Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
You said: BULL CRAP!
**
That’s what I love about FR: All the intelligent posters.
[my mom made me take the class...I hated it because truly, I hate typing]...:))
In the mid-70s, our school electric typewriters were *so* hug and heavy they’d have killed you if they fell on you.
Hmm. I took typing as an elective in HS in the late 70s if only because I wanted to learn to touch type and I already had enough credits to graduate. I knew I was going to pursue a career in computers. Figured it would come in handy and it has :-).
We only had manual typewriters in the classroom and they DID teach us to use capital O and lowercase l for 0 and 1.
Nothing is U.S. soil but U.S. soil.
But if it is a forgery, the forger or the ones who had it made, could likely be tracked down, much more easily than finding out who forged the COLB. They had to have some contact, even if through cut-outs, with Orly or "her people". I really hope she has the document itself, and not just an image of something, which would put her, and any document examiner she would employ, one giant leap ahead of anyone on the COLB "problem".
Hang in there. There are some very good posts around the area you appear to be reading. Changing your settings to see 250 comments at a time helps a lot.
You wrote:
“So far we have assumed that the conventional meaning of “natural born citizen” for those learned in the law in the eighteenth century was equivalent to the meaning of “natural born subject” in nineteenth century English law. But is this assumption correct?
No, the assumption is not correct. The British common-law was a relatively recent, 18th Century, abnormal departure from and in contradiction to the customary Law of Nations stretching back two millenia to the Roman Republic and earlier. The recent propensity to assume the 18th-19th Century English common-law practice of making the place of birth, jus soli, the method of determining status as a natural born subject equivalent to a natural born citizen is based upon widespread public ignorance and an erroneous confusion of the purpose and means of determining citizenship.
The place of birth, jus soli, is just one of many METHODS for determining ALLEGIANCE to a sovereign. There are many other METHODS which were used to determine ALLEGIANCE to a sovereiegn. Descent by blood, jus sanguinni, is another method used to determine allegiance to a sovereign. Descent from foreign parents, jus albinatus, was a method of denying allegiance to the sovereign in whose domains a person was born. In each circumstance, it is the allegiance which determines citizenship, and it is one or more of the methods which determines that allegiance.
A person natural born in the domain of a sovereign with parents of foreign citizenship and owing allegiance to another sovereign as a result of jus albinatus is the natural born citizen of the other sovereign, and is not the natural born citizen of the sovereign in whose domain the person was born. This was the actual law and practice in old France and many other nations at a time when England used jus soli as a method of claiming the allegiance of every person born in the dominions of the sovereign of England.
Upon the Revolution as of 4 July 1776, the United States of America abolished the British common-law and each state began to enact its own statutory citizenship laws in replacement of the former British common-law. The new statutory laws were modeled on a mixture of international law and custom as described by the works of Vattel and others of like background with respect to the Law of Nations. In every such law, the authors were concerned with allegiance to the sovereign State using a variety of methods including combinations of jus soli and jus sanguinni to determine the natural born allegiance of a person.
So when the phrase “natural born subject” or “natural born citizen” was used at the time of the origin of the Constitution, the true meaning of the phrase is “born in nature with allegiance to a sovereign” of this or another domain. As in old France, the sovereign owed the allegiance was not necessarily going to be the sovereign of the domain which was the place of birth, unless the place of birth was a domain of Britain.
The phrase, “natural born citizen,” as it was used in the Constitution was all about “natural born” allegiance and not about “natural born” place of birth. This is why the Founding Fathers understood exactly what they meant to say when they wrote the phrase into the Constitution for the purpose of excluding any person born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign from serving as Commander-in-Chief or being eligible to the Office of the President. As used by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, the phrase means “a person born in nature with allegiance only to the United States of America.” Each of the thirteen States of the Union had enacted its own laws to determine who could and could not be a Citizen of that State and thereby also a Citizen of the United States. Since dual nationality did not exist at that time, no person born with allegiance to another sovereign could possibly also be “a person born in nature with allegiance only to the United States of America.”
1.Birthplace: Nevis, British West Indies
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.
1) Hamilton was a Citizen of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
2) He was not natural born because he was born in the Caribbean, but he was a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Therefore he would not be excluded from the Presidency, which would happen to all citizens naturalized after the adoption of the Constitution. Note the first part of the Constitution passage I bolded above. It does not require those who met it to be natural born.
3) Since Hamilton arrived in Boston in 1772, he would be in the U.S. over fourteen years. This would meet the second bolded part qualification.
4) He would also have to meet the 35 year qualification, which he would only meet in 1790 or 1792. There is controversy about his year of birth, but even if he was born in 1757 he would 35 by the election of 1792.
5) Of course anyone else who also was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution would meet that qualification, but Alexander Hamilton was there representing the State of New York himself. I am not aware if anyone else at the Philadelphia Convention was not born in the thirteen colonies. Perhaps someone else will know if there was someone else.
“NO...he definitely is native born.( if he was born in Hawaii )....but his father was not a US Citizen...so by some definitions he may not be natural born.”
**
Show me one SCOTUS decision, one statute, one ANYTHING other than Vattel that backs up what you say.
Or through Google you can even find textbooks.
Find me SOMETHING that confirms what you say about Vattel.
Anything.
Nobody can do that. There is nothing in our laws, our history texts, our law texts, or any court decision that has ever held that two citizen parents are required for a child to be natural born.
Not one. If there were, it would have turned up by now. All Leo has is Vattel and Bingham.
We know that John Jay was concerned about a “foreigner” having the reins of power. But he said NOTHING about a person’s parents. He was referring to the PERSON, not the person’s parents.
You look in history books and see what they say about what U.S. law is based on. You will not find anything other than English common law. Sure, international law affected some of our laws, but not the way we treated citizenship.
Read the portion of the Wong decision that I posted. You can easily find Wong on the Internet, download it in a text file, open it in Microsoft Word, and search to your heart’s content.
I would love to see anything at all that confirms what you and others contend, because I grew up believing the myth of two parents, also. The fact of the matter is, however, that I never learned about the subject; I just picked up that myth, like you did. It’s not true. But if you have evidence to prove you’re right, other than Vattel, please post it.
I am more than willing to change my mind, but I have to see something. Just arguing isn’t going to do it. Or if you cannot prove it by some statute, or by some other method, show me that Vattel really had the influence you claim over the Framers. He had some, sure, with regard to international relations, but not for citizenship.
In fact, I located an English translation of him online through Google books, and I read the section that’s always quoted. And it’s interesting what he said immediately after the part we see quoted so often.
He basically says that there are no hard and fast rules and that if a nation does it differently, that’s okay, too. I’m sure you can find it yourself. It was a while back, so I don’t have the link. But I did post on PJ about it under the name Patricia, I think. Before that I was tanarg. So the posts are there somewhere, and there’s a Search function, so it can be found. I think I link to the book I used.
The question of eligibility before Sotomayor would be strangely similar to Horace Gray deciding US v Wong Kim Ark.
At the time, Chester Arthur (who appointed Gray) was under suspicion of failing the “NBC” requirement by being born in Dunham, Canada. (Another curious parallel.)
Tech Ed, possibly because you do not usderstand the law you are quoting?
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.
Have another look:
“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
Do you see the difference?
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:
“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
But that’s not what they said.
- By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.
- But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.
- This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.
Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.
Here’s the final holding of the case:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)
__________________________________________
Leo’s website comes highly recommended for all beginners into the constitutional world and he will answer all questions if you are cordial.
Which makes me wonder who Bambi would give Hillary the State Department, where she legitimately has access to ALL those records, like Moms travel records... his travel records..... LOL Maybe Bambi thinks Hillary is cowed.... ROFL....
Talk about setting one’s self up for a fall.... Bambi isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed...
Hey, Moderator: could you check out this person, Prince of Space.
I suspect he isn’t legit but a disrupter.
Your question jogged my memory, regarding something that might be pertinent, here, than no one to my knowledge has looked at.
The recollection involves the relevant finding of natural-born citizenship for Marie Elg, in Perkins v. Elg. There are ample cites on FR and on the web, so I don't see the need for re-posting the decision here, but the law, in the United States in 1907, meant that she was born of two citizen parents due to derivative citizenship.
It's my understanding, that derivative citizenship was and perhaps still is the law, for wives to legally derive their citizenship from their husbands, in most of the world. There was a point not so long ago, that the United States was the only nation that did not legally assign the citizenship of the husband, to the wife.
Do you see where I'm going with this? If there was a marriage legally recognized in Kenya, between Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham, she very well could have been legally Kenyan herself, under the law at that time.
Wonder how that complicates matters, if it's so. Certainly doesn't help any argument for Obama to have been a natural-born citizen, regardless of where he was born. This would mean that not only was there competing allegiance due to a nonresident alien father, his mother's citizenship could be murky as well.
What Specifically are you looking for? I have access to Lexus Nexis....
SO... How old is OBAMA???
Yeah, me too. Do we some special kind of achievement for reading this thread from beginning to end?
But, wasn't it the OPPOSITE case? The law was written so that Alexander Hamilton COULD NOT run for President?
Hamilton was for the same sorts of things that led to the Federal Reserve act, so I would presume so. It was probably a Good Thing that he died in the duel with Vice President Burr. At least it allowed us to become a world power before the banksters got their teeth into us.
This has already been answered. A country eager to dissociate itself from its colonialist past might, indeed, call itself "independent" and a "republic" even before it formally declared to the world that such was officially the case. I don't find that suspicious at all.
I’ve read about this, and there just a handful, if that. Three or four only.
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.