Skip to content

Why did Congress do this?

04/24/2013

Why have they inserted someone not of pure American status as the CEO of the nation? “Natural Born” was meant in it’s purest Vattel interpretation so that there be no foreign influence on the “most powerful man in the world”. And this was not to do with the US when that was written, because we were nothing but a British colony at that time. It was to define, FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD, what certain terms meant. And it was THE accepted understanding to this group of persons creating this new nation. That there be NO confusion in heart of the guy in charge as to the priority of decisions FOR the specific nation involved.

Further, and I’ve mentioned it before, Ovomit was born a BRITISH citizen. Ignore Hawaii, it could have been hatched in OHIO and it still would have been a Brit. 

The facts of Mr. McCain’s birth to U.S. parents in the Panama Canal Zone – and his U.S. citizenship by birth as a result of a subsequent statutory grant – are undisputed.  His eligibility for the Presidency as a “natural born citizen” was disputed solely on the legal issue of whether birth outside of the United States to U.S. parents made him a “natural born citizen” or not.  Not so in the case of Mr. Obama, whose eligibility is being challenged, at least in part, on allegations of facts not generally accepted and in some cases dismissed by most as just bizarre – for example, that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya rather than in Hawaii.  In two of the cases, the plaintiffs contend that Mr. Obama’s birth to a foreign-born father, resulting in dual citizenship at birth, automatically creates divided loyalties and precludes him from being a “natural born Citizen” eligible to serve as President.  In the third case, various facts are posited, including Mr. Obama’s birth in Kenya, adoption or acknowledgment as a child by his stepfather in Indonesia, and his travel as a young adult on an Indonesian passport to Pakistan.  Legal conclusions are drawn that Mr. Obama either failed to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth or lost U.S. citizenship at some point after birth because of his acquisition of Indonesian citizenship.  The challengers then proceed to argue that dual citizenship at birth, loss of U.S. citizenship after birth, or birth outside of the United States would preclude Mr. Obama from being a “natural born citizen.”

Messrs. Donofrio and Wrotnowski posit the following facts about Mr. Obama’s birth to establish his dual citizenship:  that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was born in Kenya, which at the time of Mr. Obama Jr.’s birth in 1961 was a British colony; that Mr. Obama Sr. was at that time a British subject and that British nationality law governed not only the nationality of Mr. Obama Sr. but also Mr. Obama Jr., thereby resulting in British citizenship at birth for Mr. Obama Jr.  In support of this, Mr. Wrotnowski’s lawsuit refers to one of President-elect Obama’s websites, Fightthesmears.com, which cites FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters associated with the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, stating:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.  Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

In other words, by citing third-party websites, President-elect Obama may appear to concede that he had dual U.K./U.S. citizenship until Kenyan independence on December 12, 1963, and thereafter Kenyan/U.S. dual citizenship, until his twenty-first birthday.

This means that it is NOT an NBC. But you know what? I wouldn’t give a rat’s rectum if it had been hatched on Mars IF it’s behavior had shown that the USA was it’s first priority. If Preserving and Defending THE CONSTITUTION was of that same level. If it were a dedicated citizen of AMERICA, rather than the world. If it had not proven time after time that it didn’t have the first fucking clue about that root of our nation. If it had not said that it wanted to change the Constitution because of it’s inherent imperfection. Limiting the government like that, how dare they?

MMMPOS!!!!!! It was born a Muslim and raised a Marxist. With the intent of being trained and groomed to destroy the USA. Listen to the way it intones when it speaks. The construction of it’s sentences, and the way it sounds when it reads the TOTUS. The way it mispronounces American terms to this day! And it’s continuous attack ON the very Constitution it claims to have taught at “Hahvahd”. The way it speaks in perfect Arabic and supports Pisslam on so many occasions. Hmmm, kinda incriminating me thinks.

I don’t know, maybe all my military awareness training, at my old clearance level, just makes me paranoid.

Until I remember at my age what life was like before.

33 Comments
  1. 04/25/2013 01:56

    Obama was born in Hawaii. Do not ignore that fact because it is important. It is important because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents of a US-born citizen.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

    And there have now been Eight state court rulings on Obama alone, and one federal court ruling on Obama, and one more state court ruling on McCain. All TEN of them said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was defined by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and that the Wong Kim Ark case said that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law (as Meese also said), and that it referred to the place of birth (as Meese, Hatch and Graham all say), and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.

    More reading on the subject:

    http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

    http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

  2. upaces88 permalink
    04/25/2013 11:14

    This IS Treason and yet no one is doing a thing about it!

