Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $27,615
31%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 31% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Bigun

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Congratulations to our presumptive nominee, Donald Trump!

    04/20/2016 12:42:37 PM PDT · 147 of 1,440
    Bigun to Jim Robinson

    You have become a chicken shit son-of-a-bitch! You KNOW that don’t you?

  • Ted Cruz Isn't Cheating, He's Winning

    04/14/2016 6:30:21 AM PDT · 436 of 456
    Bigun to higgmeister

    No sir! That would be because of bigoted idiots like yourself and it started long before Donald Trump ever entered the political realm!

  • Ted Cruz Isn't Cheating, He's Winning

    04/13/2016 11:04:51 AM PDT · 421 of 456
    Bigun to Jane Long

    I’m not going anywhere!

  • Ted Cruz Isn't Cheating, He's Winning

    04/13/2016 10:33:50 AM PDT · 414 of 456
    Bigun to dforest

    That will likely be the result!

  • Ted Cruz Isn't Cheating, He's Winning

    04/13/2016 10:26:45 AM PDT · 413 of 456
    Bigun to mkjessup

    I can actually remember when this place WAS the PREMIER CONSERVATIVE site on the web!

    That time has long past unfortunately!

  • Ted Cruz Isn't Cheating, He's Winning

    04/13/2016 10:13:53 AM PDT · 407 of 456
    Bigun to mkjessup

    Begged him to do it once before and he refused!

    We’ll see!

  • Ted Cruz Isn't Cheating, He's Winning

    04/13/2016 10:10:41 AM PDT · 405 of 456
    Bigun to mkjessup

    Bring it!

  • Ted Cruz Isn't Cheating, He's Winning

    04/13/2016 9:58:46 AM PDT · 400 of 456
    Bigun to mkjessup

    Nope! The cowardly bastard is going to have to BAN me!

  • Ted Cruz Isn't Cheating, He's Winning

    04/13/2016 6:03:21 AM PDT · 389 of 456
    Bigun to Jim Robinson

    And YOU are a bigger damned fool than I first imagined!

  • Trump Is Collapsing in Wisconsin: And that’s really bad for his delegate math

    04/01/2016 6:51:43 AM PDT · 191 of 210
    Bigun to sargon

    Even Megan Kelly recognizes that Donald Trump is nothing more than a carnival barker selling snake oil to the masses!

    He’s a worthless POS not worthy of the consideration of any thinking person regardless of party!

  • Free Republic Fund raiser in Honor of Judge Scalia and Others.

  • Record turnout expected in Saturday’s GOP primary

    02/19/2016 9:48:46 AM PST · 23 of 53
    Bigun to Lagmeister

    Sorry but there is only one unelectable jackass in the race and he is Donald Trump!

    Liberal to the core and totally unelectable!

  • Chaffetz, Jordan Erupt After IRS Erases Another Hard Drive

    01/22/2016 2:12:58 PM PST · 53 of 60
    Bigun to wastedyears

    “Imagine if this happened under a republican administration.”

    Nothing much would change as the Marxist income tax is the key to their inside the beltway wealth creation and they know it!

  • Chaffetz, Jordan Erupt After IRS Erases Another Hard Drive

    01/22/2016 1:22:57 PM PST · 51 of 60
    Bigun to Secret Agent Man

    And yet, nothing is done.

    ‘Kabuki outrage continues.

    Wanna know why we have to end the rino gop-er vichy republican democrat uniparty?

    Because we are not playing their rigged game anymore. And they are freaking out that people will abandon them and the game masters will have no one to order around and control.”

    You took the words right off my keyboard!

  • John Kerry: Some sanctions relief money for Iran will go to terrorism

    01/21/2016 10:27:57 AM PST · 2 of 17
    Bigun to Citizen Zed

    The real question is how much of that money will wind up in the hands of John F’n Kerry!

  • Let's Put an End to this Birther Nonsense about Ted Cruz

    01/20/2016 8:25:52 PM PST · 166 of 213
    Bigun to dforest

    It has been settled law for a couple opf centuries now at least!

    http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm

  • Let's Put an End to this Birther Nonsense about Ted Cruz

    01/20/2016 6:05:06 PM PST · 151 of 213
    Bigun to Cincinatus' Wife

    The SCOTUS has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”

    The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

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

    Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    “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,”

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    “(A)ll 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.”

