Posted on 11/19/2012 2:11:58 PM PST by KheSanh
” While recognizing that Vattel’s The Law of Nations “was a work of significant value to the founding fathers,” Judge Bent refers to the phrase, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” as a phrase used only by Vattel. He said that simply because Vattel used the phrase, the phrase does not have any “constitutional significance.” But Paige provided to the court numerous historical and legal sources that demonstrated that after July 4, 1776, our nation adopted the law of nations model of citizenship and not that of the English common law.”
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 - The phrase wasn’t even found in Vattel, not until it was poorly translated thus 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written.
2 - The US has NEVER followed Vattel’s ideas on citizenship, which are Swiss and NOT American. We have always used place of birth as primary, which is why they don’t ask you about the citizenship of your parents before giving you a passport in America. They would, in Switzerland...
How's that work? Under jus sanguinis, he inherited US citizenship from one parent and (let us assume for purposes of discussion) British/Kenyan citizenship from the other.
On what basis does the British/Kenyan inheritance take precedence over the US inheritance?
It makes sense that he would inherit dual citizenship, as Winston Churchill did. But on what basis should the British side be considered so overpowering that his US inheritance disappears?
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It's clear that "natural born" are the posterity of We the People, for whom the Constitution was ordained and established to secure.
The posterity of We the People are the citizen children of citizen parents.
-PJ
Thanks for proving my point for me. The law says that the department will issue a “verification” of “ any other information that the applicant provides to be verified.” The only information that Kobach provided was the certificate number, but no other specific information. Onaka verified the certificate number, but he did NOT verify that the information in the original birth ceritificate is “identical” as Kobach requested. Saying that information “matches” leaves a whole lot of wiggle room. Part b in the law says the LoV is a verfication of the “facts” as “stated by the applicant.” Again, the only facts stated by Kobach was the certificate number. A certificate number doesn’t make Obama a natural-born citizen. Thanks again for proving my point for me.
You said: “1 - The phrase wasn’t even found in Vattel, not until it was poorly translated thus 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written.” What a frivolous and ridiculous argument in light of the various U.S. Supreme Court decisions which cite and quote Vattel and his definition of a “natural-born citizen” and which recognized a “natural born Citizen” to be a child born in the country to citizen parents. For example, see The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring); Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) (J. Daniels concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (unanimous U.S. Supreme Court paraphrased Vattel almost word for word when defining a “natural-born citizen”); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (cited and quoted Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (cited and quoted Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”).
You said: “2 - The US has NEVER followed Vattel’s ideas on citizenship, which are Swiss and NOT American. We have always used place of birth as primary, which is why they don’t ask you about the citizenship of your parents before giving you a passport in America. They would, in Switzerland...” You are doing really well, Mr. Rogers. I guess what Minor, Wong Kim Ark, and all the other courts cited above said about what a “natural-born citizen” is was Swiss and not American. LOL. They do not ask you about the citizenship of your parents before giving you a passport in America” because you only have to be a “citizen of the United States” to get a passport, not a “natural born Citizen.” Again, LOL.
Please, please, Mr. Rogers.
I'm pretty sure jus sanguinis follows paternal citizenship ahead of maternal citizenship. Most Obots avoid jus sanguinis.
On what basis does the British/Kenyan inheritance take precedence over the US inheritance?
Under the same English common law that some Obots believe was translated into U.S. law, under the Treaty of 1783 as cited in Shanks v. Dupont, and under Wong Kim Ark which cited a circuit court decision that said those persons born in the allegiance of the crown are British sujbects and those born under U.S. allegiance are U.S. citizens ... the latter referring to persons born on U.S. soil. It was an either/or proposition. You're either born a British subject or U.S. citizen depending on to whom your parents adhered. There's no "dual" citizenship in this precedent. And the Supreme Court has consistently recognized through the Law of Nations that citizenship naturally follows the status of the father. That's three strikes against Obama being a natural-born citizen.
Sorry, but only a wacko nutjob believes the US Constitution was following something written 10 years AFTER the Constitution. If they had wanted to follow Vattel, they would have used “native” or “indigene”, as the translations of Vattel did at the time the Constitution was written.
“I guess what Minor, Wong Kim Ark, and all the other courts cited above said about what a “natural-born citizen” is...”
No. Now you are lying. You already know that Minor did NOT try to determine the extent of the meaning of NBC, and said so in that paragraph. WKA spent half the decision showing WKA met the qualifications for a NBC, which they said are the same as for citizenship under the 14th.
You can blog away and lie, but you can’t do that in court, which is why you birthers get your butt handed to you.
You have no legal response so you just make stuff up. Nice going Mr. Rogers. I see that you did not address that Minor and Wong Kim Ark both used Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but just go on your ridiculous way and argue that that definition is not definitive on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” as though the Founders and Framers had all these additional definitions of the clause conserved that would just by chance pop up centuries later. You are a joke, Mr. Rogers.
“I see that you did not address that Minor and Wong Kim Ark both used Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,””
Neither did. Minor specifically said they were NOT claiming Vattel’s definition was all inclusive, and WKA didn’t use that definition at all. In fact, they REJECTED the idea of Vattel’s definition being the meaning, and instead said it was found in English common law.
You can lie to people on blogs, but you can’t get away with it in court, so your side ALWAYS loses.
You said: "multiple copies of a verification letter were being sent to Kansas" ... that's what I've been addressing. The only letter of verification they sent to Kansas was to address the specific request that Kobach sent to Hawaii.
The indisputable fact is that the first verification letter, sent at the request of the attorneys representing the Democratic Party of Mississippi, verified the totality of the information in the long-form birth certificate as posted online.
Nonsense. It's still easily disputable. The MDEC request did NOT specify verification of individual facts. Remember,the law only says that it's considered a verification of the "facts" "as stated by the applicant." The MDEC simply neglected to state any facts. It leaves all kinds of wiggle room. And when Kansas specifically requested whether the information was "identical," Hawaii failed to verify this. This means that just about anything on the original birth certificate can be different than is represented in Obama's PDF. Further, Hawaii had the legal authority to simply submit a certified copy of the certificate itself. Until they do that or until Obama does that, then nothing is settled from a legal standpoint.
Sorry, but that's simply false on both accounts. Minor used the Vattel definition in an exclusive context to reject an argument based on this "other" way to become a citizen at birth. WKA cited that Vattel definition verbatim and affirmed that Virginia Minor's citizenship was held on the basis of being born to citizen parents. If what you believed was true, then the WKA court had no reason to say ANYTHING about Minor being born to citizen parents. They made a material distinction bewtween two classes of citizens at birth, but only those born to citizen parents were characterized as natural-born citizens. WKA upheld this because it was a UNANIMOUS decision.
“Nonsense. It’s still easily disputable.”
__
Well, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. You could try to convince a judge that a certification that “the information ... matches” means something other than that the information matches. You could explain to him or her what kind of “wiggle room” you had in mind.
Likewise, you could try to convince the judge that the statement that “the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event” doesn’t mean that the facts of the vital event are the same in the long-form and the official records.
In fact, you might have had the opportunity to do that yourself if you hadn’t withdrawn your objection. I guess you missed your chance.
But, hey, keep trying, and keep me posted. In the meantime, we’ll see if other judges agree with you about the admissibility of the verification letter under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
WKA mentioned Minor in response to an objection brought about by the previous Slaughterhouse case. It did NOT, in any way, affirm the idea that two citizen parents were required by the NBC definition. On the contrary, it made the point, at great length, that it did not.
But if you are too stupid to read that decision, then you and your followers deserve to get laughed out of court.
And Minor was NOT about citizenship, but voting rights. Again, someone who can’t figure that out has not basis for debating on the Internet. You need to get some basic reading lessons, and then try to do it...
Oh, and by the way, you may recall that I corrected myself up above by pointing out that the Arizona letter asked for verification not of everything, but rather of specific pieces of information. And the response was correspondingly specific.
So perhaps you can tell me where you find the wiggle room in this:
“Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-14.3, I verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Now, funnily enough, AZ SoS Ken Bennett forgot to ask for the date of birth, so it wasn’t included in the verification, and I guess you can try to find some wiggle room there!
On the other hand, with the letter verifying that a parent signed the original certificate on 8-7-61, I think you’ll have trouble making the case that he wasn’t yet 35 when he took office.
No, it was mentioned because the Slaughterhouse case wasn't comprehensive in listing exceptions to 14th amendment citizenship at birth. Slaughterhouse focused on exclusions via the subject clause and Minor focused on an exclusion based on birthright citizenship via a definition matching the law of nations.
It did NOT, in any way, affirm the idea that two citizen parents were required by the NBC definition. On the contrary, it made the point, at great length, that it did not.
That's simply not true. The Minor definition of NBC is the LAST time in the WKA decision that NBC is discussed. It was characterized EXCLUSIVELY by birth to citizen parents. The second class of citizenship was characterized as "citizenship by birth" for the next 25 pages. Gray NEVER characterized 14th amendment citizenship NOR did he even hint at it being equal to natural-born citizenship. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
And Minor was NOT about citizenship, but voting rights.
Virginia Minor argued her voting rights were based on being a 14th amendment citizen at birth. The Supreme Court rejected this argument on the basis of her being INSTEAD a natural-born citizen and that voting was not an inherent right of ANY class of citizen. So sorry, but citizenship was an integral part of the decision. It's why Waite discussed every way someone could become a citizen for the entire first half of his decision. Out of all the ways he said someone could become a citizen, he EXCLUSIVELY characterized only one way as NBC: all children born in the country to citizen parents. The WKA decision upheld this finding.
The kind of wiggle room in the FRE that is avoided by not presenting an actual legal document that is certified as correct. Unless the details are enumerated, the letter of verification is worthless. Second, that letter of verification could be challenged by putting Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. on the stand.
Likewise, you could try to convince the judge that the statement that “the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event” doesn’t mean that the facts of the vital event are the same in the long-form and the official records.
As long as that document fails to certify any copy of Obama's birth certificate as "correct" under the Federal Rules of Evidence, then the LoV has not legal value.
In fact, you might have had the opportunity to do that yourself if you hadn’t withdrawn your objection. I guess you missed your chance.
The previous letters of verification were already addressed in the hearing. Obama's legal counsel did not submit either of those previous letters nor any copies of his alleged birth certificates. Obviously Kobach and the Kansas objections board didn't have confidence in the legal value of those previous documents or they wouldn't have requested additional documentation from Hawaii. No doubt, Obama and the Kansas Objections Board were let off the hook from having to try to reconcile the lack of evidence to meet the FRE standards.
Well, edge, you keep pushing your weirdo theories about what the courts cases mean. But no, you will never convince anyone you are sane.
“Virginia Minor argued her voting rights were based on being a 14th amendment citizen at birth. The Supreme Court rejected this argument on the basis of her being INSTEAD a natural-born citizen ...”
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.