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 ...
“They have agreed they are Native Born Citizens.”
No. Only a total idiot could read the WKA decision and conclude they were talking about native citizens, AND that native citizens are different from NBC. The WKA decision addressed NBC at length, and like all the other legal decision and writings, considered native citizen and NBC to be interchangeable.
““And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . 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.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829)
The WKA decision was based on the Lynch decision. It followed its arguments, updating them to include the passage of the 14th amendment. What Lynch argued has not been rejected in any court:
(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.
You lost me.
What I am talking about is the law from the first congress that said if your father was not an american citizen, you could not be considered natural born.
That law referred to those born overseas or on the high seas - out side of the US. It did not in any way apply to anyone born in the USA. Also, it required BOTH parents to be US citizens, not just the father.
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens..."
You didn't supposedly leave it out you did leave it out.
As a veteran who took an oath to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, I'm tore on what to do. I've researched and posted all over the place, but it seems like many Americans (Dem and Repub) don't care about the Constitutional aspect. I feel like America is at a point, not unlike the movie Braveheart, where William Wallace is imploring the Scottish Kings son to lead the people. I think many patriotic Americans are anxiously hoping for someone, anyone, to stand up, and speak the truth.
I think that's why Donald Trump, with all his baggage, is getting traction, because at least someone is speaking to things which we believe and want looked at. Unfortunately, I think the giant wheels of politics will crush any political solution to this Constitutional problem and all that leaves is eventual violent repulsion of the political authority/class.
Maybe you're very young and haven't looked it up, but McCain didn't get the nomination in 2000.
Maybe you are even younger and haven’t looked it up but the Senate resolution was made before McCain got the nomination.
Nope, no good. McCain had it wrapped up well before the convention. Besides, what possible point could you be getting at? The Senate passed the resolution because they wanted to, because they question had been raised. The important thing to understand about it is not why they did it. Who cares? It’s that the birther claim about it defining the requirements is a blatant lie.
You’re right. I had forgotten that he sewed up the nomination that early. One point I was making is that the candidates should be vetted, at least enough to know they are eligible, before they get nominated. The other point is not that the Sen. resolution defines “natural born” but that, obviously, enough Senators, including 0baMao and Hillary, put down on the record their view that “natural born” is defined as two citizen parents and born on U.S. soil.
Yet, as we all know too well now, what our founders tried to prevent, has happened. We have a marxist anchor baby serving as POTUS. (Assuming he is an anchor baby, who was actually born in Hawaii.) For many, this part of the debate rages on.
Sure, it would be much easier to remove him, if it could be proven he was born in Kenya. But the deaths associated with childbirth in Kenya, are extremely high. So, I can’t imagine Stanley Ann wanting to go there to birth him, when she could do so in Hawaii, where she would be afforded the best in childbirth care, at KMG hospital.
My focus on his ineligibility, is based on him not having two citizen parents. I am convinced this was our founders intent, regarding NBC.
At this juncture, I am equally convinced we need a Constitutional Amendment, in order to protect us from this ever happening again. In addition, I’m thinking both sets of grandparents have to be citizens too.
Taking it another step, in order to serve in Congress, one must have two citizen parents. If one was adopted, then they will have to be able prove both their DNA parents were citizens. If unable to prove same...ineligible to serve.
No more socialists, and no more marxists. Only eligible, free market capitalists, need apply.
I hear ya. Meantime, legitimate BC, or no, we know he is not eligible to be POTUS. Since both of his parents were not citizens. Our forefathers were clear on their intent. Only a person of two citizen parents is eligible to be President.
Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves, shrieking silently about this catastrophe they tried to prevent. They never intended for the child of a non-citizen parent to be eligible to serve as POTUS. They knew then the inherit risks of such a person becoming POTUS. A POTUS whose loyalties could be, might be, divided.
Indeed, we have had Presidents, born of two citizen parents, who were horrifying. But never ever, has America experienced one as horrifying as this marxist currently occupying our Whitehouse. A marxist squatter, who at the very least, is an anchor baby born of a marxist. One who openly proclaims his affection for his mentor, one Frank Marshall Davis, a known marxist.
It would be a dream come true if it could be proven he was not born in Hawaii. Rather, upon some foreign soil. Meantime, the prima facia evidence, not born of two citizen parents, proves he is not eligible to serve.
Zactly!
It we stipulate his birth we have to accept his own words, that he was born of a divided allegiance and citizenship.
He is NOT a Natural Born American.
I will admit I didn’t read more than your first paragraph.
Barak is a Natural Born Citizen?
I will now go back and read your post.
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.”
Seriously???
LOL
So a divided allegience and responsibility, at birth, subsumes a singular and focused responsibility?
You can’t be serious. Really?
Barak is a Natural Born Citizen with no allegiances that would give him the ability to avoid, circumvent or avoid US law?
LOL
Get real.
Respectfully as a nOOb, compared to your membership on this board.
Sorry, I went back and read your response and have to ask again “Are you serious?”
Kent discusses priory of the Constitution and Barak was most certainly born sometime after that.
And the “Justice” opinion?
OMG?! LOL
“...and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance...”
You can’t be serious?
Maybe I don’t understand your intent of subject or proposition???
If I don’t, please...say so.
Respectfully.
V
LOL
I am good at copy paste but, I can’t make some great leap of intellectual convolution that allows a synthetic fact.
That’s pretty funny though.
No offense is intended and if it was I would Kick Buckeye in the .....
I admire his posts but, yours qualitatively don’t approach his.
Again, with respect.
>”And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens...”<
And it continues:
PROVIDED, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons who’s fathers have never been resident in the United States.
Mr Rogers - Can you point me to the full opinion in Leake v. Gilchrist? I find only references to it.
Vendome - If the full opinion supports what Mr Rogers claims with his brief quote, I may have to give some serious consideration to it.
“And it continues:
PROVIDED, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons who’s fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
Correct. Citizenship to those born abroad extends for the initial generation. If the child born overseas never resides in the US, then his child will not be considered a citizen, although his parent was. It is still discussing those born overseas.
Of Course. As you know I consider your opinion regarding this though hold very different views.
The problem with the argument by Mr. Rogers shows up in each example cited and there is no thought given to a person born a dual citizen and the encumbrences of such circumstance.
Inglis v. Sailors
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance.
Barak freely admits he was born a British citizen and that citizenship was transferred to Kenyan in 1962 after Kenya regained its independence from Great Britain.
He was born having two allegiances.
If Kenya or the Us in a time of war determined they needed more bodies in order to prevail they could draft Obama upon the date he reached majority.
He is a native citizen of both countries.
A person in that circumstance has three choices:
Remove yourself from the country who is drafting you and go to a country of your of your other allegiance.
Fight for the country you have been drafted by.
Take flight in a neutral country where you are protected by their laws no matter your citizen status with them or any country you are a citizen of.
Or just go to any other country.
The easiest and best choice would be avoid the conflict and find protection as a citizen of one of the countries you already hold citizenship.
There would be nothing either country could possibly do to repatriate you.
It would go like this:
America: “We demand you repatriate “whomever”.
Kenya: “LOL, You are kidding, right? He is a son of Kenya and as such he retains all his rights and protection of the nation”.
America: “We will send you letter of demand”.
Kenya: “Whatever. I don’t think we will even open the envelope”.
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.