Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
The Post Mail ^ | 10/18/2009 | John Charlton

Posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13

4 Cases have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that define the status of Natural Born Citizen.

(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; fraud; ineligible; lawsuit; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; qualification; ruling; scotus; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-424 next last
4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen" IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN by John Charlton

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/ Reference links at bottom of page....

Emmerich de Vattel, c/o Online Library of Liberty (Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has

given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective

qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what

this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the

irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of

the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations,

written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural

born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its

authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the

country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children

of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .

The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the

French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen: one born in the country,

of parents who were citizens of that country.

In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is

by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin,

indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the

indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term,

“natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of

that country.

Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of

citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George

Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete

their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).

Let take a brief look, now, at each case. For each case I include the link to the full text of the ruling.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the

American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:

Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.

John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.

William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.

Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823

Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.

Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.

Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845

Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took

part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in

5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant

Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the

British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or

nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of

Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George

Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington

was George Washington’s nephew and heir.

Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American

citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a

prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the

French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work

has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its

authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents

who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those

children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.

Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are

obliged to defend it…

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters

of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of

whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave

the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a

“natural born citizen”:

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and

remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the

Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does

not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South

Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the

citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father,

partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established,

and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so

that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears

to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register

to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in

that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain

that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted

that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and

include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the

court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of

the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that

all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as

anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation

to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and

foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

CONCLUSION Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In

this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other

category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties

accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or

State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because

unconstitutionally.

References:

About Emer de Vattel http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=3987&Itemid=28

The law of Nations - Vattel http://books.google.com/books?id=z8b8rrzRc7AC&dq=Emmerich+de+Vattel+The+Law+of+Nations&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=

it&ei=tdfaSsH1HIuk4Qbb6pn1Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

SCOTUS before 1900 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Justices_appointed_before_1900

Venus Case http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

Shanks vs. Dupont http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/242/case.html

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html#162

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html#649

1 posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

Geez... how about the one sentence version?


2 posted on 03/14/2010 12:05:15 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

Which Supreme Court case establishes that we shouldn’t question the entire background of a candidate or an office holder, especially when there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence suggesting a coverup of his background?


3 posted on 03/14/2010 12:09:16 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Hey you noble leftists. You can't be honest about your agenda because you're not confident in it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

Your begining attaches to the original article. You don’t have to cut and paste the ENTIRE article as well


4 posted on 03/14/2010 12:09:18 PM PDT by raymcc ((How did our country become a bastion of uneducated, ignorant individuals??))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
how about the one sentence version?

Where's the Birth Certificate?

5 posted on 03/14/2010 12:10:12 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

If you have followed the debate on Obama’s qualifications under the constitution of the United States, as a Natural Born Citizen, quite a bit of time has been spent on the seeming inablility of anyone to define what Natural Born Citizen means. Many have argued Vattels definition, but none that I have read showed actual Supreme Court decisions that quantify, in this case, 4 times, not only who, but why, and how SCOTUS defines NBC.
IMO this clearly shows that Obama is NOT a NBC by virtue of his Fathers citizenship in another country, and the requirement that Both Parents be citizens of the US for the child to qualify as a candidate for the highest office in the Land.
Many argued that Wong Kim Ark, did this, in fact, it only made him a citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen.


6 posted on 03/14/2010 12:13:17 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

These decisions define who is and who is not a Natural Born Citizen.
IMO, every candidate for POTUS should be completely vetted, and it should be made clear to the voting public.


7 posted on 03/14/2010 12:15:24 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens.

English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the
French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen: one born in the country,
of parents who were citizens of that country.

“indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the

indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term,

“natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of
that country.

The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

CONCLUSION Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.


8 posted on 03/14/2010 12:15:44 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Should people be questioning their government? Yes and "Where's the birth certificate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: raymcc

I don’t post origonal articles that often, I did as they instructed.
However, it is always good to be able to cut and past from an article when replying. IF you look on the bottom, I listed the reference links. For some reason the title and the link ran together. But its there to cut and paste if you wish to study it further.


9 posted on 03/14/2010 12:17:16 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
C'mon, bammies daddy could have been osama, his mommie was a citizen so he's natural born and is sitting in office, get over it!

We need to defeat his policies and pass new laws so the next time he can be vetted.

/BC FReeper troll

10 posted on 03/14/2010 12:17:20 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; null and void

NBC Ping!


11 posted on 03/14/2010 12:18:45 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

EXACTLY!!!


12 posted on 03/14/2010 12:18:45 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: raymcc

Considering all the stupid BS we have to wade through with pitbull, devotionals, and loads of other crap - I wilol cut this guy/gal a break. This is a VERY important issue considering and usurper is destroying our economy/socity and bankrupting the nation.

SCOTUS needs to hear a case and I know the whole quo warranto stuff. Just rule that he is not eligible. Get it over with SCOTUS.


13 posted on 03/14/2010 12:20:06 PM PDT by Frantzie (TV - sending Americans towards Islamic serfdom - Cancel TV service NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

Sounds like a pretty good idea.


14 posted on 03/14/2010 12:20:29 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Hey you noble leftists. You can't be honest about your agenda because you're not confident in it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

You are wrong on many levels...
Obama’s father was Obama Sr a kenyan, also a British Protectorate at the time. His stepfather was Indonesian. Neither one was ever a US Citizen.

Mom was not in the US long enough to confer citizenship to him in any Case

He, IMO needs to be removed per the Constitution.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion as well.


15 posted on 03/14/2010 12:21:48 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

You missed my /BC FReeper troll tag


16 posted on 03/14/2010 12:23:24 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

What does that mean?


17 posted on 03/14/2010 12:24:15 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

It is difficult for me to believe that the founders intended anyone to be president whose father was a british subject and who was born after the revolutionary war.


18 posted on 03/14/2010 12:24:53 PM PDT by votemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

My impression is that although the Constitution requires American presidents to be NBCs, there is no formal mechanism in place to vet the candidates. In the past, I guess, candidates simply did not run who were not NBCs.

Expecting that kind of self-responsibility from Marxists is no different than expecting the immoral and amoral to have any respect for truth.


19 posted on 03/14/2010 12:27:26 PM PDT by dools007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: votemout

I agree, it is obvious to anyone who has studied this issue, or followed these threads. You look at the framers of the Constitution, the references they used (Vattel), and the reason that ONLY the POTUS is required to be an NBC, and its clear IMO


20 posted on 03/14/2010 12:27:27 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
Hang around on this thread long enough, they'll show up.

they're the BC trolls who come a long and argue that no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, NBC has never been defined.

They will tell you that bammies in office and to concentrate on defeating his policies and this issue will go nowhere etc....

21 posted on 03/14/2010 12:27:47 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
Yeah, but his daddy wasn't an American citizen, and that makes him ineligible to hold the office of President.
22 posted on 03/14/2010 12:28:16 PM PDT by ANGGAPO (Leyte Gulf Beach Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

One thing is clear. You and I will never be on the USSC. Too simpleminded. LOL.


23 posted on 03/14/2010 12:29:24 PM PDT by votemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

Meant to add, my post was pure sarcasm, I was mirroring the trolls that will more than likely show up here.


24 posted on 03/14/2010 12:29:39 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ANGGAPO; All
MY POST WAS SARCASM...READ THE TAG!
25 posted on 03/14/2010 12:30:58 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: votemout; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; rxsid; ...
It is difficult for me to believe that the founders intended anyone to be president whose father was a british subject and who was born after the revolutionary war.

Ping!

26 posted on 03/14/2010 12:31:45 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 415 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
This is all legal hokum

The governing law is very simple: It is TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.”

IMPORTANT: Natural Born does not mean Native Born.

Natural Born means a citizen at the moment of birth by conditions or parentage and birth, not a persona who was made a citizen by application later, i.e. one who was “naturalized” i.e, made as if Natural

27 posted on 03/14/2010 12:33:40 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
Sarchasm - the gap between sarcasm and it's intended target...
28 posted on 03/14/2010 12:35:23 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 415 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dools007

Actually, there are several mechanisms.
1. The DNC or the RNC must vet their candidates. I am sure that Independents or other parties must do the same.
2. Each Secretary of State must vet each candidate independently, before putting them on the individual State Ballots.
3. The Vice-President, before declaring the winning candidate in the Senate, must count Electoral Votes, verify that there are NO objections in the Senate. and THEN declare a victor.


In this case, The DNC released 2 (Two) vetting statements and sent them to Different States. Signed by Nancy Pelosi, and headed by Howard Dean...ie. They did not vet him at all.
The SOS (Secretary of State) for each state took the statements from the DNC, and DID NOT vet independently.
Finally The Vice-President (Cheney), did NOT solicit objections from the senate, Per the Rules and Procedures he is required to follow, before tallying the electoral votes and delcaring a winner.

Three requirements, all of them done incorrectly, leading to the problem we have today.


29 posted on 03/14/2010 12:36:49 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

That’s not what we’re talking about.


