What If ... ?

The Post & Email ^ | 15 Jul 2022 | Joseph DeMaio

[DiogenesLamp]

Your imaginary garbage lies directly contrary to a precedential holding of the U.S. Supreme Court.

You say that as if you think it should hold some significance as to what is true or false. In my mind it does not. It's just an appeal to the fallacy of "argumentum ad verecundiam."

They are just a group that holds power and orders people to do what they say. I see this as distinctly different from being factually correct.

My thinking derives more from science than it does from legality. In science you can actually prove something, and people's opinions, even the opinions of great authorities don't mean anything. The truth does not emanate from opinion.

The Supreme Court has been wrong and reversed itself so many times, that anyone who merely accepts what they say "ex cathedra" is naive and foolish.

Plessey v Ferguson comes to mind, and Roe v Wade more recently.

That's why you cannot cite or quote actual laws or court opinions supporting your positions.

What 1790s era law supports the claim that "natural born citizens" are anyone born on us Soil?

And I already gave you a court opinion that shows Vattel was followed, not English common law.

For that matter, Calvin's case wasn't even unanimous.

[DiogenesLamp]

1777 George Washington Requiring that only “natives” make up his personal guards.

That supports my position.

1785 Maryland and Massachusetts legislatures naturalizing foreigners with the rights of natural born citizens.

Adoption of children does not make those children "natural born."

1785/1786 John Adams and Thomas Jefferson drafting a treaty of commerce with the term “natural born citizens of the United States”.

Already addressed that up above. I think they were more interested in brevity than accuracy.

1787 Framers debating if only “natives”

Your successive references to "natives" supports my position.

1789 James Madison Place of birth is the most certain criteria for allegiance. “all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, [are] citizens of the United States”

Madison is on both sides of this issue. As president, he refused to recognize the citizenship of James McClure, though McClure was born in Charleston after 1776.

1795 Congressman Zephaniah Swift The children of aliens born in Connecticut are natural born subjects.

Subjects yes. Citizens no. and Zephaniah Swift doesn't appear to have been one of the ratifying convention delegates for Connecticut. Not a good authority.

1795 Congressman James Hillhouse

Also doesn't seem to be a member of Connecticut's ratifying convention. Not a good authority.

1799 George Nicholas Poor to the Constitution the people of the states consisted of either natural born citizens (born in the state) or aliens (born outside the state).

First guy you mentioned that might actually have some first hand knowledge of what was meant. For him i'm thinking he was simplifying for brevity, and not concerned with precision, same as Adams and TJ. He is likely using the term "state" to mean "the government" as opposed to any particular physical state. As in "l'état, c'est moi"

1825 William Rawle

We already know he was lying.

1826 James Kent “As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States”

Doesn't contradict my position.

1830 Supreme Court Justice William Johnson Shanks became a natural born citizen of South Carolina on July 4th, 1776

Oh good. You found an example of what I told you regarding the Supreme court's belief that citizenship began July 4,1776. I assume this comes from Shanks vs Dupont?

I don't remember the context of this one, and i'm not going to look it up.

You've got mostly a collection of nobodies. The only somebody you have is Madison, and he is problematic. He seems to favor whatever interpretation was most politically favorable to him at the time.

When he supported his friend William Loughton Smith, he advocated the British method, but when he was refusing to recognize the citizenship of James McClure, he was following the Vattel method.

[4Zoltan]

You missed this one.

1788
Thomas Jefferson to John Jay
“Native citizens, on several valuable accounts, are preferable to Aliens, and to citizens alien-born.”

Jefferson was writing to suggest that only citizens and in particular “[n]ative citizens” be appointed as US consuls to foreign countries.

But by Vattel’s definition there were no native citizens over the age of about 12. I think Jefferson had some one older in mind.

Same with Washington. He wanted bodyguards who were older than 1 year olds.

They could not be using Vattel’s definition for natives (born in the country to parents who were citizens). But they could be using Blackstone’s definition of natives (born in the country).

[rx]

The Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) Verification of Birth letter, issued May 31, 2012 to Democratic Party attorneys of Mississippi is on its face legally invalid.

It employed the HDOH Director's seal but nowhere contains her signature. The Director's signature is legally required on every instance the Director's seal is used. Any document that displays the Director's seal without the Director's signature in immediate proximity is ipso facto legally invalid and therefore suitable to no legal purpose, including any claim of where little Barry might have been born.

There are dozens of instances of irregularity concerning Barry's HDOH paperwork. For example, a previous HDOH Director maintained publicly that she'd seen Barry's original Long Form Birth Certificate (LFBC), saying it was "half typed and half handwritten." Anyone who can affirm, after have steeped himself in the voluminous details of this case, that Barry's LFBC contains no alterations that would have inherently made it legally invalid is unmistakably advocating for criminals. I would prefer to discuss only with truth-seekers that could acknowledge when facts don't go their way.

