Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
Thanks, Lucy. Some interesting discussion on the meaning of “natural born,” since his father was Kenyan or British and that fact was widely known. But if he was actually born in Kenya, then he was involved in a criminal fraud, and the whole electorate was subjected to a deliberate fraud.
Moreover, although it is not discussed here, Nancy Pelosi and others would be equally culpable in this criminal fraud.
Your c&p post supports my argument, not yours. Unless you break it down with specifics that you can use to actually support your point, you’ve done nothing more than illustrate that you’re an expert at wasting bandwidth on an internet site.
It’s not the French version of ‘indigenae’ that translates into natural born, but the term ‘naturel’ which was translated by the framers of the Constitution as natural born, a term Vattel used in specific reference to natural citizenship at birth, which he says follows the citizenship of the father ... regardless of place.
There’s no question that the King of England unified Scotland as part of his Kingdom and made HIS own declaration that aliens (or Scots specifically) were HIS subjects ... and are henced called ‘natural born’ subjects. This isn’t natural citizenship, but a statutory declaration, which Vattel recognized in the Laws of Nations: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
You have to do nothing more than look at Vattel’s definition and Justice Waite in Minor (also cited by Gary in WKA) that natives and natural born are interchangeable, except that to be a native (or native-born) = being born in the country to parent who are citizens. Our constitutional definition of native is not soley a jus soli definition.
What you don’t understand is that VOTES are null and void when the candidate does not first meet the requirements specifically set out for being qualified to sit in the chair in the oval office.
How can you people POSSIBLY be so dumb?
Oh, I don't know, perhaps it comes from being on the same side of this issue as every single court ruling thus far, standing in agreement with every SINGLE member of Congress, with the former POTUS and VPOTUS, with every Justice of the SCOTUS, and the vast majority of lawyers, military officers, and Constitutional scholars.
If the candidate was not eligible, then someone will have to produce evidence supporting this allegation. Until that happens, everyone listed above will correctly recognize Mr. Obama as the legitimate President and the courts will concur. If evidence is ever presented, then the Congress could initiate impeachment proceedings, if they so choose. So far, no evidence, just a bunch of hoopla.
OK. Back in post 462, you challenged the idea that “Also, the Supreme Court REJECTED the idea that English COMMON LAW supported someone being born overseas as being a NBS, or even a subject. See Section 4 in WKA.”
Since a page was too much reading, lets look at a handfull of sentences:
“Both in England and in the United States, indeed, statutes have been passed at various times enacting that certain issue born abroad of English subjects or of American citizens, respectively, should inherit, to some extent at least, the rights of their parents. But those statutes applied only to cases coming within their purport, and they have never been considered in either country as affecting the citizenship of persons born within its dominion.”
Not common law, but specific statutes affecting those born overseas.
Later, they write, “It has sometimes been suggested that this general provision of the statute of 25 Edw. III was declaratory of the common law. See Bacon, arguendo, in Calvin’ Case, 2 Howell’s State Trials, 585; Westlake and Pollock, arguendo, in De Geer v. Stone, 22 Ch.D. 243, 247; 2 Kent Com. 50, 53; Lynch v. Clarke,1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659, 660; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356. But all suggestions to that effect seem to have been derived, immediately or ultimately, from one or the other of these two sources: the one, the Year Book of 1 Ric. III, (1483) fol. 4, pl. 7, reporting a saying of Hussey, C.J.,
that he who is born beyond sea, and his father and mother are English, their issue inherit by the common law, but the statute makes clear, &c.,
— which, at best, was but obiter dictum, for the Chief Justice appears to have finally rested his opinion on the statute.”
and:
” Mr. Binney, in his paper above cited, after a critical examination of the statute and of the early English cases, concluded:
There is nothing in the statute which would justify the conclusion that it is declaratory of the common law in any but a single particular, namely in regard to the children of the King; nor has it at any time been judicially held to be so. . . . The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.”
I hope that is not too much reading to establish that, as I said, “...the Supreme Court REJECTED the idea that English COMMON LAW supported someone being born overseas as being a NBS, or even a subject.”
It is clear to me that the SCOTUS will not entertain this issue as it relates to Obama. Removing a sittng POTUS on a technicality and overturning the will of the (majority) electorate is a bad precedent to set.
However ...
Arguing that Obama is not a natural born citizen based on his father’s foreign citizenship at Obama’s birth is a legitimate discussion. I’ve read and studied WKA, Minor, the 14th, and all the others until I’m cross-eyed. And two things stand out:
1. People believe that the definition of natural born citizen “evolved” with the 14th.
2. The ONLY group of citizens about which there can be no doubt are those born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents. About all others, arguments can be made for and against natural born citizenship. (But not citizenship.) No argument can be made against the natural born citizenship of the former group.
