Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
Oh the they don't have to follow me since the Supreme Court also said,
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
And as with Barack Obama, he is a BIG doubt.
No, I ignore them. I recognized what you do a long time ago.
I simply noted your time spent on a subject that you insisted is irrelevant......yet you dedicate so much of your time to it.
Any sane individual would just ignore the subject....you obviously have an agenda.
“Ms Rogers wants us to believe that those once free citizens fought a bloddy war to keep & confer subjectship from birth to every breathing soul born on American soil.”
Still wanting sex from me? Sorry, I’m male and straight. As for “every breathing soul born on American soil”, the Supreme Court has added amity. If the parents are not diplomats or an invading army, and if they are here “in amity”, then yes, “every breathing soul born on American soil” is a citizen & is so by the natural means of being born.
WTF???/
You're sick.....WTF is your problem?
Are you aware the text you posted supports the idea that a foreign country cannot claim citizenship over an American if the American does not agree to be bound by it?
You ignore the main point being that De Vattel had a huge influence on our Founding Fathers of a new nation that went its own way breaking away from the King of England and his laws.
Benjamin Franklin testifies to this fact in his Memoirs that I stated:
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838) cited in WKA
Thanks for showing your true ignorance:
analogous: similar in function but not in origin
Thus, thus they do NOT derive from the same source, the same origins, they only function similarly.
Yes, they used Vattel’s book. They did not adopt it as binding law. And the idea that the Constitution or Kent were referring to Vattel’s book remains laughable. What are the offenses against Vattel you would have the Constitution refer to?
Except that it goes on to say “ and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government”, which is what I’ve always acknowledged. Do you know what “entirely resulted” means?
Please, please, PLEASE! Try to read a SENTENCE! A whole SENTENCE!
Then maybe someday you can graduate to paragraphs...
“The term “citizen,” (natural/original common law) as understood in our law, is precisely analogous (Similar in function but not in structure(meaning) and evolutionary origin (jus commune/natural/original common law v. jura corona, or lex prerogativa/feudal/statutory law)) to the term "subject" (jura corona, or lex prerogativa/feudal/statutory law) in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
Thus when the founders & framers changed the form of government, they also changed the form of citizenship. Form being the meaning of the term not the function. It was how an individual became tied to the political state.
What’s laughable and a huge stretch by you trying to turn jus soli births from a bygone era of feudalism, as the same as it is referred to under Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution on who constitutes a natural born citizen.
No Country can by law confer Citizenship to any individual, your arguments are stupid and have been smacked down time and time again, that's why you are labeled as a troll.
Your boy obama is conferred his British/Kenyan citizenship via BIRTH RIGHT via his father, not law.
You post over and over again that no Country can deny ones Citizenship yet you will not acknowelgedg the Birth Right to it.....duh.
If a French man and woman are here on vacation, does the child lose it French Citizenship?
If not, how can bammis lose his British Citizenship?
He cannot, he's a duel Citizen........of course you will reply that osama could have a kid here and the kid would be eligible for POTUS....yeah, just what the Founders had in mind.
No Amendment can reach back in time and alter birth status. They weren't born citizens at all. Therefore, they could never have been natural-born citizens. Their children, however, could be.
Especially if you look to the feudal English common law that also made a “naturalized” British Subject a “Natural Born British Subject” as if the person had gone through the birth process for a 2nd time.
We went from subjects to citizens. As cited in WKA, “The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
So...what is your point?
Thus, thus they do NOT derive from the same source, the same origins, they only function similarly.
Yes, given any serious thought on the subject, it should become obvious.
The US Supreme Court has said the meaning is found in common law. Not Vattel, but common law.
You don’t get a vote. It has been decided.
Until you understand that, your side will do nothing but lose, lose, lose. Times close to 100 now...
(I realize that I’m a newb whipper-snapper compared to the two of you. Please be gentle. *whimpers*)
Seems everybody are dancing around the Golden Calf like in Moses' days forgetting the real issue....his present Indonesian citizenship and dropped on his mother's Passport application that very conveniently become missing/lost, hmmm!!!
And yet you cannot separate the two meanings when it is an inconvenience to your defense of the traitor in chief and cite English Common law as our own........too obvious troll....can't have it both ways....unless you're Mr Rogers, troll at large.
Why do you defend a man who is systematically destroying your Country, Military man?
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.