Posted on 04/27/2010 1:53:06 PM PDT by Jack Black
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 (Citizenship)
Document 1
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361--62
1765 The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.
. . . . .
Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested 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, or stranger born, 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 temporary only: and that for this reason, evidently founded upon the nature of government; that allegiance is a debt due from the subject, upon an implied contract with the prince, that so long as the one affords protection, so long the other will demean himself faithfully. As therefore the prince is always under a constant tie to protect his natural-born subjects, at all times and in all countries, for this reason their allegiance due to him is equally universal and permanent. But, on the other hand, as the prince affords his protection to an alien, only during his residence in this realm, the allegiance of an alien is confined (in point of time) to the duration of such his residence, and (in point of locality) to the dominions of the British empire.
. . . . .
When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. 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. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.
A denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogative. A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may. A denizen is not excused from paying the alien's duty, and some other mercantile burthens. 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, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either house of parliament, without such disabling clause in it. Neither can any person be naturalized or restored in blood, unless he hath received the sacrament of the Lord's supper within one month before the bringing in of the bill; and unless he also takes the oaths of allegiance and supremacy in the presence of the parliament.
I was heartened by Lou resigning from CNN ... he showed he would not be someone’s lie carrier.
Yeah. She can get him kicked out of office, maybe.
OTOH, I bet he has proof of a bunch of clinton felonies.
He goes back to being a community organizer and darling of the lecture circuit.
She goes to prison (or the gas chamber?)
Yes, you are correct.
But I wonder if Biden would move up the ranks. If the “candidate” Hussein is found ineligible, then the next largest vote-getter should be declared the winner. Hussein’s swearing in and occupying the oval office is secondary to him not being eligible to be a candidate.
Can Pelosi act as president from jail? She is guilty of perjury for swearing that Obama is Constitutionally eligible when she did not even ask to see any documentation for him.
So now it will be interesting to see if Fitz will witch hunt the illegal alien & usurper (who needs to stay out of AZ) or will he censor and sanitize the whole Blago deal with biased justice, hmmmm???
Holy Schlamoly! Oh wouldn’t that be wonderful! I thought it was ACORN too and then when the Blago thing hit, I just forgot about it.
Thanks so much for reminding me and connecting the dots!
Whoa...if looks could kill! That is one scary photo! Wonder if Hil has seen it.
I’ve said all along that Hillary had something up her sleeve.
They will absolutely need cover!
Yes, one and the same. I’m no big “fan” of Hillary or Fitzgerald, but he is one guy not afraid, as I said, to step in the middle of a political firestorm.
Also, I hear you loud and clear regarding, Korir. Which is why I (and the original poster) made sure to say take it all for what it’s worth. Nothing more than a rumor really at this point... As for MY speculation — never claimed it was anything more than that — PURE, unadulterated conjecture...
Just one of many, many possibilities. The rumors put out by HillBuzz back in Oct. 2008 may have had EVERYTHING to do with the Blago trial.
I just don’t want others to think it’s anything other than speculation or conjecture on my part. I have no “inside info.” or anything of the sort. Just a curious and inquisitive mind that isn’t afraid to hypothesize! :)
Oh, and if it makes Obama sweat just a LITTLE more... Well, heck that’s just a bonus!!! ;)
It seems that if the Democratic ticket is thrown out on these grounds the ticket with the next highest number of electoral votes (McCain/Palin) would be the only alternative. I don’t believe this is the same as the matter of impeachment, you’d essentially be declaring a candidate ineligible -which means the whole ticket is. This is not a matter for impeachment. For those reasons alone it is doubtful the SCOTUS would act - the disruption would be enormous. They could however make Obama ineligible to run again.
All this is a moot point under Blackstone’s definition of ‘natural born subject’ extended to US citizenship, unless you can in fact prove that Obama wasn’t born where he says he was.
It really is more comfortable for them to sit in their recliners and pretend that all is well and will be handled by decent honorable people at all levels of government.
I don't think I am a cynic; but I have been an observer of human behavior all of my life and I know better. So, a little hypothesizing doesn't trouble me, it won't trouble you if I temper what you have said and my excitement with a little skepticism.
And anything that causes Obama to sweat is fine with me!
Thanks, I’m glad you understand. I admit that my response to you was influenced by some of the responses to my post... I admit I’m a little excited about the prospects myself — mostly because I just want this nightmare to be over SO badly (in re: to Obama’s ineligibility). I don’t care WHERE the truth comes from at this point - only that is does come out... If Hillary ends up being the one that scores a major victory out of this, the only ones the GOP will have to blame is themselves for rolling over and playing dead instead of doing their duty to the citizens of this country...
Oh, and I’ve been called all those same things myself! LOL You’re right about the blissfully ignorant as well — and especially about those who are in denial when they know in the back of their minds they have nagging questions as well.
Thanks again for understanding my post! :)
I’m with you! I don’t care where the truth comes from just as long as we ultimately hear it! Even if it is Hillary...gasp, wheeze...
Skeptically Excited
As am I.
Ain’t that the truth. A Biden administration does not sound so bad right now.
“Just one of many, many possibilities. The rumors put out by HillBuzz back in Oct. 2008 may have had EVERYTHING to do with the Blago trial.”
Was Blago even investigated yet Oct/2008??
Harlem, N.Y. is an Eastern State and it is less than 30 days also???
There is NOT much difference in Hillary’s political philosophy vs. Barry’s!!!
http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/hillaryclintonsthesis.htm
Good questions. I believe that after Rezko was arrested an investigation into many of his ties was begun — including Obama. I believe Fitzgerald may have “stumbled” onto the Pay-to-play scheme in the course of another investigation, personally. However, that is again just speculation. [Apart from Rezko, I’d bet Hillary was calling in favors from the moment she realized the DNC was backing Obama and denying her delegates.]
Good point about Rev. Manning’s “trial” as well... However, there is no way Manning’s “trial” could enter into SCOTUS.
In regards to Hillary and Obama’s ideology — completely understand that. However, I don’t think Hillary wants to destroy our country like Obama does. I truly do NOT think Obama is adhering to any Socialist ideology - unlike Hillary who probably TRULY believes in Collectivism.
Obama strikes me as much more of a fascist (narcissistic is an understatement - I think he believes he IS divinity himself... I gather this from so many statements he, and his supporters (incl. Farrakhan calling him the messiah). I totally question his intentions as well, because it seems he is doing EVERYTHING possible to destroy us, and make us weak in front of our enemies.
I don’t think Hillary is that stupid — she wants power no doubt, and to advance a socialist (communist) agenda, but as far as how she would interact with foreign leaders — I think she’d be more respectful, and would at least follow protocol. Obama is infantile, really. I think she would be a MUCH tougher negotiator than Obama (whom the world just laughs at now).
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth to defend Hillary, but if we’re talking of the lesser of two evils, I’d have to pick Hillary over Obama any day... At least she was born and grew up here so there is at least a chance she understands the American Dream. Also, she was a Goldwater girl, so perhaps somewhere inside her lies a love for our country, and a little more understanding than Obama as far as economics...
Wanted to say that yes, I’m aware of all the horrible things she and Bill have done in their quest for power. I don’t believe Obama is “clean” when it comes to “silencing” the opposition either (I’m reminded of the 3 openly gay men in Wright’s church who were murdered during the campaign - including the choir director in touch with Sinclair).
Anyway, as I said — if it were between Obama or Hillary? I’d have to go with Hillary... Hillary vs. a real conservative? DEFINITELY the Conservative and I’d fight tooth and nail against her in a regular campaign!
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.