Hawaii Registrar Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., certainly knew the rules better than any of us when it was his signature that would go out placed next to the Director's seal and not that of Director "Fuddy" on the Mississippi Democratic Party's non-valid Verification. Onaka did not use his own seal, as might have been defensible (despite issuance of this particular Verification being an appropriate function of the Director). But using the Director's seal next to only the registrar's signature made it indefensible and not valid. Just why would such a knowledgeable fellow perpetrate or be party to this deception? Would he have been been coerced? Possibly.

When it can be shown that official documents are not valid, they no longer need be accepted uncontested. A state's apparent "say-so" cannot somehow redeem an official, not-valid document displaying indicia of alteration, amendation or forgery. Furthermore, one cannot supersede Hawaii's own rules for maintaining legal validity of its documents by an external inference, for example, that Registrar Onaka might have been an individual authorized to complete a Verification.

These are grave matters for courts to decide, with tremendously strong preference to "on the merits," not forever deemed to have been finally tossed when complainants are adjudged not to have standing. When new evidence comes to light, for example post-Berg, a previous court's decision could possibly yet be superseded.

Orly Taitz could have been successful in Mississippi if she had known to recognize the non-valid document presented to her, but she was apparently too inexperienced or incompetent. Or perhaps I'm giving her scruples too much credit.

Regarding Barry's Indonesian passport, woodpusher, despite your verbiage, I did not claim Barry acquired that prior to his being of age. His Occidental College and Columbia days show multiple claims and evidence of Barry's having been a foreign student. Can one claim such at those august institutions without showing official documentation? Would the representation of a wealthy foreign donor suffice?

Zoltan: "[Stanley Ann Dunham] continually renewed her US passport until the late 1980s. This can only mean Obama never lost his US citizenship." Wow, just wow. Where did you learn to think? By what valid, official document have you shown he had US citizenship in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s? Show us the DNA results to prove Stanley Ann is his mother despite all the fraudulent, non valid documents. Please show conclusive evidence on which any could rely as you do.

If you need help with that, recall Maya and Barry's independent DNA results could prove that one way or another. Similarly and additionally, Malik's can prove BHO, Sr. didn't father Barry. Why do you suppose Barry would spend several millions of bucks in all these legal battles when the truth would [claimedly] be shown for less than several thousand? Why alternatively gin up all these forcibly made-to-appear-consistent pseudo facts that would not easily be discovered by the CNN-MSNBC crowd? The truth behind it all is that the official documentation and their forgers, promulgaters and knowledgeable defenders have been collusively lying to the public and courts! The American public has been forced to live in a swirling fraud for the last twenty or so years, poisoned by a presidentially ineligible foreigner! It takes the Intel Community (IC) and Deep State (DS) players to pull it off, as they have, which is to say "imperfectly."

If Barry's documentation weren't fraudulent forgeries, if all should simply forever bow to the officiality of a HDOH document or two, we wouldn't have had to experience the hoaxed death of CIA asset "Loretta Fuddy," at the hands of Barry and CIA Director Brennan and a large protected cast of IC-supported characters, not to mention foreign military in their hitherto successful election fraud!

Zoltan and woodpusher incessantly take sides for and advocate for a guy and his DS and Agency that repeatedly have put up fraudulent and knowingly non-valid official documents! Why would they have to perpetrate The Fuddy Hoax (see image panel below) that fraudulently redistributed many millions of dollars to corrupt and unworthy recipients? Why is that?

The incessant consistency among this large story, from those in official positions that we've long been trained to trust, is fraud! And "Fraud vitiates everything." Serial fraudsters don't get free, further "bites at the apple" in my book!

[woodpusher]

BIRTHER SCORECARD (last updated 2015)

Not interested in your wackadoodle personal opinions on the law. Get it out of a court opinion or a legal text, or get it out of my sight. Win a case in court with your frivolous nonsense and get back to me.

https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/birther%20case%20list.pdf

Original decisions, total cases: 226
Birther wins: 0

Total appellate court rulings: 120+
Birther wins: 0

Total supreme court rulings: 35
Birther wins: 0

[woodpusher]

BIRTHER SCORECARD (last updated 2015)

Not interested in your wackadoodle personal opinions on the law. Get it out of a court opinion or a legal text, or get it out of my sight. Win a case in court with your frivolous nonsense and get back to me.

https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/birther%20case%20list.pdf

Original decisions, total cases: 226
Birther wins: 0

Total appellate court rulings: 120+
Birther wins: 0

Total supreme court rulings: 35
Birther wins: 0

[bitt]

p

[philman_36]

4Zoltan and woodpusher pushing a USC 8 alien granted citizenship for POTUS.
Hilarious!

[philman_36]

USC 8 U.S.C. - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

Your Butt Boy is nothing more than a legalized alien.

[DiogenesLamp]

1788 Thomas Jefferson to John Jay “Native citizens, on several valuable accounts, are preferable to Aliens, and to citizens alien-born.”

Jefferson was not a member of the constitutional convention. He was Franklin's replacement as Ambassador to France.

Franklin actually was at the Constitutional convention. Should I tell you what Franklin's position on the topic was?

Jefferson was writing to suggest that only citizens and in particular “[n]ative citizens” be appointed as US consuls to foreign countries.

But by Vattel’s definition there were no native citizens over the age of about 12. I think Jefferson had some one older in mind.

Not quite true. Everyone born in the colonies was a "native." In 1776 all of these people were made into "citizens."

So Native-citizen is clearly referring to the citizens who were native. It isn't saying "natural born citizen", it is saying "native citizens" which is no conflict.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not interested in your wackadoodle personal opinions on the law. Get it out of a court opinion or a legal text, or get it out of my sight. Win a case in court with your frivolous nonsense and get back to me.

I reject the assertion that the courts decide truth. They decide power, not truth.

Stop trying to argue power, and start arguing truth.

[4Zoltan]

Exactly. The Founders considered those born in the Colonies as natives regardless of the parents. Under English Common Law natives were natural born subjects.

Vattel’s definition for natives was not used by the Founders was it?

Vattel - “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

[DiogenesLamp]

Exactly. The Founders considered those born in the Colonies as natives regardless of the parents.

I believe the root for natives and natal is the same, and i'm pretty sure it means "relating to birth."

So yes, people born in a place are natives in one understanding of the word.

Under English Common Law natives were natural born subjects.

Well yes they are, but we are not subjects, we are "citizens", and the meaning of the word "citizen" in the context in which we understand it, comes from Switzerland. It does not come from England. As I mentioned, Blackstone uses the term only 4 times if I recall properly, and all usages are in the context of being a city dweller, not a national.

"Citizen" is not an English term, it is a Swiss term.

Vattel’s definition for natives was not used by the Founders was it?

I believe he says indigenes, not "natives."

"Natives" is from the English translation, and it may not be quite accurate, but instead an approximation. You will find that much of the time people prefer brevity over accuracy.

Vattel - “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

"Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens."

[4Zoltan]

All early (pre-1795) English translations of Vattel translated “Les naturels, ou indigenes” as the “natives, or indigenes”. Samuel Johnson’s dictionary from 1768 defines natives as natural and defines natural as native.

“Blackstone uses the term only 4 times if I recall properly, and all usages are in the context of being a city dweller, not a national.”

No. His chapter “Book the First : Chapter the Tenth : Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives” defines the people.

He starts with “The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.” After describing natural-born subjects, he begins his description of aliens with “I shall however here endeavour to chalk out some of the principal lines, whereby they are distinguished from natives”. And he finishes the chapter with “THESE are the principal distinctions between aliens, denizens, and natives.”

[DiogenesLamp]

All early (pre-1795) English translations of Vattel translated “Les naturels, ou indigenes” as the “natives, or indigenes”. Samuel Johnson’s dictionary from 1768 defines natives as natural and defines natural as native

When translating from a foreign language, people often use the closest approximation to the foreign word they can find. Johnson's "natives" and "naturals" is likely true from his English common law based background, but Vattel makes it much more clear what he means when he refers to "naturels".

Look up Johnson's definition of the word "citizen."

No. His chapter “Book the First : Chapter the Tenth : Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives” defines the people.

I believe the word being discussed is "citizen." Do a word search through the chapter and tell me how many times you find the word "citizen" in the context of a national.

He starts with “The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.” After describing natural-born subjects, he begins his description of aliens with “I shall however here endeavour to chalk out some of the principal lines, whereby they are distinguished from natives”. And he finishes the chapter with “THESE are the principal distinctions between aliens, denizens, and natives.”

I get the impression that I am having difficulty communicating the idea to you. The focus needs to be on the word "citizen", and nothing else.

My argument is that you won't find the word used in English law in any context except "city dweller." (city-denizen)

English law has no cognizance of the word as meaning a "national", or member of a nation.

The word citizen is the best evidence for what was the intent of the framers.

[4Zoltan]

The Founders did not focus on the word “citizen”.

John Adams wrote the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 and used both terms “subjects of the Commonwealth” and “citizens of this Commonwealth”.