30 posted on 03/14/2010 12:38:17 PM PDT by TheOldLady ("The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." -- Albert Camus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

Already posted and discussed, but it’s good to return sometimes.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2425480/posts


31 posted on 03/14/2010 12:39:10 PM PDT by bgill (The framers of the US Constitution established an entire federal government in 18 pages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
Deriving legal opinions from non-lawyer blog posters such as John Charlton isn't just wrong, it's dangerous.

If he knew enough to do the research for this article, then he knew what the law is, and ignored it.

8 USC 1401 is governing law in this. Period.

32 posted on 03/14/2010 12:40:07 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
"...the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin)."

That's huge. I had no idea that Ben Franklin testified to the fact that the Framers consulted Vattel's work while drafting the Constitution. That is very important.

33 posted on 03/14/2010 12:40:08 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
Many argued that Wong Kim Ark, did this

And many are pigheaded or argue this just for the distraction value.

34 posted on 03/14/2010 12:41:40 PM PDT by bgill (The framers of the US Constitution established an entire federal government in 18 pages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady

The problem is that FReepers will read it and use it to claim BO is not legally the president.

There are MANY questions about his legal status to serve. This is not one of them.


35 posted on 03/14/2010 12:42:43 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Correct, Naturalized and Natural Born, have two very different meanings.
Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401


36 posted on 03/14/2010 12:43:33 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

I disagree, and think your confused.
We are talking about Natuaral Born Status, not Naturalized status, or those seeking definition of US Citizenship, which Title 8, section 1401 is referring to.


37 posted on 03/14/2010 12:47:51 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bgill

So True...distraction is a valuable tool in debate, unless you know the facts.
Wong Kim Ark was seeking US Citizenship, not natural born status.


38 posted on 03/14/2010 12:49:24 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
...his mommie was a citizen so he's natural born...

Dead wrong.

He may be a "US Citizen" by virtue of having been born to a mother who was herself an American citizen, but he is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen" for all of the reasons cited above.

We patriots can fight Obama on several fronts at the same time. There's no need to abandon this, or any other legitimate grievance against him.

39 posted on 03/14/2010 12:52:07 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

The “Law of Nations” is also referenced in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.


40 posted on 03/14/2010 12:52:28 PM PDT by Beach555
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

The law is the law is the lay

Curse it, the wind, or the gods, at your peril.

The writer should know this.


41 posted on 03/14/2010 12:52:29 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Feh.


42 posted on 03/14/2010 12:52:36 PM PDT by TheOldLady ("The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." -- Albert Camus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

The law is the law is the law

Curse it, the wind, or the gods, at your peril.

The writer should know this.


43 posted on 03/14/2010 12:52:41 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

In Arkansas, the Secretary of State certified him a year before the form was sent to him by the RAT party. Either it was a mistake or Daniels knew the truth but was afraid to do anything, but either way, it makes the entire certification null and void.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15127


44 posted on 03/14/2010 12:53:07 PM PDT by bgill (The framers of the US Constitution established an entire federal government in 18 pages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Windflier; Las Vegas Ron

I’ll handle this one, Ron.

Windflyer, LVR’s post was sarcasm.


45 posted on 03/14/2010 12:55:46 PM PDT by TheOldLady ("The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." -- Albert Camus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady; Las Vegas Ron
Windflyer, LVR’s post was sarcasm.

I saw his "/FReeper Troll" tag, but it didn't make sense to my until after I'd posted.

I got it, Ron.

46 posted on 03/14/2010 12:58:23 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: bgill

True...I checked it out.
I added the linked references to my post at the bottom, it links:
Emer Vattle’s biography
Vattels Law of Nations
SCOTUS before 1900
The Cases:
Venus
Shanks vs. Dupont
Minor vs. Happersett
US vs. Wong Kim Ark

These are excellent quick references to much of what is being debated today...

I hope this addition helps everybody to better understand what has happened, and how to fix and prevent further abuses by those who purport to represent the citizens of the US.


47 posted on 03/14/2010 1:01:05 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady; Windflier

LOL.....didn’t mean to cause a ruccus!


48 posted on 03/14/2010 1:01:53 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Beach555
The “Law of Nations” is also referenced in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Yes, I've seen that. Too bad that the Framers didn't put quotation marks around the title and reference Vattel by name in parenthesis to drive it home.

It would have been even better if they'd simply stated their definition of NBC in the Constitution, but in their day, clear and simple words conveyed clear and simple meanings.

I'm sure they had no idea that the implied understandings expressed in their eloquent 18th century tongue would leave holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through in centuries hence.

49 posted on 03/14/2010 1:04:30 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
It's the SARCHASM!

</sarc>

50 posted on 03/14/2010 1:04:46 PM PDT by TheOldLady ("The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." -- Albert Camus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-424 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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