Posted on 05/06/2011 7:06:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This PROVES that the second part of the definition of "natural born citizen" (two citizen parents) is essential.
(BTW, your post is no. 300. Nice job.)
Oh good! Is it good luck? :-)
The law and common sense in the same sentence, you are very funny.
The 14th did not include Indians either.
Lawd A Mercy!
There are some serious trolls on this here thread. Gracious me. Not only did the release of this most recent obama BC cause a lot of formerly non-birthers to seriously question this “document”, but it has amped up the troll volume.
Must be directly related.
No. I'm implying that he took the bait and the hook is set. True or not, he has to be Barrak Obama.
Because he's a total fraud and hard core Marxist, for whom "the ends justify the means."
Yes, excellent comments.
It’s been like a tsunami since right before the new forgery was released. It’s like a stink bomb, termite season, skunk meeting, etc.
They’ve outed themselves but good.
Yes, it is becoming more and more apparent Ladysforest. The endless and pointless banter is noise to drown serious discussion. The challenge, which is very similar to the challenge in the public forum, is to make the key issues clear. This notion of what a natural born Citizen is, while it is repeated in lots of relatively obscure supreme court cases, is easily and intentionally misinterpreted by trolls.
Judges like to say that citizens are either natural, or naturalized. The only “natural” citizens are those for whom no law is needed to confer citizenship. “Born citizens” were created by law, the 14th Amendment and Title 8. The are not “natural” citizens because the 14th Amendment created citizens out of people who were forced to come to the The Colonies or the US - slavs. Their parents had no sole allegiance to our republic; most of them had little notion of the foundations of a representative republic.
A “native-born” citizen of the US, is born a citizen by law, making him, Obama, Jindal, McCain, Rubio, Arthur, ... a naturalized and not a natural citizen. Natural born Citizens were part of “natural law” which all of our founders agreed was the foundation of our Constitution. How do we know? Chief Justice John Marshall told us. Interpretation of the Constitution is the responsibility of the Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court. He said:
“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. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Every child born on our soil who fails this definition is a “born citizen of the US,” a “native-born citizen of the US,” but not a “natural-born Citizen of the US.” Justice Marshall explained it in his concise manner: “Those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” Marshall, and every reference uses the term “parents” though, until the twentieth century, marriage to a citizen endowed a wife with the husband's citizenship.
With the President our framers saw no reason to compromise. Our framers wanted a president to be selected from among the children of those who risked their lives and fought for our independence. That highlights the irony that Barack Obama’s best selling autobiography was about the influence upon him of his British/Kenyan father.
Vattel, the source of the definition above from Marshall's decisions in The Venus, 12 US 253, used the "natives." But he defined what he meant - born on the soil of citizen parents. The term "native" is sometimes intentionally conflated with "native-born." Chief Justice Morrison Waite equates "Natives" with "natural born citzens" in Minor v. Happersett, leaving no doubt. Don't let trolls confuse you by implying that native-born and natural-born are equivalent. Again, Waite, Marshall, Horace Gray, the Wong Kim Ark justice, Chief Justice Hughes of Perkins v. Elg, and a half dozen others confirmed the definition, and pertaining to Obama, "of citizen parents." One citizen parent, born on our soil, is a citizen, a native-born citizen, but not a natural born citizen.
It is that simple. There is only one definition for a natural born citizen. Our greatest justices, Jay, Marshall, Waite, and the judge/congressman who wrote the 14th Amendment, John Bingham, all confirmed the Vattel definition cited by John Marshall. Every Senator in April 2008 also confirmed the definition, along with Barack Obama’s Harvard Constitutional Law professor, Larry Tribe, in Senate Res. 511.
I agree; the increased chatter about birth certificates with unprovable allegations reflects fear that the attention may turn to the truth. Obama told us he was “...a native-born citizen of the US.” He told us he is a naturalized citizen. Obama and the Democrats and Republicans who are complicit in the supression of this truth don't want citizens to understand. All we can do is to be as clear as we can be, and try to help the non-trolls understand. Since my citations have elicited little or no disagreement for the past year or so - the birth certificate commenter continue to dominate discussions ignoring the legal issues - I assume there may be a few non-trolls here on FR, but, other than Patlin, rxsid, Bushpilot, danae, and others active on rxsid’s natural born citizen research thread, there are few.
