|
There's no dispute that his father was British, or whether BO had British citizenship. The SCOTUS regularly uses "founding-era sources" to define the intent of the Framers in SCOTUS Opinions, especially for Constitutional questions. And the Justices do NOT use modern law books using the codification of the 20th century — such as an Immigration Law from 1995 — to define 17th Century "terms of art" — rather the SCOTUS uses definitions, idioms and semantics used BY THE FRAMERS in "founding-era sources" available at the time of the creation of the Constitution. SO, by applying Vattel's "Natural Born Citizen" definition, using natural law in requiring BOTH parents to be citizens ... ... OR ... By applying Blackstones's "Natural Born Subject" definition, using the common law to recognize the children born "out of the country" of the FATHER (only) as being a "Natural Born Subject" of his FATHER's country ... Under common law, it was understood that a newborn child was UNABLE to defend itself — in the homeland, or in a foreign country. Until adult, the young person would rely upon the "contract" between the SUBJECT (giving taxes, allegiance, and obedience) and the KING (granting rights, property and MOST importantly - PROTECTION via his sovereignty, treaties, armies, etc).
Obama cannot be a Natural Born Citizen using "founding-era sources", which is why the Left keeps trying to point at modern-day Naturalization Laws to make their point.But NO new codification defines NBC (attempted by Congress nearly 30 times since the 1870s), nor does the 14th Amendment, nor any cases stemming from the 14th — ALL moot in the context of who the FRAMERS thought would be a "natural born citizen" for the Executive branch. Since Congress lacks the courage to undertake that task, the SCOTUS will be forced to define "natural born citizen", as they did last year to define "to keep and bear arms" in Heller v DC.
|
