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
FWIW, the issue is dead. America may have elected a foreigner to be president, but America has spoken and the courts are not taking the issue up. All you are doing at this point is pissing into the wind. Nobody is going to unseat Obama because he might not be a natural born citizen.
“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.”
I don’t see any connection to who one’s parents are in the natural-born definition. Also, I seem to recall reading a passage in the Wong Kim Ark decision (which maintained that a child born on American soil to alien parents was a citizen) that used native-born and natural-born interchangably.
The courts are not necessarily the final arbiter, as Washington, Jefferson, and Adams knew well. Some things never change.
We can either take up arms (which isn't going to happen) or we can vote to remove him from office legally in 2012.
Your choice.
I guess you must have difficulty with the English Language. The usage example for 1709 states, "The children of all natural-born Subjects born out if Ligeance of her Majesty .. shall be deemed .. to be natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom." And the 1833 example states, "It is not true that every person, born out of dominion of the crown, is therefore an alien; nor is a person born within them necessarily a natural-born subject."
What could possibly be clearer?
ML/NJ
[quote]Pretty clear.
B. Hussein Obama IS a Natural Born SUBJECT of Her Majesty![/quote]
The problem with that rationale is so were George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams.
Spoken exactly like the Tories of the late eighteenth century. Comparing your notions on who decides whether that is so, and Carl Von Clausewitz's teachings - I am afraid I am going to trust his contentions over yours.
It only takes a tiny number of determined individuals to start things, and only those willing to fight matter AT ALL when it comes to that. Thank you for playing.
“We can either take up arms (which isn’t going to happen) or we can vote to remove him from office legally in 2012.
Your choice.”
Or, we can continue to fight through the courts and continue to educate our fellow citizens (who are mostly clueless about this issue thanks to the MSM blackout), and hope that through our diligence we can make a difference.
Hopefully you and others will help by writing letters and informing others of this critical issue. One would also hope that if someone cannot or will not do those things, they would at least have the courtesy not to stand in the way of those of us who do want to fight for what is right.
I'd rather be "pissing into the wind" than have a usurper pissin' on our constitution!
The problem really is that you and probably most of the American people are clueless about what the Constitution says.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Check it out.
ML/NJ
Perhaps I should rephrase. I don’t see any *necessary* connection to who one’s parents are in the natural-born definition. Those instances of the term’s use cited are not U.S. law, nor are they exhaustive of all the uses of the term. They are random.
Moreover, the excerpt “The children of all natural-born Subjects born out if Ligeance of her Majesty .. shall be deemed .. to be natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom” does not say ONLY children born of natural-born subjects shall be deemed natural-born subjects. And as you know, we do not have “subjects” in America, we have citizens.
Also, the phrase “nor is a person born within them necessarily a natural-born subject” is hardly news. Children born as part of an invading army, children born of foreign diplomats, etc., have never been considered citizens. Notice the use of the word “necessarily”. The excerpt does not give the particulars of who among those born on a country’s soil qualify for citizenship, and therefore it leaves 14th amendment citizens from birth, for instance, open for natural-born status.
See, I can read English.
In "natural born citizen" the position, status or character is citizenship. So both definitions simply mean having citizenship "by birth".
Someone that is born a citizen is a "natural born citizen".
I have checked it out. This issue is dead. There is no evidence that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, thus a citizen if the US, which would make him natural born. But I guess everyone has the right to waste their time in any they so choose.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.They grandfathered themselves in because they had been SUBJECTS, but became CITIZENS after the Revolution.
So we are no longer a Constitutional Republic?
We are now the People's Republic of Obamanations?
We are no longer governed by the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America?
We are now under mob rule, aka democracy, because allegedly "America" has spoken in this fraudulent election?
It appears that Obama is a natural born citizen, according to the definitions you provide above. He was born to a woman who was born in the U.S.
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.
They fell under our jurisdiction because by law because they were actually bared from citizenship, the question before the court was did he get citizenship even though his parents were barred from it.
What did they decide?
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.