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.

[El Gato]

naturels means natural born according to the founders. Posted on another thread.

Yes indeed, and in case someone missed it there, here is the reference.

Journals of the Continental Congress, FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1781

or you prefer the image:

ARTICLE III

Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d'autrui.

And the translation, likely by the Secretary of Congress, Charles Thomson

3
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. They shall all be appointed by their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence of such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic or commerce whatsoever either on their own account, or on account of any other

[Red Steel]

Perfect.

This definition in “5.-1st” is totally consistent with what the WKA ruling actually said, not the insidious treacherous spin that Wong was determined to be NBC based on the false claim that native citizen equals natural born citizen regarding POTUS eligibility.

Do you think the opposition here will be able understand it?

I once even tried the analogy of 2 + 2 ...nothing seems to work.

[El Gato]

He was born to an American mother and raised in America as an American.

Except for those years in Indonesia, part of which was spent memorizing the Koran. Forgot about that did you?

Not that it matters. Natural born, or not, is established at birth, by the circumstances of that birth. BHO's circumstance is that his father was not a citizen, not then or ever.

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[El Gato]

The Constitution is not "fluff." As for evidence, you're the one who can't cite any court cases that say the citizenship of someone born in America to an American citizen is trumped by a foreign law

Correct, but if US law, via the meaning of "natural born citizen" requires that both parents be Citizens at the time of birth, then it only matters that BHO Sr was not a citizen, it doesn't matter what nation he was a citizen of. Nor does it matter if that other country claims his offspring as a citizen either. It's the lack of US citizenship that counts. The non citizen parent could be be stateless and the offspring would still not be natural born. They could and would under the 14th amendment, be a citizen, with some exceptions.

[El Gato]

This CLEARLY is opposite of Vattel's definition of natural born citizen. Thus the first Congress regarded citizenship differently than Vattel. That's the point.

Actually the point is they were trying to extend the definition. But 5 years later realized that was improper, and settled for making the children of citizen parents who were born abroad citizens, not "considered" as Natural Born. Subsequent Supreme court cases have affirmed that those children are naturalized, because the only power congress has to make citizens is the power to define a uniform rule of naturalization. Being naturalized does not only include the individualized process of residency requirement, testing, oath taking and so forth. There are other ways defined in the Statutes.

[El Gato]

He was born, legally, out of wedlock.

Don't be so certain. There was a divorce, not an annulment or whatever a legal recognition that a marriage never existed. Since Stanley Ann asked for no child support or allimony (alimony was pretty standard in 1961 divorces) why would she have bothered with a divorce if they weren't married? She clearly knew of the first "wife" by that time.

But the point is, that the marriage was apparently legally recognized at the time, and thus BHO Sr would be legally recognized as the father, even if biologically he was not. A father who was not a US citizen, and who even though absent, had a great influence on BHO's outlook and attitudes. I mean he wrote, or had Bill Ayers write, a whole book about the "Dreams from my Father".

That hut is not in Kansas.

[El Gato]

The crux of the WKA issue is that his parents could never become citizens by statute of Congress; however, his status - by virtue of birth - was set by the 14th Amendment. Congressional statute does not override Constitutional rights. Whether you agree with Grey or not, it is the law of the land, and has been upheld by subsequent SC decisions.

No one is saying that WKA was not a citizen, well maybe a few, but the court did not say he was a natural born citizen, and even if they had, it would have been dicta, because that status was not at issue, as it never would be except in a Presidential eligibility case. That is the only time being a "natural born citizen" is required. Otherwise citizens, natural born, born in the country, born outside to citizens, etc, all the same before the law. Naturalized citizens do have "time a citizen" requirements, but for those naturalized at birth outside the country and those born in the country of alien parents, those are met by merely meeting the age requirements. The residency requirements apply to all citizens, regardless of how they became so.

[Lmo56]

Wong was determined to be a native citizen, a child of resident aliens, obviously not a child of two citizens and not affirmed to be a NBC in WKA. Wong had equal citizen rights as a native citizen with the citizen rights of NBCs.

And this fits the definition of the term "Denizen" in Blackstone. A Denizen literally means resident, from the French root. And a Denizen at English Common Law had most of the citizen rights of a natural born subject - but none of the political rights, including not being eligible to high office.

[El Gato]

A marriage to an already married person is bigamy and is void by State statute. It never happened. Doesn't matter what you did to resolve it, it was void from the beginning.

Not quite. If one or both partners believed the marriage was legitimate, then it is Putative Marriage A real world example is one were a guy was shot down over Vietnam and declared to be KIA, whose wife then married his comrade in arms. They had several children together. Those children are considered legitimate, and there was no crime (bigamy is a crime). I forget how it was sorted out. Definitely an awkward situation.

But back to BHO, if Stanley Ann thought BHO Sr was legally able to marry her, and their is no indication that she did not so believe, then at least from her point of view, the marriage would fit the definition at the link above:

Three circumstances must concur to constitute this species of marriage. 1st. There must be a bona fides. One of the parties, at least, must have been ignorant of the impediment, not only at the time of the marriage, but must also have continued ignorant of it during his or her life, because, if he became aware of it, he was bound to separate himself from his wife. 2d. The marriage must be duly solemnized. 3d. The marriage must have been considered lawful in the estimation of the parties, or of that party who alleges the bona fides.A marriage in which these three circumstances concur, although null and void, will have the effect of entitling the wife, if she be in good faith, to enforce the rights of property, which would have been competent to her if the marriage had been valid, and of rendering the children of such marriage legitimate.

[El Gato]

What is being redefined? NO WHERE does the Constitution define what a natural born citizen is, so how can the 14th Amendment change that definition?

The 14th amendment doesn't define or redefine "natural born citizen" it doesn't even mention it. The real purpose of the 14the amendment was to prevent states from denying citizenship to newly freed blacks. It made *all persons* born in the US citizens. It also made "all persons naturalized in the US" citizens. It made neither class of citizens natural born.

The term could be redefined from it's original 1787 meaning, but the amendment would be very specific. "All persons ... new criteria... are natural born citizens of the United States. Just because the 14th uses the words born and citizen, doesn't mean it's redefined "natural born".

[El Gato]

please note the heading of the Founders translation..seems to be misleading..can find nothing about waggons..almost passed it over..in the Congressional record..not if it has been tampered..seems unlikely..but..

It's fine, the same thing, in both images and text, is on the libaray of Congress website. See my post 301 on this thread.

[El Gato]

Post 228 shows “sujects naturels’ can be translated natural born subject...what does it have to do with anything else? What do you think it proves? That in 1781, naturels was translated, by and for Americans, as "natural born" rather than as "natives". And by extension that "indigenes" should have been translated as "natives". And lo and behold, all the post 1793 published translations of Vattel say "The natives, or natural-born citizens" when translating "“Les naturels, ou indigenes". Now it's true that the word "citizen/citoyan" does not appear in the French, but the whole paragraph is talking about citizens. what else would "naturels" or "natural born" be referring to other than citizens?

[El Gato]

if Vattel had written ‘sujects naturels’ instead of ‘naturels’.

He would have written cityons naturels, but sometimes things are just understood in the context of the paragraph. In that case the paragraph/section was talking about Citoyens/Citizens, so that is what the adjective "naturels" had to be modifying (in the grammatical sense, as El Lobo Azul, (meaning the Blue Wolf, with Azul modifying Lobo) . It was certainly not modifying "subjects"/"sujects", which does not appear in the section.

[bushpilot1]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2499410/posts?q=1&;page=401

#423

[Aurorales]

“I’m sorry, but I can’t come out to play”
_______________________________________________

So.....can't come out to play really means you will come out to play (oops..I mean spread propaganda and play the role of Tokyo Rose)

Talking in the third person for a while must have scrambled your brain.

Black is white....Up is down....is that what you want us to believe?

[ml/nj]

Don't know about you, but I'm a citizen, not a subject

Are you being intentionally ignorant?

We are discussing here the meaning of an adjective. The OED (You should look at it sometime in a library, if you ever go.) is a history of the English language and so gives examples of when specific usage of words and phrases entered the language. In order to show how an adjective is used, you kinda have to use nouns. (Like, duh.) The relevant usage examples of natural-born and native-born entered the language as modifiers of the noun subject.

ML/NJ

[Mr Rogers]

“Obama as you know, inherited a foreign allegiance to another country at birth, therefore, he cannot be an natural born US Citizen.”

An earlier poster rejected the idea that anyone was saying Obama isn’t President due to his feudal loyalty to QE2 - yet here you say it.

I guess you can feel free to try to continue to convince folks that Obama’s loyalty to England disqualifies him. What you won’t be able to do is stop them from laughing in your face...

[Mr Rogers]

“Forgot about that did you?

Not that it matters.”

Didn’t forget. Didn’t forget that I spent 2 years living in Taiwan, and another couple living in Iceland, all before I was 12. But by anyone’s definition, I’m still a NBC.

[Canedawg]

Yes, but are you a Manchurian Usurper?