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

Skip to comments.

Obama - Maybe a Citizen of the United States But Not a Natural Born Citizen
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html ^ | March 4,2010 | Mario Apuzzo

Posted on 03/05/2010 4:25:45 AM PST by Spaulding

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-132 last
To: F15Eagle

Then I suggest that you post to someone who is interested in discussing the matter with you.


101 posted on 03/06/2010 6:15:48 AM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (Don't wish doom on your enemies. Plan it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: wintertime; Spaulding

More speculative scenario for those with their heads in the sand???

http://www.usofearth.com/2011-obamas-coup-fails.php


102 posted on 03/06/2010 6:55:55 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

He is a late comer paid plant here!!!


103 posted on 03/06/2010 6:59:20 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
I don’t think any of us what to peer into something worse than that.

Just of curiosity: What does "any of us WHAT to peer" means. Is it doughnut time for you ???

104 posted on 03/06/2010 7:15:29 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
No legislator who cannot answer the question “what defines a ‘natural born citizen’, the Constitutional eligibility standard for president?” should receive the votes of patriots.

I'll certainly agree with that, as well as the monetary waste on trying to get a copy of O-bo's birth certificate.

The fact is, there is no need for a birth certificate. By his own admission, our presidential pretender was born with dual citizenship, which automatically excludes him from being a natural-born citizen no matter which continent he was born on.

-----

If these facts can be discovered by a crew of everyday Americans with keyboards, the question becomes WHY is the entire federal government ignoring the issue?

105 posted on 03/06/2010 7:35:57 AM PST by MamaTexan (NO ONE owes allegiance to an unconstitutional government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: danamco
He is a late comer paid plant here!!!

It's nice to see some FReepers have honest nicknames, I guess. :-)

106 posted on 03/06/2010 7:37:41 AM PST by MamaTexan (NO ONE owes allegiance to an unconstitutional government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

Frankly I don’t care if it involves Cheney. I couldn’t explain his failure in this other than to think he’s been in Washington for too many decades. If he needs to face legal consequences, then so be it.

I trust no man above conservative principle.


107 posted on 03/06/2010 7:46:42 AM PST by reasonisfaith (Hey you noble leftists. You can't be honest about your agenda because you're not confident in it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Fascinating.


108 posted on 03/06/2010 7:47:45 AM PST by reasonisfaith (Hey you noble leftists. You can't be honest about your agenda because you're not confident in it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

But they don’t have nearly enough confidence to make a declarative statement about it.

None of them do, now or ever. Whether they work independently or in consultation. Not the trolls, not those occupying the many degrees of separation between the mindless trolls and the Obama administration.

Their weak ideology, which they themselves don’t begin to understand, defeats any desire they might have to announce their plans openly. This goes for Piven, Soros, Obama, Ayers, and the rest of them.


109 posted on 03/06/2010 7:57:45 AM PST by reasonisfaith (Hey you noble leftists. You can't be honest about your agenda because you're not confident in it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: buck61

Their motivation and agenda is crystal clear.

Disrupt, mine for information, muddy the waters, aggravate, take peoples’ attention away from the topic and onto them, obfuscate, and get their jollies doing it.

If they were sincere, they’d leave these threads alone and strive against 0bama’s destruction in other ways, like the real conservative freepers.

But no. They’re just stinkbombs.


110 posted on 03/06/2010 8:54:49 AM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Exactly. They can’t openly declare themselves, but it’s clear what they are.


111 posted on 03/06/2010 8:55:56 AM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

They also reveal themselves this way:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2463717/posts?page=307#307

To: MrRobertPlant2009

Your problem is that you spout leftist crap, it’s that simple. You support 0bama and do it in a manner that is typically leftist.

I know, I was raised in an ultra leftist family. Some of the standard leftist qualities:

1. Tremendous arrogance

2. Snarkiness

3. Faux “cool” and an “I’m above it all” attitude

4. Scorn for sincerity

5. Scorn for those who believe in God

6. A strong “I’m in with the in-crowd” mentality

7. A strong faith in their own natural superiority

8. Undercurrent of jocularity where none is warranted; the scornful laugh, the joke that the “fools” don’t get


112 posted on 03/06/2010 8:57:44 AM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; Candor7; LucyT; Just A Nobody; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; butterdezillion; ...
Good post, LJ.

Disrupt, mine for information, muddy the waters, aggravate, take peoples’ attention away from the topic and onto them, obfuscate, and get their jollies doing it.

If they were sincere, they’d leave these threads alone and strive against 0bama’s destruction in other ways,....

You're absolutely correct. The After-Birthers always advise FReepers to stay away from this debate and channel their energy to stop 0b0z0's agenda.

I add my voice to yours and ask them, why don't you practice what you preach?

0kaka won't dare run in '12 as long as this debate is going on, especially if an accented, naturalized American decides to run against him! OOPS, but..but.. SoSs won't allow such a candidate to be put on the ballot because of the none-NBC status! LOL

Watch it 0kaka! You can’t have it both ways; such a candidate will have STANDING to force your hand.

113 posted on 03/06/2010 9:17:23 AM PST by melancholy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Thus defining "natural born citizens", not "natural born subjects", as "all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens"

Is it possible to be both citizen and sovereign?

Seems to me that the only way that works out is anarchy.

114 posted on 03/06/2010 10:13:38 AM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde

Trying reading the statement again. You’re off 180 degrees.

It happens.


115 posted on 03/06/2010 10:57:09 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, John 11:25, 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13, John 6:69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Is it possible to be both citizen and sovereign?

Yep. Read the pre-amble to the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It was not established by some King, "holy" man/men, or some small elite group (as the Magna Carta was.

Seems to me that the only way that works out is anarchy.

No, the way it works out is freedom. Freedom under the rule of law, but a law established by those it applies to, not some bunch of "lawgivers".

But why I am not surprised you'd see it that way.

116 posted on 03/06/2010 11:47:54 AM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
And Wong defines NBC

Definitions are generally fairly compact things. A few sentences at most. Show us where Wong defines "Natural Born Citizen", not "Natural Born Subject", as anything other than "child of citizens born in the country", as it does in the citiation/quote from Minor v. Happersett

"all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens"

That in turn very closely mirrors the definition in "Law of Nations". Very closely indeed.

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

117 posted on 03/06/2010 12:02:08 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
No, the way it works out is freedom. Freedom under the rule of law, but a law established by those it applies to, not some bunch of "lawgivers".

Doesn't that make the law sovereign?

118 posted on 03/06/2010 12:08:08 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Yes. The Wong court did analyze the “laws of nations” to some degree. And the result of their analysis was that reliance on the NBC language—both as stated under prior English holdings, and thence Wongs, did not offend the laws of the “laws of nations” —

I can find you the exact language.

parsy who will be back with it.


119 posted on 03/06/2010 12:18:32 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
If a lower court decides in conflict with a Supreme Court ruling, than can't the lower courts decision be overturned?

Sure, and they *usually* are. But every case has a slightly different set of circumstances, and the later Supreme Court may decide that their earlier decision does not apply to the circumstances of the new case.

However, the Supreme Court has never decided a case based on the definition of Natural Born Citizen. It's been mentioned in dicta, but no case has turned on the meaning of the term. This is not suprising, since the only place it is in the Constitution is in the clause which provides the requirements for someone to be eligible to the office of President. No where in the statute law is one required to be a Natural Born Citizen to be eligible for something or to have some privilege or immunity. No law explicitly makes one a Natural Born Citizen, and the statute laws which make people born outside the country citizens at birth (subject various criteria), are enacted under the power to define rules of Naturalization. The courts have ruled that, for Constitutional purposes, those citizens are naturalized.

120 posted on 03/06/2010 12:25:21 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Here. From Section IV:

V. It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.

But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, “citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,” and

mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;

and children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning, were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by “a favor, a sort of fiction,” and Calvo, “by a sort of fiction of exterritoriality, considered as born in France, and therefore invested with French nationality.” Pothier Trait des Personnes, pt. 1, tit. 2, sect. 1, nos. 43, 45; Walsh-Serrant v. Walsh-Serrant, (1802) 3 Journal du Palais, 384; S.C., S. Merlin, Jurisprudence, (5th ed.) Domicile, § 13; Prefet du Nord v. Lebeau, (1862) Journal du Palais, 1863, 312 and note; 1 Laurent Droit Civil, no. 321; 2 Calvo Droit International, (5th ed.) § 542; Cockburn on Nationality, 13, 14; Hall’s International Law, (4th ed.) § 68. The general principle of citizenship by birth within French territory prevailed until after the French Revolution, and was affirmed in successive constitutions from the one adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1791 to that of the French Republic in 1799. Constitutions et Chartes, (ed. 1830) pp. 100, 136, 148, 186. [p667] The Code Napoleon of 1807 changed the law of France and adopted, instead of the rule of country of birth, jus soli, the rule of descent or blood, jus sanguinis, as the leading principle; but an eminent commentator has observed that the framers of that code

appear not to have wholly freed themselves from the ancient rule of France, or rather, indeed, ancient rule of Europe — de la vielle regle francaise, ou plutot meme de la vielle regle europienne — according to which nationality had always been, in former times, determined by the place of birth.

1 Demolombe Cours de Code Napoleon (4th ed.) no. 146.

The later modifications of the rule in Europe rest upon the constitutions, laws or ordinances of the various countries, and have no important bearing upon the interpretation and effect o the Constitution of the United States. The English Naturalization Act of 33 Vict. (1870) c. 14, and the Commissioners’ Report of 1869, out of which it grew, both bear date since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution; and, as observed by Mr. Dicey, that act has not affected the principle by which any person who, whatever the nationality of his parents, is born within the British dominions, acquires British nationality at birth and is a natural-born British subject. Dicey, Conflict of Laws 41. At the time of the passage of that act, although the tendency on the continent of Europe was to make parentage, rather than birthplace, the criterion of nationality, and citizenship was denied to the native-born children of foreign parents in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway, yet it appears still to have been conferred upon such children in Holland, Denmark and Portugal, and, when claimed under certain specified conditions, in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece and Russia. Cockburn on Nationality, 14-21.

There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. [p668]

THERE is more on this, but this is the nub. The Wong Court was presented, in effect, with the Vattel stuff. It didn’t fly then. It won’t fly now, IMHO.

parsy, who says it all begins with WONG


121 posted on 03/06/2010 12:26:46 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Doesn't that make the law sovereign?

Not at all, the law, even the Constitution, can be changed by those to whom it applies. Thus they are the sovereigns.

Of course it's not really that simple, not even in England in the 17th and 18th century. By then even the English Kings and Queens were not absolute monarchs.

122 posted on 03/06/2010 12:43:16 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

No one is arguing that persons born in the US are not citizens at birth, which was what Wong was about. All that foreign law either says the same thing, or says they are Natural born *subjects*. Citizens and subjects are not the same thing.


123 posted on 03/06/2010 12:53:28 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Not at all, the law, even the Constitution, can be changed by those to whom it applies. Thus they are the sovereigns.

As we know from history, sovereigns can also be changed by their subjects.

124 posted on 03/06/2010 1:26:28 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

bump


125 posted on 03/06/2010 1:30:16 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
As we know from history, sovereigns can also be changed by their subjects.

Only outside the law, not within it.

126 posted on 03/06/2010 2:28:08 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

El Gato, have you seen pansy’s slapdown?


127 posted on 03/06/2010 4:05:08 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

Hey pansy, this is a BC thread and you’re posting on it.


128 posted on 03/06/2010 4:06:56 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Hey pansy, this is a BC thread and you’re posting on it.

Check the time.

129 posted on 03/06/2010 5:59:53 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

Corrected myself after I posted.

Ha ha.


130 posted on 03/06/2010 6:02:12 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

The Wong Kim Ark holding cannot be relied upon to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is depends upon what the Framers intended that clause to mean in 1787. The Framers defined national citizenship during the Founding in the historical context of the American Revolution, a context which did not exist in 1898. In that context, the Founders had to provide for who were the original citizens and who were their descendents. To define these terms, the Framers relied upon the same law that justified the Revolution itself. That law was natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. From that law, they came to call the original citizens “citizens of the United States” and their descendents, the “natural born Citizens.” The Framers then gave Congress the power to naturalize all other persons who may in the future also qualify to be “citizens of the United States.” Under natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Vattel, whom the Framers relied upon to explain that law, this meant that only the children of citizens (either “natural born Citizens” or naturalized) could ever be “natural born Citizens.” All other citizens would only be “citizens of the United States.”

Wong Kim Ark dealt with defining what a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” was in 1898. Justice Gray’s general statements in Wong Kim Ark as to what a “natural born subject” (which under English common law also included naturalized subjects) was in the colonies under English common law before the Revolution which he made for the purpose of defining a “citizen of the United States” in 1898 do not answer the question of what the Founder’s definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” was in 1787. In fact, given the Revolution and the need to constitute a new society, to the Framers the English common law was neither relevant nor useful in providing that definition. Justice Gray’s decision can at best be used to define what an original citizen was before the adoption of the Constitution which definition he used to justify his declaring Wong a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” But it cannot be used to define what a “natural born Citizen” is following its adoption.


131 posted on 03/07/2010 9:46:09 PM PST by Puzo1 (Ask the Right Questions to Get the Right Answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
Thank you. Excellent find. Bookmarked for responding to after-birthers.

Professional trolls like the fool in post 14 will just change their name and continue being professional trolls.

132 posted on 03/11/2010 1:43:49 AM PST by ASA Vet (Iran should have ceased to exist Nov 5, 1979, but we had no president then either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-132 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