Posted on 05/07/2010 5:56:48 PM PDT by bushpilot1
James K. Polk was born in North Carolina in 1795 and was the 11th elected President.
The author states he was the first natural born citizen elected President.
Can any one locate this book? Google books does not allow full access.
Perhaps the author gives an explanation.
Please take reading comprehension 101 and after you do that, stroll back through NS’s posts. He come to FR for one reason... to fight. PERIOD! He hates Palin, Texas, Texans. the South, any Southerner, Baptists, the Army, pro-lifers, state rights,Rush, Beck, Bush. But not to worry, he lovessss Jon Stewart.
Now after you take your reading comp 101 go back and re-read my post and read it slowly. You will find, asshat, that I did not say he should be banned, although I imagine that would be fine with most FREepers that he fights with on a daily basis, and the ones that he posts to.
I SAID that the posters at POLITIJAB, where he is a hero and where his pal milspecrob posts, said he would be one that would probably get banned here on FR. So apparently, over there, they think he is one of them. Now trot your little as* over there, sign up, and just read the posts. If you can’t find it, we have screen shots and I can post them here for you. politijab.com
He also posts on DU. Same name, same subjects, words almost identical.
Read Doe Eyes past posts. Liberal troll
And I would argue the United States of America existed from the time of the Declaration in 1776.
oops, I misread Van Buren’s birth date , I stand corrected.
I should have caught it .
So would I, but in this case, it doesn't matter. Both President's born after the Declaration, but before the Constitution, were also born after the Articles of Confederation were adopted.
can you get access to the book on the internet?
I wonder what would happen if a public celebration in front of Kapi'olani Medical Center on August 4 were to be held, and Obama and members of Obama's family were (very publicly invited) to attend... :-)
That’s a lot like the current US “perpetual allegiance” in which the Feds won’t allow US citizens to renounce their citizenship if they feel it’s done for tax avoidance purposes.
Not with us it isn't. They put in a 40 hour, Monday thru Friday workweek same as us.
Strictly speaking I suppose you could say that.
The spirit of the nation began with the Declaration of Independence, I’ll grant you that. But, the legal entity came into being with ratification of the Articles of Confederation by the States. Citizenship is a legal concept, that was in dispute with the former sovereign to greater or lesser degree over the best part of four decades, and it took two wars to settle once and for all.
Efforts to tie us down and constrain us from being free, sovereign citizens have been ongoing since the War Between The States, expatpat. View that conflict in the abstract and step away from the inflammatory claims over reasons why, and look purely at the relationships between the Federal and the State under our Constitution. Allowing citizens to renounce their citizenship, the right of expatriation, was a major point of discussion and an acknowledged point of departure, between the new Nation and the former, which didn't allow it under perpetual allegiance. The right of expatriation was something of a novelty on our part at the time, and was decidedly not the right of an Englishman.
Recall that there was no Federal income tax, and no pretext to claim tax avoidance for disallowing expatriation, prior to 1913 and the "temporary" income tax.
This strange "yes, we all agree" nonsense over Blackstone's Commentaries and the English common law natural born subject being the basis of the United States term natural born citizen ignores the fact that subjects are subject to a sovereign, whereas our citizens were themselves the sovereign, according to Chief Justice John Marshall and others.
What is, in my opinion, a grossly mistaken perception of origin, was popularized by the befuddled Justice Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark. Gray didn't know his own mind, and reversed his own decisions at time. He was educated in law in London, maybe that explains his odd lack of identification with our own founding principles.
There's a prize being taken away from us, the effort is of very long standing, and the populace as a whole has become so ill-educated as to be completely unaware of what is being lost, or even so stupid as to be hostile to the concept. And who controls education, since when?
Given they won their independence, I retrograde to 1776 since the Congress called it the “United STATES of America” instead of the United Colonies. If they hadn’t won, it’d be moot.
And then you could argue the Articles or perhaps the Treaty of Paris instead, since Britain would have to relinquish its claim.
On the other extreme, it could be said that the status of the United States of America under the international common law Law of Nations wasn’t firmly settled until 1812. Clearly Great Britain had this understanding.
The legalities, both domestic and to a great extent international with the exception of Great Britain, fell into place shortly following ratification of the Articles with the British surrender at Yorktown, and the Nation was born. That’s my take on it.
Treaties were broken, citizenship was disputed by the surrendered British for the better part of four decades after. But, it began then. Intent before the law, before the law came into existence, doesn’t count. There were no legal citizens until the war was won and the government established by agreement between the States, whose authority derived from their respective citizens. United States citizenship was determined by the States.
From an earlier edition, there’s a useful footnote referencing a book by Thach and another by Farrand that evidently provide further detail on the source of the NBC clause:
http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=p1o_AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA325&img=1&pgis=1&dq=natural-born&sig=ACfU3U3ty8VF5MKgQlUD8IOpUDO3T6rcOQ&edge=1
Thus, it’s easily possible Corwin relied on these authorities rather than Vattel directly.
Here’s a link to a nice review of Thach, apparently considered a highly authoritative source. Unfortunately, I can’t find it on Google Books. http://www.libertyfund.org/details.aspx?id=2021&catalog=090210
http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead/getEad?eadid=MC012&kw=#series4
Professional and personal correspondence Edward S. Corwin
includes letters from SC Justices and there is a file on the 14th Amend.
looking for natural born citizen definition
Why don't you enlighten us.......Noob.
“However the Court may interpret the provisions of the Constitution, it is still the Constitution which is the law and not the decision of the Court.”
historian of the Supreme Court, Mr. Charles
Warren:
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.