Posted on 03/17/2011 1:54:19 PM PDT by STE=Q
The new part-in my estimation —is the Living Constitution/sic interpretation that allows the government powers not seen in the written Constitution.Thus when the 0 took that oath of Office to defend the Constitution what he heard in his socialistic global citizen head was quite different from what any Patriot might hope for from their entrusted public officials.
ML/NJ
Could be. I doubt his mother and sperm donor ever married.
This is the bottom line for me:
Quote:
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio — considered the “FATHER” of the Fourteenth Amendment — on March 9, 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, 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...”
End quote
(emphases mine)
Now ALLEGIANCE means a Complete and Total Allegiance as reflected in the oath a naturalized citizen had to take as part of the naturalization process, 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...”
Obama — through ‘fight the smears’ — freely admits that he was a dual citizen at his birth, as follows:
“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.”
Therefore, Obama was born OWING ALLEGIANCE to a Foreign entity!(see John Bingham quote above)
At his birth Obama had not even the ALLEGIANCE required of one to become a naturalized citizen.
How could he possibly be a Natural Born Citizen?
Fight the smears further claims that:
“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.”
What?
Natural Born Citizenship isn’t something one “loses” and then “gets back” sometime in the future.
One cannot “BECOME” a Natural Born Citizen.
One is either a Natural Born Citizen — at birth — or not.
So how can Obama claim to be a Natural Born Citizen under Article II - Section 1, of the united States constitution?
“No person except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President”
The short answer?
He cant!
STE=Q
My bottom line: A formal decision of the Supreme Court, spending page after page describing why the common law definition of citizenship should be applied to the Constitution is vastly more authoritative than the personal opinion of a single congressman, no matter how important he might be historically.
I have never seen a single convincing reason given why natural born citizen has any other meaning than native born citizen or citizen at birth. From what I can tell the two NBCs have frequently been used interchangeably in judicial decisions, legislation and regulations.
I respect your opinion, and certainly your right to it, but I respectfully disagree.
I will of course support any definitive judgment reached by the Supreme Court, the obvious body to settle such questions of constitutional interpretation.
you posted
“The apparent new [...]
New? What’s new about that part of our Constitution?”
What is new is the spin the obamites are using as a definition of natural born
and I used the word proscribed because that is the correct word in tht context.
Do you think odumbo is ‘ naturaL born”?
This is an excellent point
“Would someone please make 2 lists:
A. all the LEGITimate reasons that one would use more than one SSN
B. all the ILLEGITimate reasons that one would use more than one SSN”
MSM and even most conservative outlets ignore this.
Thee is absolutely NO question the SSN he used when he applied for his draft status was from a state in which he never lived and it also is a number issued to someelse
that isn’t a rumor or conspiracy theory
why can’t this get more traction?
Then why is it okay to change the Constitution to “native born” from “natural born”?
I will admit that there is an appealing "tidiness" to the "native born" reliance on Jus soli to exclusively confer "Natural Born Citizen" status.
Yes indeed, everything seems to fit together very well...that is... until one looks a little deeper into the historical underpinnings of our break from "mother" England, at which point things get a little messy.
The problem with exclusive reliance on Jus soli is that it reeks with the stench of feudalism!
The founding fathers intended for their posterity (that's us) to be sovereign-Citizens -- not Subjects of a sovereign!
They did not intend us to become surfs.
Words have consequences.
Notice the prefix "SUB" in Subject:
Origin: 1275–1325; (adj.) < Latin subjects, placed beneath, inferior, open to inspection, orig. past participle of subicere to throw or place beneath, make subject,... etc.
The elitist want to make the sovereign-Citizens -- We "the people" -- their subjects!
President Abe Lincoln got it right when he said at Gettysburg Pennsylvania, 1863:
... "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of THE PEOPLE, by THE PEOPLE, for THE PEOPLE, shall not perish from the earth."
(emphases mine)
How many have died so that "we" the sovergn "people" should be free rather than 'sub'jugated to a potentate?
No... words have power!
We are Free and Sovereign Citizens!
A Citizen has unalienable -- Natural (God given) -- rights.
The "rights" of a subject are at the disposal of his sovereign, and may be alienated at the pleasure of same.
No... a Subject and a Citizen are to different animals.
Take a guess which one is the mouse and which one is the man?
STE=Q
IT becomes ok in the minds of those who have first changed the written constitution into a living Constitution.For them and they alone it is then possible to claim the change to native born is acceptable. For those who yet believe we have a written Constitution that means what the terms used suggest it will never be “ok” to change natural born into native born.
Maybe John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and the Constitution of the United States of America will convince you:
Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
"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."
John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:
"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. "
This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective "natural" making it "natural born Citizen of the United States" for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton's proposed "born a Citizen". Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Convincing enough for ya?
obumpa
There are a few things to understand about English common law. Aliens who were in England were considered to have “actual obedience” to the Crown. There’s no equivalence to that in U.S. law. Second, English common law granted that those born to British fathers in other countries were “natural born subjects” at birth. This concept was not considered in force for U.S. citizenship. It’s why the naturalization act of 1790 declared children born abroad were “considered as” natural born citizens. If the U.S. was following English common law, there was no need to legislate citizenship this way. You quoted U.S. v. Rhodes: “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.” This follows a citation of Shanks v. Dupont, where in both circumstances, this is referring to children born IN THE UNITED STATES. IOW, birth in this country did not automatically make you a U.S. citizen, because you could be born in the allegiance of the King (through your parents). Again, allegiance to the King required “acutal obedience, but the only way to determine allegiance to the United States would be through an oath (such as naturalization oath) or birth to citizen parents who themselves (or their parents, and so on) had taken an oath.
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.