Posted on 02/07/2012 1:50:19 PM PST by edge919
A lot of people, such as yourself, are blissful in their ignorance. I’m here to educate and with you, I’ll take all the time that’s needed.
As long as we can disagree in a civil manner, I’ve got no problem with that.
This is fascinating. Someone who specializes in hit-and-run, snarky, deflective posts insists on a “civil manner”??? Really???
You wobbly attempts remind me of that pig, Bob Beckel. Is that you, Bob?
Leo Donofrio, Esq. has a different take on the British common law as it relates to the US Constitution:
There is a fundamental distinction between natural law in the international community, and natural law under the English common law.
Our Constitution forbids the establishment of religion, while respecting the rights of all persons to worship God or nature as they like. The English common law is in direct polar opposition to our Constitution, in that infidels were considered enemies of the state. In Calvins Case, which is universally recognized as having established the English common law with regard to the jus soli rule, the decision makes it perfectly clear that the English common law presumed infidels would never be converted to Christianity, and it specifically states that they are subjects of devils.
Hence, one could be born on English soil, in the Kings castle even, to parents who loved the King, but if the parents werent Christian, they could not be natural-born subjects. Instead, they were considered enemies of the King, because they refused to believe that the King was Gods monarch on Earth. This is not natural law to anyone who wasnt Christian.
The English common laws uniquely Christian definition of natural law governs the English common law concept of natural subjection/natural allegiance. And that is why the English common law definition of natural-born subject can never be judicially recognized as synonymous with natural-born citizen. Such a construction of Article 2, Section 1, would be directly repugnant to the 1st Amendment.
Also, I cannot find the term natural born anywhere in the 14th amendment. Can you point it out to me?
I guess if you start with a misreading of the words, any analogy you come up with is likely to be flawed. That you deny or can't see the flaw doesn't surprise me. Carry on.
Perhaps you have a point.
I shall tone the sarcasm down.
It's already been proven that state and U.S. citizenship laws contradicted British common law in several instances (e.g., not all Black and Native American children born in the U.S. were provided birthright citizenship until the late 19th century at the earliest). And as far as the 14th Amendment I'll refer you to what the drafters, the Senate Judiciary Committee, say it means:
"The provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. That means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."Congressional Globe
We all know Obama owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth. The DNC openly admitted Obama's citizenship status is governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 because of his non-U.S. citizen father. The only conclusion we can draw from your claims otherwise is either that you're willfully choosing to remain ignorant, or you're deliberately spreading disinformation to cover for a Constitutionally ineligible president.
I guess if you accuse other people of misreading words, then any analogy you don't like can be incorrectly dismissed as flawed. That you deny or can't see that there's no flaw doesn't surprise me. Carry on.
It is certain that Kleon made more in his own mind of his reply’s force of logical weight than any other sentient being would be able to. The reason is indeed the “14th”, in its actual wording and in its recorded contemporaneous legislative intent.
Yet I must tender an affection to your good riposte to his reply. That is one must consider how and who establishes by what rules or customs it is determined that one “owes allegiance”.
In Obama's case, the Democratic National Committee already gave us the answer to that on their Fight The Smears website: The British Nationality Act of 1948.
British Nationality Act, 1948
Allegiance is the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to their respective sovereign or government.
Thanks!
I have the official Natural Law and British common law (by way of suggestion from Blackstone) reason ready to go. But I’m a sandbagger in this instant discussion, I’ll wait in the shadows for another reply and then “wack!”
"Ha Ha I'm an Illogical bore", these are the two sentences. How many shots did it take to make them the same for you?.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
Some authorities go further and include as Natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
Some authorities go further and include as Natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
Yesh...
That shirtenly does worksh...
I like this game, Ma River! I won’t be able to play tonight, since I have to work tomorrow; and I’m out of Jameson, so I hope Jim Beam rye will do. I’ll work on those two, while you work on these:
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
“Only these were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
For a bonus round, try these:
“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of two parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
You got it La La Boglical!!! Check it out !!! The Jim Beam Rye is even better!!! I can take two sentence with completely different meaning and they are now the same!!!
Ruth Bladder Gutsberg must be reading with shots of Jim Beam!!! I finaly understand the modern constitionalist!!!
And my mortgage has droppd from 1000 a month to 100 a month, and my girlfriend is actualy my wife!!
These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Among a variety of others classes, these were also natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
For a bonus round, try these:
...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of a parent who was a citizen became themselves, upon their birth, a citizen also.
Interesting because AFAIK, "without reference to the citizenship of their parents" would make one a native born citizen, not a natural born citizen. 2/3 citizenship is derived from paternal lineage and 1/3 from maternal.
Why would the framers make the distinction between NBC specifically for Presidential eligibility? Why not just say "citizen"? Why do you suppose the bureau of vital statistics, to this day, requires birthplace of parents on birth certificates? If one is a citizen simply because they were birthed on US soil, what is the need for parent's birthplace information on the child's birth certificate?
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.