Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1928
Posted on 06/12/2010 6:55:06 PM PDT by bushpilot1
There is ample information in this book to show Obama is not qualified to be President based on the natural born citizenship clause in the Constitution.
The subject book is being blocked by Google no doubt on the behest of the White House.
Obama contends he was born in Hawaii...well.. we say "being born is a church does not make one a Christian".
The natural-born or native is one born in the country of citizen parents.
"The country of the child is that of the father."
"There is" says McLeod, "something in the idea of native country which is intimately connected with the doctrine of allegiance. It is not, however, the spot of earth, upon which the child is born that connects him with the national society, but the relation of the child's parents to that society.
"In the ordinary concerns of life, there is no need for such minute distinctions; and the majority of men are possessed of too little discrimination to understand it.
"Every statesmen are not always wise; and designing men find it for their interest to keep up a confusion(Obots) of ideas upon important subjects."
"In the present discussion, nevertheless, it is necessary that I distinctly state to you the true bond which connects the child with the body politic. It is not the inanimate matter of a piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage."
"Let a child be born within the walls of a church, this does not make him a church member."
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1928
Bad definition, in my opinion. Different words mean different things, else they wouldn't be different.
Example:
animal; a dog.
dog; an animal.
This is circular, and neither choice provides a clear distinction between the two words being defined.
A Native Born Citizen is not a Natural Born Citizen.
“Every statesmen are not always wise...”
Odd construction of an English sentence.
Thanks. The word is not correct. It is my typo. The correct word is Even.
“Even statesmen are not always wise;”
He’s nothing but an illegal alien!
As the definition itself posits explaining LEGAL USAGE:
"There is no distinction between native born as used in the French Extradition treaty and natural born as used in the extradition act."
All of this is silly anyway--as the Supremes (or any other legal authority) will not allow the "natural born" of Obama issue to be touched with a ten foot pole--due to the horrendous implications, (which could include, false laws/treaties, terrible riots and even war, I think--coming out of certain communities.)
Just 2 and a half more years.... 1/20/2013!!!
In this case, they’re saying that to be ‘native-born’ you must still be born of citizens. They’re not talking about ‘native’ to the soil, which is gnerally how people think of it today.
Not always. English is a very bastardized language, and one of the harder ones to learn as well. But consider:
Dog, Canine, pooch.
Swine, hog, pig.
A Native Born Citizen is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Not in modern usage, but in 1928 and for that matter 1787, they were the same.
NBC Ping
"There is" says McLeod, "something in the idea of native country which is intimately connected with the doctrine of allegiance. It is not, however, the spot of earth, upon which the child is born that connects him with the national society, but the relation of the child's parents to that society.
Listen to them try to explain this. Adolph Hitler comes to America, and procreates.
Is the son of Adolph eligible?
Interesting definition. You find it reflected in court cases of the 19th century.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): Wong Kim Ark was the son of two resident Chinese aliens who could not naturalize as U.S. citizens due to a treaty between the Emperor of China and the U.S. Government forbidding such naturalizations. They were, however, permanent resident aliens.
Wong claimed U.S. Citizenship by basis of his birth in the U.S.A. He was vindicated by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly of the decision in Minor vs. Happersett: “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO WERE ITS CITIZENS, BECAME THEMSELVES, UPON THEIR BIRTH CITIZENS ALSO. THESE WERE NATIVES, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A. under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.) but it DID NOT extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” to those whose parents were not citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
So called anchor babies born here of illegal aliens can not become President.
In addition, Natural Born Citizenship is NOT a type of citizenship! It is but a circumstance of birth, and the only place it appears in U.S. law is in the U.S. Constitution as a requirement for eligibility to serve as President.
We can probably find a dictionary from 1787 and find that the words Native and Natural were clearly differentiated in that time, just as they are today.
I think we both know that those words predate the formation of our country by a very long time. They would not have both come into existence in the language if there were not a need to differentiate the two separate classes of being.
“Dog, Canine, pooch.”
All synonyms for the same thing. Not so with the two words we’re discussing, which are two distinctly different things.
“...the Supremes (or any other legal authority) will not allow the “natural born” of Obama issue to be touched with a ten foot pole—due to the horrendous implications, (which could include, false laws/treaties, terrible riots and even war, I think—coming out of certain communities.)”
Well, the courts certainly didn’t hesitate to do other things, such as find nonexistent ‘freedom of choice’ and ‘right to privacy’ in the U.S. Constitution, and that has wrecked all kinds of havoc, hasn’t it?
What I believe is the difficulty getting this issue to the Supreme Court is that the power to remove a President lies with the U.S. Congress - not the Judicial branch (The Courts).
The Congress has delegated some of that power, the power to remove a usurper, to the District Court of Washington, D.C., in a legal manuever called “Quo Warranto”.
McLeod’s book is located here the date is 1815.
Morse references Mcleod, MCLeod references Vattel..not sure the Vattel edition.
This sort of statement is the cause of all sorts of misunderstanding, and is the source of all sorts of mischief.
All citizens, regardless of how that citizenship was acquired, have identical rights and duties. There is no difference between the most newly-minted, naturalized citizen and the natural-born descendent of original citizens under the so-called "grandfather clause."
There is, however, restriction at the Federal level as to the requirements for eligiblity to hold Federal elected office. These restrictions can pertain to age, length of residency, length of citizenship if not natural-born, and for the highest office in the land, that of President and Commander in Chief, natural-born citizenship.
A citizen is a citizen, encompassing every means of attaining citizenship. Naturalized citizens are citizens, native born citizens are citizens, and natural-born citizens are citizens. Hence the interchangeable use of the term "citizen" to describe these several different types of citizen. They're all belonging to the same set.
A native citizen is born in the country, to parents legally present, such as resident aliens with a green card. The set of "citizen" is reduced to a subset of native born citizens via the restriction of native birth in the country.
A natural-born citizen is born in the country, to parents not just legally present, but who are citizens themselves. The citizenship of the parents of natural-born citizens can be acquired by any of the means available, from naturalization to legal statute to birth in the country. Doesn't matter how, it just matters that they are.
The terms native and natural born can be used interchangeably in certain contexts, just as the word "citizen" can be, when discussing citizens born in the country, because the meanings overlap in those contexts. That interchangeability in certain contexts does not render the two terms identical in meaning.
The only term and the only meaning that pertains to the executive branch and the Presidency is natural-born citizen. Do not be taken in by attempts to conflate native with natural-born when discussing the Presidency as a result.
Not so coincidentally, the Obama campaign website very carefully wrapped their description of then-candidate Obama in Constitutional language, but stopped short of claiming that he was anything but a "native born citizen."
There's that mischief, relying upon inattentiveness to any distinction. They did not claim that he met the requirement, they merely fluffed it into sounding similar.
Native and natural seems to come from early French edition of Vattel used by the Founders. The words can be traced to Justinian.
Naturels used by Vattel..and translated by the Framers to natural.
Resident Obama.
Obama is not qualified. The problem is, no one that has any power to do something about it is going to do anything about it. No one in government, including judges, wants to deal with the riots and bloodshed that will take place if he is removed.
But Congress accept him as bona fide.
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.