Posted on 03/08/2014 7:02:43 AM PST by Steven Tyler
So far, just a repeat of the 7 minute video. Wait and see, I imagine BR and Post & Email will get a few hits this weekend
Mar. 7, 2014) — BirtherReport.com and The Post & Email can report that an exclusive interview was conducted on Friday evening with Barrister Michael Shrimpton, who first appeared in a video released on February 26, 2014 stating unequivocally that Barack Hussein Obama "was born in Mombasa, Kenya."
Topics discussed during the two-hour interview include the meaning of the U.S. Constitution's Article II "natural born Citizen" clause;....; what is really driving the unrest in Ukraine; the death of novelist Tom Clancy; and the actions Shrimpton believes should be taken as a result of Obama's usurpation of the presidency.
"He's not a U.S. citizen," Shrimpton told BirtherReport and this writer in a riveting session conducted over Skype.
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
I would be so kind Dear Germanicus.
But I will have to refer to the quotes,as I type on. Mini phone that crushes my abilities.
David Ramsay speaks directly to Natural Born Citizen. Not in regards to president, but naturally, this is a direct hit.
We also have John Jay with his description, that can only fit two citizen parents, with the knowledge that his term replaced Born Citizen, on the very day he wrote the note.
Washington then accepted his suggestion, along with everyone else in the room. We call that evidence.
They effectively erased Born citizen
As a requirement, much to your dismay.
So we do have quotes directly attributable to the founders.
On top of that, we have had one single attempt to redefine NBC. But that attempt failed.
Let’s try to understand why it failed
It requires a constitutional amendment to change it.
None has been made.
There is no law on the books, redefining the founders intent.
There is no founder, on record. Other than Ramsay and John Jay, describing NBC. None.
If you have a quote from a founder, with Natural as its description, let us have it.
If I may add, Dear Germanicus.
All the founders in the Hall in Philadelphia agree with me. They all let Natural born citizen replace born citizen on the document.
No amount of parsing and twisting can change what they did that summer. Washingtons mansion across the street may be gone. We may have a Kenyan born citizen running our country. But the term and it’s meaning are forever carved into the document.
I took a look. NBC, It’s still in the constitution.
Juan McCain said he is one. Why boher if it not on the books?
Gilbert Osullvan, alone again, naturaly.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_P-v1BVQn8&feature=kp
You see, fate, its the hand we are dealt, we mortals. That wild card in life, called love, it comes and goes. We only have it for a short while. We yearn for it. But naturally, we come here alone and we leave alone. Naturally. There are no two ways. So we hold our loved one dear, know this truth.
Your efforts are valiant Dear Germanicus, but up against the likes of Washington, tis futile. His constitution is as clear as sunlight on a july morning. NBC has never been amended, yet you say it was, and yet, before, you may say it never needed to be? This argument you pose, it is like a river after a hundred horse have crossed it. We can not see the bottom.
We all know that the Founders and Framers were not of one mind on practically any issue. That is why, shortly after ratification, they split into Republicans like Jefferson and Madison versus Federalists like Washington and Hamilton.
Zephaniah Swift was a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives, serving as its Speaker in 1792, as well as clerk for four sessions. From 1793 to 1797, he served in the Federal Congress as well as a Pro-Administration representative in his first term and as a Federalist in his second. The Connecticut Judicial Branch in its biography of him says:
“Judge Swift has been praised as one of the greatest early American jurists by Wesley W. Horton in his book, The Connecticut State Constitution. Swift studied at Yale before entering the practice of law, and represented the town of Windham in the General Assembly of Connecticut. He was elected to the U.S. Congress where he served from 1787 to 1793.
Swift wrote the first legal treatise published in America. This work, “A System of the Law of the State of Connecticut,” published in 1795, presents Swift’s observations on government, the constitution of the state, and differences between English and American common law. In 1810, Swift published the first treatise on the law of evidence.
In his legal treatise, Swift wrote: “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.”
Additionally, James Kent was a man whose reputation in American law is such that William Curtiss, wrote a book in 1900 called “James Kent: The Father of American Jurisprudence,” about him. Also of interest to us conservatives is a book written on him in 2000 called “James Kent: A Study in Conservatism 1763-1847” by John Theodore Horton. Kent’s most remembered work is his “Commentaries on American Law,” written between 1826 and 1830. This was a four volume magnum opus dealing with state, federal, and international law, as well as the law of personal property and rights. In Lecture XIII, which was on the Presidency, from Volume One, Part II, he states the following of the President’s qualifications: 2. Qualifications. — “The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive 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.”
