Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
Thanks so much for the ping to the images especially!
Citizen in this use is like arguing that sperm are life so life begins before comception ... the fallacy hangs on missusing Organ or subunit and Oragism. Naturalized citizens are citizens. If law is cited to make one a citizen then they are not natural born, as in what the founders sought to establish for the safety of the Republic, child born to two United States Citizens on United Sattes soil or U.S. protectorate soil.
Additionally, going back to the established means in effect in the Founders’ day, a person received their name and rights through their father. But you want to ignore that, apparently. It does however aid in understanding why a natural born must have a United States citizen father, to avoid exactly what Obama has admitted to, citizenship under the Crown at birth thus subject to/of the crown.
The writings of Emer de Vattel are not U.S. law. Several SCOTUS decisions, including Wong Ark and Elg, have upheld the doctrine of “the right of the soil” over “the right of the father” argued by Vattel.
I cannot with confidence of clarity read the Jay letter in this format. I’m pretty sure he says something about the assumption of foreigners to the administration of our national government, then he says, “...and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.” Nothing in this letter expands on what we already know from the Constitution itself, near as I can tell.
Please, tell me why you think his use of the word “born” is significant.
And if you want to play silly games like focusing on the term Crown, to ridicule that we aren’t fighting the Revolutionary War anymore, note first that the issue is divided loyalties, and the Founders sought to prevent such in ANY U.S. President.
The "Law of Nations" reference is of particular interest, because that exact treatise is mentioned in our own Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:
"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"
Another Freeper brought this clause and The Law of Nations to my attention recently, and your post jogged my memory of it. I believe that she also had mentioned it in reference to the NBC issue.
If I'm reading the Constitution correctly, it says that Congress has the power to punish offenses committed against The Law of Nations, of which the statement regarding the Natural Born Citizen is a part.
I don't know that the Supreme Court will interpret it that way, but I would suspect that they would at least consult The Law of Nations as a reference in clarifying this.
“If law is cited to make one a citizen then they are not natural born”
Is that a legal argument, or philosophical mumbo-jumbo? What else would make you a citizen but law? I mean, what else does “citizenship” refer to but your legal status? Is citizenship a state of mind, or a state of being granted only by God?
“as in what the founders sought to establish for the safety of the Republic, child born to two United States Citizens on United Sattes soil or U.S. protectorate soil.”
If that is what they sought to establish, why didn’t they put it into that Constitution they wrote? Besides, the 14th amendment supercedes the opinion of the Founders on the issue of who is born a citizen. That’s how amendments work.
“Additionally, going back to the established means in effect in the Founders day, a person received their name and rights through their father”
Be that as it may, it’s not in the Constitution.
“It does however aid in understanding why a natural born must have a United States citizen father, to avoid exactly what Obama has admitted to, citizenship under the Crown at birth thus subject to/of the crown.”
SCOTUS disagrees with you. They have consistently held (see: Elg, Wong Ark) that the children of citizens of foreign countries are not exclusively subjects of those countries. You see, the U.S. government doesn’t care if you have the opportunity to claim citizenship somewhere else; they’ll still consider you a citizen if you’re born here.
Who-knew-there-would-be-anything-to-Ping-over-the-weekend-Ping.
Thanks to SunkenCiv for the HTML.
Click on it:
john jay to washington...is this in the federalist papers
also........
“The ‘Law of Nations’ reference is of particular interest, because that exact treatise is mentioned in our own Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:
‘To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;’”
Are you serious? The phrase “the law of nations” is not unique to the title of Vatell’s book. It has long been in general usage, which is probably why Vatell picked it in the first place (they didn’t have very clever titles back then). Roughly, the phrase refers to a code recognized by the common consent of nations, like an unofficial international law. What exactly constitutes offenses against “the law of nations” I cannot say with much accuracy, but I guess that’s why the Constitution leaves it up to Congress to define and punish them.
Anyway, there is no chance the Framers intentionally singled out Vatell’s book. Why on earth would they have burried the definition of a natural born citizen inside an old book within a clause about pirates, of all things? To do so would be lunacy. There could be hundreds, even thousand of principles postulated in Vatell’s book. Are you seriously arguing that all of them are Constitutional law because the words “the law of nations” appear somewhere in the Constitution’s text?
“If I’m reading the Constitution correctly, it says that Congress has the power to punish offenses committed against The Law of Nations, of which the statement regarding the Natural Born Citizen is a part”
What would it mean for Congress to punish an offense committed against Vatell’s definition of a natural born citizen? That doesn’t make any sense.
“Tublecane, are you playing a semantics game with me?”
Well, legal arguments must eventually boil down to semantics, since laws are written with words. But I’m not playing games. I just want to know what the significance of Jay’s letter is, and how it pertains to the difference between citizens by virtue of birth according to the 14th amendment and natural born citizens.
Further, you’re the one who asked me to notice the word “born.” I’d like to know why you asked me to notice it.
thanks!
Results 1 - 10 of about 6,980,000 for obama born in kenya. (0.13 seconds)
Tublecane, I was trying to responded to your question, while responding to calenel's question: " ... definition of natural born from that found in the dictionary: having an attribute or quality from birth. Do you have one?
"When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the kings dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majestys English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.
......................................................
The trend I see in MY analysis of these influential works is that loyalty, dominion, being under the "King's protection," and being a citizen/subject are connected, passed on by heirship, nearly always paternally, and AT BIRTH.
That's why the DUAL CITIZENSHIP issue is a critical component of the Obama case. You either have "Natural Born Citizenship" at birth, OR YOU DO NOT. If you DON'T, you're a CITIZEN. There's some more research I need to do looking at the Hague Convention, British and later the Kenyan Constitution, and parse some of the lesser known U.S. Naturalization cases.
And can you point out where the difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth is to be found? What part of the Constitution or what federal law defines that?
There's some more research I need to do looking at the Hague Convention, British and later the Kenyan Constitution, and parse some of the lesser known U.S. Naturalization cases.
Yes, let's look at U.S. law and U.S. court decisions for a change. Eighteenth century Dutch authors are not going to make your case.
Excellent reply.
Thanks for the ping.
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.