Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arizona deputies in Hawaii seeking Obama birth certificate
Star-Advertiser ^ | May 21, 2012 | Star-Advertiser staff

Posted on 05/22/2012 7:56:20 AM PDT by Brown Deer

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-255 last
To: Political Junkie Too

Hey Junkie, give it up! Paine was at best a secondary authority and that’s really a stretch. His opinion, like yours, and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at a Starbucks.

Perhaps you should dig into US v Wong Kim Ark if you really want to know the truth. It sets a precedent that no present or future court will overturn. Why do you think your buds Donofrio and Apuzzo keep running into walls?

There are two things you should never do. One is pull on Superman’s cape and two is what you are doing.

Read my post #250; it might help.

251 posted on 05/24/2012 8:18:14 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: NJ_Tom

I have a lot of books in my library too but that proves nothing. I tell you what I’m pretty sure the framers all had at their disposal and that was a dictionary.

From Webster’s 1828 dictionary:

native, a: 1. Produced by nature; original; born with the being; natural; not acquired; as native genius; native affections; a native talent or disposition; native cheerfulness; native simplicity.

2. Produced by nature; not factitious or artificial; as native ore; native color.

3. Conferred by birth; as native rights and privileges.

4. Pertaining to the place of birth; as native soil; native country; native graves.

5. Original; that of which any thing is made; as mans native dust.

6. Born with; congenial.

Every single definition of “native” from the authoritative dictionary of the early 1800s gives the word “native” the sense of “natural” or “original” or “born with.”

There is nothing in Webster’s 1828 dictionary to contradict that “native” carried a meaning of “natural” or “at birth.”

If there had been any real distinction between a “native-born” citizen and a “natural-born” one, surely someone would have clarified the distinction. But no. Apparently, EVERYBODY understood that (with the sole exception that children born abroad to US citizens were also “natural born”) the terms meant essentially the same thing.

Minor v. Happersett references the common law, but never mentions the Swiss philosopher Vattel, who you claim gave our Founding Fathers the concept of natural-born citizenship.

Never mind the fact that at the time the Founding Fathers established the country, there really was not and could not have been very much at all in the way of “American common law” (Apuzzo and Donofrio postulate this theory) separate from the common law of the country that all of the Colonies were a part of — England - that had been handed down for centuries.

Never mind the fact, either, that Blackstone’s treatise on English common law was the fundamental text of the law school at William & Mary — our nation’s first law school.

Never mind the fact that Blackstone was quoted by the Founding Fathers some 16 times more frequently than Vattel. Source:

In spite of overwhelming evidence that the Founding Fathers looked to the English common law far more often than to Vattel, and in spite of the fact that the phrase “natural born” is known to have come from the English common law, you birthers still insists that it was Vattel that the Founding Fathers looked to, and not the English common law.

That is just not logical.

252 posted on 05/24/2012 9:30:17 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
IMO, it is illogical to ignore statements by members of the Convention that, as Madison stated "the Common Law of England is not the Common Law of the United States" (emphasis added). In addition, the fact that the court in Minor vs. Happersett specifically referenced common law, when defining NBC differently from the definition that you derive from Natural Born Subject in English Common Law, is a clear acknowledgement that the "common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers ... were familiar" was understood to differ from that of England. You must remember that the status of "subject," natural born or not, included a religious requirement, which would have been anathema to the Framers. Finally, under English Common Law, once a natural born subject, one was forever a subject - one's allegiance to the British Crown was permanent and could never be surrendered. Hence, the impressing of US seamen that contributed to the War of 1812.

However, this all becomes moot when one considers the forged birth certificates, the forged Selective Service registration and the use of multiple Social Security numbers (including, at present, one that fails E-Verify.)

Any one of these is a felony; not having registered with Selective Service is a bar to serving in any Federal office, including US Senator. Regardless of the status of his parents, this alone bars Mr. Obama from the Presidency.

253 posted on 05/24/2012 11:39:33 AM PDT by NJ_Tom (I don't worship the State; I don't worship the Environment - I only worship God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Qwackertoo

I got my driver’s license in Huntsville many moons ago.....I know EXACTLY what you mean. :)

254 posted on 05/24/2012 2:25:12 PM PDT by RightOnline (I am Andrew Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NJ_Tom

It is so good to have an intelligent conversation without name calling.

The English common law was absolutely Christian, and their entire system of Government was based upon their unique view of natural law being issued directly from Jesus Christ as enforced by the English monarch.

And that in fact is where the phrase “natural born subject” originally came from — it came from a Christian view of natural law. And in that Christian view of natural law (see Romans 13:1) God himself had established a natural order for the world. In that order, kingdoms and authorities were ordained by God himself. Kings derived their power from God and from the natural order that he had set up.

And if you were born under an authority, you had a duty to obey that authority as far as good conscience would allow you to. If the King said taxes were due, as a good citizen, you were to pay your taxes. (“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.”)

In that view, all persons born within a kingdom were natural, born subjects of that Kingdom.

And THAT view of natural law — not the clumsy idea, devoid of any actual historical or theological substance, that “it takes two leopards to make a leopard,” is where the term “natural born subject” — and by extension, “natural born citizen” — historically derived from.

255 posted on 05/24/2012 5:28:29 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-255 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
Topics · Post Article

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