  • Let's Put an End to this Birther Nonsense about Ted Cruz

    01/20/2016 5:42:14 PM PST · 149 of 213
    Bigun to Cincinatus' Wife

    I was born in the United States to two citizen parents. My citizenship is granted (by nature) owing to the place of my birth (jus soli), and the undivided loyalties of my citizen parents (jus sanguinis), under the sole governance of the United States Constitution. That is, my citizenship does not depend on the existence of any statutory actions taken by the US Congress (nor can it ever be constrained by such); hence I am a natural born citizen.

  • Iranian coup: A tale of two U.S. Navy vessels

    01/18/2016 7:57:00 AM PST · 208 of 261
    Bigun to austingirl

    “Congress won’t impeach him. Why isn’t anyone invoking the 25th Amendment and declaring him unfit? Ia there anyone in Washington who will defend the Constitution?”

    Sadly the apparent answer to your question is no!

  • Cruz Suggests Trump Could Be Democrat

    01/18/2016 7:27:26 AM PST · 145 of 248
    Bigun to MLL

    “Cruz Suggests Trump Could Be Democrat”

    Could be??? ROFLMFAO!!!!

  • Iranian coup: A tale of two U.S. Navy vessels

    01/18/2016 7:22:19 AM PST · 204 of 261
    Bigun to bgill

    “Congress should demand the Terrorist in Chief to stand trial for treason on many counts throughout the 7 years of dictatorship. But they will continue to do nothing.”

    Whoop! There itis!

  • Iranian coup: A tale of two U.S. Navy vessels

    01/18/2016 6:30:24 AM PST · 196 of 261
    Bigun to Taxman

    Obama is no phoney! He’s a real genuine Iranian agent under the total control of one Valarie Jarrett and has been from day one!

  • Vanity: Would Ted Cruz Be Eligible For POTUS During The Time Of Our Founding Fathers

    01/12/2016 12:55:35 PM PST · 377 of 402
    Bigun to HiTech RedNeck

    The willful ignorance of so many on this thread is truly ASTOUNDING!!!

  • Vanity: Would Ted Cruz Be Eligible For POTUS During The Time Of Our Founding Fathers

    01/11/2016 7:28:15 PM PST · 53 of 402
    Bigun to taxcontrol

    Do you not comprehend that the very use of the word “naturalization” means that an action other than birth is required? Natural born citizens have no need for that at all.

  • Natural Born Citizenship: Free and Clear

    01/11/2016 6:11:08 PM PST · 80 of 128
    Bigun to taxcontrol

    No! I would not cite any law. I would simply produce my birth certificate and perhaps those of my parents and rest my case!

  • Natural Born Citizenship: Free and Clear

    01/11/2016 5:47:15 PM PST · 62 of 128
    Bigun to taxcontrol

    “Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates the exclusive power to Congress to define the rules of naturalization. That includes who is and who is not born as a citizen.”

    Natural Born Citizenship does not depend on ANY legislative act that has ever occurred!

    There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), while not focused on the specifics of Ted Cruz’s citizenship origins, contains a very good discussion on the specifics of citizenship via statute. Here is one particular quote of note:

    “Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.”

    I assume that Mr. Cruz and his parents have meet all of the obligations described above, hence that is why his US citizenship is not in question. But in reviewing the above, and the rest of Rogers v. Bellei, you can see the clear distinctions (and inherent legislatively imposed constraints) that have been drawn (in other SC cases as well) between citizenship by statute, and natural born citizenship.

    I will use myself as an example. I was born in the United States to two citizen parents. My citizenship is granted (by nature) owing to the place of my birth (jus soli), and the undivided loyalties of my citizen parents (jus sanguinis), under the sole governance of the United States Constitution. That is, my citizenship does not depend on the existence of any statutory actions taken by the US Congress (nor can it ever be constrained by such); hence I am a natural born citizen.

  • The Difference Between a U.S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen

    01/11/2016 2:28:51 PM PST · 71 of 86
    Bigun to jaydee770

    “And so is Cruz,...”

    No! He is not! And neither is anyone else who depends on ANY statutory construction for their citizenship!

    Obama included!

  • The Difference Between a U.S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen

    01/11/2016 11:57:12 AM PST · 69 of 86
    Bigun to jaydee770

    “Well, the N.A. of 1790 was written a mere three years after the constitution by a congress that included 8 of the 11 founding fathers who were also framers of the Constitution. That act provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as Natural Born Citizens.”

    That’s their own words. Founding fathers. Framers of the constitution. How much more “original” does the “original intent” need to be?”

    It’s crystal clear but so is this! Natural Born Citizenship does not depend on ANY legislative act that has ever occurred!

