Posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13
4 Cases have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that define the status of Natural Born Citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
I have read a bit about Calvin's case in “English Nationality Law: Soli or Sanguinis” in the Grotrian Society Papers of 1972. Can you recommend another source? James Wilson is a dazzling writer, and refers to Vattel, Pufendorf, Grotius, and others, discussing citizenship extensively, but not natural born citizenship - I suspect because there was so little doubt about its wisdom. Kent Story and Hamilton all confirm Vattel’s major role, and do mention natural born citizenship, deferring to Vattel, but I'd like to find scholarship more narrowly focused on natural born citizenship?
Of course, the principal challenge now is to inform as many as possible of the fact of Obama’s ineligibility. Public opinion certainly affects the willingness of political appointee judges to grant standing, though in a perfect world the law should prevail. Ridicule is a powerful weapon. For many it seems far fetched that no major legal authority would challenge a candidate who told everyone that he, because of his father, was born a British subject. They understandably figure "he told everyone so how could there be anything wrong with his eligibility?" "Someone would have said something!" The sad truth is that it was like a chess game where the Republicans knew they were vulnerable, but daren't say anything or they would lose immediately. Having hidden what they knew, they are now complicit in the coverup.
Better informed people will overcome the name-calling sheep who discourage the public from understanding that Obama is very much the kind of leader Article II Section 1 natural born citizenship was intended to protect us from. Obama’s dream was to realize the dreams from his father of a socialist government, perhaps built around Sharia law (though I suspect Marxism is a stronger guiding principle for Obama than submission to Allah). A citizen father would have provided a higher likelihood that Obama’s allegiances were more consistant with the natural law on which our Constitution was built, and that was clearly the intention. There are also legal implications which I don't claim to understand of ignoring the clear intention of the Constitution.
I do suggest that we not feed the trolls. Responding to them validates their involvement. Someone in the thread, Bp2 I believe, noted that one troll had argued opposite points in another thread. Perhaps an abbreviated response such as “Warning Wong Kim” or “Warning Long Form Birth” or “Warning Nat Born = Jus Soli” would signal that citizens are learning the truth?
Uh, no. Allegiance and obediance have different meanings.
All "actual obedience" means is that the parents are living in territory under the King's rule and obligated to obligated to obey the King at the time and place of their child's birth.
Applied to a republic, it just means that the parents are living in the sovereign territory of the Republic and are only obligated to follow that Republic's laws at the time of the child's birth. That is also clearly the case with Obama's parents, as well as Wong's.
I thought you might fall into this trap - I DID NOT include Dicey [from Ark] in my post. Let us see what he REALLY has to say:
" ... CHAPTER III. BRITISH NATIONALITY.1 Rule 20.
(1) "British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. [See Note, below]
(2) "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.
(3) "Naturalized British subject" means any British subject who is not a natural-born British subject.
(4) "Alien" means any person who is not a British subject.
See the Naturalization Act, 1870, 33 & 34 Viet. cap. 14; the Naturalization Act, 1872, 35 & 36 Viet. cap. 39; the Naturalization Act, 1895, 68 & 59 Viet. cap. 43. Conf. 25 Edw. III. stat. 2 ; 7 Anne, cap. 5, s. 3 ; 4 Geo. II. cap. 21, s. 1 ; 13 Geo. III. cap. 21 ; 7 & 8 Viet. cap. 66 ; Westlake, 3rd ed., chap. xv.; Foote, 2nd ed., chap. i. ; 1 Steph. Comm., 12th ed., 136 ; 2 Ibid., 405-410. See App., Note 5, Acquisition, loss, and resumption of British nationality.
NOTE: "Permanent" allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes "temporary" allegiance to the Crown ...
... The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown ..."
Now ... lets see ... Calvin's Case [1608] is the seminal case concerning natural born subjects. Calvin's Case demands BOTH being born within the dominion and under the SOLE obedience to the sovreign.
"Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign" [direct quote from Calvin's Case].
Ligeance: Allegiance; the faithful obedience of a subject to his sovreign [Black's Law].
Ligeance is the root for the modern day word "allegiance".
Allegiance = Obedience = Ligeance.
Per Dicey [and supporting English statutes], a British Subject owes permanent allegiance [obedience, ligeance] to the Crown - as opposed to temporary allegiance [obedience, ligeance].
