Posted on 01/07/2009 12:49:42 PM PST by ml/nj
I previously have posted the Oxford English Dictionary definitions and usage histories for natural-born and native born in some long thread about the question of Obama's Constitutional eligiblity to assume the office of President. But that thread was eventually deleted, and I think these definitions should be available for discussion here.
Lawyers use the OED because it is sometimes the only way to examine what words meant at the time they were used to craft legislation. So here are the entries for these phrases:
Of note to me is that at least some of the usages of native-born and particularly the ones whose dates bracket the drafting of the Constitution suggest that this term has as much to do with whom one is born to as to where one is born. I also note that the entry for natural-born suggests comparison with the one for native-born which seems to have nothing to do with who ones parents are.
Whatever natural-born means, it means something. That everyone would turn their heads and pretend otherwise will not be good for the rule of law in this country.
ML/NJ
Then we as a country are not worth saving.
or we can vote to remove him from office legally in 2012.
ROTFLOL! How naive of you. How does one go about legally removing and illegally elected official?
By 2012 it will be illegal to have elections. That is, other than the Castro/Saddam type of elections.
“It is enough that the people know there was an election.
The people who cast the votes decide nothing.
The people who count the votes decide everything.” -Joseph Stalin
Who is saying that?
You are assuming what you need to prove. In what way is he illegaly elected?
One fact is blazingly clear ... 0bama is hiding something by refusing to show his long-form vault BC.
“The difference in the Wong Kim Ark case is that his alien parents were legal residents that could not apply for citizenship under the law of the land at the time, every one that uses this argument glosses over the fact that under our laws at the time his parents could not become citizens.”
How is this a “difference”? I am at an utter loss as to explain how Wong Kim Ark’s parents being “legal residents that could not apply for citizenship under the law of the land at the time” is any different from your garden-variety child born “subject to the laws” of the U.S.
How do the particulars of the Wong Kim Ark case differ from Obama’s particulars as alleged in the Berg case, for instance? Obama’s mother and father were here legally, just like Wong Kim Ark’s parents, right? If Obama was born on U.S. soil, he would be a citizen from birth for the exact same reasons Wong Kim Ark was.
Not true. My cousin is an American Born woman who is married to an Eastern European and they live in France where he is employed as a lawyer. They met in the US. Her children are not natural born Americans. They are also not French citizens. They do carry both American and Estonian passports. At the age of 18 with the use of the passports and ticket stubs showing a total time spent in the US of 4 years they can declare their American citizenship. If they want French citizenship they have to apply for it at age 18. If they marry an American, then any children born to them in the future would be American but have to be born in the US to be Natural Born. If they marry a Frenchman or any other nationality, the 4 year requirement must be met for them to claim American citizenship for themselves. It is complicated according to my cousin. She should know, she has been in France now for about 10 years and has 4 kids.
“What did they decide?”
They decided that, even though his parents had moved him back to China and claimed for him Chinese citizenship, Wong Kim Ark had the right to reclaim his U.S. citizenship status at any time, by virtue of his birth on U.S. soil.
So it’s not worth knowing and letting it be known if it doesn’t guarantee his removal from office? Intentional ignorance seems to be a wave this country is riding these days.
That Kim was a citizen however the question of what defines jurisdiction was still not addressed.
There are those of us here that contend that his mother because she was not 21 or had reached the age of majority at the time she gave birth according to the law at the time, could not pass on her citizenship to him and that because his father could pass on his British citizenship according to their laws did so.
If indeed Obama’s original vault copy birth certificate shows him being born outside the US, and it appears that would be the best reason he has for only showing a copy or forgery created in 2007, then he is not natural born because the law of the land at the time prevented his mother from passing her citizenship to him to prevent just the sort of issue we are facing, someone who is not a natural born citizenand has divided loyalties from becoming our president.
Then why are spreading a lie as if it were true?
You may have "checked it out"....but it is apparent that you either did not read it or failed to understand it.
BTW......welcome to Freerepublic.
Oh wow! Thanks loads noob. You just saved me a lot of time. Welcome to FR.
There is no evidence that he wasn’t born in Hawaii,
There is even LESS evidence that he WAS born in HI.
There is a great deal of evidence that he was born in Kenya.
NO ONE KNOWS nor has anyone proven that he was born at all.
I'm beginning to believe he was a botched lab experiment.
For your reading enjoyment and edification:
Kenyan Ambassador: Obama’s Birthplace “Already Well Known In Kenya”
November, 21, 2008 — nicedeb
We're good at multi-tasking.
We can “P***, walk, and chew gum at the same time! Gee! Imagine that!
Obama’s father would have passed his citizenship to his son because at the time this country had entered into treaties that allowed that.
Was his father in this country legally, yes!
Was his father protected by a special visa from our laws or jurisdiction, that I have argued countless times.
Does our nation have the right to apply our citizenship to the children of those foreigners that are here for a brief stay, I contend that we do not have that right when they are here on a special visa that protects their citizenship IE: a diplomatic, student, or tourist visa, because their intent on visiting our nation is not to become a citizen of it.
Because his mother was not old enough to transfer her citizenship by the law of the land at the time, he should be a British citizen first and he has admitted that at least on his fight the smears website.
Ignoring the legalities involved as well as defining the scope of our countries jurisdiction to seat a foreigner as our president is something our founding fathers tried to prevent but writing the Natural born clause in the constitution, and it appears that the media on both sides of the spectrum are perfectly willing to ignore the issue to prevent rioting and a second civil war on our streets.
My biggest worry is that once he has power, what will he do to wrestle it away from our people permanently?
With the projected makeup of congress he could easily do so in a few short years.
But if he was born in Hawaii then he didn't depend on his mother passing on citizenship, and he is a natural born citizen.
For the time being, I believe you are right....But...The issue is not going away.
You can be sure that conservatives red states all over America a demanding that proof of valid citizenship be provided before candidates name will be placed on the ballot.
Obama will get through the hoop once, but not twice.
That is exactly what I believe is the reason everyone that would have been a source of help on this issue has sat silent. They were calling and planning for "resistance" if they did not win as stated in this article:
McCain "Win" Will Be Theft, Resistance Is Planned (By Ally of Obama's Code Pink Bundler)
Global Research ^ | Monday, October 20, 2008 | David Swanson
Posted on Monday, October 20, 2008 10:05:16 PM by kristinn
In a court of law the onus is on the one making the claim. This whole circus is the equivalant of suggesting he should prove himself innocent. The law doesn’t work that way. Why do you think ALL of the cases have been labeled as frivilous? It is because they are.
“I contend that we do not have that right when they are here on a special visa that protects their citizenship IE: a diplomatic, student, or tourist visa, because their intent on visiting our nation is not to become a citizen of it.”
The standard in the 14th amendment is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which has been interpreted to exclude diplomats and enemy combatants, not students and tourists. The intent of legal aliens may not be to become a citizen of the U.S., but that doesn’t mean their children might not become citizens.
Again, I am unable to decipher why this wouldn’t also apply to Wong Kim Ark’s parents. They were here legally without being citizens, just like Obama’s father.
“Obama’s father would have passed his citizenship to his son because at the time this country had entered into treaties that allowed that.”
What status Obama’s father passed onto Obama is the concern of whatever nation said status applies to. It would have no impact on Obama’s status as an America citizen, as the U.S. government routinely ignores dual citizenship.
he needs to PROVE IT!
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.