Posted on 06/22/2010 3:40:28 PM PDT by bushpilot1
You just keep pushing Netherlands law, and citing cases from before the Constitution was amended...
Nope, no English law determines if someone born in the USA is a US citizen. Ever hear of the War of 1812? Thought not!
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.
The Indiana Court of Appeals would not have ruled that Obama is indeed a natural born citizen (as is McCain) in “Ankeny v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels.”
That Court said: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
If Obama was not a native born citizen, Vice President Dick Cheney WOULD have called for written objections to the Certification of Obama’s Electoral votes and at least two members of Congress would have objected and investigations in both Houses of Congress would have been held.
If Obama was not a native born citizen, at least one of the 535 members of Congress would have called for congressional hearings on this issue by now. At least the Republican Caucus in both Houses could have held their own hearings to draw the public’s attention to the issue. There have been no hearings in a year and a half.
If Obama was not a native born citizen, John McCain, (a person who WOULD have standing to sue Obama because he was the only person directly deprived of the presidency by Obama’s election)would have filed suit against Obama.
If Obama was not a native born citizen, Sarah Palin or any other leading conservative figure in America would have filed a “friend of the court” brief to support any of the Obama eligibility lawsuits. Not one leading conservative has done that with the exception of Alan Keyes.
If Obama was not a native born citizen, a major conservative law firm or attorney, such as Judge Robert Bork or former Solicitor General Ted Olson would have agreed to represent a plaintiff in an Obama eligibility lawsuit, there have been more than 70 lawsuits filed and none has had a leading conservative legal mind as an attorney.
If Obama was not a native born citizen, a Ronald Reagan appointed, hand picked by the plaintiff, conservative judge like Royce C. Lamberth of the District of Columbia US District Court would not have rejected the quo warranto claim against Obama and done it with the following words: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in dismissing the Quo Warranto claim in “Taitz v Obama”—April 14, 2010
If Obama was not a native born citizen, the Republican Governor of Hawaii who endorsed and campaigned for Obama’s opponent, John McCain would not have defended his natural born citizen status on numerous occasions.
Obama wrote “Dreams From My Father” in 1995, detailing in great depth his father’s birth and life in Kenya. That book was published twelve years before he announced his candidacy for president.
So if my First Amendment protected point of view is “anti-American” to you, I think I’m in pretty good company! ;-)
Federalist Papers...you know those letters printed so the American people would understand the system of government that was drafted and where it was derived from? Federalist #20, 21, 22; Defects of a Confederate Republic...a brief summary: The Netherlands was the best form of a Republic in place at the time which the founders looked to for guidance but it had many defects as the Confederate States were experienceing personally. Therefore, the founders made it better by forming a Federal Republic instead of the weak confederate one the Netherlands & current Confederate States were under.
Geez, if you don't even know what kind of government system we have, where the founders looked to for guidance & why this form of government was chosen, then how can you even claim to have the knowledge by which the laws were made. Only an ignorant arse would try to make such a baseless claim. Have you looked in the mirror lately?
Rant on, and prove my point - you are a nut.
There were disagreements among the Founders about what citizenship meant and how it applied. Some said location (Madison), others parentage (the guy birthers always bring up) - and location eventually won out.
One of the causes of the War of 1812 was the British insistence that parentage gave citizenship, and the USA’s rejection of that idea. They claimed a British citizen was always a British citizen - sound familiar, your and your friends still try to say that is true about Obama - but the British LOST!
“Show me the law wherein it says that children of aliens born in the US are citizens, let alone natural born ones.”
Read the 14th Amendment. ‘Subject to the jurisdiction’ did not then and has never meant “already a citizen”. Sorry. You are wrong. By long legal precedence, it was accepted that the phrase included aliens here legally, unless they were here in the service of a foreign government.
We do not and have never looked to the Netherlands for our legal precedence and common law meanings. Again, you are wrong.
But don’t believe me. Go to court with your theories, and you will be shot down just like the 5-6 dozen birthers who have brought cases...because you are stupid.
You continually make statements such as the above yet you do not back it up with historical proof. Without proof, it is merely your opinion, not fact. We have given historical evidence, you have given NOTHING! put up or shut up, isn't that how the saying goes?
“The organic law says that no person but a natural-born citizen, or a citizen when it was made, shall be eligible to the office of President. This amendment would make all citizens eligible, Negroes as well as whites. For if Negroes are citizens they are natural born, because they are the descendants of ancestors for several generations back, who were born here as well themselves.”
The debate went on for several months...then
On May 30th, Sen. Trumbell(framer of the 14th) said that if you are born to parents owing allegiance to a nation in which the United States makes treaties with, you are NOT a citizen of the United States. You are an alien because you are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the US because at birth you are subject to the foreign nation in which the treaty is made.
Rogers was a bigot, a racist and a staunch supporter of slavery. What you neglect to address it the real reason for the 14th, the equal treatment for Negroes that was embedded in the Declaration & the Constitution. In the north, Negroes were elected to local & state offices. Many held prominent positions as full fledged citizens. Facts that the progressive, socialist, Marxist left have been trying eliminate form our history for decades. It has always been the lib democrats who voted against the freeing of the slaves and who were the racists. It was a lib Democrat citing that natural born meant being born to US citizens, as the declaration & constitution never declared race to be a hindrance and as we know, it was only the states of the south that withheld that right of the blacks. The 14th was about recognizing the rights of citizenship to the blacks, NOT about expanding US citizenship laws.
Lots of things get said in debates...heck, Guam may be about to capsize if you believe Congressional discussions.
However, what gets put into the LAW is what matters. They COULD have written “those born of citizen parents’ or ‘those born of citizens or long-term residents’, but they didn’t. The phase they used INCLUDES those born of folks temporarily but legally present. If they used the wrong terms...too bad. It is what was passed and ratified. ‘Under the jurisdiction’ has never meant ‘citizens’.
“You continually make statements such as the above yet you do not back it up with historical proof.”
Yes I have. Multiple times. You ignore anything you don’t want to believe.
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW 1826
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
Etc.
Cut & paste or typed by my little fingers, the FACTS remain - it was at least a common opinion, supported regularly by the courts, that citizenship was granted by birth in the US even if your parents were not US citizens. And the 14th Amendment use phrasing that, as some of the examples show, meant you could be a foreign citizen and give birth to a US citizen.
Facts. Law. Things courts use.
“The requirement that the president be a “natural born” citizen implies that the framers recognized the principle of jus soli. According to this doctrine – literally meaning the “right to land or ground” – citizenship results from birth within a national territory.” - The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (1992)
“Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.” - Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition (1999)
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President...” - Ed Meese, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born in the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” - Statement of Senator Orrin Hatch, United States Senate Judiciary Committee, October 5, 2004.
Taking founders, historians & legal scholars words out of context does NOT represent the entire scope of the facts. it is a tool of a deceiver & despot. Tell you leader we aren’t buying it.
They are in context. You just don’t like it.
It was accepted legal doctrine long before Obama that someone born in the USA was both a citizen and a natural born citizen. The rules don’t change just because Obama is despicable, just as they didn’t change when GWB beat Gore in 2000.
I remember some folks in the squadron I was in at the time arguing GWB wasn’t a legitimate president and his orders were not to be obeyed...the CC had them talk to legal, who advised them they WOULD be prosecuted if they failed to obey the orders of GWB. Properly so.
Now, if you have EVIDENCE that Obama was born outside the USA, THEN everything changes.
The fact is that you have NOT shown one shred of evidence from the founding era other than your cut & pasted, edited & parsed words taken from Tucker in which he was merely quoting Blackstone, you leave out the part where he goes on to dispute Blackstone. ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2539663/posts?page=122#122 ) And then the typical...blame it on Bush. For crying out loud, you are all the same. Instead of using reason & rationale, you default to emotion & attack.
Finally, I don’t care where Obama was born, according to the nativity he has put out, his parents were married & he was British at birth. He clearly had a choice of nationalities at his coming of age, he refuses to show the documents that prove without a doubt that he chose the US. He is hell bent on destroying our country. His many foreign familial ties are right out there front & center & his shows no allegiance to the preservation of our nation.
Will any case make it to a court room? “NO” Not even Kerchner has legal standing under the corrupt rules put in place by the progressive liberal socialist marxist despots. The system was rigged decades ago. Sad, yes. Can it be overturn? ABSOLUTELY!
“He clearly had a choice of nationalities at his coming of age, he refuses to show the documents that prove without a doubt that he chose the US.”
Ummm...you do realize that normally no such documents would exist. It would require an affirmative act for him to have applied for Kenyan citizenship, which would also have required him to renounce US citizenship. And even you aren’t loony enough, are you, to think he is a loyal subject of QE2?
My sister never formally renounced German citizenship, but she has been a US citizen her entire life.
The Founders had various ideas about citizenship, none of which was based on Netherlands law...and frankly, since the 14th amendment was ratified, none of their opinions would count anymore, anyways - the wording of the 14th applies, not what someone in Georgia wrote to someone else in 1798...
And where do you get this blame it on Bush crap? I gave an example from a squadron I was in of loonies - like yourself - who refused to accept him as President. You do remember the whole ‘selected, not elected’ meme, don’t you? Were you one of those?
How do we not know he didn't. He won't release his records or those of his deceased parents which were ordered by a Federal Judge to be released. WHAT IS HE HIDING? It has to be HUGE, especially since he is moving at warp speed with NO regard to the law or the Constitution.
And where do you get this blame it on Bush crap? I gave an example from a squadron I was in of loonies - like yourself - who refused to accept him as President...
1st of all, there is a HUGE canyon between qualifications & electoral college votes. 2nd, Bush didn't hide his past, he opened up his records and took it like a MAN. 3rd, you lump me into a group, yet you show no proof.
Also, bringing your family into the debate does NOT give any substance to the debate other than injecting personal emotions to distract the opponent.
The Founders had various ideas about citizenship, none of which was based on Netherlands law...and frankly, since the 14th amendment was ratified, none of their opinions would count anymore, anyways - the wording of the 14th applies, not what someone in Georgia wrote to someone else in 1798...
Various ideas? Where? Show us. You'd have us believe that what the founders wrote about in the Federalist Papers have absolutely no connection into interpreting the constitution. I'd like to hear you argue that in front of the Supreme Court. As far as the 14th, your claim that the words of a framer of the law didn't know what he was writing and thus the words of the law that he put on paper are of a different context than his spoken words on the floor of Congress explaining it is truly a strong case of IGNORAMOUS!
The phrase ‘under the jusrisdiction’ had an established legal meaning at the time the 14th Amendment was written. Since it required broad support to be ratified, one must believe the large majority agreed with it as written.
I’ve pointed out a variety of early American writers claiming birth in country makes on a citizen. Very few argued otherwise. The 14th enshrines common opinion, and the courts have been consistent in interpreting what it means.
I disagree with applying it to illegals, since someone here illegally is NOT under the jurisdiction of the US.
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut (1795)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that he so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”
A view of the Constitution of the United States of America by William Rawle (1829)
The Indians were recognized as a separate nation within the borders of the US, just as they are now. We had treaties with them - broke them often enough, but we still recognized them as independent nations.
Which of these people do you know personally? Can you personally vouch they aren’t scumbags?
Or are you a delusional nutcase who thinks people on television are your close personal friends?
Thank you for conceding Bary never lost his British subjecthood.
Another point you have never addressed is the fact that a united family was the most important part of any society according to the founders. So, you would believe that the founders would adopt a law that would divide a families loyalties? They intended to pit a wife against husband, a child against father? Was our nation not founded on christian principles and the 1st principle according to the word of God & of God's laws is the father is the protector of the child and the child not being of age of consent, is dependant on the father? Citizenship is a legal term, thus we must look to the legalities of it. Until a child reaches the age of majority, doesn't the suri juris lie with the parents; in wedlock it is with the father & out of wedlock, it is with the mother according to US International Private Law of the time? Of course today, either parent may speak for the child, but in the immediate debate, we must look to the laws in place at the time the child was born and in 1961, the father was the suri juris. It was the fathers domicil (permanent residence/place he held his political rights)that determined the nationality of a child born in wedlock. This was the International Private Law agreed to between the US & England. There is a formal Treaty signed in 1870, shortly after the passing of the Expatriation Act that solidified this private law of suri juris in ALL cases of children, including citizenship. This actually was confirmed by the Supreme Court denied the petition on grounds of jurisdiction and remanded that the lower courts ruling be upheld. It also shows your error in your conclusion in many of the cases you cite, especially the Sailor’s Snug Harbor case wherein the plaintiff was deemed an alien & not permitted to inherit, even though he was born on US soil. This particular case goes back to the Treaty of Peace in 1783 where is was formally signed into law that the US & Great Britian agreed that all children born to British parents were British at birth and could inherit in England but not in the US. US citizenship has always been by consent.
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.
Kent's Commentaries 1:397—98; 2:33—63
The United States did not exist as an independent government until 1776; and it may well be doubted whether the doctrine of allegiance by birth be applicable to the case of persons who did not reside here when the revolution took place, and did not, therefore, either by election or tacit assent, become members of the newly created state....
It has been a question, frequently and gravely argued, both by theoretical writers, and in forensic discussions, whether the English doctrine of perpetual allegiance applies in its full extent to this country. The writers on public law have spoken rather loosely, but generally in favour of the right of a subject to emigrate, and abandon his native country, unless there be some positive restraint by law, or he is at the time in possession of a public trust, or unless his country be in distress, or in war, and stands in need of his assistance. Cicero regarded it as one of the firmest foundations of Roman liberty, that the Roman citizen had the privilege to stay or renounce his residence in the state, at pleasure. The principle which has been declared in some of our state constitutions, that the citizens have a natural and inherent right to emigrate, goes far towards a renunciation of the doctrine of the English common law...
It is all very complex, but the formal Act of Congress by passing the 1868 Expatriation Act, wherein they explicitly denied any notion or concept of dual citizenship. A concept or notion that was born out of the feudal law so the English could make the children born to aliens on English soil permanent subjects to the crown forever binding the child to the King servitude. And also the Treaties between the US & Great Britain of 1783 & 1870.
If you can not inherit, then you have not the political rights to consent to your children being citizens. Jus Soli was conjured up by the progressives who knew that by freeing the slaves, they would become the minority party & they needed a new base to feed off of. They needed new slave labor & uneducated immigrant children were their target. No wonder their panties are on fire over the Conservative Constitutionalists & true historians getting back control of the education board on curriculum. They can't make up their own history anymore. The sleeping giant is awake and America's history WILL be restored to its proper glory.
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.