. . . . Check out 376, then read to end of page.
Thanks for the images and comments, DiogenesLamp.
SP alert...
Posted on 05/12/2010 12:36:53 PM PDT by rxsid
Good find, indeed.
Another link in the chain of evidence.
The MSM and the politicians never ventured to question that dog and pony show Obama staged when he posted his new forged long-form COLB and then distracted attention from it with the bin Ladin raid.
But the birth issue is still unresolved. As before, the left will keep putting it to bed or sweeping it under the rug or insulting anyone who brings it up, but it’s not going to go away.
I think this extremely significant. The Obots seem to think that common law was the prevailing law for defining citizenship, but it did NOT allow anyone to quit being a subject of the crown, IIRC. Why would the founders subscribe to the notion that they COULD quit their citizenship to Britain and become U.S. citizens by self-declaration?? Because they didn't follow common law; they followed natural law as expressed through Vattel's writings. This citation illustrates their rejection of common law, at least on this matter, very clearly. Great find.
I have come to believe that while we should study history & our country's founding, YHVH placed Obama in office for a reason...to test the virtues of men who claim to be children of HIS. Unfortunately they all have failed HIS test and I will not vote for another, even if that means leaving my ballot blank other than to vote on issues. The only person I could vote for in any future election must show the virtue of our founders and right now, not one of them has an ounce of it in them.
Excellent research, Diogenes, and thanks for the ping, bp. It is fascinating to read the reference, which makes perfect sense in the context of natural-born citizenship. My angle is that I find it unimaginable that Founders meant, by ‘natural born citizen’, ‘the spawn of foreign/enemy nationals’. It’s absurd to think that was their idea. They were not, iow, codifying the King of England’s right to sire future POTUSs. Those who argue otherwise are beyond the realm of my comprehension. I think like a patriot, and no patriot I know wants a half-foreigner to lord it over us. The odds of half-foreigners hating the US and/or lacking allegiance to it are much greater than for natural born citizens.
“The principles of the laws of nature are through the wisdom of the Creator.”
“They are the views of the Almighty”
“If there be any common law between them (nations) it must proceed from God their common sovereign”
from the previous link
Countless obots told us..the Framers merely changed the wording natural born subject to natural born citizen.
The spin cometh....
Well said.
“Charming Betsy” Canon
Quite true, and I would add as long as the debate remains open - which is the desire of O operatives - the outcome is uncertain. A simple analogy here is repetitive ballot counting, newly discovered ballots, etc.
IMO, the controlling fact is what the ratifiers understood the language to mean when they signed the Constitution. In that regard, the Minor decision provides the answer.
(Although I would have the Geo Washington letters provided by DL elsewhere a few days ago stacked on the counsel's table - that was the future president talking to the future ratifiers!)
My hunch it will be located in a scribbling on a book..a letter..a note..a manuscript.
It could be located in Nugents manuscript when he (MAY have) translated the 1797 edition published after his death. I say may because Jefferson could have translated the 1797.
Its there.
Have you seen what justia.com did? They scubbed references to mi I vs happersatt which scotus ruled that NBC is born to two citizen parents
“Suggest you post a thread. Mr Rogers head is going to explode.”
Why? It repeats what the WKA decision says.
“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.”
And
“Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:
“British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown. “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.”
I’m glad to see you finally agree with me. It’s been a long slog convincing you...
Justia altered records so that people couldn't search for Minor v Happersatt. SCOTUS ruling in this case was that nbc is one born to TWO citizen parents. They have placed txt.robots so that the wayback machine can't access the pages.
Well, well, well. Adams and Adams, no less. Better hold on to all of this research since the usurper has escalated his scrubbing of the internet in recent days.
. . . . Check out 376, then read to end of page.
Thanks for the images and comments, DiogenesLamp.
SP alert...
Wonderful find!
Had the framers adhered to the English version of common law, there never would have been a Declaration of Independence since English common law didn't allow one to quit their allegiance to the crown. This is clear proof that (at least) in 1776, the colonist's began to break free from English common law and began to create our common law.
In fact, some Brits still believe the Declaration was illegal:
Declaration of Independence was illegal, claim British lawyers
And on FR: Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?
To reiterate, the Declaration of Independence and the birth our our country was illegal under British common law at the time.
Those arguing that the framers remained using English common law for the federal government are on the side of those Brittish lawyers who believe our Independence was illegal.
The framers clearly moved towards natural law when they "quit" their allegiance to the crown.
This is what I call a post!
EXCELLENT WORK!
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.