The law-dictionary, explaining the rise, progress, and present ..., Volume 1 By Sir Thomas Edlyne Tomlins, Thomas Colpitts Granger
Posted on 05/14/2010 3:21:18 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Meandering through my 1928 Edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary on page 833, Native, Native Citizen is defined:
Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens.
If Obama does not meet the standards of a native citizen how can he be a natural born citizen.
You Nimrod ... the ONLY Court this counts in is SCOTUS. The rulings of inferior courts can be AND are often wrong - after the appeal gets to SCOTUS. Otherwise, there would be no need to have a SCOTUS - as well as Courts of Appeal.
Hell, while we're at it - no need for State Courts, we could just set up "Judge Roy Beans" around the country and have them administer the law.
You putz ...
Mr. Schade. Yes, sir; foreigners and their children since 1790.
By this point, you'd have a hard time separating out "foreigners and their increase" from the "native born since 1790" because there's been so much intermarriage and interbreeding.
And why would anyone really want to introduce such a distinction? Maybe it works for determining who gets into the DAR, but do we want that sort of a distinction in our political life?
In any case, it does bring up an interesting aspect of the topic: I fit in with the "foreigners since 1790 and their increase," but Obama? Which side of the line is he on?
Is any court really going to decide that someone who was born here and had ancestors who've been living and dying here continuously since the 1640s isn't a "natural born citizen"?
“We have ex. “military” defectors, and armchair keyboard pretending attorneys who constantly jumps in...”
A movement that has lost every case PROBABLY shouldn’t complain about the other side consisting of armchair attorneys. Let me know when you find one - ONE of 50 - state AGs that will issue a ruling that NBC requires two citizen parents.
“...claiming our Constitutional questions are crazy and bad for Conservatives.”
Golly...do I sound like Michelle Malkin? Constitutional questions aren’t bad, but weirdo conspiracy suggestions - such as suggesting I’m part of CIA psyops, or being paid by Obama - are out of line. It makes you look like a tin-foil freak.
“Why do the want to keep an illegal alien and usurper in office at any cost if they were/are real Conservatives???”
If we believe in the Constitution and law, we believe it for everyone. I had no use for the BDS types demanding GWB be removed because he lacked authority, or because he was illegally engaging in war, etc. I also have no use for folks who suggest the US military stop obeying orders, and take upon itself to decide if Obama was legally elected.
In the USA, Obama gets the same legal rights and protections that Charles Manson got. He gets the same protection GWB had as President.
A review of your posts to and about me would show lots of name-calling, but few if any facts.
Fact: Natural Born Subject was a standard legal term at the time the Constitution was written.
Fact: Multiple courts have argued that in a republic, a citizen is the equivalent of a subject in a monarchy.
Fact: Natural born subject did NOT require 2 subject parents. It probably required more than a parent just passing thru, which is why I object to applying WKA to anchor babies. However, there is a solid legal case for arguing that a NBC does NOT require 2 citizen parents.
AS of the moment, every state government agrees with me. Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin & Rush Limbaugh agree - NONE of them have argued that Obama Sr makes Obama Jr ineligible. Every member of Congress agrees with me. The Supreme Court seems to agree, since they refused a case arguing your points in Dec 2008.
If you are serious about this and not just flapping Internet gums, then you need to approach a legislature such as Utah’s and see if you can get them to pass a law declaring a NBC requires 2 citizen parents. That would force a court fight, since Indiana has found that it does not. THEN you might achieve something other than attacking a conservative as a heretic for defining NBC differently than you do.
If you cannot convince a legislature in a state like Utah, you have no chance with the rest of America.
Until then, feel free to call me names...although there is a good chance I’m politically to the right of you. But anyone fighting in the courts is wasting time and money that needs to go into electing conservatives. And folks claiming I work for the CIA in psyops need to connect with the real world.
My take was she was asking about now.
Thanks.
John
The law-dictionary, explaining the rise, progress, and present ..., Volume 1 By Sir Thomas Edlyne Tomlins, Thomas Colpitts Granger
__________________________________________________________
Now. I want to give you some proof, taken also from the census of 1880, showing that this assertion of mine, this calculation is correct. In 1880 the foreigners and their children (not grandchildren) outnumbered the natives in the following States(see chart in the records)
The Chairman. Are you allowing the natives any children or only the foreigners?
x Mr. Schaue. I repeat again that this statement is taken from the census of 1880. The census stated, for instance, that the foreigners number so many and those born in this country of foreign parents were so many. By adding them together I construed the above table.
The Chairman. You compare those with the native born?
Mr. Schade. I give the foreigners and their children. I do not add their grandchildren, because I give them to the natives.
Representative Geissenhaineb. You do add the children?
Mr. Schade. Yes, sir.
________________________________________________________
The report was based on how many were born of foreigners aka how many aliens born in the US. Native status was deferred to the 3rd generation.
The text, as you cited:
“(2.) The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he have attained to the age of thirty file years, and have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome. The age of the president is sufficient to have formed his public and private character; and his previous domestic residence, is intended to afford to his fellow citizens the opportunity to attain a correct knowledge of his principles and capacity, and to have enabled him to acquire habits of attachment and obedience to the laws, and of devotion to the public welfare.”
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/kent/kent-13.htm
“The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen...As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States”
As happens fairly frequently, we see NBC and native citizen used interchangeably. If this were mathematics, we could say NBC is a subset of native citizen and thus more restrictive, and that is a possible interpretation. However, English isn’t mathematics, and his commentary has native citizen as a requirement imposed by the Constitution, which is only true if they are equivalents.
And why is there this requirement?
“ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office”
Got it. No foreigners. Nothing about native citizen parents, but the prospective President needs to be born in the USA so foreigners won’t try to take over the office that gives orders to the military.
“and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland...”
No foreign entanglements. Got it. Don’t have to worry about the President getting us in a war to support his native country of France, or Kenya, or wherever.
But what we do NOT find here is that the person born in America needs to have both parents born in America. If that had been part of being a NBC, then it would deserve mention in the commentary, instead of being equated with being a ‘native citizen’.
And, as you noted, “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.” If Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born in the jurisdiction of the US. Based on his travel and residence, he has continued to hold US citizenship, and has NOT renounced it to become a UK or Kenyan citizen.
I realize you will disagree, but I think my interpretation is every bit as valid as yours, and even more so. More to the point, my interpretation has held sway during the nearly 200 years since...
“Can a natural born citizen of the US be a citizen in another country?”
More precisely, can a natural born citizen claim citizenship offered by another country? Yes, but upon claiming that citizenship as an adult, he loses his US citizenship.
Russia could declare that everyone born in Minnesota between 1955 and 1965 was a Russian citizen. That would make me eligible to claim Russian citizenship, but it would NOT make me one for the purposes of being eligible for office.
Had Obama ever made an attempt to claim citizenship in the UK or Kenya, I would agree that would cost him his US citizenship - certainly as far as being able to run for the Presidency.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-860.ZO.html
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 95-860
BARBARA SMILEY, PETITIONER v. CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N. A.
on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of california
[June 3, 1996]
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
“See, e.g., 1 J. Bouvier, A Law Dictionary 652”
Wonder if Justice Scalia has the 1928 Edition..the subject of this thread. The one he referenced is the 1856 6th edition.
And you choose the side that supports obama.
Obot.
The Supreme has never interchanged the two - native v. natural born citizens - with the exception after giving background information about where the citizens were born in the US and making note the parents were US citizen. In those cases, they referred to subjects as native born and only after presenting them as natural born citizens. Got it.
Got it. No foreigners. Nothing about native citizen parents, but the prospective President needs to be born in the USA so foreigners won’t try to take over the office that gives orders to the military.
Hello Earth to Ms. Rogers...Earth to Ms. Rogers....
Natives can and do hold allegiances to foreign countries. Natural born citizens do not have that hang up , as they and only they, can legally hold the office of President of the United States.
More to the point, my interpretation has held sway during the nearly 200 years since...
No, incorrect, wrong again, nope, epic fail. This is closer to the point. These Supreme Court cases cite de Vattel's natural born citizen definition which has held sway for 200 year since.
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
Furthermore, you didn't address the point that was made which was drones such as you parse & edit the law to fit your warped view of history. Kent cited A2 and then he went on to differentiate between them, those that were natives which included those not born on US soil, but adhered to the revolution and those born after the revolution. Natural born did not exist until the latter. He did NOT say ‘natives born’, he said ‘natives’ AND ‘born’. He clearly was differentiating between the two.
Kent on Aliens:
The statute of 25 Edw. III. stat. 2., appears to have been made to remove / doubts as to the certainty of the common law on this subject, and it declared, that children thereafter born without the ligeance of the king, whose father and mother, at the time of their birth, were natives, should be entitled to the privileges of native subject, except the children of mothers who should pass the sea without leave of their husbands. The statute of 7 Ann, c. 5, was to the same general effect; but the statute of 4 Geo. II. c. 21., required only that the father should be a natural born subject at the birth of the child, and it applied to all children then born, or thereafter to be born. Under these statutes it has been held, that to entitle a child born abroad to the rights of an English natural born subject, the father must be an English subject; and if the father be an alien, the child cannot inherit to the mother, though she was born under the king's allegiance.
The act of Congress of the 14th of April, 1802, establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, affects the issue of two classes of persons: (1.) By the 4th section, it was declared, that" the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized, or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States." This provision appears to apply only to the children of persons naturalized, or specially admitted to citizenship ; and there is colour for the construction, that it may have been intended to be prospective, and to apply as well to the case of persons thereafter to be naturalized, as to those who had previously been naturalized. It applies to all the children of " persons duly naturalized," under the restriction of residence and minority, at the time of the naturalization of the parent. The act applies to the children of persons duly naturalized, but does not explicitly state, whether it was intended to apply only to the case where both the parents were duly naturalized, or whether it would be sufficient for one of them only to be naturalized, in order to confer, as of course, the right of citizens upon the resident children, being under age.
It was decided, that children born in the United States, since the recognition of our independence by Great Britain, of parents born here before that time, and continuing to reside here afterwards, were aliens, and could not inherit lands in England. To entitle a child born out of the allegiance of the crown of England, to be deemed a natural born subject, the father must be a subject at the time of the birth of the child ; and the people of the United States ceased to be subjects in the view of the English law, after the recognition of our independence, on the 3d day of September, 1783.
It is all quite enlightening if you take the time to actually read & study the ENTIRE hsitory of the subject which you obviously have no ambition or patriotism to do so. 25 Edw stated that shildren of subjects, no matter where born were themselves subjects aka laws of nature, children follow the condition of the father. Those that stayed in the US, and although born here that remained loyal to England, remained subjects & were not considered as citizens and neither were their children unless at their coming of age they took an oath of allegiance to the US. GET IT?
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA58&id=xAE9AAAAIAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
I’ve refuted this list to you before:
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”
The Venus doesn’t mention NBC. Shanks and Minor do not use Vattel’s definition. The other 2 I haven’t found, but since your first 3 don’t say what you claim, I’m skeptical.
You have stated that both sides have equal validity yet you choose to side with obama, why?
First, Kent used ‘native born’ to discuss the requirements of the Constitution for the Presidency, equating it with natural born.
Second, your quote doesn’t show what you claim.
“(1.) By the 4th section, it was declared, that” the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized, or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.” “
So the law of 1802 allowed the children of naturalized citizens to automatically become naturalized citizens. “It applies to all the children of “ persons duly naturalized,” under the restriction of residence and minority, at the time of the naturalization of the parent.”
That does not say in any way that a child of a mixed marriage (citizen & not) born in the USA is an alien. Nor has US law blindly followed assigning the citizenship of the father to the child - quite the contrary.
So you are left with your insults, which are a poor substitute for reasoning, and which is why you continue to FAIL every time you birthers bring the issue up with legislatures, state officials, Congress, the Courts, and avid conservatives like Rush, Coulter and Malkin.
“You have stated that both sides have equal validity yet you choose to side with obama, why? “
As usual, you misquote to make an invalid point. What I wrote was, “... I think my interpretation is every bit as valid as yours, and even more so. More to the point, my interpretation has held sway during the nearly 200 years since...”
That isn’t the same as saying both points have equal validity.
Nor do I “side with Obama”, unless you want to make the claim of every other non-birther. Does Rush side with Obama? In the matter of Obama Sr & his effect on Jr’s candidacy, yes. So does Coulter. So does every state legislature. So does Congress.
But that is OK - put on the tin foil before the world plot of CIA psyops agents gets you under our spell....
You: I’ve refuted this list to you before:...The Venus doesn’t mention NBC.
And doing a piss poor job of it.
Chief Justice Marshall cite's de Vattel by NAME and his definition of a Natural Born Citizen. Here is Venus.
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, '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 indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.' 'The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state, while they reside there, and they are obliged to defendit, because it grants"
[Page 12 U.S. 253, 290]
-end snip-
That is utter bs and you know it, there are no SCOTUS rulings on NBC in terms of POTUS eligibility. There are however cases that have defined the term NBC as two parents who have citizenship to bear children who are NBC.
Further more you interpretation does nothing more than show your support for obama.....in fact, you posted that you CONDONE it because of his fathers foreign status, you even admitted that if OSAMA him self was his father you would support it.
If you really think that is what the God given Founders of this Country with their divine wisdom intended NBC to mean then you have to be the biggest f'n idiot on the planet or a lib...you choose.
Nor do I “side with Obama”, unless you want to make the claim of every other non-birther. Does Rush side with Obama?
What a perfect example of a specious argument from a desperate man....Rush, et al, hasn't spoken about the CCX in Chicago, does that mean it's a losing issue or illegitimate?
But that is OK - put on the tin foil before the world plot of CIA psyops agents gets you under our spell....
You can try that bs on someone else, I watch my dog chase his tail, I don't do it for him.
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.