Posted on 12/27/2009 2:36:30 PM PST by patlin
Until recent decades, American public policy consistantly prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com ...
That would be the non-binding Senate resolution? Which, in fact, does not specifically say that?
Where is the paperless pretender's SR511 or any other documents of his alleged citizenship???
Well there's H.R 593 recognizing Hawaii's 50th anniversary as a state and the fact that it was the birthplace of the current president. Does that do it for ya?
Yeh -- by the members of the same institution that is charged with accepting or rejecting the votes of the electoral college, and it included the Paperless One himself.
Which, in fact, does not specifically say that?
Ahhh -- "specifically". It may not say it specifically enough for you or other of the Paperless One's apologists, but it does say it. Perhaps you should try reading with some "objectivity" or just ask someone who signed it, like Senator Leahy. That might help.
Well there's H.R 593 recognizing Hawaii's 50th anniversary as a state and the fact that it was the birthplace of the current president.
Hmmm. Did the signatories of SR511 sign on to that yet???
[P.S. -- Was all of that "specific" enough for you or do you need more specificity?]
The Framers of the US Constitution used many sources during the development of the Constitution. If you are referring to Vattel's Law of Nations, it too was one of those references.
Here's a search link for you. Put your opinion to the test.
You're not much of a soldier.
A US Naval vessel is sovereign US territory, as is a US military base, or a US embassy.
Vattel’s work is based on civil law, not English common law as was (almost) universally used in the colonies.
Occam would agree that a legal term when used by attorneys educated in a particular system of law is most likely to carry the definition of that system of law.
Since you are so adamant that Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was not used by the Framers, could you post a list of what references were used in the development of the US Constitution, with some links to support your opinion, please? Thank you.
I never said it wasn’t used. I said the legal terminology used in the Constitution is most likely that of common law, the norm for the country at the time.
You are aware that civil law is descended from Roman jurisprudence and was imposed by absolute monarchs on their slaves, aren’t you? Why would you support it over the common law of freeborn Englishmen? Why would the Founders?
BTW, your question asks me to prove a negative, which is of course not possible.
Let’s turn it around. What is your rationale, preferably from the minutes of the convention, that Vattel’s definition was used to define NBC?
The very fact that no definition of the term was included implies that the definition was one with which they were all familiar and took for granted. As I said, the common law definition would have been the norm for the time and place.
If you are born on a US Naval vessel to two US citizen parents, you are considered a natural born citizen by the US. But if that naval vessel was in Canadian waters, then Canada also considers you a Canadian citizen. Does the fact that Canada conferred citizenship to you make you a non-natural born citizen?
In other words, I recognize that the vessel is US territory, as you are a natural born citizen. However, the issue is that Canada also considers you a Canadian citizen as you were born in their waters (their law specifically exempts embassies only - not bases nor vessels).
So this is the perfect example of dual citizenship for a natural born citizen. Yes, it can happen, and no having dual citizenship should not disqualify a person from being President, because the person has ZERO control over what another nation considers their status as a citizen of their nation.
Actually none of them are. If a foreign national were to give birth on a U.S. Naval vessel or a U.S. military base in a foreign country or in an embassy then their child is not a U.S. citizen. Which they would be if any were actually sovereign U.S. territory. Children born overseas on a U.S. military base are natural born citizens because one or both parents are, not because they're born in a military hospital.
What part of 'nonbinding resolution' is confusing you?
It may not say it specifically enough for you or other of the Paperless One's apologists, but it does say it.
I did read it, have you? If so please quote the part about both parents.
Hmmm. Did the signatories of SR511 sign on to that yet???
Hmmmm, no. Because one was a Senate non-binding resolution and one was a House non-binding resolution. For both to sign on would require a joint non-binding resolution.
You do know what a non-binding resolution is, don't you?
You trust your scholars and the courts will trust theirs. They probably won't be the same scholars.
Then try to understand what you read.
You do know what a non-binding resolution is, don't you?
All Senate resolutions are non-binding, just as all House resolutions are non-binding, even when the word "non-binding" doesn't appear in its title, because everything that the Senate and House do is to "bind" others -- never themselves -- just as everything posted by liberals and Obamabats is non-binding. It's meant for others never themselves.
That being said, do you know where Barack Obama's non-binding SR511 is????
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.