    There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), while not focused on the specifics of Ted Cruz’s citizenship origins, contains a very good discussion on the specifics of citizenship via statute. Here is one particular quote of note:

    Quote
    “Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.” end quote

    I assume that Mr. Cruz and his parents have meet all of the obligations described above, hence that is why his US citizenship is not in question. But in reviewing the above, and the rest of Rogers v. Bellei, you can see the clear distinctions (and inherent legislatively imposed constraints) that have been drawn (in other SC cases as well) between citizenship by statute, and natural born citizenship.

    I will use myself as an example. I was born in the United States to two citizen parents. My citizenship is granted (by nature) owing to the place of my birth (jus soli), and the undivided loyalties of my citizen parents (jus sanguinis), under the sole governance of the United States Constitution. That is, my citizenship does not depend on the existence of any statutory actions taken by the US Congress (nor can it ever be constrained by such); hence I am a natural born citizen.

  • Presidential Eligibility is a Political Question

    01/11/2016 10:41:22 AM PST · 17 of 25
    Bigun to Responsibility2nd

    “You’re absolutely right. Me included. I was (and still am) a proud birther.

    However. Over 50 court cases and State A/G decisions later (All Lost) we now know:

    Any US citizen is a NBC.”

    Here is where that leads:

    Ollie Ackbar: Born September 11, 2001, Sana’a, Yemen

    Father: Mohammed Ackbar, Born Sana’a, Yemen; Citizenship: Yemen
    Mother: Betsy Johnson, Born: Bethesda, MD; Citizenship: USA

    September 11, 2037 Ollie Ackbar arrives in New York, USA
    Status: Natural born citizen of the United States
    Qualifies for the Office of the President of the Unites States: Certainly / sarc

    Is that what anyone here wants?
    That sort of scenario is EXACTLY what our founders were intent on preventing!

  • Presidential Eligibility is a Political Question

    01/11/2016 10:11:45 AM PST · 12 of 25
    Bigun to Behind the Blue Wall

    “Presidential Eligibility is a Political Question”

    BS! Presidential eligibility is entirely a Constitutional question! A matter of LAW!

  • Judge Nap: Cruz's American Citizenship Is Settled and Established

    01/11/2016 10:05:04 AM PST · 152 of 297
    Bigun to dp0622

    “ever hear of the Naturalization Act.

    look it up. Its an American document.

    reading is fundamental.”

    There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), while not focused on the specifics of Ted Cruz’s citizenship origins, contains a very good discussion on the specifics of citizenship via statute. If I get a chance sometime, I would like to spend the time to highlight the findings of this case that bear on the current discussion. Here is one particular quote of note:

    Quote
    “Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.”

    I assume that Mr. Cruz and his parents have meet all of the obligations described above, hence that is why his US citizenship is not in question. But in reviewing the above, and the rest of Rogers v. Bellei, you can see the clear distinctions (and inherent legislatively imposed constraints) that have been drawn (in other SC cases as well) between citizenship by statute, and natural born citizenship.

    I will use myself as an example. I was born in the United States to two citizen parents. My citizenship is granted (by nature) owing to the place of my birth (jus soli), and the undivided loyalties of my citizen parents (jus sanguinis), under the sole governance of the United States Constitution. That is, my citizenship does not depend on the existence of any statutory actions taken by the US Congress (nor can it ever be constrained by such); hence I am a natural born citizen.

  • Judge Nap: Cruz's American Citizenship Is Settled and Established

    01/11/2016 9:43:46 AM PST · 123 of 297
    Bigun to VinL

    “Read the article please.”

    I have read it and stand by my earlier comment!

  • The Difference Between a U.S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen

    01/11/2016 9:31:26 AM PST · 66 of 86
    Bigun to iontheball

    Ollie Ackbar: Born September 11, 2001, Sana’a, Yemen

    Father: Mohammed Ackbar, Born Sana’a, Yemen; Citizenship: Yemen
    Mother: Betsy Johnson, Born: Bethesda, MD; Citizenship: USA

    September 11, 2021 Ollie Ackbar arrives in New York, USA
    Status: Natural born citizen of the United States
    Qualifies for the Office of the President of the Unites States: Certainly / sarc

    Is that what anyone here wants?
    That sort of scenario is EXACTLY what our founders were intent on preventing!

  • Storm Clouds Form: Bob Woodward Compares Hillary Scandal to Watergate (FBI revolt brewing)

    01/11/2016 9:21:03 AM PST · 154 of 201
    Bigun to Sequoyah101

    While I continue to pray that you are wrong I greatly fear that you are right!

