Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's McCain resolution demands 'American' parents
WND ^ | April 29, 2011 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 04/29/2011 8:13:19 PM PDT by RobinMasters

Perhaps it's a good thing that the U.S. Senate didn't take up a resolution on Barack Obama's status as a "natural born Citizen" in 2008 – as members did for GOP candidate Sen. John McCain while both were seeking the U.S. presidency.

The Democrat might not have qualified under the requirements the Senate, including Obama, a co-sponsor and then-senator, put in the resolution, including the demand that the candidate have "American citizen" parents.

The candidates' circumstances were not the same: Questions were raised over McCain's eligibility under the Constitution's demand that a president be a "natural born Citizen," because he was born to American citizen military parents while they are on assignment overseas.

Be the first to get the new eligibility book signed by Jerome Corsi and help get TV commercials on the air to bust this issue wide open!

The specific allegations have been placed online by YouTube participate PPSimmons, who previously has analyzed and provided commentary on the issues of eligibility to the presidency:

Questions over Obama's have arisen because of his almost total concealment of documentation from his life – including his passport records, kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records and schedules, medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license and adoption records.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bc; bho44; certifigate; impeach; phoney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last
If you want to see this movie, download it here :

A Question of Eligibility

PDF Report : Obama Eligibility Primer (32 pages)

Download the PDF Report here

Sign the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Petition

The Jerome Corsi's forthcoming book “Where's the Birth Certificate ?" : WheresTheBirthCertificate.com

Video (Oct 10, 2008) : Obama Citizenship - October Surprise

1 posted on 04/29/2011 8:13:24 PM PDT by RobinMasters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Unintended consequences...


2 posted on 04/29/2011 8:14:53 PM PDT by nolongerademocrat ("Before you ask G-d for something, first thank G-d for what you already have." B'rachot 30b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Hussein Obama declares himself INELIGIBLE!!!!!!!! NEWS at 11 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


3 posted on 04/29/2011 8:16:56 PM PDT by biggredd1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

HA-HA, you are posting all these threads that pitch to sell that Birther-book, which probably says Obama wasnt born in the USA. But now the argument has changed to his father.

It’s OK with me, good luck.


4 posted on 04/29/2011 8:18:25 PM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Apparently the folks at WND do not understand the meaning of a “Non-Binding Resolution.


5 posted on 04/29/2011 8:27:32 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

If someone is born overseas, BOTH of his parents must be citizens. If born in the USA, NEITHER parent must be a citizen.

WorldNutDaily distorting things for sales again...


6 posted on 04/29/2011 8:28:35 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
If someone is born overseas, BOTH of his parents must be citizens. If born in the USA, NEITHER parent must be a citizen.

What is your source for that statement?
7 posted on 04/29/2011 8:49:36 PM PDT by ScubieNuc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: RobinMasters

Now that the long form COLB has been released, verifying his father was an African, from Kenya, finally, we can move forward, proving Obama is ineligible.

In order to be eligible to serve as POTUS, one must be the child of two parent citizens. Obama is not.

For those who think the argument has changed, it has only begun.

Sure, some so called “birthers” remain busy attempting to discredit his COLB document. Either their dogs took to the wrong trail, or their motive should be suspect. It’s the wrong argument. Work with what we know. Obama is an anchor baby. Not eligible to be POTUS. Both parents were not American citizens.

Obama Sr, an African, from Kenya, and a likely communist, spewed his sperm into a college student. He could not legally marry the the college studen whom he impregnated, because he was already married in his own country, Kenya. Polygamy is illegal in America. It was then, it is today.

I know I have given this analogy before, but I would like to give it again, without reprimand. If I may. Imagine a muslim terrorist comes to America on a student visa. While here, he impregnates one of his college mates, an American citizen. She bears his child. He returns to his terrorist homeland. Is his son eligible to be POTUS?

If yes, how?


9 posted on 04/29/2011 9:25:36 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (Repeal the 16th amendment . Send Islam packing to their homeland.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc

>If someone is born overseas, BOTH of his parents must be citizens. If born in the USA, NEITHER parent must be a citizen.

What is your source for that statement?<

bet your going to hear the 14th amendment ... which was to make the slaves of old citizens. Not natural born ones.


10 posted on 04/29/2011 9:29:11 PM PDT by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
Lord McCain ran for president in the 2000 election. I do not remember one utterance in regard to his eligibility way back then. So why did the Senate decide they needed to resolve a path to his eligibility? When this was taking place it made no ‘common’ sense to me, most especially given the uncontrolled fits lord McCain is infamous for throwing and he took this resolution as if it was necessary.
11 posted on 04/29/2011 9:36:55 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc

“What is your source for that statement?”

(page 246)
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “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,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established....

...this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,

if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,

and saying that such a child “was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354.”...

...In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

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. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html


12 posted on 04/29/2011 9:40:31 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Munz

See post 12.


13 posted on 04/29/2011 9:41:14 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bockscar
The parents are not American citizens but their child born here is automatically considered an American citizen. I think it is ridiculous but that is just my opinion though.

The 14th amendment was passed just after the Civil War and was intended to guarantee the newly freed slaves were accepted as citizens. Much later a liberal SCOTUS issued an opinion that is the basis for granting citizenship to any baby born on US territory (admittedly ridiculous). That having been said the grant of citizenship does not in any sense make them "Natural Born Citizens". NBC was based upon "Natural Law" and assumed to be universal among the nations. The principal applied to citizenship was that the offspring of a couple was granted the citizenship of his/her father regardless of where the birth took place.

Before the flame wars commence, that is more or less the definition advanced in several of yesterday's threads on the NBC topic. The definition is not given in the Constitution nor Bill of Rights. The impression I got was the term was in common use in the 1700's and really did not need definition.

Regards,
GtG

14 posted on 04/29/2011 9:42:51 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

No, the resolution did not set requirements. It only acknowledge the fact that McCain did have American parents, among other facts. Reciting these facts are not creating requirements.


15 posted on 04/29/2011 9:43:06 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc; Munz

The Lynch decision from 1844 is long, but well worth reading if you want to know how the term natural born citizen came to be used in the Constitution.


16 posted on 04/29/2011 9:43:22 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mlo
No, the resolution did not set requirements. It only acknowledge the fact that McCain did have American parents, among other facts. Reciting these facts are not creating requirements.

Why was there a need for such a resolution? did the Senate do this back in 2000?

17 posted on 04/29/2011 9:47:14 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: Just mythoughts
"Why was there a need for such a resolution? did the Senate do this back in 2000?"

There wasn't a "need". It was a political act to attempt to settle doubts about McCain's status, since he was born outside the 50 states. Some people were making it an issue. It had no force of law, it was a resolution. And the point is, it defined no requirements. It simply stated the facts as they applied to McCain.

19 posted on 04/29/2011 9:52:55 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray

“The impression I got was the term was in common use in the 1700’s and really did not need definition.”

The term comes from the English legal term “natural born subject”, and replaced subject with citizen because we no longer had a king. And NBS had a long and established legal meaning - one that included the children of alien parents.

That isn’t the answer birthers want, so they decided to pull it from the 1797 translation of Vattel instead...but the Constitution was written in 1787.


20 posted on 04/29/2011 9:53:46 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mlo
There wasn't a "need". It was a political act to attempt to settle doubts about McCain's status, since he was born outside the 50 states. Some people were making it an issue. It had no force of law, it was a resolution. And the point is, it defined no requirements. It simply stated the facts as they applied to McCain.

WHO was doubting lord McCain's status? I do agree it was political, but a political diversion given what has unfolded. AND hindsight being 20/20 Hillary would have been wise to have not deceived herself her destiny as first woman president was already carved into stone. NOW for the record I do not know what BamBamKennedy and his horde of worshipers are hiding but something is being hidden.

21 posted on 04/29/2011 9:59:30 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Well, first, I appreciate that you took the time to post some sources. However, I looked at your first link and I was unable to find out whose opinion that was which made the two statements you posted. Were they judges? Politicians? Lawyers?

Second, I'm not a lawyer, but I found other sources which seem more official and say something different.



Plus there are things like this from the Minor vs. Happersett case:

The Chief Justice’s opinion entertained the following on the issue of natural born citizens in the Minor case:

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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.[iv] (Emphasis added)

It is a seminal point in this opinion when the Justice states:

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” [v]
Since this case references the 14th Amendment and therefore obviously follows the 14th Amendment, the precedent set here seems to indicate three crucial facts:

1)Affirmation that the Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that, and
2)That there is no dispute that children born in the United States to parents that are U.S. citizens are natural born citizens, and
3)Children that are born in the United States without reference to the citizenship of their parents are not without doubt natural born citizens.


My belief and teaching was always along the lines of...if something in the Constitution needs to be changed, then an amendment needs to be made to address that change. I don't see any amendment addressing the "natural born citizen" issue. Therefore, while it may seem petty to some, I think it is wrong to 1) ignore what the Constitution says and 2) allow politicians to ignore the Constitution for political expediency.

I suspect if Obama had made a case for changing the "natural born citizen" clause, he may have won, because most people don't really seem to care if his Dad was a Kenyan or not. However, allowing one plain evasion of the law by the political class, not only violates the oath I took as a service member of the armed forces, but it sets a precedent which says that the Constitution doesn't really need to be followed by politicians if it gets too messy.
22 posted on 04/29/2011 10:06:07 PM PDT by ScubieNuc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

You need to read “Liberty and Tyranny” by Mark Levine...it’ll change your thinking.


23 posted on 04/29/2011 10:11:21 PM PDT by Issaquahking (Palin/West 2012 She fights like a girl, he fights like a man!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

If your 1844 case was so definitive, then why did the Justice in the 1875 case say something so different?

The simple point is that the founders set a higher standard for citizenship for the office of president. That standard was called Natural Born citizen, which has roots in Vattel’s Law of Nations.

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm (Book 1, Chapter 19, #212)

There is no amendment to the Constitution which changes the higher standard of Natural Born citizen, to one of just citizen or naturalized citizen. So until that happens, this issue isn’t going to go away.


24 posted on 04/29/2011 10:13:31 PM PDT by ScubieNuc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; ScubieNuc; Sto Zvirat
Notice the sentence he left out, ScubieNuc.

(pg 250) 6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question."

25 posted on 04/29/2011 11:54:53 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mlo; Sto Zvirat

There wasn’t a need in 2000 but there was in 2008? Why is that?


26 posted on 04/29/2011 11:58:29 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bockscar

Wonderful, isn’t it? By that standard, all of the women who’ve flown in and out for a little “birth tourism” now have children eligible to be POTUS.


27 posted on 04/29/2011 11:59:44 PM PDT by Nickname
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray; Sto Zvirat
4.2 A similar term, "natural-born Subject", appeared in British Common Law

In 1736, Matthew Bacon defined "natural-born Subject" as:

All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his dominions. (Page 77 in this 724-page (48MB) PDF file: Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, Vol 1, 1736).

Much more here: Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer

28 posted on 04/30/2011 12:08:17 AM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray; Sto Zvirat
Don't believe it when you're told that the Founders could not have used Vattel's Law of Nations because it was a 1797 Edition. They had an edition from 1758. Here are translations from editions 1778, 1758 and 1883.

Emmerich de Vattel - 1778 Edition

BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19

Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Volume I A Photographic Reproduction of Books I and II of the First Edition 1758 with an Introduction by Albert de Lapradelle

TRANSLATION OF THE EDITION OF 1758 By Charles G Fenwick WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY ALBERT DE LAPRADELLE

CHAPTER XIX One's Country and Various Matters Relating to It

The members of a civil society are its citizens. Bound to that society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they share equally in the advantages it offers. Its natives are those who are born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society can not maintain and perpetuate itself except by the children of its citizens, these children naturally take on the status of their fathers and enter upon all the latter's rights. The society is presumed to desire this as the necessary means of its self preservation, and it is justly to be inferred that each citizen, upon entering into the society, reserves to his children the right to be members of it. The country of a father is therefore that of his children, and they become true citizens by their mere tacit consent. We shall see presently whether, when arrived at the age of reason, they may renounce their right and the duty they owe to the society in which they are born. I repeat that in order to belong to a country one must be born there of a father who is a citizen; for if one is born of foreign parents, that land will only be the place of one's birth, and not one's country.

------------------------------------------------------

THE LAW OF NATIONS

FROM THE NEW EDITION, BY

JOSEPH CHITTY, Esq. Barrister At Law

WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REFERENCES,
By EDWARD D. INGRAHAM, Esq.
PHILADELPHIA:

T. & J.W. JOHNSON & CO., LAW BOOKSELLERS,
No. 535 CHESTNUT STREET.

1883.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.


29 posted on 04/30/2011 12:14:05 AM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
HA-HA, you are posting all these threads that pitch to sell that Birther-book, which probably says Obama wasnt born in the USA. But now the argument has changed to his father.

It’s OK with me, good luck.