  3. upaces88 permalink
    04/25/2013 11:33

    SMR…: Hospitals in Hawaii to Obama “YOU WERE NOT BORN HERE!

    http://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/hospitals-in-hawaii-to-obama-you-were-not-born-here-2/

  4. upaces88 permalink
    04/25/2013 11:34

    This is just an excerpt from the article above me:
    The Queen’s Medical Center 1301 Punchbowl StreetHonolulu, HI 96813
    Link to Site Phone number 808-538-9011 General Medical Records 808-547-4361.

    After it was concluded that Obama and his mother were never there, his sister was in an interview (Mary) and claimed that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children – Obama and Mom Never Here 1319 Punahou StreetHonolulu, Hawaii 96826(808) 535-7000 Link to site Hospital after Hospital – …

    ***all Have No Record of Obama being born or Mom Ever being There ***

  5. 04/26/2013 07:57

    Re: Obama was indeed born in Kapiolani.

    Birther sites have not shown you this, have they?

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiolani-confirms/

    And that is in addition to the birth certificate saying Kapiolani, and the former governor of Hawaii, a Republican, saying Kapiolani, and the Centennial Magazine of Kapiolani Hospital carrying his letter saying that he was born in Kapiolani, and the teacher who wrote home, to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley saying that the doctor who told her worked at KAPIOLANI.

    For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

    (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

    (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama’s father stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

    (3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

    If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.

  6. 04/26/2013 08:00

    Re Vattel. Yes, the writers of the Constitution did read Vattel. But they also read a lot of other things. There is no evidence at all that they used Vattel’s definition and not the far more commonly used definition used in the common law for 300 years before the Constitution was written. Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times. And Vattel’s French word “indignes” was not even translated into English in any English-language translation of the book until ten years after the US Constitution was written. So, the writers of the Constitution would have had to have translated “indignes” themselves and used it and not used the common law—and what are the chances of that happening without them telling us that they did it?

  7. upaces88 permalink
    04/26/2013 09:28

    Video: Obama Admits It

    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

  8. 04/26/2013 09:40

    The video is not an admission of being born in a foreign country.

    For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

    (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

    (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

    (3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

    If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points.

  9. upaces88 permalink
    04/26/2013 11:35

    There has been an abundance of law enforcement, VALID people to research the issue of his BC. IF you haven’t kept up to find out the “ENTIRE” Truth…no matter where it lead… you have an agenda that no one with a conscience will follow.

    This is the last time I am copying and pasting this in because you really DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH.
    This is just an excerpt from the article above me:
    The Queen’s Medical Center 1301 Punchbowl StreetHonolulu, HI 96813
    Link to Site Phone number 808-538-9011 General Medical Records 808-547-4361.
    After it was concluded that Obama and his mother were never there, his sister was in an interview (Mary) and claimed that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children – Obama and Mom Never Here 1319 Punahou StreetHonolulu, Hawaii 96826(808) 535-7000 Link to site Hospital after Hospital – …
    ***all Have No Record of Obama being born or Mom Ever being There ***

  10. 04/26/2013 12:32

    Re: ***all Have No Record of Obama being born or Mom Ever being There ***

    Birther sites have not shown you this, have they?

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiolani-confirms/

    And that is in addition to the long-form birth certificate, which says Kapiolani, and the statement of the former Republican governor of Hawaii, who said Kapiolani, and the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth of a child in Hawaii in Kapiolani Hospital to a woman named Stanley.

    And, speaking about no evidence, there is NO evidence that Obama’s mother even had a passport in 1961, and the idea that if she had one she would have used it to travel to Kenya (or any other country) while she was late in pregnancy at the risk of stillbirth—remains nutty. There IS evidence that he was born in Kapolani. There is NO evidence that his mother had a passport or that Obama was born in a foreign country (and the Kenyan government, for one, has denied that he was born there).

  11. 04/27/2013 12:31

    Enjoy your Kool-Aid, ignore the almond flavor.

  12. upaces88 permalink
    04/27/2013 13:37

    SMR…actually they have shown it….and the original from the British archives that you conveniently do NOT want to know about or really don’t care to ask.
    You are one of those brain dead people who wants to wrap up all the ugly in a neat little package with a bow and hand it out like it is real because it suits YOUR purpose and anyone else’s that wants a Muslim Marxist in Our WH.

