Posted on 02/14/2010 7:39:01 PM PST by syc1959
The following is a clear definition of a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as one born to two parents (plural) in the House of Representitives
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1838-1839 MONDAY, January 28, 1839. Mr. Heman Allen submitted the following resolution; which was read, and debate arising, it was laid over, under the rule, viz: Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the law on the subject of naturalization, as to exclude those from the privileges of natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents
Read the rest.
(Excerpt) Read more at wp.me ...
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
I guess this fits as 0bambi seems to be always watching tennis while speaking....something about the hypnotic bounce and return of the ball that calms the nerves.
Pretty much in recent history and with GOP collusion, all definitions are changed to whatever best suits the Liberal agenda. Good luck with this.
I’m not an expert, but I think you may be wrong a bit. I think if the mother is a natural born citizen who has lived her forever, any children born to her are natural born citizens. The same is true of the father, I believe.
If I’m wrong—well it won’t be the first time—but I have a situation like this in my family. The father became a naturalized citizen after the birth of his first child.
The link in the blog is dead
Here’s a permalink to the congressional record
The children will be citizens but not natural born citizens of two citizen parents. Obama has admitted dual citizenship. That means he is not a natural born citizen.
And fast forward to 1952. Hope you don’t mind if I add this.
In 1952, President Truman vetoed the McCarran-Walter Act, which PASSED, despite Truman’s veto.
Here’s a copy of Truman’s commentary on the veto:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~splatsresearch/images/Truman%20Veto%201952.jpg
Under the heading “Alien Births Mentioned” Trumans says:
“Native-born American citizens who are dual nationals would be subjected to loss of citizenship on grounds not applicable to other native-born American citizens. This distinction is a slap at millions of Americans whose fathers were of alien birth.”
Most have already found the John Bingham statement to the joint session of congress in 1866, when Bingham was paving the path to the 14th Amendment. http://www.scribd.com/doc/20621020/John-Bingham-Quote-About-Natural-Born-Citizen-Not-About-14th-Amendment
The Constitution is meaningless if citizens don't understand what it says, or means.
This Constitutional issue grows in significance as Obama makes appointments to the supreme court. Two more are reputed to be near retirement. When Obama is held to account for his ineligibility his appointees must recuse themselves because they will lose their jobs when he does. Some might think it better to await a republican president, since Obama’s successor may not make better choices, and all his appointments will clearly be as “progressive” as can clear the senate.
I believe the scandal surrounding the cover-up of Obama’s eligibility will take down many in the legislature and even some in the judical branch and should move forward before he does more damage. I think the Democrats should wish for the same because there may still be a small majority in the senate when he is removed.
Of course there are other scenarios, such as a different father than the one he told us all about. But we must proceed based upon what Obama II told us, and what he told us makes him illegitimate. He knew it of course, but he also told us he considers the Constitution an interesting historical artifact”, which “...doesn't let me accomplish what I believe our society needs”. He apparently counted on acquiring the means to nullify the Article II requirement, certainly counting on the ignorance of citizens about history, and knowing the mainstream media and Alinsky tactics would help - “birthers” was clever and effective.
I can’t follow all the twists and turns with this, but I do think something is wrong here.
My theory is the father named on the long form is not who The One claims.
Or he is listed as born white.
I also worry this may be a set up. In that everything is in order but they are saving this to discredit his detractors one day.
Then Barack Hussein Obama, has decieved not only the American public but world leaders and this would be a crime against humanity.
People were sucked into the deception and those lies. Fraud and forgery are just that criminal acts.
The 14th amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who
belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but
will include every other class of person.
Senitor Jacob M. Howard Congressional Globe,Senate, 39th Congress, Page 2890, 1st Session May 30th 1866
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
______________________________________________________________________________________
Center column 3rd paragraph down:
Source:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=2
>! you have to turn to page 1291 !>
Bingham states: I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language
of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866”
I think you are a bit worng. The children you describe are native born citizens, and this caegory is NOT syononymous with natural born citizens. Most native born are also natural born, but to be natural born BOTH parent must be US citizens at the time of the child’s birth, and the child must be born in the Unties States of America.
Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition
Under Jus Soli, the following is written “The Supreme Court’s first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the court held, mean “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.” Most Indians could not meet the test. “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102.
It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the ‘Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.
The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.
Title 8 and the 14th Amendment both state; All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
So explain how “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.”
So to ‘what’ degree was Barack Hussein Obama under US Jurisdiction at birth? Knowing that he was already under British jurisdiction, and how that being only partial or to whatever degree you impose not being in conflict with “completely subject to”?
Last post was to everyone. sorry
We are not taliking here about native born American ctizens, we are talking about natural born American citizens and we would all do well to avoid conflating these very different terms.
Barry is not a NBC. Daddy was a British subject. Because he was the frontrunner of the MSM, they overlooked that requirement.
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.