Posted on 08/17/2011 11:45:17 AM PDT by rxsid
"Tea party exploring Obama's eligibility
Arizona event focuses on evidence behind dispute
An event scheduled in Arizona is reflecting a new consideration by tea party components of the real evidence behind Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
...
But the general wave of conservative positions endorsed by tea party officials largely has excluded the eligibility issue. Until now.
The Liberty Through Action organization has scheduled a meeting tonight with Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., and author of Where's the Birth Certificate?"
The event at the Sun City West Foundation Building in Sun City West at 6:30 p.m. is to focus on the issues of being a dual citizen, what is a "natural born Citizen," the mystery of the birth location, missing documents in the hunt for evidence, whether Obama's residency in Indonesia is a factor, the court challenges, the stonewalling of evidence in Hawaii, and ultimately, what does it mean for 2012.
"The speech represents a real movement of the tea party to engage in the eligibility issue. I plan to explain the evidence presented in 'Where's the Birth Certificate?' and to demonstrate with my computer the 20 or so experts WND has published saying the Obama birth certificate is fake," Corsi explained.
...
"
Continued: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=334705
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
And I consider myself a Birther. But also Tea Party.
You know that I think you’re wrong, but you seem to be so far into this that I expect you to follow your dream.
I do not bash birthers, because I believe in seeking the truth in all things, I just believe this could hurt the Tea Party and thus, the conservative movement and our efforts to get rid of Obama.
I will now leave this thread and hope, for the good of our country, that I never have to say that I told you so.
Good day.....
That is absolutely the case. While I consider myself an anti-birther and believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, I also believe the FF intended that a natural-born citizen be born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents. I think we need a SCOTUS ruling to clearly define who is and is not a natural-born citizen, but I know we aren't likely to get such a ruling.
That being said, I've spent significant time presenting the issue to liberals on their turf. In doing so, the most I have accomplished is to convince them that there is not a legal process in place to determine that a candidate meets the Constitutional requirements for the presidency and that there should be one. Or, they accept that the FF intended two citizen parents but believe that the Constitution is a living document and that the FF's original intentions are outdated in today's global community due to the ease of international travel and the prevalence of multi-national relationships.
We won't get anywhere with liberals or even mainstream conservatives on this issue. The single, most-damaging factor to the eligibility issue was Orly Taitz's freak show.
People, like you, said going into the 2010 elections that the eligibility issue would (for short) hurt the (R)'s.
Did the (R)'s have a poor showing in 2010?
In it, there are VERY IMPORTANT references concerning what is a Natural-Born Subject ...
A motion in Parliament, 13 Elizab. about the succession to the crown; according to K. Henry VIII. his will.
" ... But let us admit an untruth, that there was no will, to the end there may nothing be imagined, that cannot justly be answered. And that the truth may be known, (which for my part I only desire may appear to all men,) who is the right and lawful heir in reversion to the crown; it will be said, the Scottish queen; because she cometh of the eldest sister, and is next of bloud to king Henry VIII. according to the maxim in the law. Truth it is, there is such a maxim: but it may not be so largely taken, but it must be restrained to such as be inheritable by the laws of the realm. Which be such as be born in the king’s allegiance, of father and mother English; or out of the king’s legiance, of parents English, and in the king’s legiance. For if yee will put strangers and right English in one case, what availeth the liberty of England, or what profiteth it to be an Englishman born? Yea, it were a great deal better to be born a stranger, than an Englishman: for strangers, albeit they have not so great commodity in England in all things as Englishmen have, yet in some things they have more: neither be they bound to serve the realm with their witts, to maintain it with their goods, serve it with their bodies, defend it with their bloud, as we be: but may come when they will, tarry as long as them listeth, and depart when it pleaseth them.
Wherefore by nature there ought to be great difference between strangers and Englishmen: and those should enjoy the sweet, that be bound to tast of the sowre. And so our laws have provided, if ye will suffer them to stand in force. For the statute of the 23 Edward III. (which expoundeth the law in this case) saith, that the king’s children, wheresoever they be born in the realm, or without, be inheritable to their auncesters: and that others which from time to time shall be born out of the legiance of the king, whose fathers and mothers at the time of their birth, be at the faith and legiance of the king of England, should be in like manet inheritors to their auncestors.
Whereby it is a consequent, a contrario, that these that be born out of the legiance of the king of England, be not inheritable to this realm. And so it appeareth by Bracton, that the old law before was, For he saith in one of his exceptions thus; Sicut Anglious non auditur in placitando aliquem de terris et tenementis in Francia; ita non debet Alienigena et Francigena, qui sunt ad fidem regis Francisae, audiri placitando in Anglia. In another place, Libro 4to de exception. dilatoria, Bracton saith thus: Ita respondere poterit, quod particeps, de quo di-citur, nil capere potest, antequam fiat fides regi Angliae. And Lit. saith, as yee know, “That in an action real or personal, brought by one born out of the king’s legiance, it is a good plea for the defendant to say, that the plaintiff was born out of the king’s legiance.” ...
... And because God first made man, and of man woman, and hath made him a more apt instrument to serve in the commonweal, in the functions both of the mind and of the body; therefore is man preferred to woman, and thought the more worthy person; not only by the laws of nature, but also by all other laws, and by the laws of this realm; as appeareth 47 Edward III. And so the children in all other places follow the condition and state of their father, as the most worthy person; which others do also here in England. For the law in like maner saith, Partus sequitur patrem. Which, if it should be examined only in the cases of the bondman and his wife, and that the child should be bond or free, according to the condition of the father, then it is no maxim, as the law termeth it. For a maxim is a rule that serves to rule and discuss more eases than one.
But let us seek if we can find out a reason to maintain this opinion, that every person born in England, of what nation soever the parents be, shall be free. For positive law written, that is contained in the book of the Exposition Of The Terms Of The Laws Of England: [which of what authority it is, I know not.] But what saith that book? verily thus: “If an alien come and dwell in England, which is not of the king’s enemies, and there hath issue, this issue is not alien, but English.” But now such alien was the earl of Angus: for as the chronicle witnesseth, he came not into England with mind to tary and inhabit there. But after he had maried the Scottish queen, both without K. Henry his brother’s consent, and also of the councils of Scotland, there fel such variance between her and him, and the lords of Scotland, that she and her husband (like banished persons) fled and came into England, and wrote to the king for mercy and comfort. The king enclined to mercy, sent them apparel, vessels, and all things; willing them to live still in Northumberland, till they knew further of his pleasure.
Whereupon they lay still at Harboute, where she was delivered of the said lady Lyneoux. And after, when the king sent for her and her husband, the earl, to come to the court, and the earl promised so to do, and she was coming and asked for him, he was returned to Scotland, [belike to his own wife, as ye shall hear hereafter,] or mistrusting that the king had understanding, how he had distained and abused his sister: and so she came without the earl to the court. When the king heard that the earl of Angus was so departed, he said, it was done like a Scot. And so after this queen had taried a year in England, she returned to Scotland. Whereby it may appear, that the said earl of Angus is not of that sort of aliens of whom this book of the Exposition Of The Terms Of The Laws Of England speaketh. For he came not into England to dwel, nor had any dwelling place there: but rather was to be judged as a guest; or as a bird, that for a time leaveth his native country while the foul weather lasteth: or as a wild beast chased with hounds out of his haunt, flyeth, till he perceive they persecute him no longer. And so the lady Lineoux can claim no benefit by this law, if it be taken for law: but rather it maketh altogether against her.
Moreover, statute there is none to maintain this opinion, that saith, every person is English that is born in England, of whatsoever nation his parents be. Then of necessity it must be by custom, if it be law: which having no reason to maintain it, or if it be contrary to reason is no law, have it never so long continuance; but is, as evil, to be abolished, as the laws of the realm do plainly teach us. For they say, customs not grounded on reason, or contrary to reason, cannot prescribe.
