Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY Times 1859 Natural Born Citizen as Defined By The US Administration
NY Times Archives ^ | Summer 1859 | NY Times

Posted on 03/18/2011 8:38:52 PM PDT by patlin

1859 Official Opinion of US Admin

1859 Opinion of US Admin

1859 Opinion of US Attorney General

1859 Opinion of US Attorney General

(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com ...


TOPICS: Education; Government; History; Reference
KEYWORDS: certifigate; constitution; immigration; march2011; naturalborncitizen; naturalization
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last
This findings back up the current article I posted yesterday
1 posted on 03/18/2011 8:38:57 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1; STARWISE; rxsid; Red Steel; edge919; Spaulding; Danae; Fred Nerks; Beckwith; ...
"PING"

for historical reference that backs my latest article

2 posted on 03/18/2011 8:40:53 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patlin

And, then you have ones like Obama, who appears to hold no allegiance to any nation, save him and his globalist pals.

What are we to do with ones like Obama, or whatever his name is, who appears to be bent on destroying the very nation that “elected” him?


3 posted on 03/18/2011 8:47:32 PM PDT by WXRGina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mears

bfl


4 posted on 03/18/2011 8:47:52 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Great research!

Thanks patlin!

STE=Q


5 posted on 03/18/2011 8:49:44 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina
I don't know what it is going to do to Obama, but it gives us ammunition to take to the streets for the 2012 election as well as the pending legislation in Congress regarding birthright citizenship
6 posted on 03/18/2011 8:50:55 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
YW
7 posted on 03/18/2011 8:51:59 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

Glad to see “elected” in quotes...

His puppetmaster BOUGHT him the office.


8 posted on 03/18/2011 8:52:24 PM PDT by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: patlin

the problem is that our current government feels that the constitution is a living constitution and should evolve with the current events. obama and his supporters don’t believe that that the “old”constitution is valid. Their new version says whatever they want it to say.


9 posted on 03/18/2011 8:59:12 PM PDT by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Just the opposite. This passage is very much in support of birthright citizenship.

Look, Obama isn’t a citizen and hasn’t been willing to show his documentation. Why would we tie a home run issue to a loser issue?


10 posted on 03/18/2011 9:18:36 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong. - Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

Rome wasn’t built in a day. Correcting injustices takes time so don’t lose the faith.


11 posted on 03/18/2011 9:19:23 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
This passage is very much in support of birthright citizenship

I don't know what you are smoking but these opinions of the US Administration in 1859 do no such thing. Obama at his birth owed fealty to a foreign sovereign and that in itself disqualified him from even native-born status according to these official releases.

12 posted on 03/18/2011 9:26:13 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Just find Obummer`s old driver`s licenses, coz he needed a birth certificate to get a driver`s license- so a copy of the birth cerificate will be in the DMV archives by law.


13 posted on 03/18/2011 9:33:21 PM PDT by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

I don’t need a birth certificate. Obama has already admitted that he was British at birth and that alone disqualified him. We need to stick to the real constitutional issue instead of going off on a wild goose chase as Hinmann did going after Chester Arthur in 1880.


14 posted on 03/18/2011 9:37:48 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: patlin

The NYT, Freepers, nor the American electorate have “standing”. So all birthers and truth-seekers are universally told, in eloquent ways or otherwise, to STFU from all quarters.


15 posted on 03/18/2011 9:37:55 PM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patlin; LucyT; David; BP2

Looks like something that should be added to the master file.


16 posted on 03/18/2011 9:43:49 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Apropos of nothing:

In today’s NYT Xword was the clue: “Ulysses S. Grant was its eighth pres.” 3 letters. Think hard ...


17 posted on 03/18/2011 9:49:21 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew

... NRA


18 posted on 03/18/2011 9:49:57 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: patlin; warsaw44; ColdOne; Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!; GQuagmire; wintertime; Fred Nerks; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

NY Times 1859 Natural Born Citizen as Defined By The US Administration

. . . . . See # 1 , then check out the article.

Thanks, patlin.

19 posted on 03/18/2011 9:51:19 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: patlin
he was British at birth and that alone disqualified him

Yup. That's all that matters.

Millions of people in this country don't have that problem, and this is the only place they have.

We could have found a President from just about any of them, instead of this foreigner.

20 posted on 03/18/2011 9:51:57 PM PDT by Regulator (Watch Out! Americans are on the March! America Forever, Mexico Never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: patlin; All

This goes hand in hand with this exact writing! You have to read it!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2690317/posts


21 posted on 03/18/2011 9:52:27 PM PDT by jcsjcm (This country was built on exceptionalism and individualism. In God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patlin
Obama has already admitted that he was British at birth and that alone disqualified him. We need to stick to the real constitutional issue instead of going off on a wild goose chase as Hinmann did going after Chester Arthur in 1880.

This Regime has never been constrained by truth. We don't know who those are who press to follow a path proved to have no facts when Obama himself has told us he is a 14th Amendment citizen, naturalized because citizens are either natural or naturalized, not a natural born Citizen. His cadre has an enormous advantage in their control of the the mainstream media. Explaining the historical and legal truth isn't easy, but you Patlin are showing discipline by keeping it simple. We don't know how many of those who keep redirecting the eligibility discussion to birth certificates are trolls.

A birth certificate, even one from Hawaii, does not change the nationality of Obama’s father, and retrospectively making Obama Sr. a U.S. citizen is the only way Barry is eligible. We need to keep explaining this fact until it is understood by all who do care about our Constitution. The rest will always place party politics a race above individual freedom, and above the Constitution.

22 posted on 03/18/2011 10:20:46 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: patlin

bump


23 posted on 03/18/2011 10:23:37 PM PDT by RightGeek (FUBO and the donkey you rode in on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

This Regime has never been constrained by truth. We don’t know who those are who press to follow a path proved to have no facts when Obama himself has told us he is a 14th Amendment citizen, naturalized because citizens are either natural or naturalized, not a natural born Citizen. His cadre has an enormous advantage in their control of the the mainstream media. Explaining the historical and legal truth isn’t easy, but you Patlin are showing discipline by keeping it simple. We don’t know how many of those who keep redirecting the eligibility discussion to birth certificates are trolls.

A birth certificate, even one from Hawaii, does not change the nationality of Obama’s father, and retrospectively making Obama Sr. a U.S. citizen is the only way Barry is eligible. We need to keep explaining this fact until it is understood by all who do care about our Constitution. The rest will always place party politics a race above individual freedom, and above the Constitution.


However there are real world court decisions on the other side of the issue that must be contended with.
“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”
Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels November 12, 2009.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Quoted in the 1898 US Supreme Court’s US v Wong Kim Ark decision, “Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “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.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461 (quoting Inglis, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)). The Court also cited Justice Curtis’s dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856):


24 posted on 03/18/2011 10:45:11 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: patlin

I still don’t see why being born C-Section should disqualify someone from being president.


25 posted on 03/18/2011 10:47:52 PM PDT by wolfman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding; patlin; Red Steel; rxsid
State of Europe.. America: laying the foundation of a great empire Photobucket
26 posted on 03/18/2011 10:48:49 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
but you Patlin are showing discipline by keeping it simple

“KISS” is my motto. It's also just plain common sense as stated by Justice Story in his Rules for Constitutional Interpretation. I found his works in early 2009 & have lived by them since when researching the history & interpretation of the 14th which “DOES” give us the meaning of Article II natural born. Donofrio & Mario disagree with me, but then they have been bogged down by their lawyer degrees. As Justice Story said in that commentary:

§ 210. XV. In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.

27 posted on 03/18/2011 10:52:29 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: patlin

We done been “deluded and snared”!


28 posted on 03/18/2011 10:55:04 PM PDT by HardStarboard (I'm sure George and Dick had quiet smiles while watching the election results!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
jameseeeee, you are SOOOOO out of you league, but if you insist on posting then it shall be our duty to keep laughing at you.
29 posted on 03/18/2011 11:02:47 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: patlin

We could use a few “new” Justices Story these days. Brilliant clarity of mind!!


30 posted on 03/18/2011 11:03:12 PM PDT by HardStarboard (I'm sure George and Dick had quiet smiles while watching the election results!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: plsjr

ping


31 posted on 03/19/2011 1:42:01 AM PDT by plsjr (<>< ... http://NewSpring.cc/webservice - check it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Terrific research. Thank you.

I haven’t been following this very much so please forgive my naivety... I was born in Europe and my husband was born here as was our daughter. Is she eligible to be president?


32 posted on 03/19/2011 2:43:02 AM PDT by bronxville (if science disagrees with the Bible, it means that science hasn't caught up w/ all the facts yet..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: patlin

I liked this post so much..it is the reason I am sipping my second bottle of wine..

The first was a Alexis Lichine Merlot 2008..the second an Abruzzo something..both very cheap..

I sit here..how in the heck was he elected..the only conclusion is ignorance..

Ignorance opens the dark door to tyranny.


33 posted on 03/19/2011 2:46:00 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

1) He was British by his birth - from his Father’s citizenship.
2) He was Indonesian by adoption - from his Mother’s subsequent Husband.
3) While an adult (in college, grad school) he identified himself as a foreign student (implied by limited information known about this time of his life).
4) While an adult, he traveled under a non-US passport to a country (Pakistan) which banned US travelers at that time. (surmised, not proven)

Given these disqualifying issues, it is irrelevant where (Hawaii, Washington State, Canada, Kenya) he was born. Mr. Barry Sotero is not a Natural Born Citizen.


34 posted on 03/19/2011 3:46:35 AM PDT by mason-dixon (As Mason said to Dixon, you have to draw the line somewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mason-dixon

1) He was British by his birth - from his Father’s citizenship.
2) He was Indonesian by adoption - from his Mother’s subsequent Husband.
3) While an adult (in college, grad school) he identified himself as a foreign student (implied by limited information known about this time of his life).
4) While an adult, he traveled under a non-US passport to a country (Pakistan) which banned US travelers at that time. (surmised, not proven)

Given these disqualifying issues, it is irrelevant where (Hawaii, Washington State, Canada, Kenya) he was born. Mr. Barry Sotero is not a Natural Born Citizen.

________________________________________________________________________

Outstanding!

++++!!!!

The BC/COLB/Place of birth are not relevant. When Rudy Giliani says “he was born in the country”. The response needs to be - so what, what about jus sanguini.

The next round of billboards just need to say this:

“jus sanguini

Translantion: Born a Brit, ain’t legit.”


35 posted on 03/19/2011 6:02:13 AM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: bronxville
I was born in Europe and my husband was born here as was our daughter. Is she eligible to be president?

If you were naturalized before your daughter's birth, the answer is yes.

A NBC is a person born on US soil of TWO citizen parentS.

0b0z0 didn't meet this condition by his own admission that his father, the roaming Communist vagabond BO Sr., was a Kenyan/British citizen! Assuming that that was his REAL father.

36 posted on 03/19/2011 6:56:14 AM PDT by melancholy (Papa Alinsky, Enslavement Specialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: patlin

The Kenyan never was, is, nor ever will be eligible to hold the office of the POTUS. The other two branches are spitting on the Constitution, our founding fathers, and every US citizen.


37 posted on 03/19/2011 6:58:25 AM PDT by bgill (Kenyan Parliament - how could a man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
the second an Abruzzo something..both very cheap..

Correction:

the second an Abruzzo 0b0z0 something..both very cheap.. no known origin.

38 posted on 03/19/2011 7:02:12 AM PDT by melancholy (Papa Alinsky, Enslavement Specialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bronxville
I haven’t been following this very much so please forgive my naivety... I was born in Europe and my husband was born here as was our daughter. Is she eligible to be president?

Was she born on US soil & were you a naturalized US citizen when she was born? If the answer to both is “yes’, then yes she is eligible.

Now, had the feminist movement and progressivism not messed with the tried & TRUE from time immemorial natural law doctrine of the family unit that our founding fathers adopted, where in the wife & all children born into that marriage follow the nationality of the father, the world would be a better place and people wouldn't be paying for all these legal against the US Govt from legal & illegal aliens. This issue costs us taxpayers over a 100 billion dollars a year. A cost we need to cut immediately & get back to enforcing our founding principles of citizenship by consent.

39 posted on 03/19/2011 7:22:31 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
I liked this post so much..it is the reason I am sipping my second bottle of wine...The first was a Alexis Lichine Merlot 2008..the second an Abruzzo something..both very cheap..

OMG, that was at 4 in the morning, I would have been under the table hours ago!

40 posted on 03/19/2011 7:25:49 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: patlin
The article is not defining what a native citizen and naturalized citizen are; rather, it is delineating what rights these groups have, particularly in regards to international law. The relevant case involves a Prussian man who emigrated to the United States, leaving behind his military obligations in his home country. The Attorney General's argument is that, being expatriated and naturalized as a U.S. citizen, he has no obligations to the country where he was born (birthright citizenship, here, is taken for granted, by the way).

Here's a link to the full story if you want to read it (click on the PDF):

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10915FB34551B7493CAA8178CD85F4D8584F9

41 posted on 03/19/2011 7:35:45 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bronxville

“Is she eligible to be president?”

Yes. That is why McCain, Palin, the RNC and every state GOP refused to challenge Obama based on his father. If you were in the US with the permission of the government, and your child was born here, she is a natural born citizen.

The issue was discussed at length by the Supreme Court long before Obama was born:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

Many birthers try to add an extra requirement that you both be US citizens at the time of birth, but that wasn’t English law in the colonies, and it didn’t become US law after our independence. Natural born citizen was a legal phrase used in the Constitution by the Founders. It had an established meaning at the time the Constitution was written.


42 posted on 03/19/2011 7:45:28 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
The article is not defining what a native citizen and naturalized citizen...

Another troll who does not know what it claims to speak of. The articles state, and I quote:

Naturalization Question: Attorney General Black’s Opinion Upon Expatriation and Naturalization
New York Times
Published: July 20, 1859

[H]ere none but a native can be President…A Native and a Naturalized American can go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under heaven, including the country in which the latter was born…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the government of the United States…One of the never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization, solemnly and rightfully, in pursuance of public law and municipal regulations, threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. [end quote]

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0C13FB34551B7493C2AB178CD85F4D8584F9

THE NATURALIZATION QUESTION.; THE POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION DEFINED. Important Official Paper.
New York Times
Published: July 15, 1859

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60C14FB34551B7493C7A8178CD85F4D8584F9

This release from the Executive Office reads the same. Native, native-born & natural-born are used synonymously and once the immigrate absolutely & entirely abjures and renounces all foreign fidelity, thereby owing direct and absolute allegiance exclusively to the United States, he stands on the same ground as the former with the exception of being president as stated in the corresponding release from the US Administration.

“Subject to the jurisdiction” means “Exclusive allegiance to the United States, one at birth and the other upon naturalization”. Period. But then again, I wouldn't expect the logic of a troll to conclude anything different than: "The 1859 DOJ issued two different conclusions in the very same case and had them printed in the public domain within 5 days of each other."


43 posted on 03/19/2011 8:31:08 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Still got your head stuck up the horses arse so all you can do is obfuscate I see.


44 posted on 03/19/2011 8:33:50 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Natural born citizen was a legal phrase used in the Constitution by the Founders. It had an established meaning at the time the Constitution was written.

That established meaning being someone who was born domestically to citizen parents .

You should stop lying about this.

45 posted on 03/19/2011 8:43:42 AM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The lies keep coming.

Everyone who could have address this was put on notice with Hillaries head on the stick during primaries.

The understanding is clear. Your parents (both) and especially your father must be citizens at the time of your birth.

jus sanguinis is the stronger of the two elements of natural born Citizens.

This was obvious in the first Immigration Act of 1790. The act indicated that those born of US parents (note it says parents (plural)) were considered as (note: considered as, not ARE) natural born Citizens (note: the precise match to the Article phrase).

In 1790 the law that jus sanguinis trumped jus soli in regards to being considered a natural born citizen.

This phrase was later removed. Maybe after some thought it was determined that the jus soli requirement was required.

There are those that say this is settled law (as here) and say it is settled indicating that almost anyone is eligible to be president. There are those that say it is completely unsettled law and that is stil needs to be defined.

Both are false.

The intent is clear - a strong check against foreign influence for the highest office of the land. Thus, only natural Citizens who were natural Citizens from birth (’natural born Citizens’) are eligible.

If your father is not a citizen of any country in the world then you are not a natural citizen. This is natural (”universal”) law.

To be a patriot you have be one loyal to ... your FATHERS land. This is the meaning of patriot.

There are active attempt to scrub the intent and meaning of our laws from the web and from legal rulings. Leo Donofrio captures this well.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/irli-got-some-splainin-to-do/


46 posted on 03/19/2011 8:45:12 AM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen. obama was the child of an alien father,and if he was born in Hawaii is a citizen, but as quoted in WONG KIM Ark is not a Natural Born citizen. read Wong KIm Ark before posting information concerning it.


47 posted on 03/19/2011 8:48:52 AM PDT by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
-- I sit here..how in the heck was he elected..the only conclusion is ignorance. --

I think in the case of some Senators and Reps, who have the duty to monitor the results of the electoral college, one has to conclude there is a conscious rejection of the principle stated in the constitution.

See too, walking all over the Commerce Clause. How many people in the US Congress object to that particular overreach?

48 posted on 03/19/2011 8:58:32 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: patlin
-- "Subject to the jurisdiction" means "Exclusive allegiance to the United States ..." --

Yep. And it is that phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction," that has been construed (incorrectly, as far as I can tell) as meaning something tantamount to "can be arrested in the US" or "has to obey speed limits like everybody else here."

The construction applied in the Wong Kim Ark case is that if a person doesn't have absolute immunity from US law (i.e., is a diplomat), then they are subject to the jurisdiction, and therefore, citizenship of children, of course, naturally follows, regardless of where the parents national allegiance lies.

The One Worlders, and Congress is full of them, are anxious to eliminate nationalism and national pride. We're all citizens of the earth.

49 posted on 03/19/2011 9:06:08 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: patlin

I agree with that. Obama wasn’t born in this country though, so I’m not seeing what it has to do with birthright citizenship.


50 posted on 03/19/2011 9:19:02 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong. - Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson