Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lmo56
"It just means that they have been a citizen from their moment of birth. However, there are two kinds of citizens at birth: 1. US Nationals and 2. Natural Born Citizens. Check out the United States Code, if you do not believe me."

You're going to have to do a little better than "check out the US Code". 8 USC § 1401, is the relevant citizenship statute in the US Code. Do you see "natural-born" anywhere in there?

The two words "natural born" appear only once together in the US Code (16 USC § 159g - Acquisition of Lands), and it's used in the context of distinguishing a natural child from a step-child. But, as the crack constitutional scholar you purport to be, I guess you already knew that, right?

By they way, if you new ANYTHING about the US Code, you might be aware that just because you're a US National doesn't mean you're even a US citizen. (8 USC § 1408). People born in outlaying US possessions are nationals, but aren't citizens. How about that?

307 posted on 04/02/2010 1:08:19 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies ]


To: OldDeckHand
You're going to have to do a little better than "check out the US Code". 8 USC § 1401, is the relevant citizenship statute in the US Code. Do you see "natural-born" anywhere in there?

You fell into that one - like I thought that you would ...

OF COURSE, All US citizens are US Nationals, but NOT all US Nationals are US citizens.

My point of mis-applying the USC was to get you to look at it - NO WHERE does it state what a "natural born citizen" is since the term CANNOT be defined by statute. So, your assertion in the previous post IS BOGUS AND A FLAT-OUT LIE:

"If Barack Obama was born in HI, and we have no credible evidence that he wasn't, then he's a citizen at birth - a "natural-born citizen". That is the law as it exists today in this country."

Show me a statute or Supreme Court ruling that states a "citizen at birth" is a "natural born citizen" !!! And DO NOT quote Wong Kim Ark v. United States - it was decided on the basis of the 14th amendment ONLY and it ONLY declared him to be a "citizen".

In Ark's background informtion, Justice Gray PROFOUNDLY bastardized and mis-quoted what Calvin's Case had to say.

What Calvin's Case REALLY said was that:

" ... There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king. 2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are Subjects to the king of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions. But if Enemies should come into any of the king’s dominions and surprise any Castle or Fort, and |[18 b] possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the king, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the king’s ligeance or obedience. But the time of his birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the king of England, unlesse at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the king. And that is the reason that Antenati in Scotland (for that at the time of their birth they were under the ligeance and obedience of another king) are Aliens born, in respect of the time of their birth."

BTW:

Actual obedience = actual allegiance = actual ligeance and it MUST be permanent, as opposed to temporary allegiance owed by an alien as long as he is resident within the sovreign's dominion ...

So, that being said, refute my analysis about the British Nationality Acts. The Founding Fathers' intent when they inserted the clause in Article II, Section I was to PROTECT the country from possible foreign infuence.

The lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers were EXTREMELY aware of Calvin's Case, as they were trained in British Law, and Calvin was THE seminal nationality case on record. AND, since England extended "natural born subject" status to children born out of the ligeance of the sovreign [as long as their fathers were natural born subjects] - THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE WANTED SUCH A CHILD AS PRESIDENT.

I notice that you have not addressed THAT from my previous post ...

321 posted on 04/02/2010 2:36:35 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson