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.
Once again, reading comprehension would be your friend, if you would allow it. This has been looked at quite thoroughly in the past. Look at the Independence Act again:
Any reference in subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section to a colony, protectorate or protected state shall, subject to subsection (7) of this section, be construed as a reference to a territory which is a colony, protectorate or protected state (within the meaning of the British Nationality Act Colonies 1948) on the appointed day, and, accordingly, shall not include a reference to Kenya or any part thereof.Which means if the person or person's father was born in Kenya, that person, if claiming Kenyan citizenship, does not retain British citizenship.
Plus there's a whole section on dual citizenship in that same Constitution.
Yup, but it doesn't apply to 0bama. Reading comprehension -
12. (1) Any person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, was a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (7) of this section, cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was not born in Kenya, made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.
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.
Your opinion, which the courts, several US Attorneys General, and early legal scholars do not agree with. I remind you again of President Reagan's Attorney General Edwin Meese:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President.From the Heritage Guide to the Constitution 2005
That is funny. Now you're suddenly willing to equate common law AND Vattel references.
Reading comprehension again! I do not equate them, not did I in any way say that I did. You claim the justices rely on Vattel, and initially used any "law of nations" reference as relating directly to Vattel's book. I point out that "law of nations" is a body of law, like "tort law" or "criminal law." The justices cited Vattel, but they also cited common law. Not because they are the same, but because they are different.
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,
However, in the part you cited where they had "inferior" rights and privileges, it specifically said the nationals in that case were NOT citizens. Did you read it?
Sorry, but the only composition fallacy is YOURS.
Do you know what a composition fallacy is? It sure doesn't seem like it.
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.
YOur logic doesn't hold up. Minor starts by citing the 14th amendment, so obviously the justices know that someone born on US soil is a citizen. That is not in question. The fact that Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen with or without the 14th amendment, does not mean the justices opinion wasn't supported - do you even understand what their opinion meant?
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, and that the constitutions and laws of the several states which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we Affirm the judgment.Meaning that the 14th amendment didn't change the right of states to deny the vote to women. They could withhold suffrage before the amendment, and could withhold suffrage after the amendment.
You seem to think that if I quote Justice Scalia on common law being the basis of much of the Constitution, it means Scalia can't cite Vattel for anything without voiding his statement. That is absurd. Vattel had some good points to make, but in terms of "natural born" the US follows common law, not Vattel. I have given you several quotes in my previous post to show you that (and Attorney General Meese's quote in this post.)
Minor DEFINED NBC. That definition was quoted and affirmed.
You'd desperately like to believe it, but it's not true. Minor quoted a definition, and said as one circumstance there was no doubt, but there was doubt about the other. And that the case would not resolve that doubt. The case affirmed one thing only - that states could restrict the vote to men alone. (You did read the case, didn't you?)
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.
Don't think so, not when you read the case. What you just cited was from another case (Weedin v. Chin Bow), quoted in Rogers. The court went on to say:
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.Pretty clear for those who read it.
Ummmm, hoosier hillbillies ...
Ah yes, call names when you can't refute the evidence.
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."
Funny, Scalia says he relies on common law to understand the meaning of the Constitution. He cites Vattel occasionally, but common law (according to his statement) is his most frequent guide. Is it your opinion that Justice Scalia doesn't know what he uses to determine the meaning of the Constitution?
I have posted quotes from the authors of the 14th amendment, to show they did not exclude children of foreigners from "natural born." Do you need me to find them again? I will if your memory of this is poor.
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.
Do you understand that when the court says "this whole category is natural born" one does not then have to say "oh by the way, Marco Rubio is natural born, Bobby Jindal is natural born, John Doe is natural born..." or do you always need things more concrete than that? The court does not often oblige such needs. From Ankeny
The 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 trueTo break down what the court is saying for you:
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.
I'm well aware, but your reading comprehension was poor on that case, too. The court said the kids were NBC. They also said it wouldn't affect the deportation of the parent. The kids could move to Mexico with the parent, but they could also stay in the US. Or else show me where it says the kids can't stay in the US?
You do the same thing the Ankeny court said of the plaintiffs - you make odd conclusions and assume they have the force of law. They don't.