But yee will say, the reason is to entice strangers the rather to come into this realm. What enticement can it be, where they themselves shall not, by their coming, be free, nor may purchase any land to leave to their posterity?
And albeit that reason maintained this custom, yet can it not serve the lady Lenoux. For her father, the earl of Angus, came not into this realm to inhabit and dwel in the same, as before is sufficiently declared. Perchance it will be said, that it is the nature of the soil to make all such bee born in England, free of England. But how happeneth it, that this property is private to England, and not common to all other countreys? Truly, this is not allowed in any other country: and not without good reason. For the constitution of kingdoms and states, ordinances of cities and commonweals, and the liberties and freedoms thereof, are not by nature, but come by the consent of men and mens laws. And they receive none to be free, and they allow none to be free in their commonweals, but such as either for the faith and truth their parents, being citizens, bare thereunto, they do not suspect but that they will walk in the steps of their parents fidelity; or else are such as upon great consideration and promise of their faith and allegiance, they do newly admit citizens. Of which number young babes cannot be for simplicity. The magistrate can have no respect of them: nor they be not able to make any promise, or bond of fidelity to the commonwealth. For as the commonwealth is bound to preserve them that be free thereof from injury and injustice; so it doth require of them promise to be true thereunto, to serve and defend it to their uttermost power.
Truly in my judgment, there is no reason to move either England or Scotland to think such a person can be true to either of them both. For it hath been a principle received of all men, even as long as division of states and commonweals have been, that no man can be a citizen of two cities or commonweals; because he cannot serve them both at once. Wherefore I cannot see how this proposition, that every person born in England (of what nation or parents soever he be) should be free in England, should be justified by law or reason. And therefore the lady Leoneux can take no benefit thereby ..."
This isn't England. We are not subjects of a Queen or King.
Ridicule is a very powerful tool of the left.
Did "birtherism" doom the (R)'s election outcome in 2010?
Too bad, but we cannot have it both ways.
1. Nothing to see here
2. Its just a distraction
3. It plays into Obama’s hands, just how he planned it.
4. There will be riots. RIOTS I tell you!
5. But that will make Biden POTUS and he will ruin us.
TALKING POINTS OF THE UNINFORMED! If you don’t agree then leave it alone. You are obviously not a troll but don’t help the issue one bit by being negative. The trolls are very apparent because they can’t even recite TALKING POINTS.
Fact or opinion? Links please
Since virtually every Republican candidate stayed far away from the subject, they apparently believed it would have been harmful to embrace it...as in, cost them votes. It wasn’t “harmful” because they rejected it as a campaign issue. I suspect 2012 will be much the same.
I followed the campaign fairly closely, but I didn't keep links for every local campaign I read about. There were several candidates who were accused of being birthers by their opponents, and they quickly released statements distancing themselves from the movement.
If you're really that interested, try finding a Republican who included “Obama's eligibility” in their 2010 campaign. Good luck.
You must admit that the concept of “natural-born citizen” was derived from the concept of “natural-born subject” ...
Since the Constitution was written by the Founders [using their knowledge of English Common Law, English Statute Law, and YES Vattel] AND has NEVER been altered by amendment or SCOTUS ruling - the ORIGINAL meaning of the phrase “natural-born citizen” STILL stands ...
The passages that I quoted PROVE that there was NO SUCH law in England that stated the child of an alien father was a “natural-born subject”. To the CONTRARY, in England, the child followed the condition of the father ...
In the intervening years between 1571-1608, there was NO law passed in England to reverse this ...
THEREFORE, the ruling in Calvin’s Case [1608] was BOGUS. Lord Coke stated that ANY child born in England [WHATSOEVER, excluding ambassador’s children and children of enemeies] was a natural-born subject - and HAD BEEN so in the annals of English Law ...
Calvin’s Case [which many legal scholars point to] was a POLITICAL case. The ruling came down in the King’s favor, since he wanted legitimacy as the Sovreign of BOTH England AND Scotland. And, Lord Coke [appointed to the bench by the King AND a former Prime Minister of England] served it up for him ...