  • Judge Nap: Cruz's American Citizenship Is Settled and Established

    01/11/2016 9:06:26 AM PST · 25 of 297
    Bigun to VinL

    As far as I know no one is questioning whether or not Cruz is a citizen. He is without doubt!

    Whether or not he is a “natural Born” citizen is an ENTIRELY different question!

  • Fordham Law Prof: Ted Cruz Not 'Natural Born' Under 'Originalist' View of Constitution

    01/11/2016 8:56:33 AM PST · 42 of 144
    Bigun to dangus

    “Bull. The first Congress was very clear that someone who was a citizen by means of birth was a natural-born citizen. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1790. That should put to rest any question of what “Natural-born” meant to our founding fathers.”

    Bull yourself!

    The SCOTUS has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”

    The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

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

    Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    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,

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    (A)ll 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.

  • Storm Clouds Form: Bob Woodward Compares Hillary Scandal to Watergate (FBI revolt brewing)

    01/11/2016 8:17:13 AM PST · 136 of 201
    Bigun to Sequoyah101

    Will this once great republic come to it’s senses or have we forever become just another banana republic in a sea of banana republics on this planet? That is the only question remaining to be answered.

  • Storm Clouds Form: Bob Woodward Compares Hillary Scandal to Watergate (FBI revolt brewing)

    01/11/2016 7:08:49 AM PST · 52 of 201
    Bigun to Zakeet

    Bull shit Bob! This makes Watergate look like a Sunday school picnic by comparison!

    The Clinton Foundation is “organized crime” at it’s finest, and we are financing it. Here is a good, concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax free international money laundering scheme. It may eventually prove to be the largest political criminal enterprise in U.S. history.

    This is a textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and repackage it to be used for your own purposes. All tax free. Here’s how it works:

    1. You create a separate foreign “charity.” In this case one in Canada.

    2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did - contributing mega millions. I’m sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin’s buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).

    3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.

    4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.

    5. The Clinton Foundation then “spends” some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton’s, pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.

    6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world’s best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these “clerical errors” and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.

    7. Net result — foreign money, much of it from other countries, goes into the Clinton’s pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.

    Oh, by the way, the Canadian “charity” includes as a principal one Frank Giustra. Google him. He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive U.S. uranium interests and then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia. This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the approval was granted. As an aside, imagine how former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell feels. That poor schlep is in jail because he and his wife took $165,000 in gifts and loans for doing minor favors for a guy promoting a vitamin company. Not legal but not exactly putting U.S. security risk. Sarcasm aside, if you’re still not persuaded this was a cleverly structured way to get unidentified foreign money to the Clinton’s, ask
    yourself this:

    Why did these foreign interests funnel money through a Canadian charity? Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation? Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations and countries in need?

    This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling. Now you know why Hillary’s destruction of 30,000 e-mails was a risk she was willing to take.

  • Ted Cruz is a Naturalized Citizen, not "Natural Born"

    01/11/2016 6:44:56 AM PST · 132 of 228
    Bigun to Joachim
  • The Difference Between a U.S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen

    01/11/2016 6:18:20 AM PST · 40 of 86
    Bigun to Mr Rogers

    Presidential Eligibility

    In the 2008 election both major parties nominated candidates whose eligibility is dubious. For Barack Obama the question was whether he was born in Hawaii, which is U.S. soil. For John McCain the question was whether the Panama Canal Zone, where he was born, was U.S. soil. It is not, and being born of parents both of whom were U.S. citizens did not make him a “natural-born” citizen, although a statute was later adopted naturalizing such persons at birth.

    The U.S. Constitution provides as follows:

    Article II Section 1 Clause 5:
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Amendment XIV Section 1:
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
    The main authority for the original meaning of “natural born” is William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume II, edited by St. George Tucker, a Founder, published in 1803, especially Chapter 10:

    As to the qualifications of members to sit at this board: any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council; taking the proper oaths for security of the government, and the test for security of the church. But, in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust, as happened in the reign of king William in many instances, it is enacted by the act of settlement,l that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council.

