Posted on 08/03/2010 3:23:40 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Recent FOIA documents reveal Obama may be Born in Hawaii.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
El Gato’s post#60 and others in this thread tosses everything you have said and quoted into the trash bin of history.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2511602/posts
“That’s true, but since the Constitution defines very very few of its terms, we must look elsewhere for the definition understood by those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
We know the term “natural born citizen” and the variant “natural born free citizen”, was in use well before the Constitution was written. But almost every use gives no hint as to it’s exact meaning.
However the Journals of the Continental Congress, for July 27, 1781 documents a translation of the French “naturels” to “natural born” in a secret agreement with France.
Vattel, in French, said that “naturels” and “indigenes” were those born in country of parents who were citizens. Many have argued that “naturels” means natives, and “indigenes” doesn’t mean naturals or natural born either.
(In reality depending on context, either word could be translated as “naturals”. But apparently those who translated that 1781 treaty felt “naturales” when modifying “subjects” was equivalent to “natural born”. If that was the understanding, then Vattels “naturels” could also be “natural born”.
The evidence is quite strong that “naturales” was understood, in these sorts of contexts, to mean “natural born”. Thus the case for the Vattel “definition”, requiring birth in the country (with exceptions for military and diplomats) of citizen parents, being the one the founders understood for “natural born citizen”, is very strong.”
El Gato’s post#60 and others in this thread tosses everything you have said and quoted into the trash bin of history.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2511602/posts
“That’s true, but since the Constitution defines very very few of its terms, we must look elsewhere for the definition understood by those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
We know the term “natural born citizen” and the variant “natural born free citizen”, was in use well before the Constitution was written. But almost every use gives no hint as to it’s exact meaning.
However the Journals of the Continental Congress, for July 27, 1781 documents a translation of the French “naturels” to “natural born” in a secret agreement with France.
Vattel, in French, said that “naturels” and “indigenes” were those born in country of parents who were citizens. Many have argued that “naturels” means natives, and “indigenes” doesn’t mean naturals or natural born either.
(In reality depending on context, either word could be translated as “naturals”. But apparently those who translated that 1781 treaty felt “naturales” when modifying “subjects” was equivalent to “natural born”. If that was the understanding, then Vattels “naturels” could also be “natural born”.
The evidence is quite strong that “naturales” was understood, in these sorts of contexts, to mean “natural born”. Thus the case for the Vattel “definition”, requiring birth in the country (with exceptions for military and diplomats) of citizen parents, being the one the founders understood for “natural born citizen”, is very strong.”
The current law of the land as codified in the US Code (Title 8/Section 1401) spells out the requirements to be a “Citizen-at-birth” and no court has ever ruled that there is a distinction between a person meeting the requirements to be a Citizen-at-birth and the requirements to be a “natural born citizen.” If there was such a distinction under law or via decision of the Supreme Court, Barack Obama would not be president today.
A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child.
Our conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement; and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of president of the United States.”
Natural Born Citizen of the United States Eligibility for the Office of President. Albany Law Journal, 1904.
http://thelibertypole.ning.com/forum/topics/1904-naturalborn-citizen-of
bookmark this document
Page 8 is just boilerplate standardization of a legal document's structure and language, which in this instance is a FOIA denial of a request to produce documents.
There is nothing in this document by itself that leads inexorably to an inference that derogatory information is being withheld that should be released. Don't get me wrong. There may be derogatory information being withheld that should be released, but this document by itself is not dispositive of the issue.
Cordially,
Or, as I was taught in typing class in the early 70’s, the lower case l and 1 key produced identical characters, and it was far easier to hit the lower case l key when typing numbers. Same with zero and uppercase O.
Maybe he was born a girl? We already know that he lacks cojones.
You are right.
OK, shouldn't you have said "Cahones"?
That turns out not to be the case. Those born outside the US, and citizens at birth via 8/1401, have been ruled to be "naturalized at birth", in at least two Supreme Court cases. One as recently as the 1970s, IIRC.
Of course that only makes sense, since the power to define naturalization is the only power Congress has been delegated regarding citizenship. Since "naturalized" and "Natural born" do not intersect at all, such persons cannot be considered Natural Born Citizens.
Do you see the words "Natural Born Citizen" anywhere in that section of the code? It's not there. Even if it was, the Congress cannot, by the simple passage of a law, change the meaning of Constitutional terms.
That turns out not to be the case. Those born outside the US, and citizens at birth via 8/1401, have been ruled to be “naturalized at birth”, in at least two Supreme Court cases. One as recently as the 1970s, IIRC.
Of course that only makes sense, since the power to define naturalization is the only power Congress has been delegated regarding citizenship. Since “naturalized” and “Natural born” do not intersect at all, such persons cannot be considered Natural Born Citizens.
Do you see the words “Natural Born Citizen” anywhere in that section of the code? It’s not there. Even if it was, the Congress cannot, by the simple passage of a law, change the meaning of Constitutional terms.
We all are. The People. The States. The Federal Congress. The Federal Executive. The Courts. The Juries. All.
A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child.
Our conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement; and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of president of the United States.”
Natural Born Citizen of the United States Eligibility for the Office of President. Albany Law Journal, 1904.
http://thelibertypole.ning.com/forum/topics/1904-naturalborn-citizen-of
For example, the US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Villato, 2 U.S. 370 (1797) in a case that involved a prisoner, captured and charged with treason. The issue was whether he could be charged with treason, given that he was “by birth a Spaniard, and had never become a naturalized citizen of the United States.”
Quote from the decision of the Court:
“... The act declares, that a foreigner, having taken the oath, or affirmation, of allegiance, and resided here one year, shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges specified in the 42nd section of the old constitution; that is, he may acquire, hold, and transfer real estate, and enjoy all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except the right of being elected a representative, which he cannot enjoy for two years. Now, the existing constitution will not allow any man to be even an elector, who has not resided here two years; and besides requiring a longer period of residence than two years, to entitle a citizen to be elected a representative, a senator, or governor, it superadds the qualification, that he shall be of a certain age, before he can be chosen for those offices respectively. If, then, the act of assembly is in force, an alien naturalized under it, having the rights of the old, is in a situation preferable to a natural born citizen under the accumulative restraints of the new constitution. But a contrary construction has been given whenever the point was directly presented for consideration (which was not the case in Collet v. Collet) by the legislature, by our courts, and by the bar.”
We all are. The People. The States. The Federal Congress. The Federal Executive. The Courts. The Juries. All.
We do live in a Republic, and not a Judicial Oligarchy, and for that reason , jamese777, you are quite wrong.
True, except when it comes to his brazen lying.
Cordially,
Cordially,
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.