The passages from Parliament in 1571 AND the British Nationality Act of 1728 BOTH stated that English children born OUTSIDE of the realm were “natural-born subjects” ...
THERFORE, the Founders WOULD HAVE KNOWN that a child born to an English father within the United States was a dual citizen AND, THUS, incapable of devoting SINGULAR AND ABSOLUTE allegiance to EITHER England [on one hand] OR the United States [on the other] ...
THEREFORE, such a child WOULD NOT be a “natural-born citizen” ...
Exactly. Then we can stop supporting generations of their families through welfare. Sink or swim.
Ridicule only works if it (negatively) affects the target.
Perhaps some folks are beginning to feel less vulnerable because Barry has been such a disaster.
I predict, that no matter how hard the state run media and their allies try to ridicule the issue away...it will remain into the 2012 election.
The concepts of "natural law" and the phrase "Laws of Nature" (of which Law of Nations is built upon) are found within the Declaration of Independence itself:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governedThose (& others) are clearly NOT derived from English law, but rather from natural law concepts (which can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations).
When the Decleration of Independence and the Constitution were writen, English subjects could not renounce their alligience to the one soverign, the crown:
"Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince."William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361--62
How, then, did they declare their Independence from the King if they were not permitted to do so under English Common law?
They used the principles found in natural law. Vattel states, in the Law of Nations (which is based on natural law), that citizens may renounce (or quit) their citizenship and allegience to a country:
"Chapter XIX: Of Our Native Country And Several Things That Relate To ItThe founders could never have writen our founding document, the Declaration of Independance, had they stuck with or adhered to, English Common law.
§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.... 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers … They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown, to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn … But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen … may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it ..."
Doctor Benjamin Franklin writes to M. Dumas, Philadelphia, December 19, 1775
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel, It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own publick library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts-Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
During the ratification period of our Constitution...
October 18, 1787 - James Madison wrote to George Washington, N. York:
"Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.[Edit: Englands "Common Law"] The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe of wch. Col. Mason [Edit: George Mason] was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head.. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law."
June 18, 1788 - George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), states:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states."
Just as the founders had done more than a decade earlier by declaring their independance from the crown, here (during the critical ratification period) we see the father of the Constitution, and the father of the Bill of Rights rejecting the English Common Law as being the American Common Law.
Furthermore, if the framers believed a "natural born Citizen" (natural law) was essentially the same thing as a "natural born Subject" (English common law) then the grandfather clause in AII,S1,C5 would not have have been necessary as they were all (save for Hamilton) natural born Subjects. They would all have meet the "natural born Citizen" requirement. No need for the "Or" grandfather clause.
The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. at 790). With such recognition, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic."
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html
Arnold Schwarzenegger is not POTUS eligible.
This isn't England. We are not subjects of a Queen or King.
If I might interject, I think his point is that there are people who claim "natural born citizen" is derived from the English Common law term "natural born subject." He is pointing out that when it came to the succession of the Monarchy, not even the English would use the "jus soli" argument and instead would insist on the "jus sanguinus" argument.
In other words, you couldn't be the leader of England except by right of blood. The obvious parallel being to that of our President. He is saying that even the English demanded their leaders be English by right of blood, despite their common law definition of "natural born subject."
I have made this argument a few times myself, but I wasn't previously aware of this passage he cited to back up this argument.
Bookmark.
I have a better theory. The RNC Northeastern RHINO Rockefeller Republican types made a decision early in 2008 that it would be so gauche to challenge Obama's eligibility because they felt minority voters would regard it as a dirty trick, and so to feel good about themselves, they insisted that the issue not be brought up.
As luck should have it, John McCain was the chosen Republican candidate (before anyone knew he wasn't born in the United States Proper) and so their (the RNC RHINOS) blacklisting of this idea dovetailed nicely with the proclivities of the chosen candidate anyway.
I believe a lot of RNC types worked to actively spike discussions on this particular subject because they felt it was politically troublesome.
Actually I’m not interested at all. I just wanted to see what your spewing today. “Not Opinion”, pardon me if I don’t take your word for the subject.
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.