Where does it say this??
The Kenyan Independence Act of 1963. One relevant section:
(2) Save as provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Coloniesshall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.Then go look at the 1963 Constitution of Kenya, which specifies in Section VI that
Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.Which means when Sr. became a Kenyan citizen, so did 0bama, and both lost British citizenship.
There's no legal evidence Obama was ever a U.S. citizen, so it's not certain he would have had anything to renounce, except maybe the Indonesian citizenship he had.
Ah, so you're one of those "it doesn't matter what certificates are shown, it doesn't matter what Hawaii says, he wasn't born here" types. The evidence is very strong that he was, indeed, born in Hawaii. And there has been no credible evidence that he was born elsewhere.
This is a straightforward statement that the court is following principles from law of nations ... AS conveyed by writers such as Vattel, who is fequently cited by name.
Yes, in regards to domicile as applied to whether the merchant may have his ship seized. The owners of the ships had been British, were naturalized US citizens, who returned to Britain and were resident there when war broke out. You want to equate them with "natural born"? Another funny thing for your contention, the Justice also cites common law - did you notice?
Nonsense. The term of national is defined the same way a citizen is defined, but it is separated with lesser privileges. Notice in the definitions from Title 8, Chapter 12 that citizens and nationals are equated with only Minor differences, such as right to vote.
Good try. Look at the original portion you cited which says
INA: ACT 308 - NATIONALS BUT NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTHNationals are not citizens. Your own citation says so.
In deciding whether a person has obtained the right of an acquired domicile, it is not to be expected that much if any assistance should be derived from mere elementary writers on the law of nations. They can only lay down the general principles of law...
As to your continued insistence that Minor defined NBC, the case didn't and said it wouldn't. It gave one instance of someone who clearly was an NBC, but didn't exclude others. Your insistence is an example of a composition fallacy.
Scalia wasn't speaking specifically about "natural born."
No, but he sure did speak to much of the Constitution being based on common law, and that phrases well known in common law (natural born subject) were often directly used or modified into the Constitution.
There is legal precedent from both Minor and WKA that disputes your misinterpretation of common law. Neither Rogers and especially NOT Ankeny override the legal precedent from Minor. The only way Ankeny could try to do it was by contradicting itself several times and by avoiding any specific declaration that Obama was an NBC. Notice they did NOT ever say this.
There was no "legal precedent from Minor" to override, since Minor specifically said it was not going to address the doubt. (Do you understand what legal precedent is?)Rogers v Bellei affirmed
Our law in this area follows the English concept of jus soliwhich is pretty clear cut. Ankeny said
he Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.Ankeny did not have a reason to specifically state 0bama was an NBC - that wasn't the question before them. The question was whether to overrule the lower court ruling. Did you read the case? For those who need things spelled out, they also cite Diaz v INS,
noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”They have cited a whole category - children who are natural born though their fathers were not citizens. Is that clear enough for you?
And that's it for me for the next 4-5 days. May they bring you more wisdom and better reading comprehension.
Your relevant section is disputed by ANOTHER relevant section:
(2) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, a person shall not cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under section 2(2) of this Act if he, his father or his father’s father — (a) was born in the United Kingdom or in a colony;
(3) A person shall not cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under section 2(2) of this Act if he was born in a protectorate or protected state, or if his father or his father’s father was so born and is or at any time was a British subject.
The Kenya Constitution only says that such a person BECOMES a citizen of Kenya, it doesn't say they lose their other citizenship. Plus there's a whole section on dual citizenship in that same Constitution.
Ah, so you're one of those "it doesn't matter what certificates are shown, it doesn't matter what Hawaii says, he wasn't born here" types. The evidence is very strong that he was, indeed, born in Hawaii. And there has been no credible evidence that he was born elsewhere.
Gee, if you could read, you would have understood where I stand on this issue in the OP:
When we apply these situations to Barry Soebarkah Soetoro Hussein Obama, we see that even if he could prove he was born in the United States, he would not have been legally considered to be a natural-born citizen.Yes, in regards to domicile as applied to whether the merchant may have his ship seized.
You're still trying to salvage your strawman. Again, this case was cited over the capitalization of law of nations. That you're punting that argument in favor of the particulars in The Venus makes a solid concession on the actual point of contention. Thanks.
Another funny thing for your contention, the Justice also cites common law - did you notice?
That is funny. Now you're suddenly willing to equate common law AND Vattel references. You make this too easy for me.
Nationals are not citizens. Your own citation says so.
No, in one instance it specifically defines them as citizens: "The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, ..."
As to your continued insistence that Minor defined NBC, the case didn't and said it wouldn't. It gave one instance of someone who clearly was an NBC, but didn't exclude others. Your insistence is an example of a composition fallacy.
Sorry, but the only composition fallacy is YOURS. You're misreading what the decision said was doubted, which was the citizenship of those who didn't fit their NBC definition. And, it didn't give ONE instance. It used the NBC definition to justify the court's reasoning for saying WOMEN didn't need the 14th amendment to be citizens. If there was doubt about NBCs, then this opinion is NOT supported.
No, but he sure did speak to much of the Constitution being based on common law, and that phrases well known in common law (natural born subject) were often directly used or modified into the Constitution.
Let's see the context of his comments. In this case, where he wrote the opinion of the court, he has no problem footnoting Vattel in reference to a second amendment issue:
E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”);There was no "legal precedent from Minor" to override, since Minor specifically said it was not going to address the doubt. (Do you understand what legal precedent is?)Rogers v Bellei affirmed
link
Sorry, but this is a post out of sheer ignorance. Minor DEFINED NBC. That definition was quoted and affirmed. For someone who complains about so-called quote butchering, that's ALL you have. You're trying to butcher a quote on doubts about citizenship for some persons into doubts about natural-born citizenship, when the definition for latter was "never doubted." Rogers v. Bellei only affirmed jus soli for statutes of the colonies: "These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence." Mr. Quote Butcher, you're dropping the context here.
And dude, don't make me laugh. You're citing some of the weakest and most embarrassing parts of the Ankeny decision:
... they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century.
Ummmm, hoosier hillbillies ... the 18th century treatise is the same one that Scalia cited by name and the quotations of Members of Congress are from the AUTHORS of the 14th amendment. It's called "original intent."
To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen ...
To the extent that the authors of the 14th amendment conflict with the SCOTUS's interpreation of what it means to be a natural born citizen?????? Are these hillbillies on drugs?? There was no conflict between those sources.
we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Translated: This court says "nanny,nanny boo boo." They simply sweep the inconvenient citations under the rug and contradict themselves on how they interpret the SCOTUS.
Ankeny did not have a reason to specifically state 0bama was an NBC - that wasn't the question before them. The question was whether to overrule the lower court ruling. Did you read the case?
Did you read my posts on Ankeny?? I've cited several contradictions they made. And thanks for proving one my points. Ankeny did NOT declare Obama to be an NBC ... NOR did they declare him eligible for office. Squeeky's head is going to explode again. You're not helping her cause.
For those who need things spelled out, they also cite Diaz v INS,
noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”
... and you seem to forget that Diaz v INS was part of my OP. The court in that case took the claim of NBC at face value and kicked it in the nuts by saying they didn't care ... the kids can move back to Mexico. Evidently the Ankeny court would have no problem with Obama being deported. Neither do I. This thread has come full circle. Thanks for helping me prove all my points.