A natural born subject owes permanent allegiance [obedience, ligeance] to the Crown - as opposed to temporary allegiance [obedience, ligeance], from the time of his birth.
Per Calvin's Case [1608], obedience is derived from the parents - and it MUST be permanent. Since allegiance = obedience = ligeance, a child born [to a father being an alien and incapable of permanent allegiance], is a naturalized British subject NOT a natural born British subject.
FYI: And Dicey notes that there are RARE circumstances when a child born within the dominion IS NOT a British subject [and we aren't talking about a child of an ambassador here].
DO SOME DAMN RESEARCH BEFORE SPEWING YOUR DRIVEL ...
I have read a bit about Calvin’s case in “English Nationality Law: Soli or Sanguinis” in the Grotrian Society Papers of 1972. Can you recommend another source?
***
Actually, I have read the relevant citation [Calvin’s Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377]. Nothing like getting it from the horse’s mouth. It pretty much sucks reading it - lots of Latin - and it is lengthy.
The link is:
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/77ER377.htm
Search for “three incidents to a subject born” to get to the meaty stuff ...
A quick check of my copy shows that you are correct. The first letter of every Noun in my copy of the handwritten copy of the Constitution does appear to have been capitalized.
<>The court clearly concludes that all of those cases imply that a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States, on US soil, is a natural born citizen.<>
I’ll make it easy for you. Below is the link to the Wong Kim Ark decision. Please post the words from that decision that “clearly conclude” that Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen”.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
LOL. Do you actually believe this nonsense? Think about it. If nothing in the opinion, other than the paragraph affirming or denyin the petition mattered, then why would the court bother to write the many pages that preceed it?
Why do constitutional lawyers continually cite the those paragraphs? Your assertion is complete nonsense.
Stop pretending you are a legal scholar. You make yourself look silly.
If Wong Kim Ark v. United States had settled the question of natural born citizen, ALL of the liberal attornies on cable TV would have cited it as stare decisis - which is Supreme Court precedent.
Actually, numerous lawyers of all political persuasions, not just liberals, arguing against the birther position have done just that. That includes judges sitting on the Indiana court of appeals.
Your right of course:
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
Gladly:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
"III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
There is no Constitutional requirement that Obama’s father be an American citizen.
If his father isn’t at least a permanent immigrant, like the parents in Wong Kim Ark, then arguably Obama isn’t an American citizen period. Otherwise, then, yes, the father needs to be an American citizen.
If there was, the McCain/Palin campaign would have sought an injunction to stop Obama’s election; Vice President Cheney would not have certified Obama’s electoral votes; and Chief Justice Roberts would not have sworn him in as the 44th President of the United States.
You’re right. They should have sought an injunction. Failing to take action does NOT justify the transgression.
Perhaps there was no injunction because there was no transgression to enjoin. McCain and Palin are STILL as of today the only persons who might conceivably have legal standing to sue Obama and neither of them as filed suit.
You know, when you do research, it helps to read the texts you look up.
If you had done so, you would see that the very texts you are citing support my position, not yours.
Case in point, from Dicey:
(2) "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.
So by extention to the US, anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen.
So much for the birther fantasy that native citizen isn't synonymous with natural born citizen.
Now let's apply it to Obama. If born in Hawaii, Obama was born a citizen per the 14th Amendment. Therefore, if born in Hawaii, he is an natural born citizen. QED.
There is nothing in any of the texts you cite that can refute this simple observation.
You don't have to be born in a hospital to be eligible.
If the AZ legislature passes the eligibility act that is now before them, then Obama might be in a world of sh*t ...
If passed, he would have to prove his eligibility - including NBC in order to be on the ballot in AZ. The AZ SOS might deny him, under the NBC part. Since he cannot prove it by documentation [the term NBC has not been defined], he then has three options:
He will provide the same COLB he posted online as documentation, and it will be accepted, since it says at the very bottom of the document that it is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth.
Gladly:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
"III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
Show us the words that state "Wong Kim Arks is a natrual born citizen" of the United States.
Show us a quote from a reputable constitutional scholar that states NBC was settled under Ark by stare decisis.
YOU CAN'T !!!
BTW: Why don't you respond to my post to you showing that allegiance = obedience and that permanent [as opposed to temporary] allegiance is required of the parents in order for a child to be a natural born subject, per Calvin's Case [1608] ???
