Skip to comments.Arizona deputies in Hawaii seeking Obama birth certificate
Posted on 05/22/2012 7:56:20 AM PDT by Brown Deer
click here to read article
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.
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 Websters 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 Websters 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 Blackstones treatise on English common law was the fundamental text of the law school at William & Mary our nations first law school.
Never mind the fact that Blackstone was quoted by the Founding Fathers some 16 times more frequently than Vattel. Source: http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/influences.html
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.
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.
I got my driver’s license in Huntsville many moons ago.....I know EXACTLY what you mean. :)
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 Caesars, and to God that which is Gods.)
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.
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.