No, sickoflibs, the author is finally focusing upon the real issue. While it has been frustrating to us who value the Constitution, we are bit closer to the real, which is certainly complex, we have a solvable problem. If, as our ruling class pundits, sadly including many who call themselves conservatives, suggest, we ignore the Constitution, just one more time, every illegal contract aimed at crippling our republic will remain in effect. Like Nancy Pelosi’s never to be forgotten, “Sign it so you can find out what's in it,” we have signed documents which betray a pattern of deception, and betray the real reason Barack was buying time with the birth certificate misdirection, a birth certificate which not only showed nothing embarrassing, certainly nothing warranting six months in Leavenworth for a decorated Army Surgeon who asked for confirmation, but embarrassing whatsoever.

Senator Barack Obama signed his agreement to the following statements. There are some weasel words, but lets take a look at what he signed in Senate Resolution 511:

‘Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator MCCAIN is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’.’ Patrick Leahy.

‘We conclude that Senator McCain is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone.’ Barack’s Harvard adviser and consittuional law professor Larry Tribe, with Ted Olson.’

The core principle in both statements was "citizen parents." While the purpose of SR 511 is clearly to silence the Republicans, it is full of sneaky half truths, and indeed, false implications, the authors, from Obama’s campaign committee, McCaskill and Larry Tribe, showed their true intent with the comment:

“And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961—not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.” Larry Tribe and Ted Olson.

Their point and the point of supposed Resolution that McCain was Eligible as far as the senate was concerned (it had no force of law) is to pretend that Obama was/is eligible. They guessed that no one important would dare notice that while McCain had citizen parents, Obama didn't!z,

They all knew of Obama’s problem and conspired, with the assistance of the media, to distract the public.

What was so misleading about the Tribe-Olson letter? Here is one sneaky example which could serve as a “what's wrong with this reasoning” exercise in law school or a rhetoric class.

Congress has recognized in successive federal statutes since the Nation's Founding that children born abroad to U.S. citizens are themselves U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. §1401 (c); see also Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, §1, 48 Stat. 797, 797. Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as ``natural born citizens.’’ Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, §1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.

The above might be called hand waving, or crass deception, but it is dishonest law by men who besmirch their vaunted positions.

Tribe begins by citing “federal statutes,” laws, and is properly referring to ‘citizens.’ So? Citizens by statute are, by definition, by Article 1 Section 8, naturalized. Title 8 Section 1401 is naturalization law. The president and vice president must be ‘natural’ citizens. To mislead, Tribe references ‘the First Congress’ and its extension of the natural born Citizen definition to children of citizen born abroad. That reference to natural born Citizens in US Code. the only one ever written, was repealed in 1795, probably because it was unconstitutional. Tribe constructed an argument which shifted subjects, citizens to natural born Citizens, and used a patently untrue clause, one repealed five years after it was proposed.

Tribe and Olson throughout referred to the equivalence of English Common law, of a subject to a citizen. Here is just a bit of a wonderful Treatise on Citizenship from one President who actually could write, President before the ratification, in 1785, the Congressional Historian, Dr. David Ramsay (find the whole ‘Dissertation’ on scribd.com)

A citizen of the United States, means a member of this new nation. The principle of government being radically changed by revolution, the political character of the people also changed from subjects to citizens.

The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who collectively, possesses sovereignty.

Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure: but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.

Our founders and framers did NOT base our Constitution on English common law. We have political opportunists who are taking us for fools. Not many understood our citizenship laws and Constitution before Obama, but we are learning quickly. Here is Prentice Webster in an 1891 Treatise on Citzenship:

“to repeate what has already been set forth as the rule prior to 1836, it must be affirmed that neither jus soli nor allegiance in the English sense an dmeaning had any thing whatever to do with the acquisition of citizenship in the United States.”

It is important to note that our Uniform Code of Naturalization, the code which applies, by his own admission, to Barack Obama, permits naturalized citizens to hold every office but the presidency and vice presidency. English common law does not admit naturalized citizens to membership in Parliament. No English law or constitution makes commoners eligible to be monarch.

The collusion of all senators in 2008, and the blatant disregard for our Constitution shown by Barack Obama, all of whom signed a Senate Resolution in which Obama’s eligibility was pointedly but dishonestly discussed, claiming John McCain was a natural born Citizen because both of his parents WERE US Citizens when he was born, but Barack too was eligible, both of whose parents were NOT citizens, was a smokescreen, and an enormous crime. The issue was never about a birth certificate. It was to distract the public from the obscure laws governing natural born citizens so that those in the ruling class might survive our transformation from a republic into a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, with most of their privileges intact.

These laws were clearly not obscure to Barack Obama, or to Pat Leahy, or Clare McCaskill, or to Jim Webb, or to Orrin Hatch, who actually attempted himself to amend Article II Section 1 in 2003, to make Schwarzenegger eligible. The Democrats didn't bother to try because our history is too clear on the point. Twenty five amendment attempts of Article II Section 1 have failed. It was easier, as with the health-care bill, to tell you what to believe, insult you if you ask questions, and to act like the dictators they intend to be. It is easier, now that we have a legal document confirming that Obama’s father, the British subject, was indeed his father, to say that there is no legal doubt about Barack Jr.s ineligibility. The courts have said that because we are all being injured, we have no standing use the courts. It is approaching time for a government of and by the people to replace the courts, and the legislature which failed to vet an ineligible presidential nominee.

Some of our ruling class pundits are saying “There are more important things, like the economy and our foreign policy, to attend to.” “It is foolish to address silly issues like constitutional interpretation.” Without a president, judiciary and legislative branches, who obey the Constitution no effort to right an economy has a chance of succeeding. Obama’s cadre intends a wholesale replacement of our Constitutional republic with a Marxist bureaucracy. Our framers required a natural born Citizen because it could help to insure a leader with the allegiance of his or her parents. We got what they anticipated, but ignored that the parents had to have sole allegiance to our sovereign republic. The author of the 14th Amendment used that term, allegiance, in place of citizenship, when addressing the House of Representatives to explain the basis for our naturalization laws. Congressman John Bingham to the House of Representatives, 1866:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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….

30 posted on 04/30/2011 1:18:35 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2712725/posts


31 posted on 04/30/2011 1:20:16 AM PDT by djf (Dems and liberals: Let's redefine "marriage". We already redefined "natural born citizen".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bockscar
That is what the problem is with the so called ‘anchor babies’. The parents are not American citizens but their child born here is automatically considered an American citizen.

Oddly enough, that's something that even the 14th Amendment fails to do;

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

-----

Foreigners were people here traveling. Aliens [or 'denizens' ] were foreigners who decided to reside here. The diplomat category is self-explainitory.

---------

The authority to make a uniform rule of naturalization is NOT the same thing as having the authority to decide WHO gets to become a citizen. It merely insured that the State laws on the subject would be standardized.

There is no Constitutional authority to create anchor-babies unless the Constitution itself is changed.

32 posted on 04/30/2011 5:34:55 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Law of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nolongerademocrat
VIDEO:Within The Article
33 posted on 04/30/2011 6:23:38 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid! (Allen West 2012 Make it happen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!

Wow! Thanks. This needs to be spread far and wide.


34 posted on 04/30/2011 6:37:24 AM PDT by nolongerademocrat ("Before you ask G-d for something, first thank G-d for what you already have." B'rachot 30b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner

I wrote a more detailed scenario many mos ago. Only one person who’s read it disputed it, and he’s a guy who says the 14th Amendment set aside the Framer’s intentions re: NBC. A strange interpretation At Best.

Hypothetical:

Let’s say you are a Founder, and your desire is to protect this country which you love, and which you know will be threatened by subversive forces. You write in the NBC requirement, and in your mind this is to rule out certain non-American, un-American or even anti-American (Manchurian) candidates from winning an election and fundamentally threatening the Republic from within.

Fast forward. Theoretically speaking, posit this scenario. Karl Marx, although already married, makes a legal visit to the US and ‘marries’ a 17 yo black girl. While the child is young, the mother divorces this man, moves to a foreign country and has her son adopted by a foreign national. The parents hate free market capitalism, and indoctrinate their son in the superiority of foreign cultures.

When eventually the son returns, he’s turned over to communists. They rear him with a virulent hatred for whites and traditional American values. When he gets to college he makes no secret of his affiliations: he selects radical Marxists and the most radical of all brands of feminists as friends, since these are the only people he feels comfortable with. Later he writes a book and dedicates it to the dreams he received from his father, Marx. This father supported the taking of 100 % of the citizens’ money by the state, and doling it out as the State sees fit. The son knows this, and writes a paean to his father’s ‘dreams’ because he shares them, and wants the world to know he shares them. He writes a second book in which he unabashedly offers his view of whites: “White men’s greed runs a world in need”.

Now he runs for POTUS. We have come to a time in our nation’s history when asking any kind of question whatsoever of a biracial man is considered racist, so he gets a complete pass during the election. When asked to show his original long form BC, he spits in our faces. (The evil whites have no right to question their biracial Marxist Messiah!) He rules in the kind of luxury and opulence enjoyed by tinpot dictators, and his executive orders further the impression that he’s not a president but a king. He runs the US down all over the world, apologizing for us in humiliating and demeaning ways while praising countries with wretched human rights records. He nationalizes banks, car companies, healthcare, etc. He subverts our interests to those of the UN. He pushes for, and gets, a treaty favorable to Russia and unfavorable to us. He seeks to destroy out military by homosexualizing/sodomizing it. There’s much more, but you get the picture.

Now as a Founder, can you honestly say that this isn’t precisely what you were trying to protect us from, with the NBC requirement? You wanted to assure that a US born and bred person, who knew and respected our culture and traditions, held the highest office in the land. Is not Obama EXACTLY the person the Founders feared, and tried to exclude? He is fast destroying the country they loved and sacrificed for. And it’s not a coincidence. He is not a NBC; he doesn’t understand us yet he hates us rabidly. And if the Constitution had been respected and honored, he would never have attained the sinecure from which to do his filthy work.

The alternative is that as a Founder, you wrote the NBC requirement precisely SO that a man like Marx, Mao, Hitler, Stalin—or worse—could sire a future POTUS, so long as he ‘married’ an underage American girl in order to do so. If you can’t see the idiocy in that, then you are a Leftist Loon no matter what you say.


35 posted on 04/30/2011 6:40:33 AM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nolongerademocrat
VIDEO:Obama PDF Release: Layered
36 posted on 04/30/2011 6:40:35 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid! (Allen West 2012 Make it happen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!

Interesting. I wonder if Obama is anxious to get out of office and start making “real” money.


37 posted on 04/30/2011 6:52:41 AM PDT by nolongerademocrat ("Before you ask G-d for something, first thank G-d for what you already have." B'rachot 30b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: nolongerademocrat

He is a liar and we have no idea who he is. The only thing we have is that he has surrounded himself with radicals and his mentor Frank Marshall Davis an avowed communist. But he is half black so he can do no wrong.


38 posted on 04/30/2011 7:00:32 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid! (Allen West 2012 Make it happen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; ScubieNuc; Sto Zvirat; John Valentine

Yes, notice the sentence I supposedly left out...which was followed one sentence later, as TigersEye knows, with “ This circumstance itself, in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the administration of justice, furnishes a strong inference that there has never been any doubt but that the common law rule was the law of the land.”

The judge clearly said that in 1844, when he wrote the decision, no judicial decision had been written on it during the preceding 57 years. The decisions involving property and inheritance had not discussed the meaning of natural born citizen - because it was so well known that no one had used it (or Vattel’s 1797 mistranslation) to challenge anyone.

The judge, writing in 1844, was clearly NOT saying that in 2011 no decision had ever been written on the subject! I didn’t leave it out to deceive. I left it out because it changes nothing, and the entire decision runs close to 30 pages - too long to post in a reply on FR.

And John Valentine, the 1844 decision was not anonymous. If you would read, the author is clearly identified. The WKA decision, which is also pretty clear and which you dislike and therefor wish to ignore, wrote:

“That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.”

They, at least, knew who wrote it.

JV prefers “The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” While that might be his personal preference, it has no bearing on US law - in spite of JV’s misuse of the Venus case.

Why did Justice John Marshall use Vattel in discussing the Venus case? Because the Venus case was about this:

“This is the case of a vessel which sailed from Great Britain with a cargo belonging to the respective claimants, as was contended, before the declaration of war by the United States against Great Britain was or could have been known by the shippers. She sailed from Liverpool on 4 July, 1812, under a British license, for the port of New York and was captured on 6 August, 1812, by the American privateer Dolphin and sent into the District of Massachusetts, where the vessel and cargo were libeled in the district court...

...The great question involved in this and many other of the prize cases which have been argued is whether the property of these claimants who were settled in Great Britain and engaged in the commerce of that country, shipped before they had a knowledge of the war but which was captured after the declaration of war by an American cruiser ought to be condemned as lawful prize. It is contended by the captors that as these claimants had gained a domicile in Great Britain, and continued to enjoy it up to the time when war was declared, and when these captures were made, they must be considered as British subjects, in reference to this property, and consequently that it may legally be seized as prize of war in like manner as if it had belonged to real British subjects.”

The Venus case was not about something that happened in the USA, where US law applies. It was a matter of INTERNATIONAL LAW - a matter of the “Law of Nations”. When discussing what is legal on the high seas, international law applies - not the US Constitution. The US Constitution recognizes that
by giving Congress the power to “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations” - because the Law of Nations - INTERNATIONAL LAW - applies on the high seas.

The dicta of Vice Chancellor Sandford has held up for over 160 years. As Sanford noted, no one in any state ever asked a would-be voter if his father was a citizen. No one applying for a passport was asked about his father’s citizenship. If he was born in the US, that was all that mattered under US law.

I’ll repeat: in the USA, there was no legal basis for saying citizenship by parentage was primary over citizenship by birth! No state government and no federal law ever suggested someone born in the US was only a citizen if their father was a citizen.

Vice Chancellor Sandford points out that the states, prior to the Constitution, had already started revising their laws to replace “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen”. The WKA decision discusses a number of state decisions recognizing that NBC = NBS. At the time of Independence, every NB subject became, in the law, a NB citizen. 100%.

Birthers and WorldNutDaily like to pretend that the phrase NBC sprang out of nowhere, or that it came from a bad translation made 10 years after the Constitution. It didn’t. Many of the writers of the Constitution and many of the states ratifying the Constitution had already started switching the wording in their laws, but none of them had changed the meaning. Everyone who had been a NBS automatically was a NBC.

That was US law, and no one tried to claim it wasn’t until the Lynch case in 1844. And they lost the case.

READ Lynch. Read WKA. You are not required to like them, but the courts have not followed Vattel on citizenship. Some people thought they should, but the courts have consistently followed the Lynch decision, not Vattel. Vattel wrote on international law, not the law of the USA.

That is why the Indiana court wrote:

“The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”


39 posted on 04/30/2011 7:41:36 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!

Sooner or later we have to stop allowing our fear of Blacks and their rioting to control us. Otherwise we are doomed.


40 posted on 04/30/2011 7:47:36 AM PDT by nolongerademocrat ("Before you ask G-d for something, first thank G-d for what you already have." B'rachot 30b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc

The Minor case makes a passing remark about citizenship, and then notes that it is not relevant to the case and moves on. The Lynch case heard arguments on the meaning of NBC, and the meaning of NBC was critical to the decision.

The WKA case also heard arguments on the meaning of NBC, and agreed with the decision in Lynch: NBC = NBS, so someone born in the US of alien parents is a NBC and thus a citizen.


41 posted on 04/30/2011 7:49:13 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc

The 1790 law concerned those born to US parent overseas or on the high seas. It was a law of Congress dealing with what happened outside the US borders, and granting NBC status to those born of two US parents outside the country.

Subsequent laws took that out. It still remains arguable that McCain wasn’t eligible to run, but I think it is obvious that in 2011, it is accepted that someone born overseas of two US parents meets the requirement for running for President.


42 posted on 04/30/2011 7:55:00 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: Mr Rogers

bookmark


45 posted on 04/30/2011 9:59:09 AM PDT by DrewsMum (Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, you both suck!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Oh please. That’s just stupid.


46 posted on 04/30/2011 10:07:49 AM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope

What is stupid? That I rely on court cases rather than WorldNutDaily?


47 posted on 04/30/2011 10:16:57 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]



Keanu – Just Because I Really Like Him


When you sign-up to be a New Monthly Donor

FReeper leapfrog0202 is donating $10 for each New Monthly Donor!!!

FReeper JustaDumbBlonde is donating $5 for each New Monthly Donor to sign-up before midnight Sunday night!!!!

We need Lazamataz. Don't let him fade away!

48 posted on 04/30/2011 10:31:23 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I am thinking I would rather go with what the founders wrote in the laws in 1790 when they defined a natural born citizen thanks.

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227

I’ll take the actual definition


49 posted on 04/30/2011 10:40:47 AM PDT by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Are you trying to tell us what natural born means? I know what it means. Yes you have to be the offspring of two citizens.

What other words do you want to redefine? Marriage? How about gay?


50 posted on 04/30/2011 11:42:35 AM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson