Birth of a Notion, Pt. 2 - Barack Obama and the XIV Amendment
Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.
Beauseant!
Posted on 02/12/2010 12:35:44 PM PST by syc1959
WRONG !!! He opposes anyone who is not a natural born citizen.
From John Jay's letter:
" ... and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen."
***
You rely on Ark - I have no problem with that. Obama is a citizen, but he is not natural born.
Why, you may ask - because Ark relies on Calvin's Case (1608) for definition. Calvin's Case clearly states that a natural born subject has one allegiance to one sovreign and one sovreign only.
Ark further relies on Dicey and Dicey states that a child born outside of Great Britain whose father (or grandfather) is a natural born subject is also a natural born subject. This is clearly stated in the British Nationality Act of 1730 (4 Geo. II, c. 21).
Herein lies the rub - Obama cannot be a natural born citizen of both the United States, because of dual allegiances.
He is a citizen of both, and is best described as a denizen - as per Blackstone, Calvin, and Dicey. He is eligible to all the rights and privileges of a natural born citizen - except that of holding high office.
I just heard Rush Limbaugh, totally out of the blue sky mentioning the name "BARRY SOETORO" that I have never heard before!!!
He was talking about his favor Mayor in Las Vegas, I think, and continued mentioning Obama?
I just wandering why the name Barry Soetoro suddenly was thrown into the middle of his "monolog"??
Any thoughts about that???
Birth of a Notion, Pt. 2 - Barack Obama and the XIV Amendment
Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.
Beauseant!
"We impose lot’s of “limitations” as to who may, or may not, be deemed a citizen within “the jurisdiction of the nation” (where else?)"
Information on immigration and naturalization (see link)
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/oath-of-allegiance.html
The Oath of Allegiance is as follows:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
THERE IS WHOLE LOT OF "RENOUNCING" GOING ON FOR A COUNTRY THAT DOESN'T THINK DUAL ALLEGIANCE CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS!
... And of course -- as every American knows -- the the Natural Born Citizen clause was put in by the framers to prevent a possible SPLIT allegiance in the executive.
John Jay's letter to George Washington:
New-York, 25th July, 1787
"Dear Sir,
Permit me to hint whether it would not be WISE and seasonable to provide a STRONG CHECK to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a Natural Born Citizen.(Emphases Mine)
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay."
John Jay Letters:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay/
View abstract:
http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/app/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1
Now the question arises as to what would be the best "STRONG CHECK" to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government?
It would appear that A Natural Born Citizen -- born in country by citizen parents (Plural)-- would be the logical answer to the above question.
Nice try wiggie!
From now on EVERY time you PRETEND you can't read I'm just going to post the pertinent information for all to see.
Here's a special "bonus" package care of Freeper Beckwith:
re: "His Kenyan citizenship lapsed when he turned 21...”
It did not.
The (factcheck) report is not accurate as to Obama’s historical British Subject status in that the implication exists that British subject status was lost along with British citizenship back in 1963.
The proof of this exists in the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 (KIA) which states in Section 2(1):
2.(1) On and after the appointed day, the British Nationality Acts 1948 and 1958 shall have effect as if-
(a) in section 1(3) of the said Act of 1948 (which provides for persons to be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens by virtue of citizenship of certain countries) there were added at the end the words " and Kenya " ;
Now we must look at the British Nationality Act of 1948, Section 1:
1.-(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.
(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression 'British subject' and the expression 'Commonwealth citizen', shall have the same meaning.
(3) The following are the countries herein before referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.
According to the KIA, the words -- "and Kenya" -- are added to subsection (3) making all Kenyan citizens also British Subjects upon "the appointed day", December 12, 1963.
First, Obama could not have lost his Kenyan Citizenship on August 4, 1982. This means his foreign nationality issues were not only governed by the Kenyan Constitution, but -- as of January 1, 1983 -- he was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1981.
AND SO OBAMA WAS A BRITISH COMMONWEALTH CITIZEN AFTER THE BNA OF 1981 took effect Jan 1 1983, AND SO HE STILL IS, since he was not only governed by KIA63.
The ofuscation tactic is to make it seem as if his citizenship vanished, but it did not. Obama is STILL a Bobfuscationritish Citizen.
117 posted on Monday, January 11, 2010 2:45:31 PM by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
STE=Q
Time to get out that prayer rug, Ender
The Obot Creed
I believe in Barack Obama, the bearer of Hope and Change
And in his rhetoric, and tales of woe
Who was born of the mother Stanley, in a place unknown
In the sixth year migrated to Indonesia
He ascended to the Senate, and unqualified, usurped the Presidency
Who suffered under Orly Taitz and was slurred by racist birthers
I believe in spreading the wealth
Of the taxes and levies therein,
the loss of freedom, that cost doesn’t matter
That healthcare is free
As long as I don’t have pay
Once again, showing that for EW, ignorance is bliss, and he’s found his happy place.
It’s common sense to have a Commander in Chief that has divided loyalties to this and another country, any country.
But once again, Ender needs to things explained him, over and over , and over again. It’s above his paygrade, Obama isn’t, because he only has to feel for Obama, hard logic not only fails him, but renders him useless, a tool, a puppet, a mouthpiece. Once ender had a original thought - he tried to patent it.
Braile would be easier for Ender to understand, at least he could get his hands on it.
I heard that too this morning. Put a smile on my face. haha. Seems like every now and then, he (and a few others) through something like that out there.
That post is too incoherent to be able to discern who in it is saying what, or what the actual point is you are trying to make. Please, could you provide at least an argument that tries to connect the dots?
That post is too incoherent to be able to discern who in it is saying what, or what the actual point is you are trying to make. Please, could you provide at least an argument that tries to connect the dots?
| > If any evidence actually existed that this question > was genuine, it could be resolved right now, > this moment, under this Congress.
With THIS cast of co-conspirators minding the store?!
|
“Professor Morse, in a ground-breaking article on the issue, defined the natural born citizen as: “One whose citizen-ship is established by the jurisdiction of which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acqired by choice of residencein this country.”
The Founders were recognizing “the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance.” In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children “whose fathers were natural-born subjects,” regardless of where the children were born.
What is the jurisdiction of Barack Hussein Obama Sr, British. That jurisdiction, transended to his children, by no act of their own, but their birth.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
By his own admission, and you are calling Barack Hussein Obama a liar?
Indeed.
Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well.
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate
Clearly, they made a distinction between a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen." The question is, what's the difference? If merely being born in country (i.e. citizen) were enough, Jay would not have felt the need to write his letter of suggestion, which was accepted and ultimately they changed the requirement from "citizen" to that of "natural born citizen." They decided that being a "citizen" was not enough to be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (for good reason I would add).
Oh that’s the name Obama went by when living a Muslim life in Indonesia.
The same one that caused him to purjure himself when asked by the Il. State Bar if he had ever gone under an alias.
LOL which I take as you conseeding our point and admitting that you cannot successfully argue that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.
He isn’t.
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.
