Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Illegality/Un-Constitutionality of Dual Citzenship
ConstitutionallySpeaking ^ | 12/27/2009 | constitutionallyspeaking

Posted on 12/27/2009 2:36:30 PM PST by patlin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 last
To: Uncle Chip
You will have to take that up with the authors and signatories of Senate Resolution SR511 who understood the plural to mean both parents to be American citizens.

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?

81 posted on 12/31/2009 8:22:42 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
That would be the non-binding Senate resolution?

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?]

82 posted on 12/31/2009 9:01:58 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
The most bizarre claim of the birthers is this one. It uses a law system utterly foreign to US legal history to define a term used in our Constitution.

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.

83 posted on 12/31/2009 9:20:05 AM PST by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
If you are born on a US Naval vessel to two US citizen parents, you ...

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.

84 posted on 12/31/2009 9:23:58 AM PST by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

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.


85 posted on 12/31/2009 10:36:12 AM PST by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

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.


86 posted on 12/31/2009 10:49:20 AM PST by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

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.


87 posted on 12/31/2009 10:59:26 AM PST by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn
Apparently you don't understand English. Please re-read what I posted:

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.

88 posted on 12/31/2009 11:16:36 AM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn
A US Naval vessel is sovereign US territory, as is a US military base, or a US embassy.

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.

89 posted on 12/31/2009 2:20:21 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
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.

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?

90 posted on 12/31/2009 2:25:57 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Canandian waters are equivalent to Canadian soil. Such a baby would be a dual US-Canadian citizen at birth, but SCOTUS has not yet clarified whether or not the child would be NBC eligible to be POTUS, per the scholars I trust. Scholars I trust say such a citizen, born outside the US, would be a “statutory citizen” not a constitutionally defined NBC and thus not POTUS eligible.

You trust your scholars and the courts will trust theirs. They probably won't be the same scholars.

91 posted on 12/31/2009 2:31:00 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I did read it

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????

92 posted on 01/01/2010 6:14:56 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson