Posted on 06/12/2010 6:55:06 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Natural Born Ping!
Good discussion going on.
Note: If you want to be included on this ping list, or want to be removed, please let me know.
Cheers
Thanks for the ping....looking forward to catching up on the thread.
The following link will take you to the government’s own Immigration Service web page describing the three kinds/types of citizenship.
There are statutes concerning children born overseas to parents who are citizens, including the citizenship status of those born in Panama.
Panama has never been a U.S. Territory and the U.S.A. had administrative control only over the Cana Zone. The Canal Zone was never a part of the U.S. nor had the Republic of Panama ceded territory. So, that being the case, there are legal statutes dealing with the status of children born there; they’re conisdered Citizens-by-statute (jus sanguinas) and have U.S. citizenship from their parent(s).
Remember, natural born is NOT a kind/type of statutory citizenship as per the Federal Govt. Natural Born is ONLY an eligibility requirement for the U.S. Presidency per Article II of the U.S. Constitution, and requires, as per the Founders, the President to be jus solis AND jus sanguinas - born in the U.S.A. of citizen parents.
I hope the above helps. As I’m sure you can recognize, the implications are that neither McCain nor Obama meet the Natural Born citizen criteria. Both accepted large donations from George Soros (who is rabidly anti-Constitutional) before the last national election in 2008.
Satin Doll, I do believe that there is actually only two types of citizenship.
1. Natural born : both parents U.S. Citizens
2. Naturalized: any citizen granted citizenship by statue( immigration law)
a. immigrants who have naturalized
b. native born to immigrants who are not yet citizens
c. native born to one parent who is a citizen and the
other a foreign national
Under the current laws obama would be a native born(assuming that he was born in Hawaii) naturalized citizen and ineligible to be President. obama knows this , that is the reason he is surpressing all his birth information.
If a person could get a CERTIFIED copy of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE into court he could be removed from office.
Obama’s original birth records can be subpoenaed without Obama’s permission in accordance with Hawaii Statutues 338-18(b))(point 9) to “a person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;”
However there is no additional information on a 1961 Hawaii long form birth certificate from what is on a computerized print out short form COLB that is relevant to being Constitutionally eligible to be president.
Here’s a link to current US Citizenship Law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
Patently false!
There exist only three types of citizenship in the statutes: native born; naturalized; and citizenship-by-statute. All three have equal rights.
Natural Born Citizenship exists ONLY in Article II of the U.S. Constitution as a requirement to be eligible for the Presidency.
A Natural Born Citizen is born in a nation of citizen parents. Chief Justice Marshal said it in 1814, and he was one of the Founders. Congressman John Bingham, who wrote the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, read the above definition into the Congressional Record in 1866.
No one has the ‘right’ to be President. So, there is no unfairness or discrimination concerned in this matter - it was written into the Constitution by our Founders to protect the United States from usurpers without allegience to our system of government.
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other
countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’”
There were many arguments presented in the Wong Kim Ark but they do not equal the final decision, which I have already stated elsewhere on this thread.
As to English Common Law’s application to U.S. citizenship, I have some information of my own.
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. to 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 proposition 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 England’s 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 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.”
Supreme Court Justice 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.
In addition I want to add some research donated to Leo Donofrio by an interested party who wanted to remain anonymous (you can find the following at Leo’s website, Natural Born Citizen): “...The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) states: The expression ‘citizen of the United States’ occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
“That is serious on point historical research. At the time of his birth, Obama owed allegiance to Great Britain. That is not disputed, it is admitted by the President himself. And this admission is the true problem Obama faces should this issue ever make its way to the Supreme Court. Obama owed allegiance to great Britain when he was born.”
As a bona fide, authentic, true, genuine, walking-on-water, master of the White Hut.
The Supreme Court of the United States has had eight opportunities to revisit Wong Kim Ark with specific regard to Barack Obama and natural born citizenship. They have chosen to reject all eight appeals of lower court decisions, in Berg v Obama, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Beverly v FEC, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.
The only courts that I know of to address the issue directly with regard to Obama are in Indiana, a lower (Marion County) court and the Indiana Court of Appeals. In its dismissal of a lawsuit which would have invalidated Obama’s Indiana Electoral votes on the grounds that both his parents were not US citizens and he is therefore ineligible, the Indiana Court of Appeals said: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person ‘born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject’ at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those ‘born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.’—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
Attemps have been made to obtain copies of obama’s birth records in the court system. So far all attempts have been denied. obama knows that it takes both parents to be a Natural born citizen so he can never allow any one to get a certified copy of his birth records that can be used in court to remove him from office.
