Posted on 04/25/2011 1:33:23 AM PDT by Veristhorne
(Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.
Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.
First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.
Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .
The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, .
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
I believe that’s the way it is. “Bamsters” mom was a US citizen. He was born out of wedlock. The rules at the time of his birth make him a citizen of the US. Just because he’s a citizen does not change the fact that he is a lousy president. On a related point, I think we should clarify the law so that just being born on US soil does NOT make you a citizen (anchor babies).
That would go a long way in explaining the phony SS#.
Pass himself off as a citizen of whatever country suited his needs.
US, British, Kenyan, or Indonesian citizenship, whichever suites his needs at any given time.
There are numerous long threads on FR that prove without any doubt that in order to be a NBC a child must have both - citizen parents and be born on US soil.
Please educate yourself on the matter.
On last count, Obama had a citizenship for at least four different continents, although the one in the U.S. is the least well-documented.
No, I've seen people repeatedly assert that, but unverified assertions are NOT proof.
Please educate yourself on the matter.
Since you consider yourself so knowledgeable, why don't you do more than just talk and SHOW me?
-----
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him;
Law of Nations Emmerich de Vattel / CHAP. XIX.
Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It
From what I’ve read, he’s lost or renounced his citizenship in all four.
Like every other record that’s missing in Obama’s life, there are no records of him renouncing his foreign citizenships.
I’m not a researcher. Do a search for bushpilot1 and rxsid and read their research. They’ve proven without a doubt the original meaning and intent of NBC. I’ve read up, you can too. Your quote relates to citizenship only, not natural born citizenship.
Just do a search on their names, there are quite a few very long threads filled with references and sources and they prove their case excellently.
According to your very words, by quoting Vattel, you have shown that Baracks citizenship should “follow the condition of their fathers”...
His father was a British subject.
Barack was not then, and can never be, a natural born citizen of the United States.
By your very words.
WKA was about citizenship. The winning side used the NBC clause to show that WKA met the criteria, and thus was a citizen, since a NBC must also be a citizen. That was half the decision.
You can ignore that half if you wish, but no court will.
“Obama, on the other hand, had a mother that was to young to confer citizenship...”
That is so grossly far from the truth that it is embarrassing. There is no age requirement for mothers giving birth in the USA for citizenship. What we had was an American citizen, giving birth in Hawaii, with a father who was here legally for some years, and who abandoned the mother and baby about the time the baby was born - and you claim the baby received UK citizenship thru the father...not even close.
“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...
...Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:
It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects...
...Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth...
...That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution...”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
You should also know that native citizen and natural born citizen were often used interchangeably:
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
Mama Texan’s citations are accurate. The term NBC is originally based on the following the citizenship of the father.
I disagree. After having read much of rxsid’s and bushpilot’s research, it’s clear what the original meaning was, both soil and parentage.
Vattel does not determine US law. Also, Vattel was commenting on common practices of various nations, and noted that England - which the US was part of in 1758 - had different practices.
And Vattel never wrote ‘natural born citizen’, which would have been “sujets naturel” in the French, or ‘natural born subject’ in an English translation. Nor did it appear in any translation of Vattel until 10 years after the Constitution - so it is simply false to say Vattel provided a definition of NBC. He never, ever wrote on the subject!
Vattel is sufficient enough authority to have been cited by the United States Supreme Court dozens, if not scores of times.
33.US.495
33.US.491
39.US.210
136.US.479
39.US.540
92.US.130
I could go on and on and keep typing, but will spare you the details, there are about 20 more on my search results list, and I stopped the search before it was done.
I have all of US Reports up to about 2003 on my laptop.
He renounced his citizenship in Kenya and Indonesia simply by not living in the country for a certain number of years.
Indonesia, from what I've read, does not allow dual citizenship so he would have had to formally reclaim his US citizenship on turning 18 IIRC. Apparently there was never a formal request to regain his US citizenship.
So apparently he isn't a citizen of any country.
It doesn’t require any great deal of research. Vattel is very plain:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
Vattel pointed out that Britain naturalized the children of foreigners at birth. Barry may or may not have been naturalized at birth, but if the father of record was British, he is not a natural born citizen.
Nor did it appear in any translation of Vattel until 10 years after the Constitution
Have you personally consulted the 1787 New York edition at the Library of Congress or elsewhere? http://lccn.loc.gov/41038703 . If your answer is no, I urge you to cease posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.
I’m not lying. It is a fact, and birthers agree it is true.
“The original French-language version of Vattel’s Law of Nations contained this sentence:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, font ceux qui font nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens. (Des citoyens et naturels)
The first English translation of Law of Nations, published in 1759, rendered the above sentence as:
The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
These words were quoted, verbatim, by the Supreme Court in The Venus case (1814).
In an updated English translation published in 1797, the word “indigenes” was changed to “natural born citizens”:
The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. (Vattel, §212)”
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
That is a birther web site. He goes on to claim “indigenes” can be translated NBC, although in reality it is the same as the English ‘indigenous’...and the REAL equivalent phrase is “sujets naturels”.
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#fn22
Have you personally consulted the 1787 New York edition at the Library of Congress or elsewhere? http://lccn.loc.gov/41038703 . Since it seems your answer is no, I urge you to cease posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.
Golly...I haven’t traveled to Washington to confirm what everyone agrees to.
Do you have a copy of the 1787 edition that you can photograph (and verify its authenticity), since you are claiming what no one else claims? I thought not...
And the phrase never occurs in the French. Ever.
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.