Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: frog in a pot
Under what theory is it possible for a non-U.S. birth to detract from NBC?

I meant the hyper focus on the physical long-form birth certificate. Not the general concept of foreign birth. But I am not a fan of the Kenya-birth scenario. Logistically it does not fit and it would presume a strong relationship between Obama and SAD. And that was not the case. If I had to bet I would go 40-40 between Hawaii and Washington state and 20 on BC, Canada. This is because SAD shows up in Washington state in late August or early September 1961.

It is strongly argued that both jus sanguinis and jus soli are required to meet the the requirement of Article II. I do not want to directly challenge that as it is what has been specifically cited at different times in SCOTUS cases and even in the sham SR 511.

However, if you had to say which one is 'fundamental' I would argue and I believe it is clearly shown that 'jus sanguinis' is the more powerful of the two and the one 'most' relied on by the founding fathers.

The first naturalization act of our country (Naturalization act of 1790) was specific on this and specific that it is the FATHER whose citizenship counts. From the 1790 act: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States"

The citizenship of the father is part of 'natural law' (vs. positive law). Even the word patriot has its root in Greek language referring to your fathers land. Patriot and paternity have the same root. Pat = father!

I just noticed tonight that the 1790 act does not automatically declare that overseas children "ARE natural born Citizens" but indicated they are "CONSIDERED AS natural born Citizens". Meaning that the writers here probably recognized jus soli but basically 'waived' it as part of this law!!!! in 1795 this entire provision is dropped. Maybe because some felt this confused the jus soli issue.

73 posted on 03/15/2011 7:27:00 PM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: bluecat6; Natural Born 54
...This is because SAD shows up in Washington state in late August or early September 1961...

An address for someone with the name ANNA OBAMA was discovered in Seattle. The woman who claimed she baby-sat for ANNA OBAMA said her own daughter was 18 months of age at the time. Her daughter was born in July 1959...so the babysitting was in January 1961.

How could that be?

83 posted on 03/15/2011 8:37:39 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: bluecat6
The citizenship of the father is part of 'natural law' (vs. positive law). Even the word patriot has its root in Greek language referring to your fathers land. Patriot and paternity have the same root. Pat = father!

What a great post!

'Pat'ernal (from/of the Father);'Mat'ernal(from/of the Mother)

Yes, we are patriots!

We are fighting for what our Fathers... Fathers who were American citizens when we were born... have bequeathed us.

How could one who is NOT a Patriot even be CONSIDERED for the Presidency?

STE=Q

109 posted on 03/16/2011 2:43:10 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson