Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

Don't believe the wiggy.

You are correct!

Natural Law: Life, Liberty, and Property was based on the philosophy of John Locke.

Locke said that if a government went against natural law and failed to protect “life, liberty, and property,” people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one.

Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson replace Locke's idea with “happiness.

It becomes Life, Liberty And the Pursuit of Happiness.

I have that already posted on my blog. It still is a great quote. “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”

John Bingham was the authur of the 14th Amendment. Or should we say - straight from the horses mouth. Unlike giggles- the horses butt.

http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/natural-born-citizen-defined/

Other Quotes:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
-Circuit Justice Swayne, in United States vs Rhodes (1866)
http://www.thecommentary.net/1861-circuit-justice-swayne-defines-na…;

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…;

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
-Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=1…;

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”

My point was that prior to the 14th and the Federal Takeover the deciding authority was the states.

If one wants to understand Citizenship one must look to the
definition set forth by the states.

The claim has been made that of the two potential sources of American citizenship law, de Vattel’s Law of Nations carries with it a “preponderance of evidence” that it was favored over English common law. The difference is fundamentally that of jus solis vs. jus sanguinis. It is uncontested that under 300 years of English common law (at the time of the Framing), anybody born on British territory was a “natural born subject” of the Crown. In contrast, de Vattel expounded the continental European model usually represented by France in which citizenship at birth was passed via the parents, particularly the father.

In support of the claim that a “preponderance of evidence” favors de Vattel, Birthers offer references in which de Vattel was cited as an authority or object of praise by Founders and Framers such as Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. Significantly, not a single one of them ever mentions citizenship. Syc1959 for example has compiled on his blog a compendium of almost 75 quotations in which de Vattel in mentioned, not all of them favorable to his opinions. But most importantly, not a single one of them even contains the word “citizen.” De Vattel was absolutely an influence on the Framers in terms of their views on sovereignty, neutrality policy, treaties and domicile. But there has not been identified a single case where any American authority has deferred to de Vattel on any issue of citizenship.

In contrast, what can we find regarding citizenship and its connection to English common law, above and beyond the fact that the phrase “natural born citizen” is itself a common law term of art? What follows is a non-inclusive list of comments covering the first 80 years of our constitutional republic made by legal authorities, jurists, lawyers and statement… people in a position to know the common understanding of the Constitutional definition of “natural born citizenship.” In each of therm, pay attention to whether they are defending the English common law jus solis or the French jus sanguinis versions of citizenship at birth.

---------------------------
James Madison, Framer, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

---------------------------
Zephaniah Swift, Member of US Congress 1793-1797 A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)

“A man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”

---------------------------
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805)

“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”

---------------------------
Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806)

“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth ; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.” “This claim of the commonwealth to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories, may subject some persons who, adhering to their former sovereign and residing within his dominions, are recognized by him as his subjects, to great inconvenience, especially in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns may claim their allegiance. But the inconvenience cannot alter the law of the land. If they return to the country of their birth, they will be protected as subjects.”

---------------------------
Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813).

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

---------------------------
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)

“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. 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.”

---------------------------
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)

“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

---------------------------
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

---------------------------
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”

---------------------------
The Law Library, Vol. 84, pg. 50 (1854)

“The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States. The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle…. But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…”

---------------------------
January 28, 1838, Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838)

“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”

---------------------------
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)

“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”

---------------------------
Andrew White Young, First lessons in Civil Government, pg. 82 (1856).

“The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

---------------------------
Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862)

“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”

---------------------------
Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

“In like manner every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born citizen ; but the power of naturalization, which, under the king, each colony had claimed to regulate by its own laws, remained under the confederacy with the separate states.”

---------------------------
George Bancroft, History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent: The American Revolution., pg. 439 (1866)

“Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.”

---------------------------
John Norton Pomeroy, Introduction to Municipal Law, pg. 419 (1865)

“As matter of law, does anybody deny here, or anywhere, that the native-born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone?”

---------------------------

There are many other such examples that can be offered, but significantly all of these quotations fall in the time between the Framing of the Constitution and the first (and only) comment by anyone of authority, Rep. John Bingham, who agrees with the Birther definition. They demonstrate an unbroken 80 years of consistent and unchallenged understanding that it was English common law and not continental European law (a la de Vattel) that defined natural born / native born / born citizenship in the Constitution of the United States of America.

The challenge I posed was this:

"Find us a single instance in that “mountain of documents” where a single one of those Founders or Framers quoted de Vattel on the issue of natural born citizenship."

In response you posted Jefferson's "A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth."

1) In that bill he never mentions de Vattel once.

2) In that bill he offers jus solis citizenhip at birth to "that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth" with no reference to the citizenship of their parents. This directly contradicts de Vattel.

