Posted on 04/27/2011 6:09:26 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Edited on 04/27/2011 6:22:09 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Yep. Just a rubber stamp smudge.
A smudge would show excess black, not excess white.
“”Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens””
“The natives, or indigenes, are those who were born in the country of citizen parents.
You will note that indigenes is also an English word, needing no translation. You will also note that the equivalent french phrase to NBC (”sujets naturel”) is NOT found in that sentence, nor elsewhere in Vattel.
Another valid translation would be “The native or indigenous people are those born in the country of citizen parents.” Since indigene is not a commonly used English word...
You are welcome.
In this case, it does both. Maybe a bit of lint or paper fiber was stuck to the thing.
There’s plenty of weird crap on that WH version. What you’re focusing on ain’t one of them.
You’re focusing on it, not me. The fact is, there is an “X” on that stamp!
What your writting there is the Editor's opinion, NOT what the court found.
"It was held that she was a of the United States."
Does that help? Or, should I increase the font even more?
LOL. And I'm the one that can't read. Geez dude. Seriously. It's one thing to have an opinion, but quite another to outright lie about the history.
LOL!!! Ok..
No, dummy, I wasn’t quoting some editor’s opinion. I was quoting from the argument that the judge used in deciding the case. Dicta is not binding, but it provides guidance, and the Supreme Court approved of and followed the Lynch opinion in deciding WKA.
It shows that in 1844, there was a very strong case made that NBC = NBS, and that has never been refuted in the years since. The US Supreme Court endorsed it.
Further, it shows WHY that is the correct assessment. Of course, birthers aren’t good at reading complete sentences, let alone paragraphs and pages!
Funny that you think I don’t know what I’m talking about, when your side has never, ever won a case. Win a legal victory ANYWHERE and get back with me...
You may not like the fact that the first circuit court of New York found Lynch to be a "citizen", but that's precisely how they ruled.
Regarding that state of Indiana case:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by 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 parentsLet's have a look at this amazing case from a state court in Indiana...
1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" say?
Here's what it says:
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.What does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5?
2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:
The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born Citizen"] of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14What does footnote 14 say?
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling.
So, this decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents (who were, [Key phrase], perminatly domociled here) was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they somehow find Barry NBC anyway?.
That, so called, "decision" is an embarrassment to the state of Indiana...and I say that with all due respect to any clear thinking Hoosier's out there.
Instead of looking to state court cases, which found Lynch and WKA to be "citizens", I prefer to look to the Federal level when dealing with the Federal Constitution.
Chief Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Waite, Justice Story and the House of Representatives that debated the issue of citizenship leading to the 14th Amendment (in particular framer Bingham) were all in agreement on who a "natural born Citizen" is.
Chief Justice Marshall:
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."in THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814).
Chief Justice Waite:
"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar [edit: this nomenclature they were familiar with is directly mirrored to the definition found in Law of Nations...which the framers read and referenced during the Constitutional Convention], 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,"in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
|
You’ve done an amazing amount of research on this. I started reading through your posts last night. What a history lesson! Thank you oodles! I needed it.
What are looking at is the gost image of the 08 COLB behind the long form. Why would that be
there and facing the back of the long form supposedly bound in a book?
Did you ever get an answer to this question?
Here is what I propose. See what you think.
This is what Hawaii says:
“Original forms from the time of birth are used to produce computer-generated documents recognized as official birth certificates in the state of Hawaii.”
As Clinton says, this is a case of knowing which meaning of “is” we are talking about.
Notice the plural use of the word “form” — forms—
Notice the use of the word FROM, consider it in the sense of a sale at a store with items FROM $7.99. There is more after that FROM.
Now notice these words, “produce computer-generated documents”
They have honestly said exactly what has transpired.
And here is where I think they covered their tracks to keep from getting into legal trouble:
The TXE is no mistake or blurring. It is intentional. TXE is a file extension associated with Enriched Text files. (I picked up this definition from here:
http://www.liutilities.com/products/winbackup/filextlibrary/files/TXE/
Enriched text is a formatted text format for e-mail, defined by the IETF in RFC 1896 and associated with the text/enriched MIME type. It is “intended to facilitate the wider interoperation of simple enriched text across a wide variety of hardware and software platforms”.
