Ping!
ping
I’m no legal beagle, but is this asserting that there can be no such thing as an “anchor baby”?
Complain all you want, that's the truth. He squats in our house because they let him.
Well, that sucks. Now I can’t be President.
I read that is it is fascinating.
This sounded a bit odd to me, so I looked over the document. He does not make this claim, which would be absurd; rather, he states that common law is irrelevant to federal law, which is quite a different claim (but one that is relevant to the citizenship issue).
There is a weakness in his argument. It relies on the citizenship (allegiance) of the offspring as being that of the father’s alone. A clear enough notion when the Constitution was written, but would it stand close judicial scrutiny today?
Can we still state the allegiance of the child belongs solely with that of the father, and, if so; what legal premise do we use to support this contention? Why wouldn’t the citizenship of the mother now play an equal role in the allegiance of the child of today, or in 1961?
But let’s be clear, none of these questions can even be addressed unless or until Obama comes clean about his past, and that is going to take a court order.
The only other way I can see we can proceed in this regard is to form “Birther” committees in every state of the union with the idea of getting the state legislatures to pass a state statute requiring all presidential and vice-presidential candidates to prove they meet the requirements of the office as set forth in the U.S. Constitution before their names can be placed on the ballot of that state.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Common law exists, but by definition it is not the subject matter of federal administrative law, which is also called statutory law, and which is what the United States federal government runs on.
So, one could say that there "is no common law in the United States," if one meant "in the operation of the United States government," rather than "in legitimate existence in the entirety of the country named the United States of America."
Yes, one could say that. Getting a court to actually sit in common law, however, is another thing.
Now born in Indonesia (14th paragraph)
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/08/ln/FP601080334.html
That makes:
Honolulu
Kenya
Vancouver, BC
Indonesia
Anywhere else?
Thank you for this link.
This IS LENGTHY, but includes the relevant passages from Blackstone, Vattel, the Supreme Court, and the British Nationality Act of 1948. Otherwise, you have to get it off the ‘Net yourselves ...
SCOTUS has ruled that there IS NO Common Law in the United States. However, absent any CLEAR understanding of the language and law in the Constitution, SCOTUS has suggested time and again that Common Law ought be consulted in order to arrive at a decision. It has done this in order to ascertain the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers.
See Wheaton v. Peters (January Term 1834), Minor v. Happersett (March 29, 1875), Smith v. Alabama (January 30, 1886), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (March 28, 1898) for more information on the applicability of English Common Law …
Mind you, I said Common Law ought be consulted - not bound by ...
Why, you may ask ???
Because the Founding Fathers, in separating from England, DID NOT ENTIRELY abandon Common Law - they ONLY abandoned what they objected to specifically. * (See COMMENT, below).
In fact, the MAJORITY of Common Law became the basis of U.S. law. The lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers were schooled in Common Law (Blackstone) and (to a lesser extent) the Law of Nations (Vattel).
Now, you need to examine and FULLY read Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England Book I, Chapter X: Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives VERY CAREFULLY. It describes WHO is a natural-born subject.
Blackstone declares that, “ ... the children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such ...”.
The OPERATIVE phrase is “GENERALLY SPEAKING” - it is NOT a definitively declarative statement, therefore, there MUST be AT LEAST one condition where children born of aliens in England ARE NOT natural-born subjects.
In order to ascertain this, you THEN need to examine the traits AND characteristics of a natural-born subject.
Per Blackstone, “ ... the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own … put off or discharge his natural allegiance … and cannot be divested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince ...”.
” ... Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien … for so long time as he continues within the king’s dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local [allegiance] temporary only ...”.
” ... An alien born may purchase lands, or other estates: but not for his own use; for the king is thereupon entitled to them. If an alien could acquire a permanent property in lands, he must own an allegiance, equally permanent with that property, to the king of England; which would probably be inconsistent with that, which he owes his own natural liege lord ...”.
” ... And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once ...”.