I’m sorry but I don’t see the phrase “natural born citizen” in that which you posted. I’ll give you another chance. Try again.
State officials have verified that his vital record shows a birth in Hawaii.
Instead of assuming what the long form says, let's make it public for everyone to see.
No assumptions are required to know that the long form shows birth in Hawaii. We know this for two reasons: 1) state officials say his records show brith in Hawaii and 2) his birth was announced in the Hawaii papers in 1961. Hawaii did not register foreign births at the time, and the papers got the birth data for their announcements straight from the Health Bureau upon the registration of said births.
The only thing we don't know for sure without seeing the long form is the hosptial, doctor, or whether his birth was registered as a home birth.
Sorry, but the Kenyan birth certificate with the footprint is at least as credible as Obama's redacted (and alleged) COLB.
First of all, Obama made unredacted photos of the COLB available.
Second of all, there's corroborating evidence supporting the Hawaiian COLB: state officals confirm the state's record shows he was born in Hawaii, and there are birth announcements in the papers, and we know birth announcements were received directly from the department of health. Contrary to birther mythology, they were not phoned in.
There is no comparable corroborating evidence supporting the Kenyan BC.
Furthermore, birth records in Kenya are open to the public, so if Bamabi was born there, birthers would be able to prove it. The fact that they haven't is very telling.
If he wasn't born at the hospital, he may not have been born in Hawaii. That's the point.
No, it's not the point.
What you fail to grasp is that once a state registers a person's birth, even if it is a home birth, the law presumes the registration to be accurate and such registration is sufficient proof of birth in any court of law. The burden of proof the shifts to those who would dispute the birth's location written in the state's records.
Therefore, if his long form showed a home birth in Hawaii, and you wanted to dispute the location, you would have to prove someone committed fraud to register his birth in Hawaii.
Of course, you would never be able to do that. And then there's also the sticky point that there was no motive for anyone to have committed such a crime, even if he were really born in Kenaya.
Court opinions don't generally lend themselves to sound bites, but it is very clear from the paragraphs I posted that the court considered Ark to be a NBC.
The paragraphs I posted make it very clear that anyone born in the US to alien parents (with the exception of a child born to diplomates, invaders, and the like) is a natural born citizen.
If you cannot see that from reading those paragraphs, then your reading comprehension skills are so poor that I can't help you. You should seriously consider retaking 5th grade reading.
And notice how, in order to reach that novel definition, Gray had to rely so heavily on the Lords of British Law, while at the same time minimizing the words of the Founders of the 14th Amendment. It was a true stretch of the imagination --
Well, curiosity, if the paragraphs made it very clear, then how come the paragraphs don't say it.
Do you have some kind of magic glasses that enable you to see what is not there???
You don't have to be born in a hospital to be eligible.
Not the point, you dumb sh*t ...
I never argued he wasn't born on US soil - only that he is not NBC. He can have all of the documentation proving he was born on US soil - he has the additional NBC requirement.
He can go to court and argue that he is NBC - the government can argue he is not. But, SCOTUS will have to affirm [or deny] once and for all with the words: "Obama is [or is not] a natural born citizen".
THE POINT IS THAT THE ISSUE HAS NEVER BEEN DECIDED - NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WISH IT TO BE TRUE UNDER ARK !!!
If the AZ legislature passes the eligibility act that is now before them, then Obama might be in a world of sh*t ...
If passed, he would have to prove his eligibility - including NBC in order to be on the ballot in AZ. The AZ SOS might deny him, under the NBC part. Since he cannot prove it by documentation [the term NBC has not been defined], he then has three options:
He will provide the same COLB he posted online as documentation, and it will be accepted, since it says at the very bottom of the document that it is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth.
It may be prima facie evidence that he was born on US soil - but it does not settle the NBC question, since his father was a natural born British subject and the laws of England claim him as a British subject also. A person born with two allegiances cannot be a natural born subject [citizen] - which was the understanding of the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was written.
As for prosecution - let us suppose, just suppose, he was declared NOT to be NBC.
I said he would possibly have to answer to charges. I did not say he would be convicted. I suspect that his defense would be that when he signed the documents, he was under the understanding that he WAS NBC and that it was an honest mistake. Thats reasonable - but it would cost him a fortune in attorney fees.
They do.
Do you have some kind of magic glasses that enable you to see what is not there???
No magic glasses are required, just reading comprehension skills above the 5th grade level.
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.