We need a definitive ruling from the SCOTUS, but we will not get one.
One of the most convincing pieces of evidence for the above conclusion, IMHO, is the position of the U.S. Department of State on American citizens board abroad to two citizen parents. They state in the Foreign Affairs Manual that while those citizens are natural born by statute they may not be natural born for Constitutional purposes. And the reason they take that position is because the “Supreme Court has never ruled definitively” on the matter. The State Dept. clearly understands that statutory NBC may not equal Constitutional NBC. It may, but we don’t know for sure because there have been no cases decided regarding whether or not statutory NBCs are eligible to the presidency, or in other words, Constitutional NBCs.
(I realize that I’m a newb whipper-snapper compared to the two of you. Please be gentle. *whimpers*)
That may be, but Vattel treats the two terms as synonymous: "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui..." So it doesn't matter which one got translated as "natural born"--if we're to rely on Vattel at all, we have to consider the two terms as meaning the same thing.
So if we accept your translation, Vattel used "indigene" to refer to what we call an NBC. But Coke said that "indigenae," or "subjects born," could be the children of a noncitizen. And our Supreme Court accepted that statement and used the term "natural-born subject" in connection with it. If Vattel disagrees with Coke, why should we accept the definitions of a Swiss philosopher over those of an English jurist?
How can you people be so dumb? The POTUS is the not the same as an ineligible player. You don’t get to void the whole season later if he’s found ineligible. He was sworn into office. He’s signed bills into law. He’s appointed Supreme Court justices. The points he’s racking up COUNT.
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/06/se.04.html
IIRC, it was comical. Along the lines of:
“Are there any objections?
I OBJECT! -insert pretentious speech here-
Is this objection written and signed by a representative and a senator?
THIS OBJECTIONS IS WRITTEN AND IS SIGNED BY A REPRESENTATIVE.
Then we can't accept it. So are there any objections?
I OBJECT! -insert pretentious speech here-
-Repeat 16 times-”
There's probably video on YouTube on the pages that will explain to you how GWB stole the 2000 election.
I’m not a lawyer, don’t play one and don’t often stay in any hotel. However, the first third of WKA argues that WKA met the Constitutional definition of NBC and was thus a citizen. This, along with the 14th, provides TWO arguments that WKA was a citizen by the Constitution and thus no treaty could override it.
They say the meaning of NBC is rooted in the common law meaning of NBS, which undoubtedly DOES allow someone born of alien parents to be a natural born subject. They say the difference between NBS & NBC is solely due to the change in government from a monarchy to a republic, and thus the underlying meaning of NBS is the underlying meaning of NBC.
Thus a child born of alien parents who are here “in amity” - in harmony with our government - is a NBC and thus a citizen.
They then shift into a discussion of citizenship by birth or by descent, and argue that descent is rooted in acts of Parliament and not common law. They then move to arguing from the 14th Amendment.
I don’t think the definition of NBC evolved with the 14th.
“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)
“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)
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
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)
“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)
I will grant that not ALL agreed, which is why I think they ratified it without realizing that there were different definitions that could be applied, and settling which one was correct.
Did you know that Vattel invented Velveeta?
Tex, who misses parsy.
You go, LucyT!
Jake Tapper Asks Axelrod About Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2605672/posts
[The weirdest question ever getting traction.]
Video: Laura Ingraham; Obama, It Is Time To Release Your Records
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2607196/posts
[Boortz called for the BC over a month ago.]
Gore asked for objections multiple times in that transcript, but only when he received the votes from the individual states.
But at first look he does not appear to have asked for any objections at the end of the proceeding before announcing any totals.
I cannot seem to root up the transcript from the 2009 session where 2008 elections results were tallied, but it would be interesting to compare the full transcripts side by side.
You can tell it’s Vattel...it’s swell!
Ha Ha, who misses parsy also.
OK, just watched the 2009 Electoral College vote count.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGt8hQZzg4
It sounds to me that prior to the votes being announced, Cheney stated that, without objections, the votes were being presented without there being formal forms of the certificates presented. I am unsure as to whether this is a distinction without a difference.
Though someone with better hearing might listen to the video.
Some note that Cheney did call for objections in 2005, but remember that he had been told in advance there there was to be an objection made in 2005.
“Without realizing”
It’s always the unintended consequences that trip us. Anchor babies are born here but, IMHO, should have no right to citizenship.
Thanks for the ping, Lucy.
>>“Without realizing”
>It’s always the unintended consequences that trip us. Anchor babies are born here but, IMHO, should have no right to citizenship.
And on that topic:
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATyjMtQJe7iWZHY2OTh0bV8yN2htZnBzOWQy&hl=en
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.