THE Constitution is based on jus sanguinas(birthright) not jus soli(place of birth). If you read the Constitution you will see that the phrase” be they born overseas” It doesn’t matter where you are born at if BOTH your parents are U.S. citizens you are considered a Natural Born citizen.
Attemps have been made to obtain copies of obama’s birth records in the court system. So far all attempts have been denied. obama knows that it takes both parents to be a Natural born citizen so he can never allow any one to get a certified copy of his birth records that can be used in court to remove him from office.
THE Constitution is based on jus sanguinas(birthright) not jus soli(place of birth). If you read the Constitution you will see that the phrase” be they born overseas” It doesn’t matter where you are born at if BOTH your parents are U.S. citizens you are considered a Natural Born citizen.
I don’t believe that the phrase “be they born overseas” appears anywhere in the US Constitution. I think that you are referring to the Naturalization Act of 1790 where the phrase “be they born beyond the sea” appears.
NATURALIZATION ACT OF 1790
“Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be BORN BEYOND THE SEA, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as NATURAL BORN CITIZENS: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been RESIDENT in the United States: . . .” (capitalization for emphasis mine)
If both parents were required to be citizens in order to be considered a natural born citizen, the US Supreme Court would have already taken up one of the Obama eligibility lawsuits on appeal. They did not.
The Supreme court will deny any case against obama on the grounds that they can not bring relief( remove obama). Only congress can remove obama. A citizen may be born on U.S. soil and be a Natural born citizen , but being born on U.S. soil does not automatically make you a citizen or Natural born. The Natural born citizen clause of the Constitution is a security clause meant to remove foreign influence fron the office of the President. with obama as “president “ I now see why such a clause was necessary!
Without evidence , copies of obama’s records, no prosecuting attorney will touch the case. I spent a few years as a Police officer. I know how the game(very political) is played. Evidence first ,then prosecution. obama is safe as long as he hides the evidence againt him.( like not being a Natural Born citizen).
Without evidence , copies of obama’s records, no prosecuting attorney will touch the case. I spent a few years as a Police officer. I know how the game(very political) is played. Evidence first ,then prosecution. obama is safe as long as he hides the evidence againt him.( like not being a Natural Born citizen).
Don’t you realize that Obama announced his father being foreign born fifteen years ago when he wrote “Dreams For My Father” which went on to become a number one bestseller?
There’s nothing to hide about his father being Kenyan. Everyone knows that.
The Supreme court will deny any case against obama on the grounds that they can not bring relief( remove obama). Only congress can remove obama. A citizen may be born on U.S. soil and be a Natural born citizen , but being born on U.S. soil does not automatically make you a citizen or Natural born. The Natural born citizen clause of the Constitution is a security clause meant to remove foreign influence fron the office of the President. with obama as “president “ I now see why such a clause was necessary!
You are mistaken.
I’m not surprised court cases have been unsuccessful as they are not the correct venue to seek a usurper’s removal. The Law is a tricky field and when you’re going after someone who has committed fraud, like Obama, it is doubly hard when he is in a supreme position of power.
Per the U.S. Constitution, only the Congress has the power to remove a President from office. Congress decades ago delegated the power to remove a usurper or ineligible President, via Quo Warranto, to the District Court of Washington, D.C.
I’m not surprised court cases have been unsuccessful as they are not the correct venue to seek a usurper’s removal. The Law is a tricky field and when you’re going after someone who has committed fraud, like Obama, it is doubly hard when he is in a supreme position of power.
Per the U.S. Constitution, only the Congress has the power to remove a President from office. Congress decades ago delegated the power to remove a usurper or ineligible President, via Quo Warranto, to the District Court of Washington, D.C.
Thomas Nugent
1700 - 1777
About the Author
Nugent translated Montesquieu, Burlamaqui, and Vattel into English.
In The Library:
* translator: The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature of Natural Law and on Luxury (LF ed.) (1797)
* translator: The Principles of Natural and Politic Law (1747)
Please note the demise of Nugent. The 1797 Edition of Vattel was translated by him.
Nugent translated a English-French pocket dictionary
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.