Massachusetts interchangeably used the terms natural born citizen and natural born subjects until 1791. In one 1790 act of naturalization they used both terms.

“John White, Roger Dickinson and John Atkinson (the said Atkinson in behalf of himself, his wife and children) ...”

“...become inlitled to all the rights and priviledges of natural born citizens”

“...shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, priviledges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

https://archives.lib.state.ma.us/handle/2452/104609

“...and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free Government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.”
President Washington’s letter to American Catholics, March 1790.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-05-02-0193

[DiogenesLamp]

John Adams wrote the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 and used both terms “subjects of the Commonwealth” and “citizens of this Commonwealth”.

1780.

What have you got from the 1760s?

[4Zoltan]

The 1760s aren’t what matters. It what the Founders thought after July 4th, 1776. Their usage of the terms shows they considered subject and citizen to be interchangeable. And the same was true for the term natural born subject and natural born citizen.

Even Judge Roberts used them to mean the same thing when he described the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776.

Roberts: “On the establishment of the revolution, these provisions were superseded by a constitutional declaration in the old frame of government, by which every foreigner, of good character, coming to settle in Pennsylvania, having first taken the oath of allegiance, was enabled to purchase and hold real estate; and after one year’s residence was invested with all of the rights of a natural born citizen, except he was not capable of being elected a member of the legislature, until after a residence of two years. ”

But that is not correct. The Pennsylvania constitution said,

“ SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year's residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.”

Even Roberts recognized that the Founders used the two terms synonymously.

[woodpusher]

[DiogenesLamp #217] What have you got from the 1760s?

In the 1760s, you have British colonies using the common law system of law, and applying the body of judge-made English common law.

[4Zoltan #218 quoting Pennsylvania constitution of 1776] "shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.”

This declaration was of neither a citizen nor a subject, but of a denizen afforded the rights of a natural born subject except as noted. United States law does not recognize a denizen as a distinct municipal status. It most closely equates to an alien with authorized permanent residency, or a green card holder.

It was common practice in the early United States to permit aliens to vote in elections. Contrary to a dissenting opinion in Dred Scott, voting was never a hallmark of citizenship. In the early years of the republic, the President was elected without any popular vote.

The Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 "was framed by a convention (called in accordance with the expressed wish of the Continental Congress) which assembled at Philadelphia July 15, 1776, and completed its labors September 28, 1776. It was not submitted to the people for ratification." [The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and other Organic Laws of the United States, Part II, compiled under an order of the United States Senate, by Ben Perley Poore, Second Edition, 1924, pg. 1540.]

[DiogenesLamp]

The 1760s aren’t what matters. It what the Founders thought after July 4th, 1776. Their usage of the terms shows they considered subject and citizen to be interchangeable. And the same was true for the term natural born subject and natural born citizen.

I see the direction you are trying to go with this, and I'm going to try to pull you back to a correct understanding. The 1760s *DO* matter, because you will discover that in the 1760s, the word "citizen" was not much used by the public, but it was used quite a lot by those people discussing Vattel.

Your citation of public documents using the term "citizen" only seems to occur after 1776. This makes perfect sense because the normal and usual word to describe nationality in those days was "subject."

To substitute this little used and unnatural word (citizen) for the normal and usual word (subject) indicates a deliberate intent to change the paradigm of the relationship between man and state.

Had their intent been to adhere to the English common law ideas of "subject", they would have simply continued to use the word they all knew and were familiar with. By deliberately changing it to "citizen", they are saying they have rejected the English law principle and adopted the Natural law principle as articulated by Vattel.

And that Law book from Pennsylvania pretty much affirms this.

Your examples of usage of "subject" and "citizen" after 1776 simply indicate an effort to present ideas to the general public with which they were already familiar. The public did not need to know the specific differences between a citizen and a subject, for the purposes of the documents you cite, it is sufficient that the public simply be informed that they are alike.

Over time, the public would acclimate to the usage of "citizen", and "subject" would no longer be used, and that is what happened.

"by which every foreigner, of good character, coming to settle in Pennsylvania, having first taken the oath of allegiance, was enabled to purchase and hold real estate; and after one year’s residence was invested with all of the rights of a natural born citizen, except he was not capable of being elected a member of the legislature, until after a residence of two years. ”

That simply means immigrants will be treated as if they were natural citizens. It does not say that they become natural citizens. Adopted children are not blood children, but they are still considered children of the family.

Even Roberts recognized that the Founders used the two terms synonymously.

As I mentioned above, it was not important to the public to note the differences between the two. It was an arcane detail known to the framers, and i'm sure they believed the public would come to understand it eventually.

But slice it however you like, American usage of the word "Citizen" comes from Vattel.