so called FReepers who purposely misdirect threads and post propaganda still think they are conservative, I suggest they do some deep soul searching.
naturels means natural born according to the founders. Posted on another thread.
Thank you for keeping track.
Some say we should leave the trolls alone. I used to think that was the best way to handle them. Not anymore.
We need to point them out whenever we can. Newcomers or infrequent visitors to these threads might believe their tripe.
Thank you Patlin. The attack on the rights our Constitution was written to protect has caused some of us to learn a history we hadn’t thought seriously about. It also focuses the minds of the otherwise occupied. If the quality and clarity of discussion relating to the intentions of our framers is an indication, and I think it is, we are having some success in exposing the truth of Obama’s illegitimacy. Curiously, many who now accept that Obama is a socialist or Marxist, without a particular understanding of those terms, cannot grasp the subtleties of citizenship, certainly a better defined concept. Your analysis of the Madison letter was excellent.
Yes, I did know that some may have considered William a usurper. But, per Blackstone:
" ... though there be an usurper of the crown, yet it is treason for any subject, while the usurper is in full possession of the sovereignty, to practice any thing against his crown and dignity: wherefore, although the true prince regain the sovereignty, yet such attempts against the usurper (unless in defence or aid of the rightful king) have been afterwards punished with death; because of the breach of that temporary allegiance, which was due to him as king de facto. And upon this footing, after Edward IV recovered the crown, which had been long detained from his house by the line of Lancaster, treasons committed against Henry VI were capitally punished, though Henry had been declared an usurper by parliament."
William claimed England under the feudal law "Right of Conquest". According to Blackstone [whom I believe to be in error], once all the living freemen gave their oath to William - he was legitimized and all subsequent children born in England [according to Blackstone] would be natural-born subjects. No need for the children to swear the oath - but they WERE required to AND [even if William was a usurper], it would have been treasonous for anyone to oppose him.
And, between 1066-1205, there were those natural-born subjects who held "double allegiances". However, after 1205 [the loss of Normandy], these people were forced to choose one or the other - and give up the one that they did not retain.
From Bracton:
" ... There are however, some who are in the allegiance of both and always were, before the loss of Normandy and after, and who plead here and there because they are in the allegiance of both, as William the earl Marshal dwelling in England and Michael de Fiennes dwelling in France and many others ...
So, the concept was NOT entirely unknown to the British. It was forbidden after 1205, but they knew that the condition WAS possible.
There is NO English Common Law that states that all children born in England [regardless of the parents' heritage] are natural-born subjects. This was pointed out in Parliament debate in 1571.
The first reference to all children born in England being English was by John Rastell in his "Exposition of the Terms of the Laws of England" [which was the first English Law Dictionary]:
“If an alien come and dwell in England, which is not of the king’s enemies, and there hath issue, this issue is not alien, but English.”
NOTE: RASTELL HAD NO AUTHORITATIVE CITE OF COMMON LAW OR STATUTE FOR THIS. HE ALSO STATED "ENGLISH" INSTEAD OF "NATURAL-BORN". HE COULD VERY WELL HAVE MEANT "DENIZEN".
Later English Law Dictionaries [after Calvin's Case] replace the word "English" with the word "Denizen". From Ephraim Chambers "Cyclopaedia" [1730], a well-respected work:
" ... if one born out of the King's Allegiance come and dwell in England ; his Children begotten here are not Aliens, but Denizens ..."
Finally, Common Law is said to have originated with William, as England became a nation-state under him. He combined Anglo-Saxon Law with Norman Law to begin what is now called English Common Law. As such his law requiring the fealty oath was part of the Common Law. I have found NO subsequent law repealing it nor have I found ANY law stating that birth on English soil alone was enough to confer natural-born status on any subject.
AGAIN, you IGNORE the fact that Ark WAS NOT decided on jus soli, BUT SOLELY on the 14th Amendment.
However, jus soli is a component of the 14th Amendment, so I give you half-credit.
The Court DID NOT declare that birth jus soli makes one a "natural-born citizen", but it DID declare that birth jus soli makes one a "citizen".
To say ANYTHING ELSE about the Ark decision makes you a liar.
The founders didn't keep the feudal definition as everything about the feudal government was repugnant to them. Too bad your either too lazy or ignorant to actually study history. If a 1789 definition of a founding father, framer, signer of the constitution, a physician, a teacher, etc doesn't convince you of the fact you are wrong, then you are truly a DRONE and hopeless.
Education_Of_The_Founding_Fathers_Of_The_Republic_Scholasticism_In_The_Colonial_Colleges
http://www.archive.org/stream/educationofthefo028335mbp#page/n7/mode/2up
No one cares, or should care, what the modern usage is. And Vattel is nice, but he wrote in French. Word for word translations of terms of art might be interesting, but that's all.
We're talking late 18th century English here and the definitive reference for that and the entire history of English word usage is the Oxford English Dictionary. The entry for natural-born there makes it pretty clear that a natural-born subject did not have to be born in England, but only that his parents had to be English subjects.
ML/NJ
Nice find, everyone is brainwashed to believe that you have to be simply born in the US. Even if 0bama was born in the US the pos is still not natural born. He spits in the face of true Americans.
"We decree also that every freeman shall affirm by oath and compact that he will be loyal to king William both within and without England, that he will preserve with him his lands and honor with all fidelity and defend him against his enemies."
Now, when William first conquered England, this would have been necessary for the British to submit to William. However, children born after William assumed the Crown ALSO had to take the oath when they reached adulthood. If birth within the realm conferred an exclusive allegiance to the sovreign - there WOULD NOT have been a need for these children to swear the oath.
So, it is exclusive allegiance that determines whether one is natural-born. And, that allegiance IS NOT automatically conferred upon birth within the realm [per Common Law].
This is worth remembering -- an oath of allegiance was required of Britain's natural born subjects.
Lmo56 raises some interesting points, and I’ll try to reply later.
However, the idea that Barry owes any allegiance at all to the UK, or is in any way a subject of QE2 with divided loyalties is just laughable!
Try a poll sometime, BP2, asking, “Is Barack Obama Jr a loyal subject of Queen Elizabeth 2 due to the sperm donation by Barack Obama Sr?”
Or even, “Does Barack Obama Jr feel any loyalty or need to obey the government of England?”
That isn’t an argument. And I’m certain both Vattel and George Washington would have agreed with me.
If you argue NBC from where natural allegiance lies, Barry is a NBC, as are Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. He was born to an American mother and raised in America as an American. Barry’s hatred for America and capitalism is home-grown, and Americans voted for him knowing full well about it.
I don’t like it, but the idea that the Supreme Court will try to force Congress to remove him because his loyalty is divided between America and England is beyond silly.
Obama was born an American citizen, since he was born on American soil. This is in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment. Unless there's some intent to give up this citizenship, the Government only looks at his status as an American citizen. Any case of an American citizen losing their citizenship is always a result of an action on their part, not simply a foreign law.
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.