Posted on 10/02/2009 3:35:27 PM PDT by MissTickly
Others have posted why that is not true. I doubt there was any marriage so he would be a natural-born son of the unwedded mother if born in Hawaii. According to Black’s there is no legal definition of “native born” merely “native” which includes natural-born.
UIPA only cover records requests, not information.
I don’t know the protocol to force them to answer questions. They ARE NOT forthcoming. I suspect there’s unfair pressure on them.
While it is certainly true that Vattel, Blackstone, and English Common law formed the basis of the Founders legal education it is also true that they changed the nature of the legal system into a uniquely American one.
Your quote indicates Vattel equated “native born and natural born” which is something I suspected from the lack of a definition of the former in Black’s.
The likely unmarried status of Urkle’s parents complicates this even further and, as another poster indicated, his bastardy means his mother’s status was the ruling one IF he was born in Hawaii.
He didn’t that was the Democrats idea and was used to cover for Urkle.
Said resolution has NO legal bearing on anything since it is not a law just puffery.
I don’t believe the Republicans went along with any of it.
The definition of Natural-born makes it clear that children born to citizens (Johnnie boy’s parents were) even outside the country are natural-born.
Nothing would be more absurd than for military personnel to be ordered outside the US and their children become second class citizens. In any case the Canal Zone was US property at the time of his birth.
That is why it may be necessary to actually have someone try and amend a certificate without paying any fee.
Generally state agencies are very upfront about any fees which must be paid.
I asked them for receipts and invoices. They aren’t significant to privacy.
They denied my request saying they were.
I would really have to trust that someone. I want answers from Hawaii. Not an unknown online. We’ve already been fooled once this way.
“That is why it may be necessary to actually have someone try and amend a certificate without paying any fee.
Generally state agencies are very upfront about any fees which must be paid.”
Thanks. I remember reading that argument. My understanding was that at 18 you had an extra 3 years to decide. I will look it up.
Vattel’s definition refers to “natives”, not native-born. Native-born is indicative of country or place of birth, not citizenship. For example: one born in the US to parents who are British and not US citizens would not be considered British native-born but could be considered US native-born, and would be a British citizen at birth, not a US citizen.
In other words, to be considered a native or natural-born citizen of a country, the birth parents must be citizens of that place or country in which the birth takes place.
Vattel then clarifies how citizenship of a child is determined (if not a native, or natural-born citizen) with further reasoning:
“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” This is especially important when the mother is a citizen of a different country than the father.
However, your point, that in cases where the father is truly unknown then citizenship would necessarily follow the mother, is valid. In this case, a claim of natural-born citizen would be difficult to prove or disprove if BHO was actually born in Hawaii (using the accepted definition from Vattel).
OTOH, if the father is known but not legally married to the mother (for example, being listed as such on the birth certificate), then citizenship would follow the father. The citizenship status might be contested judicially in this case, and/or dual citizenship might be determined or granted, but no valid claim of natural-born citizen could be made.
[Side note: please use hyphens when discussing “native-born” and “natural-born”. I believe this to be the more correct way to properly refer to these issues.]
I think you mean...
“Date Accepted by State Registrar” v. “Date Filed by Registrar”
The messiah only has the later 4-word phrase on his supposed COLB, indicating there was something 'fishy' about his original birth record that prevented it from getting the full "STATE Registrar" certification.
According to Leo it does NOT expire at all!!!
Why did McLame needs a e Senate resolution???
U.S. soil.
You may not like this:
The Panama Canal Zone (Spanish: Zona del Canal de Panamá) was a 553 square mile (1,432 km2) territory inside of Panama, consisting of the Panama Canal and an area generally extending 5 miles (8.1 km) on each side of the centerline, but excluding Panama City and Colón, which otherwise would have fallen in part within the limits of the Canal Zone.!
John McLame was born In the Colon Hospital!
He does NOT meet the soil!!
Had he been elected there would have been thousands of law suits about his none NBC!!!
English and grammer were my worst subjects.
natural-born vs. natural born
How does the hyphen impact the meaning of the word group?
The constitution uses natural born Citizen
Miss Tickly-your original question may have merit.
A original birth certificate (need not be from Hawaii) is on record. That document is of a type that must be stored as a record.
The vital records on file.
Perhaps, documents supporting original records are in themselves not records but simply on file?????
From a legal wording point of view, on record could be very different from on file.
Also, the Registrar was cut out of the second news release. Is the Registrar the only one to vouch for data on Record?
I have followed this topic on both FR and Leo and back to FR. Consolidate your thinking and your questions. You are enraptured by the sound of your own voice. You ask questions that you need to find the answers too and if you don’t then ask a different question. Stop relaying on others for their answers, their time, their research, it’s lazy and indicates you’re not sincere. Do the work, walk the walk, or move along. You’re wasting my time.
“John McLame was born..!”
Shame on you, it’s Senator John McCain and until proven differently he deserves respect. I did not and would not vote for him as president.
You asked “How does the hyphen impact the meaning of the word group?”
You are correct that the Constitution does not use the hyphen between natural and born.
However, I believe that the use of a hyphen connects the two words in a way which indicates that a specific condition must exist, separate and apart from the meaning of each individual word, in order to properly use the term natural-born. Thus, using a hyphen would be more clearly indicative and proper to refer to that specific condition.
(This is my personal belief and preference which may or may not be shared by others.)
Without the hyphen, the phrase ‘natural born’ could be interpreted as the manner in which a child is born, such as through the birth canal instead of by c-section.
Then what is your problem, did you just signed up today to tell us that???
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.