NBC Ping...
That said all said, he brought up the "Birther" issue in our conversation. He says that he has received two independent emails from separate sources that say that a stealth case is moving through the courts that has standing. In other words, he said that someone with standing has been found. That person would have to be a US Attorney, and or a State Attorney General if I followed him correctly.
This case will be going to the US Supreme Court and will be heard more about in the next 30 days. The problem that is arising is--Will this make Nancy Pelosi President? That is the political question that the insiders are asking themselves.
Take this information for what its worth.
Indeed he has! This is a section from his commentary. Here is one important part that seems at odd with the "dual citizenship" theory that many here ascribe to;
"The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such."
This would seem to make the Obama Sr.'s Kenyan/British citizenship a non-issue, assuming that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.
As for the John McCain question, it seems to me that at the time of the writing of the US Constitution the term "natural born" was already defined in such a way as to grant that status to children of citizens in good standing born out of the realm, in certain circumstances.
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.>
The case of John McCain seems to lie very close to the case of the "embassador". He was serving in an official military capacity, where his allegiance is through his command structure, culminating in the President of the USA, not the President of Panama.
Note the even mere merchants were also already being afforded full natural born status even if born outside the USA at the time, as indictated in this passage.
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.
I think this is a fairly definative rejection "McCain is not natural born" theory based on originalist arguments.
The case for Obama's "natural born" status would depend on his physical location, if we were to use Blackstone's Commentaries as a primary source for the meaning of the term.
If he as born in Kenya, then there he would not have been considered "natural born" using the English Common Law use of the term, as explained here by Blackstone. Preference then, even more so than in 1960 when it was still quite evident in the US laws, was strongly given to the father as the source of citizenship.
The usurper owes allegiance to only one King, King Obama.
Thank you and everyone who has researched and posted NBC threads.
Interesting but I wonder, if the Founders used Blackstone’s why they didn’t use the term “Natural Born Subject?”
Is it is because a subject owes alliegance to a person (The King/Queen)? Some European Monarchs, including British monarchs, were children of Monarchs of other nations. Conflicting loyalities seemed to be a fact of life for European Kings...
The United States has citizens who owe their alliegence to the Constitution, and the Nation. Given the Founders concern over the undivided alliegence they wanted embodied in the Office of the President, and the changeable alliegence that Blackstone’s ascribes to an alien born in country, I doubt very seriously that the Founders used Blackstone for a model when writting the Requirements for the Office of the President.
The fact that the Founders were as familiar with Vittals “Law of Nations” as they were with Blackstone’s, and they used Vittals terminology tells me that while Blackstones may have been counsulted, the Founders prefered Vittals reasoning and definitions....In essence Natural Born Citizen does not equal Natural Born Subject.
Coupled with T Jefferson teaching a course at William and Mary teaching “Law of Nation” and the USSC using either an exact or paraphrased quotation of Vittals definition of a Natural Born Citizen in their citizenship decisions, I find the probability of Blackstone’s being relevant to the term Natural Born Citizen approaching zero to the point of it’s being non existent.......
obumpa
” 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.”
This certainly excludes those like the nappy headed muzzie.