That definition from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text
The following post asks the perfectly right on question:
#1406 asks shouldn’t these match?
And this post really shows some clear information:
#1426 Notice the pixelation surrounding the center line text that does not appear around the text in similar letters in the same stamp in the text above and below the center line.
Here is what I am saying....I may not be specifically on to what they meant by “TXE” but I believe they meant to say “TXE” and I am pretty sure what they are really and truly saying is that what we are seeing is an ABSTRACT (translate compilation) of all the “original forms” (translate ammendments, etc.) -—FROM-— BHO’s time of birth [-—to present-—] put together in digital form ie. “computer-generated documents.”
What do you think?
I learn something new everyday....Now I know I can't use a GLP link!
“what you keep refering to is the opinion of the Editor of that publication, Samuel Owen.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No wonder you get your butt kicked in every case! You don’t know the difference between the opinion of the court, and an editor of a volume. Samuel Owen edited the “New York Legal Observer”, which compiled the various decisions.
Again, with the Indiana decision, you write “It’s “immaterial” according to this ridiculous state court ruling.” If you don’t know why they wrote that, you shouldn’t comment on legal cases. There is more to a decision that “Guilty” or “Not Guilty”. Until you understand that, you won’t win any cases.
And perhaps you can tell me why YOU feel free to quote dicta, but ignore the dicta of other cases? Or perhaps you think what you quoted - and BTW, WKA was NOT a state case - is the decision and not the argument used to arrive at the decision?
“The natives, or indigenes, are those who were born in the country of citizen parents.
A direct translation of:
"naturels"
is not "native"
It's true, the terms were synonymous which is why we see some translations of Law of Nations using "native"
A direct translation of the French word "naturels" is "natural." and you fully know that.
 |
 |
|
This accepted translation of 'naturel' in 1781, predates John Jay's 1787 letter to George Washington by 6 years.
|
|
That was 6 years BEFORE the Constitution.
DURING the Constitution, the initial suggestion is for the POTUS requirement to be a "citizen." The framers, after receiving Jay's letter suggesting "natural born Citizen" take the concept found in Vattel's Law of Nations, which they were openly reading and referencing during the penning of the Constitution itself.
June 18, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
June 27 1787. IN CONVENTION (Vattel's legal work is read aloud during the Federal Convention) "...that an equal vote in each State was essential to the federal idea, and was founded in justice & freedom, not merely in policy: that tho' the States may give up this right of sovereignty, yet they had not, and ought not:In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he [Luther Martin] read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers -- Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he [L.M.] read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford:" From Madison's Notes on the Convention.
Similar notes on Vattel being read during the convention can be found in the notes of Rufus King and Robert Yates as well.
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "natural born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
They read Vattels work during the Convention. It gave them a widely known definition for citizens who are natural born.
And no Mr. Rogers, citizens of our Constitutional Republic are not the same as subjects to a crown. The mear thought should be offensive to any citizen of our country today...and would have surely been offensive to those that fought with blood and treasure to throw off their chains of servitude to the crown of England.
Why natural law, Vattel vs English common law, Blackstone:
"The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. at 790). With such recognition, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic."
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html
Oh, and I'll take the word of a guy who was ACTUALLY THERE, in the room when they were creating the Constitution:
George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), Wednesday, June 18, 1788:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states."
He refused the sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, which he later is credited as helping to create.
On December 15, 1791, the U.S. Bill of Rights, based primarily on George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, was ratified in response to the agitation of Mason and others.At the convention, Mason was one of the five most frequent speakers. Mason believed in the disestablishment of the church. Mason was a strong anti-federalist who wanted a weak central government, divided into three parts, with little power, leaving the several States with a preponderance of political power. [7]
An important issue for him in the convention was the Bill of Rights. He did not want the United States to be like England. He foresaw sectional strife and feared the power of government.
I think you way off base. Why would an official document contain code in an otherwise inoculate sentence?
I have requested that Sharon Rondeau look, if she has a copy, or ask Miki Booth to look at her stamp on her long form. It was stamped in March of this year.
What took him so long....lol
I've given you proof that the court found Lynch to be a "citizen", yet you keep on keeping on saying she was found a natural born Citizen. Nowhere in the state court decision, did they find her to be a natural born Citizen.
"It was held that she was a citizen of the United States."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
