Posted on 05/11/2010 5:41:50 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Notice in your first quote, Alexander Hamilton suggests “be born a Citizen of the United States”. That suggests their concern was someone be born in the US, and not foreign born.
John Jay is concerned with “a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government” - and thus a natural born citizen is [or at a minimum, could refer to] one who is not foreign born.
I’ve tried discussing the list of cases you cite, but couldn’t find their text. I found The Venus, but couldn’t find ‘natural born citizen’ in the text anywhere. Perhaps my computer missed it...
I also found SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245, but it includes it only 2 times, once stating that the lady in question was a NBC, and this:
“There is indeed one prominent difficulty hanging over this argument which it is impossible to remove. If it proves any thing, it proves too much, since the inference, if resulting at all, must extend to put off one’s allegiance, as well to adopted citizens as to natural born citizens, and to all times and all circumstances.”
Thus, it once again contrasts natural born with adopted (naturalized) citizens.
The McCain resolution, of course, was referring to someone born outside of the USA, and I agree - if Obama was born outside the USA, he is not a NBC.
Game, set match to bushpilot1.
Now get this to Lt. Col. Lakins' counsel, Tout de suite :)
It is possible. But only if that is what the French was understood to mean at the time.
Either way though, it's a good indication that the "natural born citizen" as used in the Constitution means "born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Natural born citizenship goes further. Born in country, to citizen parents.
As far as we know. :)
But he is arguably a foreign subject in command of the armies of the United States.
“Natural born citizenship goes further. Born in country, to citizen parents.”
Except your citations do not show that. They show 2 classes - natural born and adopted.
Also, Congress could not change the law to prevent an anchor baby from having citizenship. That would require a court case.
If one is ever offered, I’d cheerfully support it, since I think ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ means more than just being present. And a “NBS” in common law had more duties than a tourist or illegal - the latter not existing at the time.
But I still wouldn’t hold my breath expecting to win...I honestly think it would require a Constitutional amendment at this point.
I don’t think ‘natural born subject’ mentioned ANYWHERE is going to help Lakin’s case...
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789
FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1781
Of course you do. But the 1793/97 translator did not agree with you.
Nor did whomever translated the July 27, 1781 pages of the Journals of the Continental Congress, where "naturels" is translated as "natural born" modifying sujets (subjects). (the agreement was with the French who had a King at the time)
what, no Portuguese or Dutch sailor ever jumped ship while in an English port?
Think what you want. The fact that "naturels" was translated as "Natural born" is going to help a whole lot.
“what, no Portuguese or Dutch sailor ever jumped ship while in an English port?”
If they did, they understood they were fully subject to the sovereign of that state. Illegals, by definition, are NOT obeying the laws of the state, nor trying to.
One of the cases - I forget which one - mentioned paying taxes as a sign of being under the jurisdiction. I tend to figure anyone who pays taxes or is subject to the draft would qualify as under the jurisdiction of the US. Someone here for a few days is not.
But to date, the courts haven’t taken my view of things...
“Nor did whomever translated the July 27, 1781 pages of the Journals of the Continental Congress, where “naturels” is translated as “natural born” modifying sujets (subjects). (the agreement was with the French who had a King at the time”
Natural subject has a different meaning than natural by itself. Thus by itself it was translated native.
In English common law, perhaps, but not to the French.
You're right. I don't see how the Founders who were reading Law of Nations when the Constitution was being written, either in French or an early translation, would get "natural born citizen" from the text. It's much more likely to me that the phrase is adopted from common law of England, which I believe is what the Supreme Court has already said.
You keep twisting and twisting until you can twist the facts no more,..Obama is not a natural born citizen. Even a man drunk on Buko juice can see it.
From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"
French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens
Thus we have "natural born" citizens. Simple and straight from the source.
Google did their best to hide as much as they could..but..did did not hide everything..Have been at this for weeks..making mistakes from time to time..but learn from them..and move on..the 1797 English edition..must come.the .Founders understanding..and what was taught in the Universities at that time.
This is the issue (NBC)..not the birth certificate. Obama and his supporters know this.
somewhere posted Justinian..the origin of indigenes from the Latin.
Cannot keep track all this.
But Vattel isn’t the rule of law in the U.S. The Constitution is. ObamaNazi and his Leftist gang trying to nullify the Constitution
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.