Obama should have been deported with Barak Sr.

So what is Madison saying? That Mr. Smith may found his claim on his parentage, but Mr. Madison thinks that is the wrong foundation.

The "petitioner" in this instance is not Mr. Smith, but Dr. Ramsey who was challenging that Smith could not be seated in the House of Representatives. He claimed that Smith was not a citizen by EITHER birth or inheritance. When Madison says Smith found his claim upon his birthright, Madison supports that claim by putting the colony of South Carolina ahead of the crown (notice the "petitioner" and this claim are all in a separate paragraph from where Madison talks about the birthright that Smith claimed -- Madison did NOT dispute this).

I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign established by that society.

The society of "primary allegiance" in Madison's mind was South Carolina and the "secondary allegiance" was to Britain. Madison is arguing that when South Carolina severed itself (along with the other colonies) from the British, that this changed Smith's primary allegiance from South Carolina to the United States. IOW, Smith was an NBC because of soil and birthright through parents whose primary allegiance was to South Carolina. This shows that the founders considered themselves to be natural born citizens by virtue of both jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria.

So you think Vattel is actually several writers at once? They are obviously referring to many people who wrote on the subject. Vattel is only one of them. Good try.

Vattel is one who the SCOTUS has specifically quoted on multiple occasions. Also from this same ruling, we find Justice Marshall quoting Vattel's definition of natural citizenship with great approval:

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. 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."

The court clearly says here that being native = being born in the country to citizen parents. Further it quotes that children naturally follow the condition of their fathers. So much for common law. Under this definition, Obama is a British-Kenyan Subject.

Before you even start arguing domicile, there's the little matter of a mother who was a US citizen.

It is a "little matter" since the Supreme Court has said in at least two different cases that the child naturally follows the condition of the father, one of which I just quoted. Second, why are you bringing up Obama's mama's citizenship if the 14th amendment doesn't look at the citizenship of the parents?? You don't seem to be able to make up your mind as to whether Obama should be a citizen by jus soli or jus sanguinis now.

The primary building block of US jurisprudence is British common law. That is a historical fact and there is no way around that fact.

You need to read the text and plain language of the 14th Amendment. The first sentence of the amendment reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States...” There is zero language that limits the language or any provision of the !4th Amendment to slaves or slavery. In fact, it would be a liberal, activist judge who would read and interpret the language to the meaning you want. I suggest you read the entire opinion in the Wong Kim Ark v. USA case to fully understand this issue. SCOTUS takes the approach of Justice Scalia (a literalist, textual reading of the language of the law in question) in it's decision. It does not read words into the amendment that do not exist, such as you advocate.

It appears that your problem is with the authors of the amendment and the broad language they used, rather than to the individuals who are charged by the US Constitution to apply the language to our country's jurisprudence.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment and it's application, then your remedy is to organize to ratify an amendment to overturn the provision(s) you do not like, such as was done to prohibition.

Madison said "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" he did not say "parentage and place are the most certain, he effectively demoted parentage below place.

IOW, Smith was an NBC because of soil and birthright through parents whose primary allegiance was to South Carolina.

In the same speech:

If it is said, that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe, that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency...

Funny, he mentions "natives" but not a word about their parents here. I think he was very clear - place is the most certain and it is what applies in the United States.

Mr. Madison's very next words are: " Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."[my emphasis added]

Ah, but look a little further, and see the very next lines:

It is well known to many gentlemen on this floor, as well as to the public, that the petitioner is a man of talents, one who would not lightly hazard his reputation in support of visionary principles: yet I cannot but think he has erred in one of the principles upon which he grounds his charge.

So what is Madison saying? That Mr. Smith may found his claim on his parentage, but Mr. Madison thinks that is the wrong foundation.

