Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pnh102
The fact is that US law makes no distinctions among people who are citizens by birth. There are either citizens who acquire citizenship through birth, and naturalized citizens. The latter may not serve as President or Vice President. We have to conclude that since the President was born in Hawaii and that his mom was a US citizen, that he is indeed a "natural born citizen."

I disagree completely. The correct meaning of the term can be discovered by reading what the founders wrote. Whatever interpretations by Judges occurred later is irrelevant. I believe Obama is a Natural born citizen by the most stringent criteria, that being born of two American Parents. I believe I have deduced sufficient information from the available evidence to draw that conclusion.

26 posted on 05/06/2011 7:35:27 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Don't blame me, I voted for the American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
I disagree completely. The correct meaning of the term can be discovered by reading what the founders wrote.

I understand, but you have to look at US citizenship law (I linked to it in a previous post). The Founding Fathers' opinions may come up in court cases regarding this issue but they are not the law. As the law currently stands, there are just people who are citizens by birth and naturalized citizens. That's it.

31 posted on 05/06/2011 7:40:36 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp
I believe Obama is a Natural born citizen by the most stringent criteria, that being born of two American Parents.

But his dad was never an American.

41 posted on 05/06/2011 7:48:41 AM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp
You may disagree, but the Supreme Court has handed down several decisions that counter your argument. Vattel's writing were well known, and yet his definitions were NOT included in the Constitution. The Constitution is written in the language of English Common Law.

Here is a quote from "Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor" a Supreme Court Decision in 1830. (This is important because John Marshall was the Chief Justice and in agreement):

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

42 posted on 05/06/2011 7:48:49 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp
The correct meaning of the term can be discovered by reading what the founders wrote.

Good, then you'll accept James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" as your authority?

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

67 posted on 05/06/2011 8:02:36 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson