Posted on 06/22/2010 3:40:28 PM PDT by bushpilot1
In the Journals of the Continental Congress there is a translation of the French word naturels to natural born. Meaning the Founders understood Vattel's naturels to mean natural born.
The document and its translation by the Founders must have been overlooked over the years by the courts, congress and the news media.
In French.
ARTICLE III Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera.
The Founders Translation.
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.
What an ignorant arse. I guess you truly believe that the government is the owner of you and ALL your possessions. That you are truly NOT a free sovereign individual. You are only a slave to a master ruler who dictates your words & actions because you possess not one shred of knowledge but that which is dictated to you.
dear jameseeee, why is it that to this day, according to US codified law, ALL immigrants must take an oath renouncing ANY & ALL allegiances to foreign states/nations/kings/rulers, renounce ANY & ALL titles of nobility and swear to a COMPLETE allegiance to the United Sates of America? This is the definition of US citizen and it does not apply to children born to aliens who owe allegiance to a foreign state/nation at the moment of birth,
PERKINS v ELG (1939)
Elg was held to be a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” because at the time of her birth, BOTH her parents were naturalized US citizens. WKA was held to be a “CITIZEN” because there was a corrupt judge who used ENGLISH law instead of 100 years of US law.
ELK v WILKINS (1874) in which Gray wrote in the deciding opinion that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant more than mere local & temporary allegiance to the laws, it meant COMPLETE & UNDIVIDED political allegiance to the nation with ABSOLUTELY NO ATTATCHMENT to any foreign nation.
“The Fourteenth Amendment to 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 only two: 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. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”—US v Wong Kim Ark (1898).
Also from the Court’s decision in “Perkins v Elg:” “Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States.” [Perkins v Elg, 307 US 325 (1939)]
I kind of like “hyena pack” too. Hyenas are even uglier than jackals, with those short back legs.
“How can a person be a citizen under the law while retaining allegiance to a foreign nation?”
More precisely, can a person have an allegiance to a foreign country and still give birth to a US citizen on US soil.
Yes.
I would argue that someone here ILLEGALLY is NOT able to give birth to a US citizen, but no court to date has ever endorsed my views.
Meanwhile, if you want to impose a requirement for two US citizen parents for someone to be born in the US as a citizen, you’ll need to re-write the Constitution.
There is a WEAK case to be made that a NBC requires US parentage, although no court has endorsed THAT view. And NO ONE agrees with your idea that someone born in the USA needs to have two citizen parents to be a citizen. That is a wacko view!
And while we do not endorse dual citizenship, we acknowledge that it happens. Often.
Still waiting on that answer from you regarding the Expatriation Act of 1868 which is still codified law today and thus the reason aliens & their descendants must take an oath renouncing any & all allegiances before they are officially US citizens. How can a person be a citizen under the law while retaining allegiance to a foreign nation? Show us the codified law that says so.
I will freely admit though that US law is hypocritical in that it allows (doesn’t expressly prohibit) dual citizenship while demanding absolute allegiance to the US.
Here’s Hillary Clinton’s US State Department statement on “Dual Nationality”:
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
obama is a native born citizen assuming that he was born in Hawaii(?). If he was born in Kenya ,his mother was too young to convey citizenship and that would make him a kenyan national.Children of naturalized(full allegiance) citizens are Natural born citizens .A child born to immigrants ( persons going though the immigration process) but are not yet Naturalized are native born (Wong Kim Ark). If obama was born in Hawaii he is a native born citizen( per U.S. supreme court) and ineligible to be President.
good post , glad to see some people know a little history
What you pose, is first, that you have been properly vetted to be NBC. What you proffer as a scenario for your intent, if that were to occur, would IMO be discoverd in debate prior to election. True you could lie in debate, but with a fully engaged MSM, not one who was bought and paid for by sellouts at the hightest levels, your history would be examined. Your voting history reviewed, your school years, and what you stood for also examined. In short, you would have been reviewed by the media, debated with your opponents, and in the end, voted in, or out, as a fully qualified Natural Born Citizen, in keeping with the constitution. If you end up bad...then we pursue other remedies within the law. Not being hamstrung by a President like we have now who hides everything, and sells America down the river to ruin...Dancing all the way...or perhaps more recently golfing all the way.
Nero fiddling as Rome burned....
obama is a native born citizen assuming that he was born in Hawaii(?). If he was born in Kenya ,his mother was too young to convey citizenship and that would make him a kenyan national.Children of naturalized(full allegiance) citizens are Natural born citizens .A child born to immigrants ( persons going though the immigration process) but are not yet Naturalized are native born (Wong Kim Ark). If obama was born in Hawaii he is a native born citizen( per U.S. supreme court) and ineligible to be President.
you left out this part that stated that young Steinkauler was born to US CITIZEN parents: Steinkauler’s Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis...There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright.
IOW, there was NO nation that could claim that the one young Steinkauler owed allegiance to at birth except that of the United States. And of course the court goes on to disregard the Expatriation Act of 1868, it does say that a child of parents whom are both citizens at the time of the child's birth can attain to the office of president, because at the moment of birth the child did not owed but one allegiance and that was one to the United States. They also disregard Sec. of State Bayard's OP. of the late 1800’s, after the passing of the 14th & the Expatriation Act & prior to the WKA decision that a child born to German parents not naturalized was NOT a US citizen at birth.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
In 1885, US Secretary Of State under Grover Cleveland, Thomas Bayard, decided that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ Thomas Bayard was the fourth generation of his family to serve in the U.S. Senate and was considered a prominent Bourbon Democrat.
Expressly prohibit? It surely is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITTED BY LAW. It has been since 1776, and further codified by treaty & Acts of the congresses of the confederation & federal government in 1783, 1789, 1790, 1795, 1802, 1824, 1853, 1866, 1868, etc, etc.
The courts have not recognized a difference between native born and natural born.
Another question, when did claims & concepts become the rule of law? When was that codified?
Dual citizenship was expressly denied by positive law formally in 1783 under the treaty of Peace wherein it states that the colonists who took an oath to the revolution in direct opposition to the English monarchy were from that point on aliens and could no longer inherit from the English and visa versa. The American colonists were aliens and were NOT to be held as subjects to the foreign government any longer, but being the tyrannical government the crown was, they reneged on that treaty & thus the Americans were forced into the war of 1812 between the Brits & the French. Their mistake, falling for the same trick they did in 1783. It was finally formalized int he treaty immediately following the 1868 Expatriation Act.
I don’t answer your questions because I think you are nuts.
SOMEONE has to be the final interpreter of what words and phrases mean, and that role has been taken, right or wrong, by the courts. Since the Constitution doesn’t define NBC, someone has to...and YOU don’t get to do so.
I agree - we do not approve of dual citizenship, although we do acknowledge it exists. However, if someone refuses to acknowledge the claim of the other country - as is the case with Obama - then we consider them to be American only...hence the War of 1812.
What is your point? Do you agree that Obama is American, and only American?
Do you agree that the words change meaning over time? Do you agree that the term ‘welfare’ as it is written in the constitution does not have the same meaning as ‘welfare’ as it exists today?
At the time of the revolution a Native was one either born on the soil or overseas. The Native was one who adhered to & took part in the revolution and became an original member of the new society that was formed from the revolution. Native pertained to soil, Natural pertains to blood & inheritance, hence the Native Indians did not formally become US Citizens as a whole until 1924 when Congress passed an ACT that granted the Natives citizenship. If Native meant birth on soil only, then those that sided with the Crown during the revolution could come back & make claims of citizenship & some did & they were denied as according to the Treaty of Peace (1783) they were forever aliens unless they formally renounced the crown & took positive actions of becoming citizens and then they were held as naturalized citizens, they never regained their Native status.
How much “Vetting” can be done? In 1995, 12 years before he ran for President, Barack Obama wrote a book called “Dreams From My Father” which discussed his father’s Kenyan birth and upbringing in great depth and Obama’s visits to Kenya to find his roots.
Obama announced for the presidency on February 10, 2007. The book “Dreams From My Father” became a number one bestseller and was read by hundreds of thousands of people.
Obama’s political opponents in the primaries and in the general election had one year and nine months to properly vet him and challenge him on eligibility issues, they didn’t do it.
Actually, that is not true, Allan Keys filed before he was President, and a number of other people did, but then that ugly word “standing” came into play, and the cases were dismissed. Lets not forget the now hundreds of thousands of people who wrote the leaders demanding proper vetting, I was one of them, entire sites were devoted to trying to get our legislators to listen to us...to this day, they ignore us. November is coming, and those in power are already falling.
If that didn’t happen, whose fault is that?
And on top of all of the above, the state of Hawaii, with a Republican Governor who endorsed and campaigned for John McCain, verified that Obama was born in Honolulu.
The ENTIRE Republican Congressional delegation has dealt with Obama from the moment of his inauguration as if he was the duly elected 44th President of the United States. Both the House and the Senate Republican delegations have invited him to speak at their caucus meetings and not one question has ever been asked about his eligibility.
I believe the President and Cheney and everyone were in on this; they knew it. I think at some point, they called in the major media and said, “We don’t want to have rioting in the streets and charges of racism thrown around by bringing this up now, so you guys can’t talk about this.” So this was presented as a national security situation if he were investigated then. And I think they just hunkered down and hoped it would go away.
MRS. RONDEAU: So do you think President Bush knew about it?
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes. I had written a letter to him, too. I believe he was well aware that there was a qualification issue with Obama and chose to look the other way. I think that the powers that be in the White House said, “We’re going to bring in the key national media people and tell them not to discuss it.” I remember Rush Limbaugh mentioning once on his show that he had had a secret meeting in Washington. There was also a story on the internet by an investigative group that says that they have an affidavit signed by a major media talk-radio show host who signed an affidavit, for use later, stating that he was in such a meeting. It appears that they were intimidated by the government, which was then led by Bush, and told that they could not talk about it. It was a potentially explosive situation for the cities if he were to have been investigated and found to be ineligible. So they backed themselves in a corner. They still should have thought of the country and the Constitution first, but they didn’t.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/21/a-one-on-one-personal-interview-with-commander-kerchner-regarding-his-eligibility-challenge-and-lawsuit-against-obama-and-congress/
Any two members of Congress could have challenged Obama’s electoral votes being certified by Vice President Cheney, but none submitted written objections and Cheney didn’t even bother to ask if there were any objections. 535 members of Congress just sat on their hands.
All of the above has made it tough to successfully oppose Obama’s eligibility.
Since the “WON” has refused to release his records, thereby showing by his actions are that NOT of an honorable & trustworthy person, I say we do not know WHO he is or what allegiances he holds. He appointees in government have stalled the release of his deceased parents records, which under US law are now part of the public domain. His appointees have ignored a federal appeals court order to release them, so what does that say? It says something smells rotten in Denmark!
The government given to us by the founders & framers was that could only exist under guide of moral, trustworthy & honorable men elected to office. NONE of these traits is held by the “WON”. He was born to a foreigner & what allegiances or inherent ties he holds is yet to placed on the table of scrutiny for “WE THE PEOPLE” to make an honest & educated decision from. DO YOU AGREE?
I suggest that you read the entire opinion of the court in the Wong Kim Ark case where Ark was declared a NATIVE born citizen not a natural born citizen because his parents were not yet Naturalized citizns. You do recognize the Supreme Court ,don’t you?
Let me expound on this a bit more. IF, and it is a big IF, Obama was born in Hawaii AND; IF, and it is a big IF, it is found that Obama’s parents were NOT married when he was born & that they were never legally married thereby legitimating the child , then & ONLY then can Obama claim to be a natural born citizen. It goes to the law in place in 1940 & NOT YET REPEALED that the child follows the condition of the father unless born out of wedlock. If the married parents were of different nationalities, then the child MUST at the coming of age, decide & take a formal oath if the child wishes to take the nationality of the mother, otherwise the derivative(consenting) citizenship of the father at birth is said to be his ONLY citizenship of allegiance. And then it was still further held to be determined by the laws of the nation in which the alien father held allegiance to because NOT all nations held that a child born on foreign soil to a mother married to an alien was at birth a citizen/subject. Only nations still practicing feudal law such as England & her colonies could make that claim & they were very few by that time. Most countries had also fought bloody wars and adopted the citizenship laws of nature/laws of nations. Kenya was still under British rule and thus according to their laws, they did NOT recognize the nationality of the mother if the parents were married or the child legitimated after birth.
So, what does this say of the “WON”? He either lied about his parents marital status & in today's age and the acceptance of single parents, what was there to gain by lying? On the other hand, if he lied about where he was born(regardless of parents marital status) then he was first & foremost an English subject at birth due to the subsequent Treaty between the US & England where it states that children born to a father who is an English subject are English subjects at birth regardless of the soil on which they are born. And also due to the fact that under the laws in place in 1961, his mother was not old enough to transmit citizenship to a child born outside of the US proper or any of its outlying territories, his birth falls into a very precarious situation. This is where it gets murky because then does the rule of the citizenship of the mothers father come into play if the child is born out of wedlock in a foreign country? From all the study that I have done I say no because of the codified/positive law in place in 1961, so the the only way for Obama to be a US citizen at birth,let alone a natural born one, his parents must NOT have ever been legally married & then to be a natural born, he must have been born in one of the states or outlying territories of the US. Any other circumstance leaves him a naturalized citizen under the statutes in place at the time.
Now, many will disagree with me on this final conclusion, but hey, its the law of nature & law of nations that were NOT restricted by the positive law of the US in 1961 as transcribed by Vattel. From 1795 forward, the US restricted natural born to those born on US soil, but still held those born in foreign nations to be citizens as long as the child took positive action at the coming of age formalizing that citizenship if the parents & child were still residing in the foreign country. Vattel did not make the law, he merely clarified what Socrates, Aristotle, Homer, Grotius, Puffendorf & all the other enlightened philosophers on the laws of nature & nations handed down to civilized societies from the 1st codified definition of a free citizen who is NOT subject to a mater or ruler, but an equal participant in the making of laws and the governing of the society in which he holds his political rights & permanent domicil.
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.