  13. 04/29/2013 08:40

    The Kenyan government has denied that Obama was born there, and the Hawaii government, confirmed by the officials of BOTH parties, has said that he WAS born there. What then are the odds that Obama was born in Kenya? Still not convinced. Well there were only 21 people that came to the USA from Kenya in 1961, and of them only seven were US citizens. Still not convinced? Well, it would have cost the equivalent of $10,000 in 2013 dollars to go from Hawaii to Kenya and back in 1961, and that is for ONE person. Still not convinced? Well, do you have evidence that Obama’s mother even had a passport in 1961? (Actually, nobody does, so all the “born overseas” stuff is based on the mere speculation that she did). Still don’t believe? Well the birther sites that claimed that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya made that up; she did not say it. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that Obama was born in Hawaii—-“where his father was studying at the time”. Birther sites simply cut off the tape and the transcript that they used just before she was asked “Whereabouts was he born?” Want to see the transcript.

    The “born in Kenya” story is the height of the loony side of the birther movement. It is based on forgeries like that of Lucas D. Smith, and falsifications–such as the claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—when she actually said right on the same tape that he was born IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.

    Lucas D. Smith, a convicted felon, claimed that he went to Kenya and got Obama’s birth certificate at a hospital in Mombasa. But Lucas D. Smith has constantly refused to show proof that he, Smith, had ever gone to Kenya. All that he would have to do would be to show a Kenya stamp on a page of a passport, but Lucas D. Smith has refused to do that, constantly, and he has also constantly refused to say why he will not show that proof. (Moreover, his “birth certificate” uses US date formats [month/day/year] and not the day/month/year format used in Kenya.)

    Laying aside for a moment the overwhelming proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, the evidence that Obama was NOT born in Kenya is also very strong. There were a grand total of 21 people who came to the USA from Kenya in 1961. Of these only seven were US citizens. And the birther myth has always been that Obama’s parents went there and returned by plane, but only one person came to the USA from Kenya in 1961 by plane and that person was, wait for it, NOT a US citizen. And Obama’s father did not go to Kenya in 1961 either (making it unlikely that his mother did, since travel late in pregnancy was rare, and even more rare without the husband going along). WND has proved with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961.

    And the Kenyan government investigated the “born in Kenya” story, and found that it was not true.

    “Jon Chessoni, a first secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, can’t understand why his office gets so many baseless questions about whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

    “It’s madness,” said Chessoni on Monday.“His father, in 1961, would not even have been in Kenya. When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.””

    http://washingtonindependent.com/53654/forged

    Obama has a Hawaii birth certificate that says that he was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, and the officials of both parties in Hawaii have confirmed that fact. It is also confirmed by the birth announcement in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, which were sent to the papers only by the DOH of Hawaii.

    Obama’s birth announcement appeared in a section of the newspapers called Health Bureau Statistics. As the name indicates, and as the papers and the DOH also say, ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to the Health Bureau Statistics section of the paper. And the DOH only sent out those notices for children that it had issued birth certificates for, and in 1961 the DOH was not allowed to register the births of children who were not born in Hawaii.

    Oh, and there is this:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiol

  14. 04/29/2013 08:43

    Enjoy your Kool-Aid, ignore the almond flavor.

  15. 04/29/2013 08:49

    Re: “Enjoy your Kool-Aid, ignore the almond flavor.”

    Answer. It is you who have been drinking the birther Kool-Aid and ignoring the almond flavor.

    if you had facts to back up your dreams based on the birther myth, you could answer this question:

    For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

    (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

    (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

    (3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

    If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points.

  16. 04/29/2013 08:57

    Re: “SMR…actually they have shown it….and the original from the British archives that you conveniently do NOT want to know about or really don’t care to ask.”

    Answer: You are referring to the “Kenyan birth certificate” shown by the convicted felon Lucas D. Smith, referred to above. As noted Smith claimed to have gotten that document in Mombasa, Kenya—but has constantly refused to show any evidence that he had gone to Kenya, and as noted the officials in Kenya have stated that they investigated and determined that Obama was not born there.

    Do you think that both the officials in Kenya and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii are both lying (and not Lucas D. Smith the convicted felon)? Well, it still would have cost the equivalent of $10,000 in 2013 dollars for one person to go from Hawaii to Kenya and return in 1961, and it still would have been a highly risky trip due to the high incidence of stillbirth (and Yellow Fever was endemic in Kenya). And Obama’s mother still would have had to have traveled alone, since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama’s father stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961.

    And, there isn’t even any solid evidence that Obama’s mother even had a passport in 1961. She might have, but it is probably 50-50 that she didn’t.