As much as I would thoroughly enjoy it, It would be ungentlemanly of me to razz you over this, but the Petitioner to whom James Madison is referring is Dr. David Ramsey, not William Loughton Smith. Ramsey was a military surgeon during the Revolutionary war, and a Delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He was also a prominent member of the community and a historian. William Loughton Smith, on the other hand, was safely in England during the war, and only returned to the United States after he was 23 years old. He had lived in the United States a mere 7 years before running for congress at age 30. Dr. Ramsey was defeated in the election by William Smith, but challenged his claim to the house seat from South Carolina on the basis that He was a British Subject living with family in England when the nation declared independence.

Madison argued that he was part of the Community of South Carolina, and was thus carried into American Citizenship when the Community became part of the United States. It was Dr. Ramsey to whom James Madison referred as "a man of talents, one who would not lightly hazard his reputation in support of visionary principles:"
I believe Ramsey went on to eventually become Governor of South Carolina.

Interestingly enough, ten months later, Madison embraces these very principles which he previously questioned with his "aye" vote for the "Naturalization act of 1790."

Fine, get the Congress to pass the necessary laws. Because you're not going to get it undone any other way.

Then you misunderstand the problem. The problem is not of laws, but how they are wrongly interpreted. The fault lies entirely in the federal courts. Do you think any law was passed creating a "right" to abortion? No! It was utterly made up bullSh*t legislating from the bench, supposedly based on "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment.

You seem to be slow on understanding me. I have already told you that I think many decisions are wrong and dumb. I have already told you I disagree with Kelo. But that's not the point - the decision exists, whether I like it or hate it. Changes have to be made legally, not by ignoring decisions you disagree with.

You have just NOW told me that you disagreed with Kelo. I doubt I should have overlooked it if you had told me so previously. Perhaps you told someone else? As for the solution to the problem, the first thing necessary is to DENOUNCE flawed and fraudulent decisions, not defend them as legitimate. In order to create a public desire for change, it must first be understood by the public (a herd if there ever was one) that the decisions are illegitimate and wrong.

And for whatever it is worth, the property seized by New London from Susette Kelo has become a garbage dump. Like Roe v Wade, the case was based on lies, and faulty assumptions, none of which worked out to be in the interest of the petitioners. (or the nation.)

More of YOUR gibberish. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong??? You said: "The judge in Lynch v. Clarke (with an E by the way), was expressing a personal opinion." First what YOU are expressing is a PERSONAL OPINION. What a judge express in a case is LAW. Law which the Wong Kim Ark judges quotes from Lynch vs. Clarke:

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.

How many judges and courts is this now that you don't like. All of them??? Because they all of them, every single one, disagree with you googy gibberish. Are you addicted to being wrong???

Why do you keep LYING about this??? I have corrected you several times on this very point. The Minor stuff quote is talking about when the Constitution was being framed, and was about the history of natural born citizenship. And I quote:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar. . .

The Wong Kim Ark judges were doing the same thing, tracing the history of stuff.

Here is how they go into that history right after quoting the Minor stuff:

The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. 124 U.S. 478. II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection.

Why are you doing all this mangling and butchering of law to convince people NOT to vote for Rubio and Jindal if they run??? Why are getting stuff from the LOSING SIDE of a 167 year old case to try to fool the people here???

No, it is the result of strict construction, since the US follows common law in many things. To paraphrase Justice Scalia quoted above, if you want to know what the Founders meant, look to English common law and Blackstone. The situation has changed, so change the Constitution and the law. Don't claim that the decisions don't exist.

They abrogated English Common law in many particulars, among them the most prominent was the question of what constitutes an American Citizen. If you will recall, we fought a Second war against the British on this very point. British Common law asserted that the children of a British Subject was also a British Subject. We disagreed. For a more in depth explanation of the difference between American Law regarding citizenship, and British law regarding citizenship, read this.

I doubt you will though.

Wrong. Go read up on it and you'll see English common law said that born on the soil = natural born, no matter the father's status (usual diplomatic exceptions). You'll see it referred to in several of the cases we've been discussing here. But you already know that, don't you?