In Lecture XXV from Part IV of Volume II, Kent explains just who qualifies as a native:
1. Of Natives. —Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
Finally, William Rawle quickly gained a reputation as an able attorney, eventually serving as chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar from 1822 until his death. As a Federalist he served a term in the Assembly, but found that politics were not to his liking. After his 1791 appointment by George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania, Rawle handled the prosecutions stemming from the whiskey riots in the western part of Pennsylvania. He stepped down from this office in 1799.
In 1829, he wrote “A View of the Constitution.” In this work, he addresses what the term “natural born citizen” means on page 86:
“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…Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”
I’ll see your Jay and Ramsay and raise you a Swift, a Kent and a Rawle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-AsXFAp2tI&feature=kp
The Beatles, Act Naturally.
If a person has two personalties, How do you know if they are acting Naturally?
I repeat:
If a person has two personalties, How do you know if they are acting Naturally?
Enjoy Dear Germanicus, its been a pleasure. Naturally.
-PJ
So if a person has two citizenship’s at birth, Germanicus, which one is their natural born citizenship? Are you saying both? How do you distinguish logic out of this conundrum of impossibilities?
Thanks kindly for your reply.
First, we dispatch with Swift, rather swiflty.
“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.””
He does not say that the “subjects” are natural born citizens. He speaks of citizens and Natural born subjects. We are debating Natural born citizen.
On to the next.
James kent states that you must be a native.
When he stated this, we are fighting indians. They were natives to America. They were not allowed to run for president because they were not natural born citizens. They came from the soil. Yet had no right to run for president. He never states that Native is the only quality. Never.Because it wasn’t.
Now on to Rawles.
It strikes me that Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was given as original intent of the establishment clause. Neither Jefferson nor Paine were Framers of the Constitution, yet Jefferson's 1802 letter was used to settle the establishment clause. Therefore, Paine's 1791 book should be used to settle the natural-born clause, too.
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
-PJ
I agree with James Madison and Antonin Scalia that place of birth is the determining factor.
I don’t think you’re going to find too many Americans living in the 21st century who think that a newborn infant’s parentage should be an automatic disqualifier.
na·tive Adj.
1. Existing in or belonging to one by NATURE; innate: native ability.
2. Being such by birth or origin: a native Scot.
3. Being one’s own because of the place or circumstances of one’s birth: our native land.
4. Originating, growing, or produced in a certain place or region; indigenous: a plant native to Asia.
5.
a. Being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place.
b. Of, belonging to, or characteristic of such inhabitants: native dress; the native diet of Polynesia.
6. Occurring in nature pure or uncombined with other substances: native copper.
7. Natural; unaffected: native beauty.
8. Archaic Closely related, as by birth or race.
9. Biochemistry Of or relating to the naturally occurring conformation of a macromolecule, such as a protein.
The Free Dictionary
But, Mr. Rawles logic is flawed for the same reason that Mr. Kents argument falls apart. When Rawles make this statement, Slaves are born, yet not citizens. Indians are born, yet not citizens.
So Kent and Rawles are both making claims that directly contradict the reality of the society that they live in.
His statement, on its face, is false. He may wish it were true, but it is demonstrably false.
7. Natural; unaffected: native beauty.
There, you have it.
Obamas citizenship is affected with legal ties to another country. This is what Washington was trying to avoid.
Good find Germanicus! Thank you , Sir!
Very good find.
You are as entitled to your opinions as Jay, Ramsay, Swift, Kent and Rawles were to theirs but the fact remains that: “The Constitution does not say in words who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”— Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
Thanks PJ.
Its very clear from all of the founders who spoke of it, that foreign influence was to be avoided.
We have a goofball heading our Government who calls Kenya his home country. Everything he does is calculated with intention to mock the founders and erode the constitution, just as Jay predicted two hundred plus years ago.
We watch him use the IRS to shut down free speech and punish our fellow citizens. We watch him start wars in foreign land without consulting the people. He needs no constitution. He is not bounded by our founders promise. He lives his Fathers Dream, not ours. He is the reason for the clause.
We all know that. Germanicus knows it. Obama knows it.
PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Preamble of the Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
There is your constitutional definition of natural-born citizen right there at the beginning of the Constitution: "...ourselves [We the People] and our Posterity [future children]."
Natural born citizens are the children born of We the People, for whom the Constitution was ordained and established to secure. How else would they "secure the Blessings of Liberty" except by limiting the qualification for the highest office in the land to the citizen children of citizen parents?
Posterity means our children and our children's children.
The Constitution was ordained and established to secure the blessings of liberty to our children, their children, and their children's children, and so on and on.
Article II Section 1 Clause 5 codifies it.
-PJ
Obama is the worst of the worst. And should be impeached for Benghazi. But give this norther stuff a rest. He was born in the USA.
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.