Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
He claims to be a native citizen of the US, as opposed to being a naturalized citizen of the US, which would exclude him.
I've explained myself quite well. You guys are willfully obtuse. And I only said that again after someone said "Give it up. You lost." No, I'm nowhere near losing.
Answer me this Tublecane. Why does a President require to be a Natural Born Citizen and a Senator just a U.S.Citizen in the constitution? Why the difference?
My original post was to Presbyterian Reporter, not you. Your intrusions have been less than helpful and have reduced rather than improved clarity. And as to your point about naturalized citizens not being eligible to run for the presidency, I already said that. That is all. (see, I can be a rude, dismissive @$$hole, too.)
Once again you have failed to study the following post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2619619/posts#9
“The point that domestic American law recognizes international law but not English common law is at best a triviality, at worst a gross distortion.”
Point blank - gross distortion.
Much of American legal system was built on English common law, and the only valid international law in our courts comes via treaties.
This cite claims that 49 states are based on English common law, and the exception Louisiana is based on French civil code... interesting:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/env02.htm
FYI...less than 5% of the US population are NOT natural born, thus it hardly is a qualification requirement that limits an overwhelming mass of citizens from attaining the JOB. The person merely must possess the JOB REQUIREMENTS as laid out in the Constitution.
“And we see in Kawikita’s case, he was ONLY a native born citizen. “
Ah, there is that fallacy of yours ... AGAIN. they never used the word “only”.
Look, if you have blue eyes and red hair, and I described you to someone as having ‘red hair’, would that person then conclude you did NOT have blue eyes? Would my failure to mention you have blue eyes *prove* your eyes were brown?
Of course not.
Show me where SCOTUS says Kawakita is *not* natural-born. If you got that, you have something. If they are silent on it, you got nothing.
Again, Elg is a CLEAR case where even with dual citizenship issues you have someone declared as a natural-born citizen.
natural-born citizen = citizen at time of birth. Case closed.
Post #9 will be in the Smithsonian.
Jindal is not a natural born citizen (both citizen parents at rime of birth) the supreme court has ruled that several times
Check out Chester B Arthur.
Interesting indeed since they are dead wrong & SOOOO BUSTED!
Virginia Citizenship Law 1779:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
“Federal territory? You mean to tell me that the Federal government owns all the land?”
“All” the land? No. Some of the land, yes.
Surely you’re aware of the fact that all the states we know and love that weren’t among the originals were called “territories” and were not states until they were admitted to the union?
“Oh my, ‘indications & probability’ is what you finally rely on?”
I say “probably” because I can’t remember any others but have a feeling there were more. I say indications because I can’t remember international law explicitly invoked, but think it was implied. I use this sort of language, further, because I cannot remember that document word-for-word.
“You mean to tell me that after the Declaration the founders still deemed themselves Englishmen?”
Yes. Transplanted Englishmen, deserving of the age-old rights and privilges thereof. That’s what they were talking about when they invoked “no taxation without representation,” suspension of trial by jury, standing armies, quartering troops, and so on. You’ve really never heard of the rationalization of the revolution as colonists fighting for their sacred traditional rights against a usurping tyrant? The declaration is fairly dripping with such language.
“Please give a cite for that as well as the indications you speak of that they weren’t afforded the usual protections of international law since foreign nations came to the aid of the US both militarily & monetarily under the rights afforded to the US according to the Law of Nations.”
Uh, what? Their intervention was against British interest. The crown didn’t like it, and they took steps to forestall it. Truly not applicable.
What I referred to as violations of international law fell, rather, under the claim that Britain was stealing Americans on the high seas and impressing them into service to help in subduing the colonies. This is one of the complaints of the colonists declared in the Declaration:
“He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.”
It goes along with various other perceived extra-legal means of quelling rebellion, including whisking people for trial overseas, setting aside duly passed colonial legislation, the imposition of a standing army, quartering soldiers in private homes, sending over mercenaries, and so on. This complaint just so happened, I assume, to also touch on international law, in addition to English law.
“NOPE! No Englishmen there & no indications or probability either, but lots of Nature, Nature’s God as well as the founder’s Creator.”
If you’ll kindly look back at my post, you’ll find God and nature mentioned first. That also happens to be the least practical and most abstract part of the document, and I advise you to consider how little lofty abstractions apply to real life these days when considering the immediate importance of those words. People dream up such language to explain what’s already happening. And insofar as ideas compell action, it is the ideas of past generations. Namely, in this case, dead whigs John Locke (itself forged in very different revolutionary times, times which were in turn inspired by older men with older ideas), who needed the right environment to lead Americans to independence.
I don’t deny the philosophy articulated in the opening paragraphs of the Declaration are important to posterity and extremely useful to understanding the revolutionaries’ ideology. However, the laws of nature and nature’s God alone would never have compelled enough people to rebel. Usurpation of the traditional rights of Englishmen, a.k.a. the “long train of abuses,” was necessary. That’s why the abuses take up so much more space than the high-flown rhetoric. One cannot afford to be ignorant on this matter.
“It states that the US does NOT & NEVER has recognized dual allegiance.”
Do I really need to explain that not recognizing dual citizenship is not the same as disallowing dual citizenship? For all intents and purposes, the U.S. does not care if you can claim citizenship in another country. It only becomes and issue when the other country demands you renounce citizenship too.
Arthur was also ineligible. The difference was that his father’s status was kept a secret until after his presidency was over. You knew this.
making us reread stupid and false arguments AGAIN doesn’t make them magically more valid.
This overlong and irrelevent screed has this snippet, embedded like a kernel of corn in some horse apples:
“ “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations”
Again, those phrases are not from England’s common law, but rather from natural law and even mention Vattel’s book by name, “Law of Nations.” “
OH REALLY? So ‘Law of Nations’ doesn’t refer to a general term equivalent to ‘international law’ or ‘law of the sea’, it’s about a book.
How gullible does a reader have to be to assume the “Law of Nations” is Vattel’s book?!? Apparently if you are on the high seas and commit an offense against his BOOK - what, spit on it? throw it overboard? Call Vattel a bad name? - you are subject to Federal law.
And Piracies and felonies are not in English common law?!? You’ve read 100% of Blackstone to find out?!? It’s a pity that 5 minutes of google can tear this shreds - it’s a pity you don’t try just a LITTLE to learn the truth rather than peddle cheap and bad junk like this.
I can’t believe you, or the author, are that dumb. You are trying to fool people or are trying to push a story with no care as to how absurd or wrong it is.
Put down the crack pipe, please. you’ll hurt someone.
“No one has the right to be President of the U.S. Why? Because it is an eligibility requirement, like being of a certain age, or having a certain length of residency before running”
No, but those who fulfill all said requirements have a right to be eligible.
Where's it say that?
“but only a citizen”
Where does gray say “ONLY”?
He doesn’t.
Your logical fallacy rears its ugly head again!
SCOTUS of today would rule WKA a natural-born citizen, by 9-0.
Oh, really? Distortion? Here is what the US Supreme Court has said in a 21st century opinion. And some excerpted examples:
The Law of Nations cited on the document are on pages 1, 3, 4, 8, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 61 and 62.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2626433/posts?page=299#299
A natural born person is one who owes NO allegiance to another nation at birth. The natural born has no choice to make as no nation can claim them as their own as the Brits could when obummer was born per the British Nationality Act of 1948 that obummer promoted via factless.org. And as the US Congress stated in 1868...dual allegiance was not the law although some “claimed” to hold it. They were ordered via US Law to immediately & formally renounce any foreign allegiance.
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.