English Children born anywhere are English Subjects. Of course, *we* disagreed. You did learn about the war of 1812 didn't you?

No arguments here. Place of birth is one criterion of citizenship. Madison says that it's more certain in general and that it applies in the U.S. Those of us who argue for the Minor definition of NBC do not deny that place of birth is one of the criteria nor do we argue that it's an uncertain criteria. Whether it's more certain than parentage does nothing to invalidate the idea that natural born citizenship results from a combination of BOTH criteria.

In the same speech:

Here we go ... you're hunting for a sliver of hope to salvage a lost argument ...

Funny, he mentions "natives" but not a word about their parents here.

Why would he? The principle he's referring to is about having "primary allegiance to that particular society of which we are members ..." IOW, this is only about putting allegiance to the colony ahead of allegiance to the crown. He's merely saying if you claimed to be a subject of "that particular society" (in this case, South Carolina), then you are subject to its Acts. "When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society ..." Under Smith's own admission, he was still claiming to be a member of South Carolina as the child of the first settlers of that colony. By maintaing allegiance to South Carolina, Smith maintained allegiance through the state in its decision to separate from Great Britain.

This is just like the argument liberals make against the Second Amendment. The Founders only knew single-shot muskets--they wouldn't have been okay with people owning assault rifles! Do you support that argument?

Your statement is so fuzzy I can see three different possibilities in it.

1. You are asserting that I am projecting my own assumptions.
2. You are asserting that you are against the notion that founders would support assault weapons.
3. You are in Favor of the notion that the founders would have supported assault weapons.

If it is number one, the assumptions are axiomatic and based on the presumption that the founders were not complete idiots, as they would have to be to allow automatic citizenship to anyone who can sneak across our border against our wishes.
If it is number two, then I would argue the founders were in favor of the citizenry being able to defend themselves, their state, and their sister states from attack by a tyrannical government, and would therefore understand the weapons to be the latest Military grade killing tools.

If it is number three, then I agree with you.

Did you read what you quoted?? It sure doesn't look like it. This is how Gray characterizes the ruling from Lynch v. Clarke and the others:

Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents.

No one disagrees that some authorites go farther and recognize as CITIZENS those born in the country of parents without reference to the citizenship of the parents. All we are pointing out, is that like Waite said in the Minor decision, there is DOUBT about such persons being citizens. After all, that's why these cases went to court — because there was doubt. For those born in the country to citizen parents, there is no doubt. The persons in this second class are natural-born citizens. The persons in the first class are not.

If the Lynch case was a compelling legal precedent, why didn't Gray stop there and declare Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen?? I'm curious to hear your rationalization. This quote of Lynch was on page 673. Gray wrote 32 more pages of decision beyond this acknowledgment of a common-law declaration. Why do YOU think he did that??

I assume that is supposed to be sarcasm, but your dialogue never rises to the level of absurdity.

If you can't pick up on the absurdity, that only demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole you've fallen.

Indeed, most of the Founders were well acquainted with Vattel, and as the term was well enough understood at the time, no one would think it necessary to expound on it.

I see. So the English phrase "natural born citizen" was well-understood to mean "born within a country's borders with two citizen parents" in 1787? So well-understood that the Founders deemed it unnecessary to simply state that the President must be born to two citizen parents? In that case, there must be a wealth of examples of the term being defined that way before 1787. And it would mean that US legal textbooks after 1787 would have had no reason to express a differing interpretation.

Unless they uncovered a treasure trove of heretofore unknown founders documents supporting their opinion, I would have to conclude that they are indeed wrong.

Wonderful. Every time I think Birthers can't move the goalposts any further, you continue to amaze me.