3) In that bill he offers jus sanginis citizenship to the children of either a citizen mother or a citizen father. As such, he completely blows the "two citizen parents" claim out of the water.

In short, that quotation is a disaster for the Birther claim that de Vattel influenced the framers re their view of birth citizenship.

"The Constitution does not “cite” Blackstone either!"

Of course it didn't. Blackstone merely is a source to show you what English common law said. But he is not the authority. English common law is the authority.

But the Declaration of Independence does recognize Natural Law.

Well... de Vattel hardly invented the concept of "natural law." But that's neither here nor there. The Declaration is not the Constitution, and it only mentions "citizens" once without any discussion of how citizenship is obtained.

As you might recall, we are talking about Presidential eligibility, remember? The Declaration is rather irrelevant to that issue.

"Further, the Constitution does not cite the Ten Commandments or the Bible."

No surprise since so many of the framers were heretics. But is does cite common law.

“2) In that bill he offers jus solis citizenhip at birth to “that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth” with no reference to the citizenship of their parents. This directly contradicts de Vattel.”

That's a grandfather clause!
Since you cannot make a law retroactive.
(two years next before the passing of this act)

"3) In that bill he offers jus sanginis citizenship to the children of either a citizen mother or a citizen father. As such, he completely blows the “two citizen parents” claim out of the water."

If the father is DEAD.

Cant you read???

Don't bother me anymore, I will not respond to your anymore especially after you insult to Christians.

I do not suffer fools very well.

wrong; read my blog.

Are you an American citizen or an American subject?

To the best of my knowledge, the essay excerpt below has not been posted before.

It is a MUST READ for anyone who follows the Eligibility lawsuits.

It is an excerpt from one of the best-researched essays on the topic of the office of President and “Natural Born Citizen” qualification, written by Charles Gordon titled “Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma”.

It was published in 1968, during the time when then Gov. George Romney of Michigan ran for the 1968 Republican Party nomination for President. Romney was born in Mexico and had he won the GOP Nomination would have likely tested the “Natural Born Citizen” question via the legal mechanisms described by Gordon more than 40 years ago.

Undoubtedly many of the attorneys who have filed Eligibility lawsuits in the last 18 months have read Gordon’s essay, especially the lawyers going the quo warranto route.

Undoubtedly, too, many of the DNC attorneys (and now US Attorneys “protecting” the office of the President) have read Gordon’s essay, successfully threading the loopholes UP TO THIS POINT that could have stopped Obama’s DNC nomination process at the State and Federal level February through August of 2008. Reaction time was critical in the month of August 2008, when Obama’s “Certification of Life Birth” was released just one week before the DNC Convention and Speaker Pelosi signed off on Obama’s Eligibility.

Plainly put, the DNC in 2008 exploited the system via the State election laws and Boards, as well as with the DNC Nomination process, and knew EXACTLY what they were doing. The MSM's exuberance to elect the first African-American president — and the MSM's reluctance to ask realistic questions about Obama's Eligibility — made it all the easier for the DNC. Gordon’s essay may have even been the primer for the DNC strategy to push past Obama’s Eligibility questions, as Gordon's essay is the only one on this topic that offers quo warranto as a legal remedy. Undoubtedly too, the DNC’s decision for Obama to be the first major Presidential candidate NOT use Presidential Election Campaign Fund dollars – thereby avoiding a later FEC investigation – was also part of a strategy to go around built-in Checks and Balances regarding Presidential Eligibility.

Not all legal strategies to challenge Obama's Eligibility are contained within 1968 Gordon’s essay, but beyond the Constitutional question (and crisis) of what is a “Natural Born Citizen” in the sense of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 lies the difficulties vexing Eligibility attorneys — particularly Legal Standing. Judge Carter in last fall's "Barnett v. Obama" was actually very helpful in this regard, despite his inability to rule on the case. The are other avenues, such as couple of lesser-known cases in the 9th Circuit, as well as numerous other strategies that shall not be discussed publicly, offer other alternatives.

With the dozens of Eligibility lawsuits in the system at various levels, some discontinued but many moving up the legal food chain, each new case probes Obama’s Eligibility question from a slightly different angle. A success via a “death by a thousand papercuts” is inevitable … at least one lawsuit will break through to acquire Legal Standing and successfully challenge on the Merits of Obama’s status as a “Natural Born Citizen” at the Federal level.

Here’s the excerpt, with my emphasis added to highlight the important sections:

There remains the traditional method of construing the Constitution
through a ruling of the federal courts. Under the Constitution,
those courts exercise judicial power which extends “to all Cases, in
Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.” However, until
an actual controversy develops there is no possibility of obtaining a
ruling by the federal courts. Those courts have always interpreted
their constitutional mandate as precluding the rendering of advisory
opinions. And they have not regarded this limitation as modified
by the statutory authority for declaratory judgments. The statute restricts
such declaratory judgments to cases of “actual controversy.”
This authorization has been read somewhat restrictively, and declaratory
relief has usually been granted only to one actually threatened with
sanctions or with imminent impairment of status or of personal or
property rights.

Thus, the alternative has been for those who aspire to the Presidency
to press their candidacy in the belief that citizenship acquired
at birth abroad qualifies them as natural-born citizens. Since no such
candidacy has until now developed beyond the speculative stage, there
has not yet been any occasion to test this belief. Such a test could
have developed when the candidacy of Governor Romney was being
actively pressed. Now that he has withdrawn from the presidential
contest, a test will be deferred until some future candidate in a similar
situation pursues his candidacy to the advanced stage of a preference primary
or an election ballot. I shall not attempt to chart in detail all the
possible avenues which could be explored in seeking such a test. However,
a few major routes are readily apparent.

The election mechanisms established by the various states may
provide the initial opportunity for obtaining a judicial ruling. Every
state has an election board or officer to supervise the election process.
Contests could develop at two stages in that process. In the first place,
some states now provide for a presidential preference primary to
select delegates to the national nominating conventions of the major
political parties. Often, it is necessary to file petitions for delegates
committed to a particular candidate. A state election board usually
can pass on the eligibility of one who seeks to appear on the ballot.
Its ruling for or against the qualifications of a particular candidate can
be challenged in the state's courts. The books are full of state cases
involving disputes as to various aspects of primary elections. And
in recent years the federal courts have underscored their interest in the
federal constitutional aspects of state elections, even when they only
concern party primaries. Indeed, a number of statutes implement the
authority of federal courts to intervene in election disputes where
deprivation of rights is alleged.

Since interpretation of the presidential qualification clause involves
a federal constitutional question, such an issue would unquestionably
wind up in the federal courts, either by an initial suit in such
courts, by removal of actions commenced in state courts, or by
Supreme Court review of a state court's decision. And it is not
inconceivable that a candidate, as well as the party apparatus itself,
might encourage an administrative ruling at the state level in order to
justify a “friendly” suit seeking a judicial pronouncement. Indeed,
an adverse ruling would be an obvious predicate for a declaratory judgment
suit in the federal courts.

If a judicial determination can be obtained, an early presentation of
the issue in connection with a primary election would be desirable. If
there is no judicial intervention at that level, the likelihood of a
judicial ruling doubtlessly would diminish. It would still be possible, of
course, to challenge the qualifications of a party's nominee through various
state remedies seeking to strike his name from the ballot in particular states.

But once a major party becomes committed to a Presidential candidate,
the stakes become so momentous that the courts
might hesitate to intervene. Nevertheless the possibility of a judicial
contest at this stage of the election process cannot be discounted. There
is no certainty that the Supreme Court, in its present activist mood,
would shrink from entering what some may regard as a “political
thicket” to decide any controversy, merely because the decision will have
far-reaching consequences. Therefore it is conceivable that a judicial
holding might be obtained, particularly if it is favorable to the candidate.

Finally, it may develop that there has been no judicial determination and
that a person with the disputed qualifications is actually elected
President. Some ingenious soul might resort to judicial proceedings
to restrain the electoral college from voting or to block the new President's
induction, but it hardly seems likely that such an effort would
be seriously regarded. More significant is the possibility that after
the new President takes office someone may seek to oust him through
the ancient writ of quo warranto - challenging an office holder's right
to his office - or its modern equivalents. Although it has no specific
statutory sanction, such a writ is still recognized in federal practice.
But at this stage of the election process, the possibility of a judicial
expression is so remote as to be virtually nonexistent. In the first place,
a person seeking to launch such a contest would have to overcome the
seemingly insuperable hurdle of legal standing to sue. In the federal
practice his lack of direct interest would seem fatal. More importantly,
an effort to vitiate the free choice of the American people in electing
a President would entail the gravest consequences to the national
security and order and to the balance of authority in our scheme of
government. Although courts have adjudicated controversies involving
titles to governorships and other high offices, it seems likely that at
this stage the federal courts would regard it as the type of political
controversy in which they should not intercede. Another possible,
but far-fetched, line of attack might seek to challenge the validity of laws
enacted over such a President's signature.

It is quite possible, of course, that the courts might find the issue
political and nonjusticiable at any milestone of consideration. However,
the climate for obtaining judicial guidance would be infinitely better if
such a ruling is solicited at the earliest stages of the electoral process,
before an overpowering national interest for stability has developed.

In the end, I personally can see no other alternative than for the Courts to decide this, as Congress is too partisan to seriously tackle this question. Despite nearly 30 attempts by Congress to legally define or otherwise alter the interpreted meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" since the 1870s, no Bills have ever made it to the floor for an actual full Congressional vote.

gigglePuff;

Gotta admit your spin it something;

For example and I will use this mis-quote of yours;

James Madison, Framer,
The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

The children born of aliens [non-citizens] retain their parents condition, as natural born subjects, and as subjects retain all the rights of subjects - NOT Natural Born Citizens. Again trying to equate a subject to a Natural born citizen.

Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805)

“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born,

Barack Hussein Obama, was not under sole and complete United States jurisdiction, he was under British jurisdiction and law. BHO- admitted.

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.”

Wea re not talking about prior to the adoption of the Constitution are we?

St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries (1803)

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.

Note again; subjects at birth, not citizens.

The Law Library, Vol. 84, pg. 50 (1854)

“But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…”

Again, attempting to use foreign law, still a subject and not a citizen.

I like this one the best - giggles

John Norton Pomeroy, Introduction to Municipal Law, pg. 419 (1865)

“As matter of law, does anybody deny here, or anywhere, that the native-born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone?”

NATIVE - NOT NATURAL BORN.

No surprise since so many of the framers were heretics.

You're a sick, demented bastard...go climb back under whatever slim covered rock from which you emerged.

My guess would be DUmmieland, Kos, or underneath Obama's, Rahms's or Axlerod's desk, or perhaps all of the above..

Bump.

Thanks, Dave.

By the end of today this thread should hit 1,000 posts!

Ron;

giggles can’t climb, he can only crawl on his belly and slither in shi$. Maybe he’s wallowing in some ‘Obama’

get out that prayer rug - giggles, time to pay homage

Maybe he’s wallowing in some ‘Obama’

LOL....I have to give you guys kudo's for your patience and tenacity with the fool wiggie.

He wore me out a long time ago, the dude's a spinning top.

Haha!

I love you Dave!

“You Can Lead an Obot to Evidence but You Can’t Make Him Think,”

The only chance they have is to get off their med’s.

> He wore me out a long time ago, the dude's a spinning top.

Note, however, that it's just ONE dude — EnderWiggins.

Normally the “FR After-Birther Team” and a squad of wannabe Legal Assistants from Politijab are swarming hard-hitting Eligibility threads like this one.

... and yet EnderWiggins has been the only one standing lone vigil ...

It's testament to two things:

1) the Lefties believe that those who rightly and smartly question Obama’s Eligibility will aid in the splintering between the Conservative in November — VERY FALSE.

2) the Lefties are ABANDONING Obama because they are realizing in greater and greater numbers that Obama’s even lying to them — VERY TRUE!

It's hard for them to mount an After-Birther offensive when there just aren't that many Progressives who give a damn about Obama after he's broken so many promises to them! Obama's not their Messiah ... only a pariah.

Now ... some punch-drinkers like EnderWiggins are die-hards with not a scintilla of survival instinct. However, just like heaps of garbage, Obama will abandon the die-hards like EnderWiggins that defend him ... just like Obama has thrown countless others under the bus in his political past when it's politically-expedient for Obama to do so.

And now for some of my totally undocumentable voter polling on this fascinating subject:

(1)About 20% of all living Americans are presently capable of understanding that the Amazing Birth could have taken place in Hawaii, or on top of the Washington Monument at High Noon on the 4th of July, and one Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. could still never be, or become, a "Natural Born Citizen" of the USA, as required by Art. II of the Constitution, because the man he claims as his father was not an American Citizen. Why? Well because legal tradition holds that a "Natural Born Citizen" has two American Citizen parents. This fact is well known to BHO, Jr., and to prove it, he never claims to be a "Natural Born Citizen." All he claims is "Native Birth." BHO, Jr.'s handlers know that the difference between the words "Natural," and "Native," is now beyond the scope of understanding of most Americans under 70 years of age.

(2) About 35% of all living Americans don't really give a rat's rectum if our POTUS is eligible or not, and know far more about Brittany Spear's muffin top than they will ever know about George Washington, the location of Washington DC, the Constitution, or long division.

(3) About another 30% of Americans are actually OK with the guy as POTUS because they love watching black people say really nutty things on TV. Oprah, Obama. Whatever.

(3) 10% are illegal aliens and will vote for whomsoever they are told, or where ACORN delivers their multiple absentee ballots, for fear of losing ACORN-brokered welfare benefits, sweetheart mortgage deals, or SBA Loans.

(4) The remaining 5% (If you are counting Philadelphia voters that total percentage is allowed to be higher) believe that once our POTUS is proven ineligible, he will be so mortified, and Congress so shocked, shocked I tell you, that he will resign, or be immediately impeached and convicted. It is for this 5% that I have the deepest sympathy.

OBTW, of course it will eventually be shown that BHO, Jr. is ineligible to run for, or hold the office of POTUS. This will happen when he is a grandfather and again working as a Marxist Community Organizer, in Chavez City, Venezuela.