If we don't care enough to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” we will continue to have presidents like Obama, and will completely lose the protections provided by our Constitution from a dictatorial government - like the one our founders fought for our freedom.
Hear here! Well and truly stated.
This is one of the best posts I’ve seen on the subject.
Thanks for the ping, BB - and very well said, Spaulding.
And I’d add this - the fact that both documents issued by Zero are forgeries shows there is more to his usurpation than what appears on the face already.
And the trolldom shows that he is afraid of the truth being found.
And - the fact that no on in gov is doing or saying anything is the most disturbing of all.
Biological father doesn’t matter in our courts, just ask any man who is paying child support for some other mans child.
Utter nonsense that reflects a total lack of understanding of the law.
1. The Venus did not address the issue of NBC for Article 2, so it can’t be used for precedent. What’s more, Marshall’s comments are in a CONCURRING OPINION. That means that all they reflect is that justice’s opionion. He his not speaking for the court.
2. Article 2, does not define an NBC, but Article 1 does give Congress the power to determine the law for establishing citizenship. Congress is presumed to have known the Const. when it enacted 8 USC sec. 1401 which provides that person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. There is no requirement that either of the parents be citizens, or even be here legally.
3. The latter amendments of the Const. control the former Articles. The 14th Amendment provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. The plain text of the law states that anyone born here who is subject to jurisdiction is a citizen. Even illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of US and state laws. Otherwise they would have diplomatic immunity.
4. The decision in Wong Kim Ark, a citizenship case, recognized the principle of birth citizenship. Even the dissent correctly noted that the effect of the majority opinion was that “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not”.
Case closed. There’s a reason why these birther suits get tossed and it’s not because of a conspiracy. It’s because anyone with sufficient training in the law realizes they are the equivalent of a toddler giving an opinion about brain surgery.
Utter nonsense that reflects a total lack of understanding of the law.
1. The Venus did not address the issue of NBC for Article 2, so it can’t be used for precedent. What’s more, Marshall’s comments are in a CONCURRING OPINION. That means that all they reflect is that justice’s opionion. He his not speaking for the court.
2. Article 2, does not define an NBC, but Article 1 does give Congress the power to determine the law for establishing citizenship. Congress is presumed to have known the Const. when it enacted 8 USC sec. 1401 which provides that person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. There is no requirement that either of the parents be citizens, or even be here legally.
3. The latter amendments of the Const. control the former Articles. The 14th Amendment provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. The plain text of the law states that anyone born here who is subject to jurisdiction is a citizen. Even illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of US and state laws. Otherwise they would have diplomatic immunity.
4. The decision in Wong Kim Ark, a citizenship case, recognized the principle of birth citizenship. Even the dissent correctly noted that the effect of the majority opinion was that “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not”.
Case closed. There’s a reason why these birther suits get tossed and it’s not because of a conspiracy. It’s because anyone with sufficient training in the law realizes they are the equivalent of a toddler giving an opinion about brain surgery.
Why worry about that silly constitution, you have a usurper in the White House, and that doesn’t bother you. Seems you would rather attack those that think the Constitution really matters.
All men do dream, some dream of becoming king, others dream of service to God and Country, what do you dream of?
Anne Coulter was thrown under the bus because of her love for Cristy, at the expense of all the other prospects.
Ann Coulter: I couldn't read an article of hers on ANY subject without hearing about how nobody should take her seriously because she didn't bow down before the birthers.
Sarah Palin: For saying the issue was a distraction, she was raked over the coals.
Who here is willing to say that Sarah Palin was right not to jump onboard the issue and that it was a distraction?
EAT CROW AND LIKE IT!
The reason it is important to keep this issue alive, is we must smoke out the traitors within our own party that are complicit in this fraud. SR 511 is prima facia evidence that the leadership in both parties are guilty of treason.
Do not be dissuaded from telling the truth, the issue is and always has been corruption at the highest levels of our government. The enemies of freedom are ever vigilant, so must be the defenders.
The dreamer posting here is nothing but a nightmare, hired to demoralize the defenders of the constitution.
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.