Obama is not a Native US Citizen

Bouvier's Law Dictionary ^ | 1928 | William Edward Saldwin

[Lmo56]

The crux of the WKA issue is that his parents could never become citizens by statute of Congress; however, his status - by virtue of birth - was set by the 14th Amendment.

And the 14th Amendment ONLY made him a citizen - not necessarily "natural born" unless and until the Supreme Court explicitly states so. To date, they never have ...

That is what this is all about.

[BP2]

> When you can get Rush, or Ann Coulter, or Sarah Palin to say that Obama
> is not President because his father was Kenyan, get back to me.

Therein lies your diversion ... again. Obama Sr isn’t a natural-born Kenyan, he’s a natural-born British Subject. But you know this fact, don’t you?

Furthermore, the fact that YOU require marching orders from Conservative commentators marks you as a weak-minded Conservative.
You have to be TOLD what to think, don't you sweetie?

I'm curious, Mister Rogers ... do you require a dog biscuit or just a pat on the head as reward for your obedience? Okay now, SIT ... good boy.

As such, I've found a well-deserved definition for YOU in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, just below "Native Citizen":

p.s. — and yeah ... "Natural Fruits" is applicable definition as well.

[Lmo56]

Dual citizenship would hing on where the affirmative action bastard was born. If he was born in Canada or Kenya then his mother could not pass citizenship to him at her age.

Understood - but I abandoned his place of birth in my argument long ago. I give the Obots a bone and say that he was born in the US. OTOH, it is the allegiance and incompatibility between "natural born" and dual nationality that I argue ...

[little jeremiah]

BP2 - you are just too mean!

;-)

[El Gato]

They then allow that there is a DISPUTE over the status of children born of alien parents

About whether they are citizens. Not whether they are natural born citizens.

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 [p168] parents

“Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

They may be born citizens, they need not be natural born citizens. They can even be both born citizens and naturalized. (born abroad of one citizen parent, or even of two. Not born in the US, as under the 14th amendment, but still born a citizen, under the statute law, and thus naturalized.

It's not ONE type of born citizen ONE type of naturalized citizens. It's just that there is not other way other than birth of naturalization to become a citizen. (And you can do both, as anyone born abroad of one citizen and one alien parent did) There are several types of each, and they are treated differently under the Constitution. For all purposes other than retention of citizenship and eligibility for President, they all have the same rights and responsibilities. (But try being a newly naturalized citizen from Red China and getting a TS/SCI clearance. It's harder than if all your great-grandparents were citizens (my Dad's maternal grandparents were not at least not by birth, but all my grandparents were, AFAIK, there being some big holes in our knowledge of both grandfathers birth, it's fairly possible that my paternal grandfather, who was adopted from the orphan train, may not have been either), and even you get the clearance, you may not be allowed into some compartments)

[El Gato]

No where in the Constitution does it say that there should be a Separation of Church and State. That was taken from a letter from Benjamin Franklin...

Actually the phrase come from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. Of course it was taken out of context. He referred to Government not interfering with the Churches. Not to the Churches influencing the government.

he concluded thus:

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Which would be very strange way for a President to conclude a letter if he believed that Government should be completely free of religious influence.

Interestingly the draft of that letter has "recently" been found , and it paints a somewhat different picture of Jefferson's opinion on "separation of Church and State" than the Courts have adopted.

[El Gato]

For example, the ONLY statute that ever existed that defined a natural born citizen said that it was the case for children born abroad of two US citizens!

Not quite, it said such persons would be considered as "natural born citizens", not that they were. But at best it was an attempt to extend the preexisting definition. Something Congress cannot do, and in 1795 they took out the "Natural Born" language. No one who would have been so "considered" ever became President, and since the law no longer provided that, it's now moot.

But just because they tried to extend the meaning, doesn't mean that there *was* a meaning outside of Vattel's., it just indicates that whatever the understood meaning, it did not, in general at least, include those born to citizens outside the country. Clearly it did include some such, children of ambassadors for example.

[El Gato]

This pretty well tracks with the majoritarian view of the Wong Kim Ark court in 1898 , and the Ankeny court in 2009.

Wong Kim Ark, yes. Ankeny cout, not so much. The words "natural born" are nowhere to be found in that edition of Bouveirs. It uses "native" to mean born in the country. and even counts the children of foreign ambassadors as "natives". You are surely not arguing that the son of the Saudi Ambassador, born in the US of the ambassadors 4th wife, is a natural born citizen, eligible to the office of President, are you?

This section, which speaks of the children of aliens born in the US, declares them to citizens, not natural born citizens.

Natives who are citizens are the children of citizens, and of aliens who at the time of their birth were residing within the United States.

[BP2]

> When you can get Rush, or Ann Coulter, or Sarah Palin to say that Obama
> is not President because his father was Kenyan, get back to me.

>> the fact that YOU require marching orders from Conservative
>> commentators marks you as a weak-minded Conservative.

>>> BP2 - you are just too mean!

But it's true. The After-Birther excuse of not questioning Obama’s Eligibility
because Rush and others don't openly ask such questions is sheer stupidity in logic and form.

In fact, there's nothing more ironic than a faux-Conservative posing as a Rush fan ...
while simultaneously acting as a mind-numbed robot.

Any REAL Rush fan would see the problem with this Obama-supporting After-Birther talking point ...