    ... the king has also the prerogative of conferring privileges 53 upon private persons. Such as granting place or precedence to any of his subjects, as shall seem good to his royal wisdom:g or such as converting aliens,54 or persons born out of the king’s dominions, into denizens; whereby some very considerable privileges of natural-born subjects are conferred upon them. Such also is the prerogative of erecting corporations;55 whereby a number of private persons are united and knit together, and enjoy many liberties, powers, and immunities in their politic capacity, which they were utterly incapable of in their natural. Of aliens, denizens, natural-born, and naturalized subjects, I shall speak more largely in a subsequent chapter;
    The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England;
    ... the prince is always under a constant tie to protect his natural-born subjects, at all times and in all countries, for this reason their allegiance due to him is equally universal and permanent. But, on the other hand, as the prince affords his protection to an alien, only during his residence in this realm, the allegiance of an alien is confined (in point of time) to the duration of such his residence, and (in point of locality) to the dominions of the British empire.
    Thus allegiance, then, both express and implied, is the duty of all the king’s subjects, under the distinctions here laid down, of local and temporary, or universal and perpetual. Their rights are also distinguishable by the same criterions of time and locality; natural-born subjects having a great variety of rights, which they acquire by being born within the king’s ligeance, and can never forfeit by any distance of place or time, but only by their own misbehaviour:
    The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.10 In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.c
    St. George Tucker, the editor, says this in a footnote:

    Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.
    Blackstone uses the term “subject” rather than “citizen”, so are citizens the same as subjects for this purpose? We have from Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):

    And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

    Before Blackstone, the leading authority for the meaning of constitutional language is Edward Coke, who explains in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377 (1608), that a child born on the soil of England to a foreign national visiting the country who is not an invader is a “natural born subject” of England:

    [A foreign national]... so long as he was within the King’s protection; which [though] but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a [natural bond] he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject; ... There be regularly ... three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King’s dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. ... many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the King’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. And therefore if any of the King’s ambassadors in foreign nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the common laws of England they are natural-born subjects, and yet they are born out-of the King’s dominions. But if enemies should come into any of the King’s dominions, and surprise any castle or fort, and possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the King’s ligeance or obedience. But the time of his birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the King of England, unless at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the King.
    The subject of whether jus soli or jus sanguinis applies to the United States came up in a debate in the U.S. House of Representatives, May 22, 1789, when James Madison said:

    It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

    That was not on the point of presidential eligibility, but it does show which rule applies.

    Drawing from Max Farand’s Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, historian George Bancroft characterized the debate on qualifications for the Presidency in his History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States (1884) (Volume 1 Page 346):

    One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last to be decided. On the twenty-second of August the committee of detail, fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty-five, on their own motion and for the first time required that the president should be a citizen of the United States, and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty-one years. The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business proposed, on the fourth of September, that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the the of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president,’ and for the foreign-born proposed a reduction of the requisite years of residence to fourteen. On the seventh of September, the modification, with the restriction as to the age of the president, was unanimously adopted.
    The questions centered on how persons became citizens, and how long they had been citizens, but the subject of parentage was never raised.

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”, but “considered as” does not change the definition of the term or the fact of the physical circumstances of birth, nor can conferring a privilege by statute change an eligibility requirenent in the Constitution. They made a mistake, using sloppy language, and corrected it in the next act on the subject. It is also irrelevant. It is a naturalization act, and a statute cannot change the meaning of a term in the Constitution. For that one has to go back to the usage of the term before 1787, and that means usage by Coke and Blackstone, especially Coke, in Calvin’s Case. That case controls the meaning for the Founders, who regularly referred to those authors when they were unclear on legal terms of art. The early Congresses often made constitutional errors. Then as now they did not always think everything through. For that matter, the Framers made some mistakes in the Constitution, but we are stuck with those mistakes unless or until we amend it. That error was corrected by repeal with the Naturalization Act of 1795.

    Sometimes miscited is Emmerich de Vattel, in his work Les Droit des Gens (Law of Nations), taking out of context the words from Book I:

    § 212. ... The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
    But this is not a precise translation from the French, which has no exact equivalent to “natural born”, and the French word word “parens” can mean close family, not necessarily biological parents. He was writing of a modified form of the rule of jus sanguinis that was municipal law (not the law of nations), and only for some countries on the European Continent. A little further down, he explains:

    § 214. ... there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
    However, “naturalizes” is also not an exact translation, which in Anglo-American law has come to mean a statutory or administrative process, but which for Vattel meant “makes one a citizen”, which could include natural circumstances.

    The rule of jus soli goes back to at least 508 BC in Athens, when it was used to establish citizenship in districts called demes. The Romans mainly used jus sanguinis to organize the empire into national groups each with its own legal system (although they had to introduce the office of praetor peregrinus to adjudicate disputes between members of different groups). However, the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD made jus soli the rule for the entire Empire. The rule was carried to France and England under Roman domination, and the Normans adopted it and spread it to Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall.

    However, jus sanguinis prevailed in many Eastern and Central European countries at the time Vattel wrote, and spread to other countries on the European continent. It displaced jus soli in Britain in 1983 and in France in 1993, mainly in response to immigration of persons of different ethnicity.

    On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

    Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
    There is no proof that deliberations took place at the convention on the subject of the letter. While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed “citizen” to “natural born citizen” without explanation. The Convention accepted the change without further debate.
    Sometimes miscited on this subject is the Supreme Court case, The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814), which commented in dictum on various views of citizenship and the rights of citizens in a case in which the issue was whether a ship or cargo belonging to a U.S. citizen may be seized as a prize if it was bound to a nation with which the U.S. was at war, even if the U.S. citizen did not know it was at the time, but the holding was not on the issue of what constitutes citizenship, much less natural born citizenship.
    In his 1826 Commentaries on American Law, James Kent said:

    Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent.
    In an 1829 treatise, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, William Rawle (1759-1836), formerly the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania (1791-1799), wrote that The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. ... [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. .... Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that ... no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

  • How the Founders Sowed the Seeds of Civil War

    01/09/2016 6:16:21 PM PST · 45 of 75
    Bigun to Citizen Zed

    Creating a charter of government for a country like ours was not an easy thing at all. Quite difficult in fact. That it has lasted as long as it has would astound every single one of the men who were there In Philadelphia that summer!

  • 220th Anniversary: James Madison Drinks, and Writes an Article

    12/22/2015 10:22:44 PM PST · 37 of 38
    Bigun to Publius

    I very rarely visit this place these days but I’m VERY glad I did tonight!

    Merry Christmas my FRiend! And keep the faith!

  • 10 Ways Trump Is Right About Taxes

    08/29/2015 7:11:21 PM PDT · 38 of 40
    Bigun to Taxman

    “Not to mention the expansion of FReedom, Bigun!”

    Can you imagine being able to start or expand a business in this country without having to consider any tax implications? That would be the case under the fairtax!

    Can you imagine never again having to worry about a tax audit by the IRS? You wouldn’t ever have to do that under the fairtax!

    On and on it goes!

  • 10 Ways Trump Is Right About Taxes

    08/29/2015 10:15:54 AM PDT · 25 of 40
    Bigun to Taxman

    Absolutely right Taxman!

    Passing the fairtax into law would result in an expansion of the U.S. economy the likes of which no living person has ever seen!

  • CLUES UNLOCK OBAMA I.D. MYSTERY: FBI Soviet spy files, SUBUD cult, and a dead body

    08/19/2015 8:55:00 PM PDT · 15 of 173
    Bigun to Randall_S

    .

  • 8 reasons manufacturing is great for America

    08/11/2015 10:02:09 AM PDT · 18 of 39
    Bigun to DannyTN
    Heres a 2011 article, saying that there are provisions within the WTO agreements that allow us to do a "scaled tariff" in the face of chronic trade deficits. Scaled Tariff would help balance the budget

    That approach is exactly ass backwards! What we need to do is get rid of the Marxist tax code we currently endure-and the IRS with it - and replace it with the kind of taxes our founders universally endorsed! Sales taxes on articles of consumption!

    Fairtax.org

  • Harry Reid’s incorrect claim that 30 percent of women rely on Planned Parenthood for health care

    08/05/2015 7:17:56 AM PDT · 6 of 21
    Bigun to ThomasMore

    Why would anyone believe a word coming out of Harry Reid’s mouth?

    He lies about EVERYTHING!

  • Video: Donald Trump Event In Oskaloosa, Iowa

    07/26/2015 7:30:43 AM PDT · 50 of 94
    Bigun to duffee
    I believe the best spot for Senator Cruz is as President.

    I would prefer to see him as President Walkers AG and first nominee to SCOTUS!

  • Do you consider Sen. John McCain a war hero?

    07/20/2015 7:54:56 PM PDT · 116 of 124
    Bigun to cva66snipe

    And the angle to all that that I think you are overlooking is that the society of Naval Admirals is not all that large. They all know and take care of each other. And especially so when family names need protecting!

  • Do you consider Sen. John McCain a war hero?

    07/20/2015 5:56:28 PM PDT · 96 of 124
    Bigun to freedumb2003

    Not a hero and never claimed to be one! Did my duty, do not regret it, and don’t have a daddy admiral and a granddaddy admiral to protect me! (The family name you know!)