Posted on 07/23/2009 1:34:50 AM PDT by Red Steel
Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court was well regarded James Kent. He was a leading conservative. Here is what a poster, Mike Appleton, on Turley’s website had to say quoting Kent:
“I continue to be bothered by your insistence that we are somehow bound by the views of one writer on the issue of what constitutes a “natural born citizen.” You will recall that I earlier cited Blackstone, but you rejected his definition on the basis that there is a distinction between a “citizen” and a “subject,” and asserted that the Founders would have used the word “subject” rather than “citizen” in the Constitution had they agreed with Blackstone.
I believe it is important to remember that the Founders were forming a republic rather than a monarchy. Although the terms “subject” and “citizen” share a common characteristic, a duty of loyalty or allegiance, the word “citizen” is more appropriate to our form of government and has its origins in the Roman republic. Indeed, you will recall from your student days that at one time the most important boast one could make was “Civis romanus sum” (”I am a Roman citizen”).
In any event, I went home last night and pulled out my volumes of Kent’s “Commentaries on American Law,” first published in 1827. I note that Mr. Kent acknowledges the contributions of Vattel on the law of nations, as well as those of Grotius, Burlamaqui, Montesquieu and others, but makes no reference to Vattel in his discussion of natural born and naturalized citizens, relying instead upon principles of English common law. (Although not relevant here, I would argue that the Founders were much more deeply indebted to people like Montesquieu, Locke, Hobbes and Hume than they were to Vattel.)
Kent writes that “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.” (Lecture XXV, Vol. II, p. 33). “It is the doctrine of the English law, that natural born subjects owe an allegiance, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and which cannot be devested (sic) by any act of their own.” (Id., pp. 35-36). By contrast, “An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States,” (with certain exceptions). (Id., p. 43). Thus aliens can become citizens only through an applicable naturalization procedure. “A person thus duly naturalized, becomes entitled to all the privileges and immunities of natural born subjects, except that a residence of seven years is requisite to enable him to hold a seat in congress, and no person, except a natural born citizen, is eligible to the office of governor of this state, or president of the United States.” (Id., p. 57).
Kent is referring to the state of New York, where these lectures were given, and to the naturalization acts then in effect. The point, however, is that he uses the phrases “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably.
On the subject of the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president, Kent observes, “The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he have attained the age of thirty five years, and have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient power in government, this restriction will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome.” (Lecture XIII, Vol. I, p. 255).
I suggest that the Founders did not define the phrase “natural born citizen” for the simple reason that they did not believe a definition was necessary. If one is born in the United States, one may be properly described as “native born,” a “natural born subject” or a “natural born citizen.” Therefore, since the president was born in the United States, he was and is constitutionally eligible for the office he holds. “
Would Obamanazi, born in Kenya, be considered a Naturalized Citizen? Would he be a natural born citizen? Does it depend on whether Mother was married to father.
Surely there is a case out there somewhere involving a UK citizen , tribal marriage in one of their colonies, bigamy, a person born out of this country or in this country to one US citizen and one alien, and adoption to another foreign born man....or maybe there is no such case with such a convoluted fact pattern.
I picked one case to examine in your list. It turns out to be an excellent case to show your weakness.
Please consult those many ATTORNEYs and ask them why the dissenting opinion in WONG as it REFERENCES THE MINOR case is wrong.
I want to hear the answer.
Also, ask them about the Supremacy Clause.
Does Wong trump your cases because it came later.
Just get back to me with those two simple anwers from your lawyer relatives.
Why should I answer any of your questions when for the 2nd time now you’ve refused to answer any of my questions?
P.S. BS on picking one case to ‘show my weakness’. You picked it because its the only one you obamabots have talking points for!
By the way, Mario Apuzzo is not a constitutional lawyer. If he is stating that Minor resolved the issue when two parents are not citiznes...He is wrong. ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
And as far as you quoting attorneys..here is how WRONG THEY ARE. (are these your relatives telling you this..tell them they are wrong and do some legal research)
Obama IS NOT, I REPEAT..IS NOT a British Citizen if born on US Soil under the British Nationality Act of 1948.
WHY?
They should be able to tell you. Except they either didn’t do the due diligence or are ignoring it to further an agenda..kind of like you.
So let me tell you why.
Citizenship was only conferred with a LEGAL marriage.
Those attorneys will have to find a law in Hawaii that made the marriage between Ann and Sr LEGAL when he was LEGALLY married in another country prior to marrying Ann.
Obama would have been a UK citizen if born in Kenya.
Would Obama be a UK citizen if he was born here...if Ann had gone to Kenya and had a customary marriage. YOU TELL ME.
Because your posts are so ridiculous...I have to pick just one thing to try to answer.
Try the post I just made about your attorneys refusal to admit that Obama cannot be a UK citizen if born on US soil due to a marriage that was not legal.
Why don’t they know that?
Arrogant aren’t we??? Wow just count the times everyone else is wrong but you. Amazing. So tell me since you asked me? Are you an attorney? And where you you get you law degree or is it just a degree in arrogance?
I don't know they're not around to ask. Who made you queen of FR? Have you always been this arrogant or just born that way??? What is it so difficult to just say:
Okay, we'll agree to disagree and MOVE ON instead of starting a flame war?
Just educate yourself on one simple issue that is easy to find out.
Pick one
Supremecy Clause and Wong
Or
Obama not a UK citizen if born in the US under the 1948 Act.
Once you do this....maybe you will stop posting things that aren’t true.
“Citizenship was only conferred with a LEGAL marriage.” You are absolutely wrong, not close to error, completely wrong.
Okay o great omniscient almighty freeper goddess.....try taking this up with Apuzzo since you're ever so much more knowledgeable than he is:
Obama....is Currently Also a British Citizen
Apuzzo's blog. Gee you can leave a comment and tell him yourself how wrong he is and puff your ego up some more. Try it - you'll have a great time.
If you are telling me I am wrong..and you have authority to know about this subject..I will go back and double check
It is my understanding that there had to be a legal marriage to get UK citizenship if born on US soil under the 1948 act.
Is your understanding different?
Note Part III
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
But it will take me looking over that and some other things which I no longer have the capacity for tonight.
Is your understanding different?
Hate to destroy that inflated ego of yours but I can't resist:
Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830:
"It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .
****crickets********
"Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.
Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child's minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality."
Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.
"It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .
Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality."
I'm not trying to ruin your evening. But there is the cogent data that disputes your assertion.
We are all freepers ... don’t kick someone when they are vulnerable.
Ooops this part didn't get pasted. Comes after illegitimate....
Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality."
Even if illegitimate.
Rats, beat me to the punch..good job MH!
I have absolutely no problem admitting when I am wrong.
So we have established that under the 1948 act..as espoused by the poster...that Obama could not have been a US citizen since the marriage was not legal. The lawyers quoted the 1948 act.
NO GO.
So now you have to determine if there was a bill that was passed and made into law that changed this.
Please find it on another source..such a governmental website etc...the attorney who is espousing a position doesn’t count when it cant be found anywhere else.
Not a proposition. Turned into actual law through their procedure.
Make that Obama could not have been a UK citizen under the 1948 Act.
Now find the law that was passed to change that.
Why is it when doing a google search on with this:
“It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom “
I only find TWO references.
A bit odd.
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.