Oh crap. Would you just give it up. Or maybe quit being descriptive, and translate the next paragraph, about those other places, like ENGLAND???
I get, eat, drink and be merry.
Every man should have his hobbies.
Sheridan`s 1791 defines “Natural, ,,,, native, original inhabitant”
That is what it was in the US until it needed to be scrapped for Obama. Now “natural born citizen can include anyone on the planet. He would probably need to visit America a couple of times and exhibit his Marxist bona fides for the benefit of the Deep State to run for election.
Vattel’s book “The Law of Nations” is on my list of important works that needs to be (fully) recorded as an audiobook. Not sure when I’ll get it done though.
If there is another side to this debate, I’d like to hear it. Otherwise, case closed. Obama’s Presidency was illegitimate. Some others who aspire today to become President are not eligible.
Yet I've seen people try to argue that the 'or' in the sentence is used as an either or, indicating two different types of 'natural born' citizens, the first merely being born IN a country while the second was born OF it.
Notice no use of “Natural Born Citizen” there...and since “natural” and “Indigene” are both English words, not much reason to translate them at all.
The 1729 French- English dictionary of Abel Boyer has the following examples
Les Naturels Francois - the French Natives;
Les Naturels d’un Pais - the Natives of a country.
That explains the early English translations of Law of Nations to “the natives, or indigene”
https://books.google.com/books?id=nshvfbbVRJwC&q=naturels#v=onepage&q&f=false
The 1797 edition continues to translate Naturels as natives and now translates indigene as natural born citizen. This is incorrect as the French word for citizen appears only once that sentence in the original 1758 French edition. A rather sloppy translation.
A better translation would be ‘the natural born, or natives, are’.
It appears the 1797 edition was likely influenced by the U.S. Constitution then the other way around.
If the Natural Born Citizen requirement for President was intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (keep foreign alleigances from taking over), and if the Framers grandfathered themselves as eligible, then it's reasonable to assume that their Posterity was the intended population to become President.
The Posterity of We the People are the citizen children (our Posterity) of citizen parents (We the People).
Therefore, a natural born citizen is a citizen child of citizen parents, as the intended reason stated in the Preamble.
-PJ
14A states,
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.
As stated in Won Kim Ark,
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.
In Wong Kim Ark the dissenting opinion of Fuller C.J., joined by Harlan J., at 169 U.S. 706, said in reference to the majority opinion of the Court,
The English common-law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the Declaration of Independence, was that “every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England.” Cockb. Nat. 7.
That accurately states the state of English law that was in effect in the colonies when the Declaration of Independence was issued.
https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/ldpd:68356
As John Jay emphasized on 25 July 1787, "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen." [underscore emphasis by Jay]
Say the term again and again with the emphasis given by John Jay, "natural born citizen. Natural born citizen. Emphasis on born.
It should also be borne in mind that when that emphasis was applied, Jay was speaking about the position of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, not the office of he President. Combining both functions together had not yet occurred.
In Kerchner et al v. Obama et al, D.N.J. 1:09-CV-00253, the case was dismissed by the District Court and Complainant appealed to the 3rd Circuit court. The 3rd Circuit court affirmed the lower court and in judgment assessed costs against Appellant. The U.S. Supreme court denied cert.
On page 7 of 3rd Circuit precedential opinion, [emphasis added]
Because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for Appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed.
And, in the Judgment, the Court assessed costs against Appellants.
JUDGMENTThis cause came on to be considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and was submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on June 29, 2010.
On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court entered October 21, 2009, be and the same is hereby affirmed. Costs taxed against Appellants. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court.