” ... A Denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject … A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them … And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown ...”.
” ... Naturalization cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king’s ligeance; except only that he is incapable … of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, etc. ...”.
Assuming he was born in Hawaii, Obama fits the GENERAL definition of a natural-born subject since he was the child of an alien who was born in the U.S.
HOWEVER, Obama FAILS to meet the traits AND characterisitics of a natural-born subject. That is because he DOES NOT owe a SINGULAR natural allegiance to ONE sovereign or government.
Why, you may ask ???
Because, per the 14th Amendment, he is a citizen of the U.S. AND, per the British Nationality Act of 1948, he is a British subject:
British Nationality Act of 1948 Part II, Section V:
“(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth”.
Obama is a dual national which, if you look CLOSELY at Blackstone, EXACTLY fits his definition of a DENIZEN. A DENIZEN enjoys MOST of the rights of a natural-born subject, except that he CANNOT hold high office.
COMMENT:
Per Blackstone, a natural-born subject cannot sever ties with his sovereign. However, the Americans (who were natural-born subjects of King George III) did just that.
Their justification MUST have been rooted in Vattel’s Law Of Nations:
Chapter XIX: Of Our Native Country And Several Things That Relate To It
§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.
“ ... 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers … They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown, to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn … But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen … may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it ...”.
This shows that the Founding Fathers DID NOT entirely rely on Common Law.
FYI:
Per Vattel:
§ 212. Citizens and Natives.
... The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens ... those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights ... The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children ... I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country ...
§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country ... though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens ... Their children follow the condition of their fathers ...
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him ...
IF THE FOUNDING FATHERS STRICTLY ADHERED TO VATTEL AND NOT COMMON LAW, OBAMA WOULD NOT EVEN BE A CITIZEN - SINCE THE CHILD FOLLOWS THE FATHER UNDER VATTEL.
HOWEVER, THE 14TH AMENDMENT STILL MAKES OBAMA A CITIZEN OF THE U.S. AND, UNDER VATTEL, HE IS A BRITISH CITIZEN - THUS, MAKING HIM A DUAL NATIONAL ...
CONCLUSIONS:
What does this ALL mean ???
1. The Founding Fathers DID NOT consider English Common Law to be the controlling law in the Colonies. For if they DID, as “Natural Born” English subjects, they NEVER could have severed ties with England without the Sovreign’s consent (per Blackstone).
2. The Founding Fathers seem to have borrowed from Vattell as justification for the severance. This seems to verify that the Founding Fathers DID NOT ENTIRELY rely on English Common Law when founding the United States.
3. Blackstone states that the children of foreigners born on English soil are, GENERALLY SPEAKING, “Natural Born” subjects.
4. HOWEVER, Blackstone ALSO declares that a “Natural Born” subject CANNOT serve two masters.
5. Therefore, per Blackstone, a child of a foreigner appears to be a Denizen rather than a “Natural Born” subject – assuming that the foreign father’s country recognizes the child as one of its citizens (dual nationality).
6. Per Blackstone, a Denizen enjoys MOST of the rights of a “Natural Born” subject – except that he CANNOT hold high office.
7. The British Nationality Act of 1948 recognizes OBAMA as a British subject AND the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution recognizes him as a United States citizen (dual nationality), IF he was born in Hawaii.
8. As a dual national, OBAMA DOES NOT fit the definition of “Natural Born” as the Founding Fathers knew it.
Mr. Collins had a persuasive arguement which he made in 1884.
In fact in 1892 in the Supreme Court case US vs Wong Kim Ark two Supreme court justices agreed with him.
Unfortunately for Mr. Collins arguement the other 7 didn’t.
I don’t put much stock in law review articles that the Supreme Court later repudiates.
“The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.” Blind obamanoid kneepad sycophants don’t need no facts or truth, they can deny anything! The question is, will the pirate john roberts ever allow a hearing of the issues in the SCOTUS.