It wasn't enough to spend three years saying that Obama could end everything by releasing his long-form birth certificate, and then forget that after he released his long-form. Simultaneously, I've seen Birthers argue for years that only a judicial decision could definitely settle the definition of "natural born citizen." Now I see that even a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court penned by a conservative Chief Justice can't convince Birthers that their armchair legal theories are wrong. You simply declare that the Supreme Court is wrong too. Maybe make up some conspiracy nonsense about the Justices being paid off or threatened, like Birthers have done so many times before.

There really is nothing that can convince Birthers that they're wrong. Impossible standards of proof aren't the mark of rational people, you know.

There's no lie here. I gave the exact words from Gray. The only lie is that Minor gave the "history of natural born citizenship." This is false. He gave a definition which was obviously from the law of nations - a simple, elegant definition consisting of only a couple of sentences. That's it. There was nothing further about history of the concept. Waite did go on and talk about the naturalization act of 1790, but ultimately he explained why the 14th amendment was not needed to make women citizens.

Also, the Gray citation from WKA is not just about when the Constitution was framed. Gray said that Minor was construing the citizenship provision in the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was not written when the Constitution was framed. You're completely wrong on two counts if not more. Better you should stop while I'm ahead.

Impossible standards of proof aren't the mark of rational people, you know.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Please remember Yuri Besmenov’s warning. The first people the communists dragged out of their beds, lined up against a wall, and shot, were the Useful Idiots.

What incredible audacity to state that those questioning Obama’s eligibility are not rational!

Fact: Obama deliberately posted forgeries when it would have been **easy** for him to have provided straight forward and completely certifiable proof. And....Alarm bells are not going off in your head?

Fact: Several respected licensed private investigators ( completely independent from each other) state that Obama has multiple social security numbers, and the number he is currently using can not be his. And...Alarm bells are not going off in your head?

Fact: It is a **simple** and very inexpensive matter to prove one’s natural born citizenship, yet, Obama has sent private and tax paid attorneys to states across the nation to block release of these **common** documents. And...Alarm bells are not going off in your head?

Fact: Several military officers requested that Obama prove his natural born citizenship. A **REAL** natural born American would be **honored** to promptly prove that he was eligible to be president and Commander in Chief. He would be especially pleased to do this for a member of the military. And...Alarm bells are not going off in your head?

Fact: The night before he was to be deposed on Obama’s passport, Lieutenant Quail Harris was shot in the head. And....Alarm bells are not going off in your head.

Well!....It certainly isn't those questioning Obama’s eligibility who are irrational.

You said:"He gave a definition which was obviously from the law of nations - a simple, elegant definition consisting of only a couple of sentences. That's it. "

More gibberish and law butchering and mangling by you. Vattel is not quoted and his name is not even mentioned in that case.

Wong Kim Ark was a long case because they went over the whole history of common law stuff, then had to answer the LOSING side on their stuff, then had to discuss the 14th Amendment, and all the Chinese law stuff, and then they finished, and toward the bottom wrapped it all together where anybody but a Vattle Birther would get it:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration 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. . .contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

Which, you will butcher the quote and mangle the law for sure, but still I wonder WHY??? Are you addicted to being wrong??? Or do you have a hidden reason for misrepresenting stuff here to keep Rubio and Jindal from running???

You continue to slice and dice paragraphs to take your questionable quotes out of context. In addition to that, you just ignore any part of an opinion that does not support your completely discredited theory for nbc.

When referring to nbc in the WKA opinion, SCOTUS states ‘The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, eitherby way of inclusion or by exclusion, EXCEPT insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “All persons born or naturalizedin the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The quoted language by Scotus is only found in the 14th Amendment.

I also direct you to the 3rd paragragh of the opinon where SCOTUS states the the issue before the court is whether WKA, whose parents were non citzen subjects of China, became at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States BY VIRTUE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

You lose once again. Have you found a single case yet since 1898 that uses the Minor definition of born on soil of 2 citizen parents for nbc? It doesn't exist because there is not a single court, or legislative body that subscribes to your crazy, discredited theory.

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.