Skip to comments.Obama's McCain resolution demands 'American' parents
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 ...
Hey troll...The term natural born citizen has always had the same meaning until the Clinton state department tried to change it.
...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. (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Children who are born here by non citizens are Not “Natural Born Citizens”.
They too are born with dual citizenship.
That is not the Long Form Birth Certificate(though it may be a COLB).
It is another walk up document. The original COLB was the type you can purchase and receive the same day.
For 3+ years we have have from everybody, including a protective media, that there is no other document.
That is the only one Hawaii provides.
Well now they have proven that just isn’t so and validated part of Hawaii Statute 318 in the process.
The document Mubarak proffered this week is one you can request and it normally takes 10 days to receive it.
They are Data Points and the document IS NOT a copy of the original Long Form Birth Certificate.
I want to see the Birth Certificate he found among his mothers belongings, the one his mother submitted for his entrance into the school system and the one he used to obtain his passport.
He has all three available to him and in his possession.
MuBarak is an idiot to have released this Copy of Data Points on a Wednesday!
What moron doesnt know that if you want a story to die you release it over the weekend or on a holiday?
Further, it may have been enough to convince Lieutenant Lakin to continue following orders of deployment as he had done so many times, honorably, as a decorated veteran would do and does.
But no... He let an honorable man hang in the wind, under a cloud of doubt and ruin his career and life. For What?
This settles nothing and I want to see the one he found among his mothers belongings when she passed in 1995, as well the one that is sealed in his admissions for kindergarten and preschool.
Barak, if this settles it for you then you screwed a fine man and you should be ashamed!
You have no honor.
Look for the double "entendre's"!
This whole BC thing is a put up. A "Fairy Tail"!
It's a "slight" of hand and there is no reason to have not put an original copy of his Long Form Birth Certificate out there in the 1st place.
But, think of it. There are three that are known to exist or have existed and he has at least two in his possession:
Let them claim there is no long form.
1st. They and everyone has said all along the COLB is an abstract. A COLB is a walkup document, meaning you can walk up to the desk, ask for your BC and they will provide an abstract, called a COLB in about 10 minutes. That means there is a long form and Hawaii statutes, starting at (318)
2nd. Hawaii already said they have seen Barry O.'s vital records and issued two statements - blah, blah, blah, right?
3rd. Barry O. never had to show his long form BC ever, in his life, for anything? Like obtaining a passport. That one document is better than a drivers license. It saying to the world you are who is contained in the passport document, which is based on an investigation of your background and YOU MUST provide a Birth Certificate as foundational proof of who YOU say you are. From there the State Department does their background check on you and if you are who you say you are with no amendments, modifications or whatever to your identity they issue it clean.
Most adults can go to a desk or filing cabinet in his house and produce a birth certificate in a few minutes?
Barry O. tried to pass of something that was inconsistent with what the rest of us have and know to be a Birth Certificate.
The so called COLB has many flaws with it:
The best part and even more confusing is why he didn't release any of the three Birth Certificates we know already existed before 2007.
Those were most certainly BCs and not a COLB. There is no reason to create confusion but, for the fact he is hiding something.
That something will be discovered, though and this is a long process.
I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school. Its a short piece, with a photograph of him. No mention is made of my mother or me, and Im left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my fathers part, in anticipation of his long departure. Perhaps the reporter failed to ask personal questions, intimidated by my fathers imperious manner; or perhaps it was an editorial decision, not part of the simple story that they were looking for. I wonder, too, whether the omission caused a fight between my parents.
From Dreams of My Father (Pg. 26 last paragraph)
So with all these Birth Certificates lying around, why did he feel it necessary to produce a "Certification of Live Birth" that is inconsistent with a Birth Certificate and wholly lacking all of the information you would find, in you know, a Birth Certificate?
He seemed to have some emotional attachment to the Birth Certificate found among his mothers belongings. Why wouldnt he just slap that one up, for the entire world to see?
It seemed important that he found a document that is called a Birth Certificate and it is highly unlikely he would not know what one looks like.
Hope no one brings up some house fire that vaporized his BC. That was in 1972 and none of the documents listed here would have been affected by that fishy event.
The point of the birth certificate is to uncover this man's past for it's factual existence and not the narrative we have been told.
We want to know if he ever traveled, went to school in America, obtained loans, etc in another name or as a foreign student or as a foreigner!!!!
That is what we are after at a minimum.
Finally, there can be no doubt Barak was in fact born with a divided citizenship. He proudly admits as much.
That means if he were conscripted by draft into the United States Military during a conflict, when he was 18, he could have avoided the draft by simply returning to another country of his citizenship. We know and he admits he was a citizen of Kenya at the age of 18 so he could have returned with no penalty, to Kenya and not even I would call him a draft dodger if had under those circumstances.
You are wholly one thing or another but not two distinctly different and separate things that conflict with each other's existence.
He was born with a divided allegiance and is "Not a Natural Born Citizen". Might be a citizen but, he ain't a Natural Born Citizen.
Okay, I'm trying to digest all the info since Monday and have many summary points:
1. You don't even have to be a citizen and you can become POTUS.
2. One citizen parent born anywhere and you can become POTUS.
3. One citizen parent and born on US soil and you can become POTUS.
4. Two citizen parents and born on US soil and you can become POTUS.
There seem to be legal opinions that you could have a formal debate with on either side. It's like high school debate, pick your side and research it.
So where are we? Is it MSM, elites and Obama say case closed and STFU? Or is it something, that we as current citizens, have a responsibility to clarify for generations of Americans yet unborn?
The FF were concerned about loyalty and allegiance. It seems logical their intent was two citizen parents and born on US soil. With all this brouhaha, I think that's what most Americans currently would say yes to.
So what now? What is the answer? Should states decide? Should it go to SCOTUS? Does it require a Constitutional Amendment? Does the Constitution still matter? Yes it does and it is our duty to fight for it.
The folks writing laws in 1790 were dealing with the children born overseas. They once again followed England. While England had natural born subjects include those born of alien parents if born in England, they passed laws saying that they would treat the children of two English parents, when born overseas, as NBS.
So once again, the Founders were following ENGLAND, not Vattel.
“Are you trying to tell us what natural born means? I know what it means.”
No you don’t. You don’t get to make up meanings for the Constitution. You don’t get to pull definitions out of your butt and call them real.
Multiple courts have already discussed the meaning of NBC, starting in 1844. And they agree that the meaning is the same as the meaning of natural born subject.
“Children who are born here by non citizens are Not Natural Born Citizens.”
That is what you say. The US Supreme Court disagrees with you, as has every court to hear arguments on the meaning of NBC.
They have agreed they are Native Born Citizens.
They cannot be President because they are not Natural Born Citizens.
There is a difference and bottom line is the only thing everyone knows about Barak is the narrative he has delivered.
There are zero unimpeachable documents to prove anything about his existence, history or identity.
“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 Kings 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:
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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?
“...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.
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 whos 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”.
I cannot find the full decision of Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829). I’ve tried, but cannot find it online. There is a law library in Tucson, but I’d have to go there to see if they would let me use it.
I too cannot find it.
Maybe Google Books?
“there is no thought given to a person born a dual citizen”
Frankly, the Founders didn’t give it thought. Remember, the original draft of the Constitution didn’t have the NBC clause, just a residency clause. The revision by the “Committee of Style and Arrangement” added the NBC clause as published on 4 Sept, 13 days before the signing and after many of the delegates had left.
Also, under the grandfather clause, a naturalized citizen (John Laurance - born in England) was once next in line behind the VP for the Presidency. That may or may not have been an oversight, but it certainly indicates they weren’t as paranoid about foreign influence as some here suggest.
Given that they were less than rigorous in demanding NBC status, it doesn’t seem too far fetched to say they didn’t think about the case of a foreign country claiming a hold on someone born in the USA.
It does raise an interesting question: Could a Jew born in the USA of US citizens but a dual citizen of Israel legally hold the Presidency? my guess is yes.
From Perkins v Elg:
“On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages.”
Notice - a native-born (aka natural born) citizen of the US, also holding German citizenship and living in Germany from the age of 4, but “He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States...”
What is the point that you are trying to make here? I have way to many pings going back and forth to keep track
I went thru the top 100 books in Google book, and this is all I found:
In Leake v Gilchrist supra it is said that the assignee of the debt by the administrator appointed at the domicile of the deceased could maintain an action here
North Carolina reports: cases argued and determined in the Supreme ...: Volume 126 - Page 627
Leake v Gilchrist 13 NC 2 Dev L 73 sustaining power of a foreign administrator having possession of bond to assign such bond giving assignee power to sue in his own name
The American decisions: cases of general value and authority ..., Volume 11
By John Proffatt, Abraham Clark Freeman,
In Leake v Gilchrist 1829 13 NC 2 Dev L 73 a foreign administrator appointed in South Carolina in March having possession of a bond assigned it in September to the plaintiff who brought a suit upon it in North Carolina where administrators of the estate had been appointed in April It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover as the bond was assets where found
American law reports annotated, Volume 10
the early case of Leake v Gilchrist 13 NC 2 Dev L at page 85 They all lead us to the conclusion that a foreign creditor cannot by the operation of any law of his own state acquire any preference over resident creditors in the administration of assets which are situated here
Lawyers’ reports annotated, Book 70
In Leake v Gilchrist 2 Dev 75 it was broadly and distinctly held that debts due by specialty follow the person of the obligee and are assets of the domicile In that case an assignment by the administrator of the domicile in South Carolina of a bond on a citizen in North Carolina was recognized as valid and brought by the assignee in North Carolina was sustained.
Reports of cases heard and determined by the Supreme Court of ...: Volume 14 - Page 581
Not much to go on for checking context and applicability!
>The 1790 law concerned those born to US parent overseas or on the high seas.<
No, you misinterpreted - Clearly they make provisions for foreigners to become naturalized citizens. Them to be parents of children who at birth here are citizens as well.
All you need to do is back up a paragraph or two from what you have been quoting. It is all there.
The overseas thing is in addition to all the other stuff.
You apparently skipped over all the provisions for people to naturalize, them to have children who are citizens, and those citizens to have children who are then natural born citizens.
Read it again, start further back Chapter III section 1. Any alien being a free white person ....... etc etc etc
That’s all I got too.
Yes, the Naturalization Act covered all naturalization. The part birthers often take out of context is the part that in 1790 read that a natural born citizen was one born to two citizen parents overseas or on the high seas. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve been told the act defines NBC as requiring two citizen parents, or that Senate Resolution 511 requires all NBC to have two citizen parents.
The WKA decision noted:
” “The acquisition,” says Mr. Dicey, (p. 741) “of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments.”
It has been pertinently observed that, if the statute of Edward III had only been declaratory of the common law, the subsequent legislation on the subject would have been wholly unnecessary. Cockburn on Nationality 9. By the [p671] statute of 29 Car. II, (1677) c. 6, § 1, entitled “An act for the naturalization of children of His Majesty’s subjects born in foreign countries during the late troubles,” all persons who, at any time between June 14, 1641, and March 24, 1660, “were born out of His Majesty’s dominions, and whose fathers or mothers were natural-born subjects of this realm” were declared to be natural-born subjects. By the statute of 7 Anne, (1708) c. 5, § 3, “the children of all natural-born subjects, born out of the ligeance of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors” — explained by the statute of 4 Geo. II, (1731) c. 21, to mean all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England
whose fathers were or shall be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively . . . . shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever.
That statute was limited to foreign-born children of natural-born subjects, and was extended by the statute of 13 Geo. III, (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects, but not to the issue of such grandchildren; or, as put by Mr. Dicey, “British nationality does not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation.”
English common law made NBS of all born within the realm, while acts of Parliament gave NBS status to those born of two English parents while abroad. Our 1790 Naturalization Act followed Parliament’s example - another case of our laws following English law.
But within the realm, all children born of parents in amity with the government were NBS, and since the courts have regularly found that NBS = NBC, differing only in country...a NBC would include all children born to parents in the USA. Of course, the Founders COULD have chosen to follow a different path, but they didn’t.
Something I only learned yesterday is that the NBC clause of the Constitution wasn’t in the original draft. The Committee of Style and Arrangement added the NBC clause to the draft published on 4 Sept, 13 days before the signing and after many of the delegates had left.
That doesn’t make it in any way invalid. What is valid is what the states ratified, and they ratified the Constitution with the NBC clause in it. However, since the first draft only had a residency clause for the President, it seems safe to assume the Founders didn’t consider it a major point.
And if the Founders wanted to change the basis of born citizenship from the common law all colonies and states had followed, it seems likely they would have mentioned it in some way, or used a different wording than one found in common law. IMHO.
Although the quote I gave supports my side of the argument, I’d love to see it in context. I’ve seen too many out of context quotes from both sides of the debate to trust something I can only find in such a small fragment.
That’s what I am trying to get to.
I believe the issue requires adjudication and a final definition that affirms the Constitution.
Gotta give credit where credit due Bin Laden Dead.
A quote with no context. For shame. Your standing on the Sanity Squad is in jeopardy, sir.
Meh, the death pictures of OBL will probably be declared to have been photoshopped.
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.