  17. 04/29/2013 09:19

    I have linked articles and research from a large number of persons and sources. Sheriff Arpaio has proven the fraudulence of the BC. I have quoted God knows how many of the Founders in the intent to have a Natural Born, in the commonly accepted sense, person eligible to be POTUS due to conflict of interest values. If you don’t find great suspicions in every factor of Ovomit, “may you wear your chains lightly, and may we forget you were ever our countryman”. Regardless of what else IT may be, it is not an American. It was not raised here, and it reflects MAJOR Marxist tendencies. If you find this MMMPOS acceptable in your eyes, then more pity to you. I don’t care what else it might be, it is NOT an American. As I’ve said, it could have been born in Ohio with a video of it’s birth under the “Now entering Cleveland” road sign, and it would still not reflect American values. It’s father (recorded) was a British citizen. It was raised a Marxist Muslim in Indonesia before it was abandoned by it’s mother in Hawaii. How could they have afforded all of that? You ask how she traveled in 1961? How did they travel in 1969? Russia? I don’t care about anything other than this country is rapidly turning into a third world shithole. The percentage of the population unemployed, on welfare and foodstamps, how do you explain that? Communism has never worked, and it will never work, not even here in the USA. If you are happy with it, live your life as you will.

  18. 04/29/2013 09:55

    Re: “Sheriff Arpaio has proven the fraudulence of the BC. ”

    Sure he has. Sure. Would you like to buy a pretty bridge in Brooklyn?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/content/conspiracy-again

    Re: “I have quoted God knows how many of the Founders in the intent to have a Natural Born, ‘

    Answer: Their intent, as shown by AMERICAN (not Swiss) writers at the time was to use the meaning of Natural Born that came from the common law, and which included every child born in the country except for the children of foreign diplomats. There is absolutely NO evidence that the writers of the US Constitution considered the US-born children of foreigners to be lower-level citizens or more likely to be security risks than the US-born children of US citizens. Not even one writer of the US Constitution wrote or said any such thing. And the quotations from American writers at the time indicates that they used the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that it was used in the common law:

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    “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.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    The quotation by Rawle, who knew the writers of the US Constitution, is exactly what the US supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, some seventy or so years later, that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born Citizen. And, by the way, the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER the Minor v. Happersett case, so even if the Minor v. Happersett case had ruled what birthers think (and it didn’t), the Wong Kim Ark case would be the one that applies, and it does. In fact, ten appeals courts have all ruled that the Wong Kim Ark case is the one that applies and none have ruled that two citizen parents (or even one) is required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.

  19. 04/29/2013 18:46

    Well the fact is there are two types of citizens. There are natural born citizens and there are “naturalized” citizens. The latter have all the rights and privileges of citizenship with exception of being able to be the President or the Vice President.

    The whole case turns on what the law is and what precedents are going to be invoked.

    It seems to me that the definition of natural born would be as different as a constitutional republic and a constitutional monarchy. The sovereigns were chosen in completely opposite manners and seeing that the American president is both head of state and head of government it would be a little more sensitive as to the loyalties of the person holding it. Because of the consanguinity required for a British monarch they were pretty sure that some “other” was not going to be head of state.

    I am going to stealborrow heavily from the research in this particular article

    George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights” and one of the “Founding Fathers” of the United States, proclaimed: “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.” ( Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788)

    This would stand to reason as they had just had a long war to eject the British. To do so, then, re-institute the same system is like breaking up with a girl then dating her sister. Per the article it was standard operating procedure(of Britain) to extend natural born citizenship to as many of the outer provinces for the glory and honor of the empire.

    Also remember that Alexander Hamilton was a driving force behind the new constitution and apparently he was greatly influenced by Vattel(according to the article)

    However, the New York State Constitution had adopted the common law of England, as part of the Constitution of New York. This British feature, of making past precedents part of the Constitution, Hamilton turned on its head, by arguing that, since the law of nations was part of the common law, the decisions of the New York Legislature must be consistent with the law of nations, in order to have validity. And Hamilton used Vattel as the standard for defining the law of nations.

    While not conclusive it is highly suggestive. If the definition is at common law and the law of Nations is incorporated in the common law in America it would stand to reason that the NBC construct would be also part of American common law. Once we ceased being a part of Britain our common law precedents would naturally diverge as custom and usage would change over time.

    In 1787 the US did not have pretensions to empire as the country was hanging by a thread. They threw out out a totally inadequate system for something that had a little more control of the situation. This incorporated the hybrid formation of an executive who was equal parts chief magistrate/ head of state/commander in chief to be chosen from the citizenry at large. This would require someone who had a special bond not by accident of place birth but by history and tradition of which Obama is a classic example.

    Let’s use a hypothetical. Two foreign nationals of a rival country of no particular high office tour the United States and they have a baby while here. They stay a month afterwards to make sure everything is ok then return to their country. The child then is raised under whatever traditions and values are prevalent. He then, at 21, returns to the United States and decides to live here. He stays for 14 years and decides he wants to run for President he really has no feel or grasp of America. His ideas are antithetical to the ideas the upon which the country was founded. But by some confluence of events he is elected and proceeds to impose a foreign rule using lawless edicts and deprecates this country for the benefit of both the country he was raised in and other foreign entities. The congress is split between parties so no realistic ability to remove the brigand is apparent. This is the reductio ad absurdum of jus solis. There is no real connection or affinity between this “natural born citizen” and the country he now rules. By a bastardized interpretation(Wong) of the 14th amendment,which according to the framers did not grant birth right citizenship.)

    In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

    “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

    this person is considered a citizen and by the jus solis nonsense a natural born citizen at that. This would legal prestidigitation as opposed to sound review. Under this absurd rubric the child of an illegal alien(born here) can be President while the child of an armed forces member born over seas at the direction of his government would not be. In these two scenarios who is more likely to be attuned to the American way?

    Just being pushed out on a certain spot has no real meaning unless you are a salmon. Allegiances are developed by human interaction and an affinity for like principle and the founders being smart guys understood that and would have made such a judgement(and yes I realize that is just speculation on my part). They wanted a solid guarantee that the President would be a product of America and it’s experiences and traditions not just an accident of nature.

    President Present is the quintessence of what they were trying to guard against. He has only a birthplace not an affinity that would have been nurtured by citizen parents steeped in the culture and tradition of this country.

  20. 04/30/2013 14:39

    Re: “It seems to me that the definition of natural born would be as different as a constitutional republic and a constitutional monarchy.”

    And don’t you think that if the writers of the US Constitution had agreed with you they would have told us about that difference? (if not, why not?)

    And, if the writers of the US Constitution agreed with you, why did two AMERICAN (not Swiss) legal writers who knew the writers of the Constitution concluded that the meaning refers to the PLACE of birth not the parents?

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    “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.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    As you can see, neither refers to parents. And for that matter no writer of the US Constitution ever wrote an article or letter saying that two citizen parents (or even one) was required. If you search their writings, you will find that they used Natural Born only the same way that it was used in the common law. No examples of them using it to refer to parents exist at all.

    Re: Howard. He was not the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Senator Lymann Trumbull of CT was, and he said:

    “By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutuion, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)”

    That part about birth and allegiance going together was also stated by James Madison, who said that the sole criterion for allegiance in the USA is the place of birth.

    In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, 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.” (As you can see, he listed two possible criteria of allegiance, but he said that the place of birth was the most certain, and it was the only one of the two that he listed as applying in the United States.)

    BTW, did you know that criminals are eligible to be president? So long as they haven’t lost their citizenship and were born on US soil, they are eligible. So, why didn’t the writers of the Constitution protect us from the possibility that criminals could be elected? Because, they wanted to allow us to be “FREE TO CHOSE,” to use a conservative phrase. Well, the nutty idea that the millions of Americans who had foreign grandparents would think that their parents could be disloyal—or perhaps more disloyal than the children of two US citizens—does not leave us free to chose, it limits the choice.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” And, since they did not tell us that the US-born children of foreigners are lower level citizens than the US-born children of US citizens. And since they did not ever specifically say that the US-born children of foreigners should be considered security risks and not allowed to be president, that principle holds.

  21. 04/30/2013 15:19

    Oops, spelling mistake. The above should read: “Free to Choose.” And it should read ” the nutty idea that the millions of Americans who had foreign grandparents would think that their parents could be disloyal—or perhaps more disloyal than the children of two US citizens—does not leave us free to choose, it limits the choice.”

  22. upaces88 permalink
    04/30/2013 15:50

    SMR…Please get back to the hospital. Your meds have stopped working.

  23. 05/01/2013 03:17

    Re: “SMR…Please get back to the hospital. Your meds have stopped working.”

    Answer: Notice that the above statement is not a discussion of the issue?

  24. 05/01/2013 08:47

    Have you paid the first bit of attention to any of our points? Your points are in direct contravention to observable facts regarding the malignant narcissist party creature, raised a Muslim, then taught Marxism through Alinsky, Cloward, and Piven. Communism has never led to anything other than nationwide misery, and the facts remain that our debt increases and our dependence on government increases, leading to less people working or living well. If it worked, we would have a far greater number of people living what is considered that “middle class” lifestyle, rather than depending on food stamps and welfare checks. Employment would be much closer to 100% than it currently is, mortgage collapse should be non existent. Why is it that your side ignores history?

  25. 05/01/2013 09:11

    Re: “Have you paid the first bit of attention to any of our points? Your points are in direct contravention to observable facts regarding the malignant narcissist…”

    I have read your points. I accept the fact that the economy has not been doing well. I recognize that you claim that Obama is a communist—etc, etc.

    BUT, none of these things makes him born in a foreign country, nor does it change the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

    Go right ahead and say that you hate Obama and hate liberals and that communism does not work and even that you think that Obama is a communist. You have a right to make those allegations.

    BUT when there postings on this site that claim that Obama was not born in Hawaii, they are simply wrong. And when there are postings that claim that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born Citizen, they also are wrong.

    Moreover, the passion to claim that Obama could not be a Natural Born Citizen because his father was not a citizen hits at potential Republican candidates such as Jindal and Rubio, who may or may not be sufficiently conservative for your taste but certainly have leadership and political skills. And, worse, the two-citizen parent theory attacks the principle that the writers of the Constitution believed “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” To be sure, there is evidence that they may not have believed that where slaves were concerned. But we should not believe that they were hypocritical without specific evidence—and there is no evidence that they regarded the US-born child of a foreigner as a lower-level citizen than the US-born child of US citizens.

    In any case, go right ahead and say that Obama is a bad president and list your reasons. But he was born in Hawaii, and he is a Natural Born US Citizen, and he was re-elected on November 6, 2012.

  26. upaces88 permalink
    05/01/2013 16:44

    Yes, we all have paid attention for about 4 to 5 years now. I am, quite frankly, bored with it because no matter WHERE he was born or hatched, he remains to be the most Treasonous POS this nation has ever had sitting in the WH.
    That is the bottom line.

  27. 05/01/2013 16:58

    True, true.

  28. 05/02/2013 07:23

    If you read my last comments you will notice that they did not discuss the location of Obama’s birth. They discussed the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. You certainly have the right to dislike Obama, and millions are like you, but he was born in the USA and hence according to the original definition of Natural Born Citizen, he is a Natural Born Citizen.

  29. 05/02/2013 12:05

    Just read a little deeper into the Constitution itself. Law of Nations IS referenced within that same article. This, apparently, is neither here nor there in relation to TEH WON™ and the marvels of what sits in command. You choose to twist the intent of the Founders, fine, fuck it. We may but pray we survive this trial.

  30. 05/02/2013 12:58

    After Obama got into office the first AND second time, there were ads on Craig’s List for “bloggers” FOR HIM. They were paid “per comment.”
    The first time, I met a lot of great people on Yahoo Buzz. There was this one blogger, Jenesis (I even remember her name” lol…she was like smr….all the way.

    I dunno, she must have quit or got sick because “SUDDENLY” she is logical, factual and NOT the brain-dead liberal she had been before. Many of us noticed the huge difference and knew then what had happened, and asked her to join our group.

    Guess whut!? She disappeared on Yahoo Buzz. LOL

    BOTTOM LINE HERE? SMR….blogs ..IS just like her…brain dead…same old arguments that have NO VALID “objective” fact checking”

  31. 05/03/2013 09:17

    Re: “Just read a little deeper into the Constitution itself. Law of Nations IS referenced within that same article. ‘

    Answer. No it isn’t, and if it were that fact would have been mentioned in the Federalist Papers, where neither the book THE (notice that the “the” is capitalized) nor Vattel is mentioned at all, while the common law is referred to about twenty times, and always with praise.

    Here is how AMERICANS (not Swiss) at the time used the term Natural Born Citizen:

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    “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.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    BOTH of those men knew the writers of the US Constitution, and neither of them uses the term Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents. And, a search of the writings of the members of the Constitutional Convention shows that they did not use Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents either, only the way that it was used in the common law, to refer to the place of birth.

  32. 05/03/2013 12:35

    Then why would that specific phrase have been used as a qualifier for ONLY the President? To avoid, as much as possible, any conflict of interest in national dealings. Also remember that George Mason SPECIFICALLY said the British Common Law was NOT the basis of law for the Constitution.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,712 other followers

%d bloggers like this: