Posted on 06/22/2010 3:40:28 PM PDT by bushpilot1
In the Journals of the Continental Congress there is a translation of the French word naturels to natural born. Meaning the Founders understood Vattel's naturels to mean natural born.
The document and its translation by the Founders must have been overlooked over the years by the courts, congress and the news media.
In French.
ARTICLE III Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera.
The Founders Translation.
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.
Citizens at birth via statute law have been ruled to be "naturalized" citizens. In particular, those born abroad of US citizen parents (one or both). The reason is because Congress has no power over citizenship other than the power to define the rules for Naturalization. There are more ways that the standard, "apply, take test, take oath" method to be naturalized. One way (actually several under the statutes) is to be born abroad of US citizen parent(s). Another is to be a resident of someplace annexed to the US, such as Hawaii, Alaska or Puerto Rico. The people living there at the time were naturalized by specific acts of Congress.
See: Justia's "NATURALIZATION AND CITIZENSHIP", which has references to the appropriate Supreme Court cases.
As far as the difference between a 14th amendment citizen at birth due to birth in the US and "Natural Born Citizen" as used in Article II, Section 1, is (or could be) eligibility for the office of President. The Supreme Court has never taken nor ruled on such a case. Until they do, one must look to original understanding of the founding generations.
Citizens at birth via statute law have been ruled to be “naturalized” citizens. In particular, those born abroad of US citizen parents (one or both). The reason is because Congress has no power over citizenship other than the power to define the rules for Naturalization. There are more ways that the standard, “apply, take test, take oath” method to be naturalized. One way (actually several under the statutes) is to be born abroad of US citizen parent(s). Another is to be a resident of someplace annexed to the US, such as Hawaii, Alaska or Puerto Rico. The people living there at the time were naturalized by specific acts of Congress.
See: Justia’s “NATURALIZATION AND CITIZENSHIP”, which has references to the appropriate Supreme Court cases.
As far as the difference between a 14th amendment citizen at birth due to birth in the US and “Natural Born Citizen” as used in Article II, Section 1, is (or could be) eligibility for the office of President. The Supreme Court has never taken nor ruled on such a case. Until they do, one must look to original understanding of the founding generations.
Since the Supreme Court has “never taken nor ruled on such a case” who is the “one” that you are referring to who “must look to original understanding of the founding generations?”
The current high court has rejected petitions for Writs of Certiorari in seven appeals challenging Obama’s eligibility.
My assumption is that the reason for those rejections of appeals is because they reached the high court after Obama had his electoral votes certified and had already been sworn in to the office.
As one US District Court Judge (Carter) stated in his dismissal opinion: Once a person is de jure president, they are also de facto president and it is the responsiblity of Congress to remove that person if they are found to be ineligible.
That’s probably why so many Obama eligibility lawsuits have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as well as for lack of standing.
This is a lie. Thanks for confirming that you are a liar, rather than a retard.
Beats me. It doesn’t here:
http://translate.google.com/#auto|en|les%20citoyens%20naturels
In reverse, it translates natural-born citizen as “citoyen-né” - “citizen baby”.
This is a lie. Thanks for confirming that you are a liar, rather than a retard.
Barack Obama tells us that he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, to an American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and to Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a citizen of Kenya, a British colony at the time.
Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. …”
Obama’s father, a Kenyan, was a British subject at the time of his birth. Therefore, under British law, it is clear that Obama was born with dual U.S.-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother. However, following Kenya’s independence from Great Britain on Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya’s newly-adopted constitution went into effect.
Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the Kenyan Constitution provides as follows: “(1) Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama Sr.) … shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963. Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya. [Both of Obama’s paternal grandparents were born in Kenya.]
“(2) Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama Jr.) … shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”
In other words, on Dec. 12, 1963, Obama lost his dual U.S.-British citizenship and became, by automatic operation of Kenyan law, a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya. However, Kenyan dual citizenship had its limits. Chapter VI, Section 97 of the Kenyan Constitution provides as follows:
“(1) A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya, made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”
Subsection (7), referenced above, gave the Kenyan parliament the option to provide a grace period during which dual citizens could make their election of nationality after reaching age 21. Obama did not actively seek British or Kenyan citizenships; they were his by “automatic operation” of British and Kenyan law and “by descent” from his father. There is no evidence that he ever took steps to renounce either his British or his Kenyan citizenship.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=166569
worldnetdaily.com’s only mistake above is that it is not necessary to renounce British or Kenyan citizenship. Obama automatically lost those citizenships when he did not affirmatively accept them.