[parsifal]

Wong excludes them as children of diplomats.

parsy

[Red Steel]

So Mr. Rogers, what citizenship did Obama inherit from his father?

A LAW DICTIONARY

ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION

by John Bouvier

Revised Sixth Edition, 1856

-snip-

Ummmmm Ms. Rogers, do you see where it says in highlighted below, that "Natives who are citizens are the children of citizens"? That's the same as natural born citizens.

You do remember the countless times you have been told that all natural born citizen are native BUT NOT all natives are natural born - right?

You'll also notice highlighted that aliens born in the US of A can be natives but they are not citizens. Can you connect the dots from here Ms. Rogers?

[Red Steel]

p.s. — and yeah ... "Natural Fruits" [Ms. Rogerette] is applicable definition as well.

Heehee...You are bad. ;^)

[little jeremiah]

I don’t know what kind of lawyer/attorney (is there a diffrerence?) BP2 is - but if I was sitting in the defendent’s seat, I’d want him on my side, not the other side!

[El Gato]

The word he used in French was simply repeated in early English translations, and has since entered our language as ‘indigenous’.

Indigenous has been in the English language since well before 1760.

From Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: in·dig·e·nous
Pronunciation: \in-ˈdi-jə-nəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin indigenus, from Latin indigena, noun, native, from Old Latin indu, endo in, within + Latin gignere to beget — more at end-, kin
Date: 1646

1 : having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment
2 : innate, inborn
synonyms see native

Now it may have entered English from French, or more precisely Norman. The Norman Invasion of English was in 1066. (A date which my world history teacher put great emphasis upon. As in "You will Remember when William the Conqueror invaded England." (Although he did teach us that before 1066 William was known as "William the Bastard" because of the illegitimacy of his birth.

He had a very weak claim to the throne, his great aunt was the mother he certainly was not a natural born Englishman, having been born in Falaise, Normandy, France.

[El Gato]

If the Founders were relying on Vattel, they would have said the President must be an indigenous native...

Unless they had Ben Franklin, or any number of others, such as John Jay, translate it directly from the French. A goodly fraction of the founders could read and speak French. Not G. Washington, but many of the others. Most especially Franklin, who though he learned it much later than most, was indeed quite fluent, as many a Mademoiselle and Madame found out, to their general delight. :)

[Mr Rogers]

You DO realize I can provide quotes on the OTHER side?

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

“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)

So you see, there were a variety of books and opinions written in the early 1800s, giving BOTH sides.

Also, you highlighted selectively - your first one exempts children born to “ambassadors, or other foreign ministers” - IAW common law as cited by the Supreme Court in WKA.

Your second citation highlights the case of those born in the USA prior to the Revolution, but who moved away and did not return.

Please try to READ before you post, and don’t take quotes out of their context - it will be less embarassing for you!

[Mr Rogers]

Well, feel free to provide a quote from Rush saying Obama is illegitimate because of his father’s citizenship.

Oh wait - I challenged you on that before, and there is none!

It isn’t a matter of marching orders, but intellectual victory - can you convince someone like Rush, or Coulter, or Malkin, or Palin, or a Congressman, or a legislature ANYWHERE?

Nope. After years of trying, your score is ZERO!

That is called “losing”, and you are very good at it!

[El Gato]

No judge has the power to take that step. Under the Constitution, the sole power to remove the President resides with two thirds of the Senate

The Court would not be ordering the removal of a President, but rather a usurper. They would first be saying that he was never elibigle, and then if necessary and probably in a latter case, order his removal. Not that it's likely to be necessary, if the Supreme Court should ever declare him to be ineligible. Someone would either persuade him to step down, or it would be torches and pitchforks time. (although I'd pretty a nice rifle myself). If he's ineligible, who is going to defend his sorry ash, the military? Nope their oathers are to the President, not some resident usurper. The Secret Service? Same for them, they defend the President.

The Constitution provides that the President may be removed by impeachment and conviction in the Senate, it says nothing about removing a usurper. I think the founders figured the Second Amendment covered that potentiality.

[Red Steel]

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

But natural born citizens can only be presidents not alien natives.

There are two definitions for jurisdiction. One is 'territorial' jurisdiction where the laws of the country have legal effect, and the other is jurisdiction of citizenship and allegiance to another country. Natural born citizen have total allegiance to the United States. Obama as you know, inherited a foreign allegiance to another country at birth, therefore, he cannot be an natural born US Citizen.

Please try to READ before you post, and don’t take quotes out of their context - it will be less embarassing for you!

You're the embarrassment Ms. Rogers.

[Seizethecarp]

Perfect.

This definition in “5.-1st” is totally consistent with what the WKA ruling actually said, not the insidious treacherous spin that Wong was determined to be NBC based on the false claim that native citizen equals natural born citizen regarding POTUS eligibility.

Wong was determined to be a native citizen, a child of resident aliens, obviously not a child of two citizens and not affirmed to be a NBC in WKA. Wong had equal citizen rights as a native citizen with the citizen rights of NBCs.

POTUS eligibility is not a citizenship right but constitutional specification based on a condition of birth on US soil to parents who are citizens (and also perhaps to the child of an unmarried mother who could convey unitary citizenship which might yet apply to Obama depending on where he was born...BNA of 1948 explicitly does not govern illegitimate, presumably including bigamous children).