Posted on 02/06/2010 10:45:49 PM PST by smoothsailing
Look at his posts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:enderwiggins/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
Look what he is doing to AndyTheBear.
Hasn't said an nice thing to anyone since he signed up. Just endless rudeness.
Thanks for that info, I had been trying to gain access to the Polk’s directory for Hawaii for an incredibly long time with no success, same as with my response from the University as to when exactly Orland returned to teach there after receiving his PHd from University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1953. Of course I have not received a response to my request from UH while UW at Madison supplied me with confirmation of when he received both his master’s and his PHd within less than 24 hours! Going so many months with no computer access I am now trying to play catch up before I have to receive a new shoulder which will allow me more catch up time.
And for what reason are they so eager to keep their usurper in office still???
So the Constitution is not a Conservative issue, dude???
And you certainly is not one either!!!
Reminds me of Rahm.
Can you tell us WHO the usurper claim as his father, please???
Name calling can get you banned!!!
Because he's got a 'Rat Congress is not going to impeach him, even if he gets caught slipping intell to Al Qaeda, Russia and Red China.
That is exactly how he sees and feels about the United States of America!!!
And the usurper Steve(?) is born 1956-57!!!
Doesn't matter where McCain was born, his parents were both US citiens, and his father was serving in the "armies of he state". Vattel's "Law of Nations", Book I which supplies the "born in the country of parents who are citizens" criteria for natural born, states 5 sections later (217, the NBC definition being in 212):
...children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
McCain, RINO though he be, is a Natural Born Citizen, by the definition in "Law of Nations".
Oh and there was some sort of medical facility at Coco Solo, because there are records in the National Archives, which indicate which Medical Officer was assigned there at the time, and very likely delivered McCain. Just because a larger hospital was built later, doesn't mean there wasn't some hospital facility there before. The local English Language paper, The Panama American, announced his birth at the "Submarine Base hospital", in the "society" section.
No...I figure it this way; her Social Security application (if it’s legit) shows her birthday as November, 1942. She was in Chicago from ‘Dreams’ when she ‘was only sixteen then’ and had been accepted to attend the University of Chicago, where her uncle was Deputy Director of the Library...so that must have been the year she graduated.
1942 + 16 + Chicago points to pregnancy in 1958, birth in 1959.
She did that as a medical doctor and used medical terms!!
The usurper WAS natural-born (NOT been delivered by cesarean birth) and he possible could be an ...AMERICAN....Citizen!!!
The original enrollment was for Stanley Ann Dunham, since she started at U of H, before she married BHO Sr, assuming she did.
Of course Ann Obama, whoever she might be, could have also registered for the same class in Russian and could have been the person who lived in Seattle under the name Ann Obama, but was registered at U of Washington as Obama, Stanley Ann Dunham.
Barack H. Obama was a British citizen in 1961. He registered his son as a British citizen a few months after birth and later, after Kenyan independence in 1963, as a citizen of Kenya.
You obviously do not understand either the definition or the origin of the term, Natural Born Citizen, as it is related in the U.S. Constitution.
I will supply you with both.
The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:
“[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. . . . ” — John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
In other words, anyone born in the U.S.A. of citizen parents is a natural born citizen.
Here is the true precedent from a most liberal professor.
In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory written by Professor Lawrence B. Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.
[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]
[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]
[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.
The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject”. For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.
In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.
The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]
As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of ’natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.
And as pointed out above, please do not come back with the same old lame references to Blackstone & English common law, we know for a fact from the very 1st SCOTUS Justice Washington appointed, a Justice who was only 2nd to James Madison in the drafting of the Constitution, that the definition for US citizens was not derived from English common law, but on the law of Nations which is the law of nature:
“The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”
Wilson, in his 1st commentaries, blasts Blackstone’s theory by citing that the definition of ’subject’ per English common law according to Blackstone was not the definition of ‘citizen’ as adopted by the framers of the US Constitution. A ’subject’ is ruled by an all powerful central government/monarchy and the under the new Constitution of the United States, the central government’s power is derived from the people, the citizens.
Wilson also wrote the very 1st SCOTUS decision in Chisolm which is cited to this day as to the powers of the central government. He also was no right-wing conservative where the limits of the central government were concerned. Wilson felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in giving broader powers to those in Washington, but he KNEW the premise of the Constitution and stood behind it in every decision he made, regardless of his political philosophy.
Note: Barack H. Obama II could only have ceased to be a subject of the British Sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by naturalizing to another nation as a citizen of that nation. There is no evidence that he has ever done so.
The U.S. purposefully rejected, before 1800, the acceptance of foreign-born children by U.S. citizens as being Natural Born Citizens. And Panama, because it was leased, was never, ever considered a U.S.Territory. I consulted two immigration attorneys on that issue.
You and I have gone round-and-round on this issue before, kitty-cat.
You were wrong before and you’re still wrong.
Thank you for the "lecture", Doll!
I understand it quite well, especially the ONLY term Natural Born Citizen (NBC)!!
However, neither you or I have seen Dr. Fukino's "fake" term: "natural-born American Citizen mentioned any of the places NBC has been discussed. The term natural-born and again the word... A M E R I C A N...Citizen you have NOT seen that used before. So go and read my post again very careful to understand the meaning and the possibilty of Dr. Fukino CHA = CYA!!!
If Barack Hussein Obama is on the birth certificate as his father, whether he is the biological father or not, that is his LEGAL parent.
Hawaii’s Department of Health has verified, via index data, that there is a marriage license for Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham.
Of course, unless Obama II releases his BC, we’ll never know who was or wasn’t daddy.
Keep in mind that the DOH has admitted, in response to an email query, that Obama’s BC has been amended. Why did he do that, and what information was amended?
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.