My point being that if there are distinctions between various "citizens-at-birth", some even being naturalized, there can be a distinction between "born in the US" and "born in the US of citizen parents", essentially between "native born",(modern meaning) or 14th amendment, and "natural born". There just have been no Supreme Court cases were such a distinction would matter.
My point being that if there are distinctions between various "citizens-at-birth", some even being naturalized, there can be a distinction between "born in the US" and "born in the US of citizen parents", essentially between "native born",(modern meaning) or 14th amendment, and "natural born". There just have been no Supreme Court cases were such a distinction would matter.
Would he be eligible to run for president?
My point being that if there are distinctions between various “citizens-at-birth”, some even being naturalized, there can be a distinction between “born in the US” and “born in the US of citizen parents”, essentially between “native born”,(modern meaning) or 14th amendment, and “natural born”. There just have been no Supreme Court cases were such a distinction would matter.
The natives, or natives, are those born in the country of citizen parents.
Showing that it doesn't take context much into account, whereas the one I used did. But at least it shows that "indigenes" can be translated as "natives".
It also, when going from the 1797 translation to French, translated "natives" as "indigenes".
Les indigènes, ou des citoyens-né, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, des parents qui sont citoyens
If you leave out the "-" in "natural-born, it gives:
Les indigènes, ou naturel citoyens nés, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, des parents qui sont citoyens
In reverse, it translates natural-born citizen as “citoyen-né” - “citizen baby”
It also translates either "nés" or "né" into "born", not baby or babies. So it said "born citizen" not "citizen baby".
Fine, they are supposed to. But the rest of that is "...are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.". It says nothing about the "term of art" "natural-born citizen". We've already seen that "citizen at birth" or "born citizen" is not the same as "Natural born", in conjunction with those citizens at birth via statute.
*I* do not think so, his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth. He's a citizen at birth by virtue of the 14th amendment, but not a Natural born citizen.
Thank you.
Fine, they are supposed to. But the rest of that is “...are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”. It says nothing about the “term of art” “natural-born citizen”. We’ve already seen that “citizen at birth” or “born citizen” is not the same as “Natural born”, in conjunction with those citizens at birth via statute.
Here’s Justice Scalia’s thinking on the subject:
From the oral arguments in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (No. 99-2071):
Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.
[Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?
[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument
Nothing you quote says anything about losing his British nationality. You’re making it up, i.e., lying.
Any lurkers interested in Barry’s British nationality rather than your lies can go here for more background — http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/goatsledge/20090708%20Obama%20Still%20British.pdf
Nothing you quote says anything about losing his British nationality. You’re making it up, i.e., lying.
Any lurkers interested in Barry’s British nationality rather than your lies can go here for more background — http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/goatsledge/20090708%20Obama%20Still%20British.pdf
The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5) states: Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
Therefore, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama II was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
On December 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom.
Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
As a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.
But the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.
Since Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired at age 23 on August 4,1984. The Kenyan Constitution required Obama to choose whether to keep either his U.S. or his Kenyan citizenship upon his 21st birthday, which was August 4, 1982. But the Constitution of Kenya provided him a two-year window for making that choice. So Obama did not officially and automatically lose his Kenyan citizenship until his 23rd birthday in 1984.
Let’s review now, shall we?
Obama was a British subject until Kenya gained independence and stopped being a British Colony and was therefore no longer operating under the British Nationality Act of 1948. Obama was a Kenyan citizen until he reached age 23 and did not choose Kenya as his nationality over the United States.
Kenya does not allow adults to have dual citizenship.
Here are links to the British Nationality Act of 1948 and the original Constitution of Kenya of 1963:
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
Federalist #20
BY MR. HAMILTON AND MR. MADISON.
The same Subject continued, with further Examples.
The United Netherlands are a confederacy of republics, or rather of aristocracies, of a very remarkable texture ; yet confirming all the lessons derived from those which we have already reviewed.
The Union is composed of seven co-equal and sovereign States, and each State or province is a composition of equal and independent cities. In all important cases, not only the provinces, but the cities, must be unanimous.
Now while CATO in the aforementioned letter of my previous post would have you believe that the US constitution was in all aspects the same as the Netherlands. CATO was correct in that it was during the time of the confederacy when the states held ALL the sovereign powers. However, Hamilton & Madison call him out when he makes the claim that the US Constitution was of the same as the Constitution of the Confederate States that was on place until the ratification was complete in 1789. It was NOT and thus our constitution is better because it is based on a federal system, not that of confederate aristocracies. But the underlying form was still that of a Republic and its foundation was based on the fact that the citizens were sovereign & the states & the federal govt derive their sovereignty from the people. NOT the other way around. Hamilton & Madison quote the early enlightened philosophers, NOT that of English law and loyal British magistrates such as Blackstone. So please tell me how is it that you derive that our laws are based on the feudal system of England, when in fact the founders in these very works they spent so much time on to educate the people with the tools they needed to interpret the constitution which was the opposite of the system in place in England speak of everything that is the opposite of English law?
And I will correct myself on one point after doing more research on this subject. Citizenship is NOT something you derive from nature, it is something that must happen by positive law, because citizenship id defined by civil law, not natural law and this is where my arguments have failed me. Citizenship is acquired by a positive act of a person. For an adult, it is acquired by a positive act of the adult person. A child acquires it by the tacit act of the parent, for a child is not in its infancy, able to consent for himself. There MUST be a positive act of the parent and under the laws of the US from the day of the declaration, it has been the positive act of the parent in which children acquire this status. Thus, if a parent does not consent to be a citizen, then neither are the children because there is NO law that gives an alien the authority to do so. Natural born children, those born to 2 citizen parents have absolutely no competing nations for the child's allegiance as concluded by the state fo NY in 1847.
Hamilton & Madison would have us look to Grotius for guidance in the laws of a Federal Republic in which the citizens are the sovereigns not the ruler of the soil. Sovereignty of the soil of the USA, a Fedral Republic, rests soley in the people, not the government for without the people, there is NO government. This is the common rule & core of a Federal Republic which IS the system of government in which we live under and the system of government our Constitution is framed upon.
Barry v. Mercein 46 U. S. 103 (1847) Case Footnote:
4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during his father’s temporary residence therein – twenty-two months and twenty days – not withstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitate by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without authority of law, and writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and restraint. Constitution United States, art. 3, sec. 2; Judiciary Act, 1789, sec. 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5; 4 Geo. III. cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Clar. & Fin. Ap. Ca. 523; Story’s Confl. Laws, 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelford on Marriage, Ferg. Rep. 397, 398.
The mother took the case before the Supreme Court and they dismissed her request as they did not have jusrisdiction to hear the case & thus the lower court ruling was upheld. The child ast birth was NOT a US citizen just because it was born on US soil to a mother who was an American prior to her marriage to the British subject.
A temporary residence does NOT constitute a right of passage to citizenship in the United States to a child born to foreigners who hold not one shred of allegiance to the political jurisdiction of the United States. the child's allegiance is just as local & temporary as the parents and until the parents consent to allegiance, the child remains an alien. This is the rule of International law where there is a child born to parents who hold dualing allegiances. LOOK IT UP! This falls under INTERNATIONAL LAW, not the laws of one nation over the other, especially the laws of a nation that is foreign to the parents. Obama's parents were married & thus according to International law, Obama was British at birth & nothing else. PERIOD, regardless of where he was born.
The Reception of Domicil into English Private International Law [1961]
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTasLawRw/1961/4.html
Again, you’re lying. Nothing in the British Nationality Act nor the Kenyan Constitution nor anything you pasted contains any language about such persons as Barry losing their British subjecthood. He still carries his British nationality to this day, though his Indonesian and Kenyan nationalities have both likely expired (as far as the public knows, given the current unclassified documents known in the public domain).
You should consider not spreading anti-American lies.
Bringing it back to the topic of the thread — Barry has claimed two foreign fathers and his wife claimed Barry was an American bastard... it’s hard to say what his naturel citizenship might be, if any. If we had a better sense of what nationalities he was declaring at his Universitites and on his travels as a young adult, we might have a better idea.
YOU look it up! Read WKA. Read the 14th Amendment!
Someone born in the USA who parents are here legally IS a US citizen. Pulling up drivel about the Netherlands or court cases prior to the Constitution being amended doesn’t count for squat - which is why you & birthers LOSE EVERY TIME you set foot in court.
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.