Obama is not a Native US Citizen

Bouvier's Law Dictionary ^ | 1928 | William Edward Saldwin

[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.

[Mr Rogers]

“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?”

Because

1) it makes conservatives look like lunatics, who run around worried that Barack Obama is making decisions based on his feudal loyalty to Queen Elizabeth 2, and

2) people waste time and money supporting birther cases going nowhere instead of giving to conservative candidates, and

3) it influences folks like Lakin to disobey military orders in a futile hope that a military court will overturn the election of Barry Obama.

And the vicious reception of anyone who disagrees with a birther tends to make it personal.

[Uncle Chip]

More documentation and more nails in the Obamabot coffins.

[PA-RIVER]

Not necessarily.

And Natural born Citizen is a term that is in fact documented by the founder David Ramsay. The constitution has never been amended to change the requirement. Obama is not qualified. Never has been.

Is he a valid US citizen? Maybe, maybe not. He will never provide his birth documents to substantiate the claim either way.

We have not yet elected our first constitutionally qualified African American President. A foreign national sits in our highest office. The stain of his alien citizenship presidency will probably be removed after one term. The feeling of mutual contempt between Obama and the American people will only grow.

[little jeremiah]

Hmm, how much (precious) time have *you* spent on these threads, eh?

The writer of the comment noted the rational and sincere reaction of people who think that, for whatever reason, this is a non-issue. They spend their precious dwindling amount of time on what they deem useful topics. Unlike you, a useless topic, hours of your time...

No one has said 0bama luvs Queen Elizabeth.

The very phrase “overturn election” reeks of Axelspeak.

No one is trying to “overturn an election”. I dare say I can speak for most on these threads: We want the truth. The simple truth, and we want those in power to face the truth. If there is any necessary action, fine and dandy. For all we know, Macolm X may be his father, in which case he is a natural born citizen.

Truth! It’s beautiful.

[Uncle Chip]

That quote from Blackstone indicates that there was still an oath of allegiance required of all British natural born subjects. Such oath was not required of American natural born citizens.

It appears that British subjects, natural born or not, were all "naturalized", so to speak, by the taking of that oath to the Crown -- thus a significant difference between a natural born subject of Britain and a natural born citizen of the United States.

Blackstone may have referred to it as a mere formality, but this mere formality brought with it the penalty for perjury and treason.

[Uncle Chip]

We do not recognize another nation's claim on our citizens.

What do you mean by "We"??? Are you an American citizen???? I think "not". So get over the "We" stuff.

We abided by the treaty with the Chinese Emperor after the Civil War not to allow Chinese nationals to become U.S. citizens. So you don't know what you're talking about.

Read our Constitution sometime if you are going to blabber about it. "We" abide by treaties "we" sign with other nations as required by our Constitution. The country whose flag you are flying on your info page may not, but "We" do.

So go peddle your baloney over in Shanghai.

[Mr Rogers]

I don't spend much time on these threads. I spend a good chunk of my days lately digging 3' postholes and planting trees - and southern AZ has soil like rock.

Add in exercising our horses and rebuilding some corrals, and I'm certain that each night will leave me barely able to walk.

The minutes I spend on these threads is a way to unwind, or, in this morning's case, an excuse to delay going out and getting to work (4 more postholes and 2 more olive trees planted and I'll be done for a bit, unless we buy some telephone poles to use for fencing).

But I don't donate money to combating birther issues...I'd rather give to JD Hayworth (http://www.jdforsenate.com/). I don't spend time on legal cases or arguing for the Supreme Court to push Congress to remove Barry based on information that everyone knew at the time of the election.

And in a couple of minutes, I'll finish my coffee and be off to ride the horses out...look carefully, and you'll see some railing in the background that is now almost completely installed.

[Mr Rogers]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Impressment

[Tammy8]

While discussing the Obama birth issue a friend asked me if I thought a child born in the U.S. of two parents here illegally could become President one day. The way the laws have been interpreted to this point I would assume yes they could. Amazing but likely true.

[usmcobra]

If Venezuelan law was changed to recognize everyone born on US soil as a Venezuelan citizen as well, would that eliminate everyone from NBC status?

That same tired argument again, here let me kill it for you, the only way that would be possible would be if we recognized by treaty Venezuela's right to do so.

We do however have a treaty with Great Britain that recognizes the citizenship of their subjects and their offspring, we even fought a war with them because of it, maybe you heard of the War of 1812?

[Who is John Galt?]

Those metal panels are sweet - we couldn't afford them, so we got used oil field tubulars, used them for posts & rails (welded together & painted with white Rustoleum), with 2"x4" wire mesh attached to keep the 'ponies' from sticking their legs through. Cheaper solution, and it worked pretty good, but it was a lot of work...

;>)

[PugetSoundSoldier]

AGAIN, you IGNORE the fact that Ark WAS NOT decided on jus soli, BUT SOLELY on the 14th Amendment.

Correct; to say otherwise would be misrepresenting my position, which is the Court decided that the 14th Amendment was based on the much older, pre-existing position of jus soli and thus was foundational in the legal decision.

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".

Sure, and I have not argued otherwise.

To say ANYTHING ELSE about the Ark decision makes you a liar.

Which is the position of most in this thread who claim some undefined position regarding NBC status without even the references of Ark. Rather, liar may be too strong, but delusional perhaps fits better.

We already know from the citizenship act of the very first Congress, passed in 1790, that the very men who set up these United States did not hold to the position of Vattel; witness their explicit declaration of those born overseas to two citizen parents were natural born citizens (yes, they use that very phrase, natural born citizen).

So we have settled case law of a Supreme Court decision (upheld by later cases as well) that positively references the English common law position of jus soli in the majority decision. And we have a law passed by the very first Congress that explicitly runs counter to Vattel.

Yet somehow the "proper" position is that Vattel is the our foundation when it comes to citizenship? That takes a pretty willful suspension of logic and reason.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

And the vicious reception of anyone who disagrees with a birther tends to make it personal.

Invective and unfounded appeals of authority are the position of a weak mind and untenable position.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

What do you mean by "We"??? Are you an American citizen???? I think "not". So get over the "We" stuff.

Why yes I am. I am an American citizen.

We abided by the treaty with the Chinese Emperor after the Civil War not to allow Chinese nationals to become U.S. citizens. So you don't know what you're talking about.

I see. So re-read what you just wrote and what I originally wrote:

We do not recognize another nation's claim on our citizens.

Highlight added. When you realize the speciousness of your argument, I believe you do owe an admission of error, or at the very least own your failure of comprehension of the English language.

Unless, perhaps, you have no command of English and reason; perhaps you are the one who is not a citizen?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

That same tired argument again, here let me kill it for you, the only way that would be possible would be if we recognized by treaty Venezuela's right to do so.

Correct. What we do not recognize has no bearing on the citizenship of our own. Thus the claim by another nation on one of our people does not negate their citizenship.

We do however have a treaty with Great Britain that recognizes the citizenship of their subjects and their offspring, we even fought a war with them because of it, maybe you heard of the War of 1812?

Yes, and that pre-dates the 14th Amendment. Perhaps you have heard of it?

[Uncle Chip]

We do not recognize another nation's claim on our citizens.

But We do recognize another nation's claim on their citizens.

[Uncle Chip]

Which end of that horse is the source of your posts???? :)

[little jeremiah]

Photos of you and your horsie cannot erase your posting history.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

But We do recognize another nation's claim on their citizens.

Which has no bearing on what I wrote. If another nation claims a person in their citizenry, that is irrelevant with regards to our claim. Does a claim by Canada on your personage as a citizen now make you not natural-born?

In fact, why do so many in this very thread argue that the parentage and claim of another nation on the offspring matters for natural born status, yet accept that James K. Polk was the first "natural born citizen" President? Both his parents were British subjects while he was born within the United States after the birth of the nation, and thus by the arguments here Polk would not be a natural born citizen.

So if we do say another nation's claim on a person matters (regardless of what our nation - or the individual - considers about that claim) then clearly many of our earliest Presidents were NOT natural born, as they came from the perpetual citizenship of Britain.

On the other hand, if we ignore (rightly) what another nation claims about one of our citizens, it's a non-issue altogether.

[Uncle Chip]

<> If another nation claims a person in their citizenry, that is irrelevant with regards to our claim.<>

You still don’t get it.

It is Barack Obama himself who claims that he was born under the British Nationality Act of 1948 — Barack Obama himself.

He did not say that he was born under the U. S. Constitution but under the British Nationality Act of 1948.

Are you saying that he is a liar????

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_07.html