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 next last
To: LucyT

Aaaaahhhh...but they still aren’t able to crack our *secret code*. Like when I say, “How’re ya doin’ today?” Only you and maybe a few others actually KNOW what that means.

Or, we can just skip over their posts and let them disrupt each other.


51 posted on 03/05/2010 12:08:29 PM PST by azishot (J.D. Hayworth...U.S. Senator FOR Arizona...http://www.jdforsenate.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

“I believe that the troll effort is now to see how much Freepers know. Trolls know they won’t change anyone’s mind. So it’s fishing and disruption for them.”
________________
ABSOLUTELY!! Parsley’s posts are a perfect example of this. I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOO glad that all of the relevant things are hidden from the peering eyes of the trolls that haunt the BC threads. They NEED to know what we know, they won’t find that info here, not on the forum. They will be baited because WE want to know what they want to know.


52 posted on 03/05/2010 1:45:51 PM PST by mojitojoe (“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” - Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
Hence, while the definition of a natural born citizen never changed in Vattel’s texts, the term to express it was changed from “indigenes” to “natural-born citizens.”

In the translations, yes. But the early translation was pretty bad. The French used was "Les Naturels, ou indigenes" which translated means "The natural ones, or natives. The full sentence in French, absent the accent marks, is:

"Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens."

53 posted on 03/05/2010 2:30:34 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huebolt
This will become the scandal of the CENTURY...someday.

Someday...maybe...possibly...perhaps...

54 posted on 03/05/2010 2:33:37 PM PST by Drennan Whyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
While it says a native born was 'just as much as citizen' as a natural born, it does NOT say a native born is the same as natural born.

It doesn't say there is any difference either.

55 posted on 03/05/2010 2:35:32 PM PST by Drennan Whyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

obumpa


56 posted on 03/05/2010 2:38:25 PM PST by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
The actual "most authoritative... history of natural born citizenship in our Constitution yet provided" can be found in the Decision of the Supreme Court for the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Not really. It was not about Natural Born Citizenship. Only citizenship.

From the majority opinion of Justice Grey, the question to be resolved:

It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him. The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

Nothing there about "natural born citizen".

Then the conclusion:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Nothing there about "natural born citizen" either.

And in fact in the quote from Binny a distiction between a child of an alien born in the country and the natural born child of a citizen is made. Plus, and I just noticed this, so thank you for pointing me at "WKA" again.

During the debates in the Senate in January and February, 1866, upon the Civil Rights Bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read,

All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.

Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked, "Whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?" Mr. Trumbull answered, "Undoubtedly," and asked, "is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?" Mr. Cowan replied, "The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese." Mr. Trumbull rejoined: "The law makes no such distinction, and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European." Mr. Reverdy Johnson suggested that the words, "without distinction of color," should be omitted as unnecessary, ...

Thus persons born of alien parents were spoken of as being "naturalized" by birth in the US, not being "natural born" by virtue of such birth. At least in 1866.

57 posted on 03/05/2010 3:02:53 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe; parsifal; El Sordo; lucysmom; JustaDumbBlonde; MilspecRob; BuckeyeTexan

“I believe that the troll effort is now to see how much Freepers know. Trolls know they won’t change anyone’s mind. So it’s fishing and disruption for them.”
________________
ABSOLUTELY!! Parsley’s posts are a perfect example of this. I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOO glad that all of the relevant things are hidden from the peering eyes of the trolls that haunt the BC threads. They NEED to know what we know, they won’t find that info here, not on the forum. They will be baited because WE want to know what they want to know.”

Aside from the text book paranoia on display, please accept my thanks. The stuff you’re willing to put out in public is God awful enough. I don’t think any of us what to peer into something worse than that.


58 posted on 03/05/2010 3:09:50 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"Not really. It was not about Natural Born Citizenship. Only citizenship."
Br> Close, but no cigar.

The decision did not require him to rule on Ark's status as an NBC. But the obiter dicta still absolutely contains "most authoritative... history of natural born citizenship in our Constitution yet provided."

If you actually read Justice Gray's (note the spelling of his name) you will find he has vast amounts to say about "natural born citizen," about its source in English common law, about the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction" and the fact that "subject" and "citizen" are synonymous.

It's all there... to include unambiguous gems such as this...

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

59 posted on 03/05/2010 3:12:54 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

Thanks! I needed a good laugh! They have wrapped the Birther Grotto Of True Evidence in aluminum foil, but they messed up and put it on dull side in-shiny side out. As a result, I was able to get a Mental Ray Projected Copy of all the information.

I would correct all this legal mis-information but they wouldn’t believe it anyway. I blame all this craziness on Obama. If he had freed the long form a year and a half ago, these poor people wouldn’t be wandering around with copies of Vattel held close to their hearts.

But as long as he continues to benefit from them, he will sit back on his selfish rear end and let them run around in circles.

parsy, who blames Obama for the Birther Movement


60 posted on 03/05/2010 3:32:20 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 58 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

Don’t let then know we’re on to them. Use the codebook.

The raven may sing at midnight, but tapioca is a better thickening starch.


61 posted on 03/05/2010 3:50:35 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
So it’s fishing and disruption for them.

I thought that's what Orly does when she goes to court.

62 posted on 03/05/2010 5:17:09 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

Hey, when I was in the BGOTE, I found their manual override password phrase. It helps you unlock and understand ALL their evidence. Every single bit!

Circulus in demonstrando.

parsy, who barely made it back out......


63 posted on 03/05/2010 5:30:42 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 61 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

No, its what I’m doing when I ask them to translate their stuff into English.

parsy, who is back out to the net to research for a while....


64 posted on 03/05/2010 5:32:59 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 62 | View Replies]

To: Drennan Whyte
Someday...maybe...possibly...perhaps...

Or not

65 posted on 03/05/2010 5:33:41 PM PST by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

No, its what I’m doing when I ask them to translate their stuff into English.

parsy, who is back out to the net to research for a while....


66 posted on 03/05/2010 5:33:46 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 62 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

No, its what I’m doing when I ask them to translate their stuff into English.

parsy, who is back out to the net to research for a while....


67 posted on 03/05/2010 5:33:51 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 62 | View Replies]

To: Drennan Whyte
It doesn't say there is any difference either.

If there were no distinction, the judge wouldn't have made one in the first place, now would he?

68 posted on 03/05/2010 5:33:51 PM PST by MamaTexan (NO ONE owes allegiance to an unconstitutional government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

“Blessent mon cœur d’une langueur monotone”


69 posted on 03/05/2010 5:50:50 PM PST by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: parsifal; El Sordo; lucysmom; JustaDumbBlonde; MilspecRob; BuckeyeTexan; tired_old_conservative

Why does it make sense to treat the Natural Born Citizen clause—which is the Constitutional guard against internal overthrow of our country—with a low threshold of proof rather than a high one? By definition, this guard defends the seat of power of our nation.

Why would you spend countless hours on the internet advocating the lower threshold of proof?

Unless you favor overthrow of our nation?


70 posted on 03/05/2010 5:56:12 PM 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 67 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
Welcome to Free Republic EnderWiggins. If you read the Apuzzo article you will see that he not only cited, Wong Kim Ark, but clarified the relevant passages. Apuzzo’s article is authoritative because he has provided references for most of the important references in Supreme Court cases, and references to some of the history (there are over two millenia of relevant discussion). He didn't only refer to Wong Kim, one of the more obtuse decisions. If you are seriously interested in the citations read the original article at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ . The URL pointers were not preserved when I copied the original. Not only did Apuzzo cite Wong Kim, he cited over a dozen other "authoritative" sources. As a newcomer, I invite you to help inform Free Republic readers by finding one "authoritative" source with a different interpretation of natural born citizen.

The important point, besides the history and record of the court, is that there has never been another interpretation of natural born citizen in Supreme Court proceedings. There have been some idiotic circuit court decisions, but they demonstrate that this is about power politics - “the persuasion of power” described by Andy Stern - rather than legal reasoning.

71 posted on 03/05/2010 5:59:08 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Talking about scrubbing, Patrick Leahy has removed the reference to Senate Res. 511, which he co-sponsored, from his senate web site. It is still available in the senate archives, but that he selectively removed 511 tells us the pressure is having an effect.


72 posted on 03/05/2010 6:02:30 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
tells us the pressure is having an effect.

Yes. And that's why there are more trolls. And why they are frantic.

73 posted on 03/05/2010 6:04:18 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

The officials in power know that the American people cannot accept being exposed as fools and lunatics; therefore, the truth will remain forever hidden. No historian who desires professional recognition will ever touch the matter. Just like the scientists who endorse evolution to garner foundation and government grants


74 posted on 03/05/2010 6:07:30 PM PST by Theodore R. (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: syc1959

Again, the American people are not capable of understanding the differences here. Its a half-century of dumbed-down “education” at play.


75 posted on 03/05/2010 6:09:26 PM PST by Theodore R. (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

There is no “thresh hold”. You don’t kinda move the bar depending on how one feels today. What there is, is case law. There is Wong. And Wong defines NBC.

You don’t start playing with laws, and making up thresh holds because you don’t like who won the election. That’s what they do in places like uh uh Venezuela. You know, you just change the law as you want...And Cuba, I think a lot of their law is kinda subjective. Whatever a couple of guys named Castro want it to be.

You are lucky enough to live here. You should take the time to understand the laws that apply to this.

parsy


76 posted on 03/05/2010 6:10:37 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 70 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative; reasonisfaith

I haven’t a clue what the hell you’re writing about or how it applies to me in this thread that I’ve never seen and in which I have zero interest. Kindly remove me from your ping list.


77 posted on 03/05/2010 6:24:58 PM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (Don't wish doom on your enemies. Plan it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I agree with you MamaTexan. Don't be discouraged at the apparent lack of response. The campaign to classify the Constitutional issue with rumors about Kenyan birth certificates and 9/11 Truthers has had some success. Too many are desperately worried about jobs, about health care, and don't connect the obscure eligibility issue. We need to calmly explain he less sensational truth that there are clear eligibility criterea for the president and Obama doesn't meet them. Eventually money becomes and issue, which is why Donofrio/Pidgeon’s suit question the Chrysler dealer's removal may be the key to forcing the judicial system to man up.

I have heard no cogent counter argument to the assertion that every bill Obama signs is invalid. Trillions of dollars in debt have been committed with the authority of an ineligible chief executive. With Obama and the Chicago Mafia in control of justice, seeing what they did with Congressman Deal, most injured parties will keep a low profile. Obama is, at best, a one term president. Everything he has done can be undone with one honest law suit. Perhaps it will be Kerchner/Apuzzo. Taitz has a judge who has not been afraid of the Clinton justice department, Royce Lambert.

We have just begun to fight. There are more of us who believe the Constitution can keep us free. This is an attack on the Constitution. We need people like you and others whose names and thoughts I've seen on FR to stand up and teach others the real issue. Too bad others, such as WND, with a voice wasted money by focusing on a birth certificate which will never see the light of day. There is nothing to prove. We need to force our judicial system to act on a violation of our Constitution. Politicians may prefer this battle over every socialist issue because it shows they are doing something, and will help the GOP regain the legislature. 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.

78 posted on 03/05/2010 6:26:56 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

bump


79 posted on 03/05/2010 6:34:53 PM PST by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding; parsifal
The important point, besides the history and record of the court, is that there has never been another interpretation of natural born citizen in Supreme Court proceedings. There have been some idiotic circuit court decisions, but they demonstrate that this is about power politics...

I could be wrong, but isn't it true that once the Supreme Court has ruled, a precedent is set, and lower courts are bound to rule in accordance with that precedent? If a lower court decides in conflict with a Supreme Court ruling, than can't the lower courts decision be overturned?

80 posted on 03/05/2010 6:38:04 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

If you don’t understand the concept of threshold in law, you should consult a law professor or sign up for some classes.

The concept is fundamental, and a bit of contemplation will inform you that it’s extremely important in legal interpretation.

It’s this easy: do we look the other way while some brainwashed narcissist (who wants to tear down the country in retaliation against his parents who abandoned him in childhood) signs up for the presidential election, or do we apply a very high standard—that is, threshold—of proof that he’s eligible?

Anyone who says we should apply a low standard (and that’s all you antibirthers have done with your thousands of hours on this website) better come up with a good reason, and address it directly and specifically.


81 posted on 03/05/2010 6:40:39 PM 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 76 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

I like the way you characterize the issue. I would add: we are seeking the truth and seeking the truth is an inherent human drive. All of those who don’t want records open are fighting something which will not disappear because of distractions and a few setbacks.


82 posted on 03/05/2010 6:41:30 PM PST by votemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

The latest Real Player also has a video download function. It works in Firefox. You can also convert the files to mp3 or other formats.


83 posted on 03/05/2010 6:42:50 PM PST by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MrRobertPlant2009

Sorry , but the two classes of citizenship is Natural Born and naturalized. You can be native born ,but not a natural born citizen. Example Wong Kim Ark case where he was born in the U. S. to parents who had legally immigrated to the U.S. but was not yet U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court declared him a NATIVE born Naturalized citizen. Both parents must be U.S. citizens to be considered Natural Born.


84 posted on 03/05/2010 7:19:03 PM PST by omegadawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

85 posted on 03/05/2010 7:36:43 PM PST by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
Why does it make sense to treat the Natural Born Citizen clause—which is the Constitutional guard against internal overthrow of our country—with a low threshold of proof rather than a high one? By definition, this guard defends the seat of power of our nation.

'Cause that's the way the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. They provided the electoral college and Congressional certification as protections. If that failed, the Constitution lays out a process to get rid of a sitting president, impeachment.

Perhaps if birth certificates were common in the late 1700s, the founding fathers would have required a candidate present his to prove that he met the citizenship requirements, but they didn't.

86 posted on 03/05/2010 7:40:04 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

But these protections are not a low threshold—they are quite high, at least as originally intended. Our problem is that a speaker of the house, and some recruited gangs and mobs, has stretched her hairy arms way up and bent the thing down to a very low level, so that scoundrels and rapscallions and low down criminals can scamper right over it.

Why should we accept such artificial standards?

Why do you anti-birthers not consider the security of our nation to be a very high priority?


87 posted on 03/05/2010 7:50:29 PM 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 86 | View Replies]

Comment #88 Removed by Moderator

Comment #89 Removed by Moderator

To: reasonisfaith
Our problem is that a speaker of the house, and some recruited gangs and mobs, has stretched her hairy arms way up and bent the thing down to a very low level, so that scoundrels and rapscallions and low down criminals can scamper right over it.

Oh it goes well beyond Nancy Pelosi and must then include every Senator, Congressman, and Dick Cheney himself.

The Congress is scheduled to meet in joint session in the House of Representatives on January 6, 2009 to conduct the official tally of electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, is the presiding officer. Two tellers are appointed to open, present and record the votes of the States in alphabetical order. The President of the Senate announces the results of the vote and declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States. The results are entered into the official journals of the House and Senate. The President of the Senate then calls for objections to be made. If any objections are registered, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and Senate. The House and Senate would withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of any objections according the procedure set out under 3 U.S.C. section 15.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/procedural_guide.html

90 posted on 03/05/2010 10:16:20 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Thus persons born of alien parents were spoken of as being "naturalized" by birth in the US, not being "natural born" by virtue of such birth. At least in 1866.

It's good to see some of the other Senators being brought into the discussion pertaining to the 14th Amendment or the run up to it. There's more Senator discussions that can be used against the likes of EnderWiggins and his band of trolls.

91 posted on 03/05/2010 11:07:53 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

They know he’s hiding stuff. They’re helping him hide it.


92 posted on 03/05/2010 11:12:28 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

Comment #93 Removed by Moderator

To: DJ MacWoW

There’s been so much action tonight I missed this until now.

And you’re no doubt in the land of Nod by now.


94 posted on 03/05/2010 11:16:52 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

They’re not even attempting to disguise their motives any more.


95 posted on 03/05/2010 11:20:25 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Pansy has said s/he’s an attorney. I didn’t see it because I don’t sully my brain by reading it’s spew, haven’t for a long time. But others have verified that he made that claim.


96 posted on 03/05/2010 11:22:23 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

Since you portray yourself to be so smart on the subject, why do you not tell us what Wong Kim Ark has to say about what a “natural born Citizen” is rather than just citing it.


97 posted on 03/05/2010 11:45:22 PM PST by Puzo1 (Ask the Right Questions to Get the Right Answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
The decision did not require him to rule on Ark's status as an NBC. But the obiter dicta still absolutely contains "most authoritative... history of natural born citizenship in our Constitution yet provided."

Most of it is about English "natural born subjects".

Thought I'd checked that spelling of Gray. Well no matter, I did read it. I'm tired of being told I didn't read it, or didn't comprehend what I'd read.

But it's still dicta. It's also mostly about English common law, which in turn is about what it takes to be a Natural Born Subject. Americans are not subjects. It's in the interest of the King to have more subjects, so the criteria reflects that. Americans are the sovereigns, and it may not be in their best interest to have additional sovereigns, with possible split loyalties. Plus the dicta also contains citation to and a quote from Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

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

98 posted on 03/06/2010 12:18:07 AM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Texas resident

According to the media so take that for what it’s worth.

Thanks for the re.
Was at the VA for med. treatment yesterday, did not do a follow up on this sub.... thanks for bringing up to date.

Listened to Rush yesterday but, only for five min. between breaks. I did hear him (Rush) mention something about Roberts but, it wasn’t on this sub.


99 posted on 03/06/2010 5:09:01 AM PST by buck61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Huebolt

There is one thing I’ve learned here on FR, if you want a lot of reply s on any given sub. just make a post pertaining to the birther issue. Of course you have the nay sayer’s but, a funny thing about them, they discredit anything and everything, even with documents of long study such as this.
The nayer’s say we should spend our time on other more important issues, health care, the debt, un-employment and many others. Yet, they spend a hell of a lot of time responding to this sub.????? Now again, who’s wasting time ?


100 posted on 03/06/2010 5:25:03 AM PST by buck61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


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