tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395816859984121260.post4935651580438498120..comments2023-08-23T06:10:02.330-07:00Comments on Terror News: OBAMA CANNOT BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REGARDLESS OF WHERE BORNAlan Petershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15518570634735418114noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395816859984121260.post-3979117545016428952009-10-17T17:20:09.362-07:002009-10-17T17:20:09.362-07:00Re: "Our constitution is about Natural Law.&q...Re: "Our constitution is about Natural Law."<br /><br />Who says? I mean, is there a framer of the Constitution who says that? And besides, does Natural Born have a special meaning in Natural Law? I mean do other natural law philosophers than Vattel use the term?<br /><br />Other natural law philosophers include Locke and Hobbes and Rousseau and some even include St. Thomas Acquinas, and they all have very different views. (Locke rarely uses the term "citizen" at all. He talks about the rights of men.)<br /><br />It should be obvious from its construction and its interest in law that the Constitution is a legal document and that 60% or more of the people who wrote it were lawyers. (Hamilton, for example, was a lawyer, and he repeatedly uses Natural Born to mean citizenship due to place of birth.)<br /><br />Natural Born was used overwhelmingly in those days to mean "born in the country."<br /><br />For example, this paragraph was written in an discussion of the Constitution only about five years after the Constitution, and it says that since there were no naturalization laws before the Constitution, the only residents of the states were aliens and persons who were Natural Born Citizens. <br /><br />“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. "<br /><br />That is from St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings > View of the Constitution of the United States > paragraph 493 (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php)<br /><br />Another use (but this refers to natural born subjects) is by James Wilson, who was a member of the Constitutional Convention and earlier a member of the Continental Congress, and he wrote: <br /><br />"Natural born subjects have a great variety of rights, which they acquire by being born in the king’s ligeance, and can never forfeit by any distance of place or time, but only by their own misbehaviour; the explanation of which rights is the principal subject of the law. 1. Bl. Com. 371." (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=2072&search=%22natural+born%22&chapter=156335&layout=html#a_2775384)<br /><br />To be sure, this refers to Natural Born Subjects, but it clearly says that they acquire their rights by being born in the king's liegance (or area that the king controlled).<br /><br />The term "native born" was rarely used in those days. (In fact, I cannot find it at all.) Natural Born was the term used in those days for what we now call native born, or born in the country. And this continued for years. At the time of World War I, men who were registered for the draft were asked if they were citizens, and if so, whether they were natural born or naturalized.smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395816859984121260.post-90379331508122379652009-10-17T06:17:28.651-07:002009-10-17T06:17:28.651-07:00To smrstrauss,
I have seen your absolutely wrong p...To smrstrauss,<br />I have seen your absolutely wrong propaganda on many sites. It is your kind that seeks to destroy our constitution. You are one of the Obama Bridgetender brigads, sent out by this administration to shout down and ridicule any dissent of your Dear Leader. Our constitution is about Natural Law, not British Common Law. Common law, and the subjugation of state citizens is what this country fought to get away from. To think that British common law controls us is IDIOCY. It will be brought forth that this POTUS is ineligible due to his father's Kenyan citizenship when Obama 2 was born. Now go crawl back into your treasonous hole.Mickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864660386925998491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395816859984121260.post-56665249299787057862009-10-16T10:00:42.291-07:002009-10-16T10:00:42.291-07:00Re: "This comes from an Adams descendant.&quo...Re: "This comes from an Adams descendant."<br /><br />Please cite the name of the descendant and a place where I can see the actual words she or he used. It is clear from the words John Adams used at the time that he ONLY used Natural Born in the context of the British law and the laws in the colonies (Adams was a lawyer after all). And Adams only uses Natural Born to mean citizenship due to birth in the country or colony.<br /><br />There is an excellent example of Adams (and for that matter Ben Franklin and John Jay) using the term Natural Born Citizen as equivalent to the British term Natural Born Subject, and we know from Blackstone and other commentators that a Natural Born Subject was simply someone who was born in the British realm regardless of the number of parents who were British.<br /><br />Here is the quotation: (The spelling and capitalization are what they were at the time.)<br /><br />Quote begins:<br /><br />Draft Articles to Supplement the Preliminary Anglo-American Peace Treaty [ca 27 April 1787 [in Paris]<br /><br />Articles agreed on by David Hartley Esq., Minister Plenipotentiary of His Brittanic Majesty for &c in behalf of said Majesty on the one part, and J.A. [John Adams], B.F. [Benjamin Franklin], J.J. [John Jay] and H.L [Henry Livingston, who was also at the US Embassy in France, but is not as famous as the other three], ministers plenipotentiary of the Unites States of America for treating of peace….in addition to the articles agreed on the 30th day of November 1782…The subjects of the Crown of Great Britain shall enjoy in all and every of Said United States, all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Citizens of the Said States---and, on the other hand, all the citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the legislature of the other shall judge fit to exempt."<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=%22draft+articles+to+supplement%22&source=bl&ots=Aojo7Iux2Z&sig=r8tN3gtsaDaRYWKBox5fOWNPo4M&hl=en&ei=K4pBSvW6ComJtge3iN2dCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3<br /><br />End quotation<br /><br />Another way of wording the same thing, in another draft, was that “the subjects of his Brittanic Majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as Natural born Subjects & enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the Respective Dominions and Territories in the manner heretofore accustomed.”<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA214&dq=franklin+subject:%22History+/+United+States+/+Revolutionary+Period+(1775-1800)%22&lr=<br /><br />What does this mean? It means that as far as the writers of this document were concerned (Adams, Franklin, Jay and Livingston on the US side), the term natural born citizen is equivalent to natural born subject.<br /><br />The term “natural born citizen” meant to these US writers just what “natural born subject” meant to the British. It could not be that in the arrangement for equal treatment between the USA and Britain, that someone had to have two US parents to be treated just the same as a natural born subject in Britain who simply had to be born in the British realm.<br /><br />Subjects and Citizens are different, sure, but the question is are they different where their parents are concerned? Why, unless there is a framer saying so, does "natural born citizen" require two parents while "natural born subject" merely requires birth in the country?smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395816859984121260.post-60685885045024607502009-10-16T07:30:08.497-07:002009-10-16T07:30:08.497-07:00This comes from an Adams descendant:
“The Adams p...This comes from an Adams descendant:<br /><br />“The Adams papers I am in possession of plainly state they looked to “Vattel’s Law of Nations” for guidance in determining who might be qualified as a “natural born Citizen”.<br />My family is in possession of over seven thousand files of Adams documents that have been passed from generation to generation. We know what our forebears intended, we are not guessing and jumping to conclusions. Every possible legal scenario was thoroughly discussed and carefully decided by the Founding Fathers. Contrary to prevailing opinion, they left NOTHING to chance. I will be sharing our documents with the best qualified attorneys working on the Obama eligibility cases. Get used to it, Obama is finished and he knows it. Obama is knowingly leading his blinded followers down the paths of deceit and directly into the darkened halls of shame. <br />My heritage includes the Adams of Massachusetts and the Herndons of Virginia. The Adams papers I am in possession of plainly state they looked to “Vattel’s Law of Nations” for guidance in determining who might be qualified as a “natural born Citizen”. (Yes, they capitalized “Citizen”.) Do you actually believe there was no discussion of the topic by the Founding Fathers? Are you truly that ignorant of how well the Founding Fathers understood the law and its possible impact on future generations? It is very clear you haven’t a clue how well educated and intelligent the Founding Fathers were. Most were conversant in Latin and Greek, plus Hebrew and Aramaic<br />“The Lees of Virginia and other families also possess within their private archives a great deal of documentation regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers. Those who believe this issue was not debated and decided long ago haven’t been previously afforded access to the existing documents. ”<br />…The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” <br />My family also counts among our forebears King O’Leathlobhair (pronounced OWE LAL_OW_IR), who was ruler of all England in the third century A.D. The name O’Leathlobhair means “seeker of justice” and it is the original term from which the word “lawyer” was derived around the year 100 B.C.P. Reverehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17101753673497562071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395816859984121260.post-74469611143667377212009-10-15T19:44:57.805-07:002009-10-15T19:44:57.805-07:00Re: "What needs to happen is for this case to...Re: "What needs to happen is for this case to be heard in a court of law so that it is decided once and for all."<br /><br />Our system works this way, the final decision is made by the US Supreme Court. For a case to be called to the Supreme Court, it has to go through the appeals process, and then at the end of that process there has to be at least four Supreme Court justices who think there is a constitutional issue.<br /><br />IF six justices think that Natural Born simply means "born in the country" that means that the case will NOT be called. And, it means that even if the case is not called, the Supreme Court holds that Natural Born just means born in the country. <br /><br />I suggest that there are not four votes for calling the case on the Supreme Court. None of the Strict Constructionist judges will call the case because they will say "We cannot read into the phrase Natural Born Citizen a need for two parents. If the framers had meant two parents they would have said two parents."<br /><br />And the experts in the history of the Constitution will know that Natural Born was the common expression for native born in those days. In those days people rarely if ever used the term "native born." <br /><br />The opinions of the senators are of course just opinions, but it is highly likely that among the justices of the Supreme Court six or more justices will have the same opinion as those senators.<br /><br />The Constitution is clear that persons who are not US citizens cannot be president. And it is clear that naturalized citizens cannot be president (so Arnold S cannot be). But it is not clear that there is a barrier on US-born children of foreigners. Indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary, that the framers believed that birth in the USA was the key to a person's allegiance of the USA.<br /><br />In this they followed British common law and the laws in the colonies at the time.<br /><br />I am not sure what you are saying about your relatives. I discussed this with a birther once who was not a US citizen, and he held that his daughers who were born in the USA were citizens but not Natural Born Citizens because of him. I disagreed, naturally, saying that despite him his daughters are both citizens and Natural Born Citizens, and I hope that they run for president one day.smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395816859984121260.post-48527721964195642282009-10-15T19:05:56.051-07:002009-10-15T19:05:56.051-07:00re comments by smrstrauss:
first off, my aunt is ...re comments by smrstrauss:<br /><br />first off, my aunt is an Australian who is now an American citizen. My cousins are American citizens by virtue of the fact that their father was an American citizen, and the USA is the country of their birth. <br /><br />Second, the opinions of Hatch and Graham do not count as far as a court of law is concerned. They have offered an opinion but have they done sufficient detailed research? <br /><br />What needs to happen is for this case to be heard in a court of law so that it is decided once and for all. <br /><br />At the heart of the issue of conferring citizenship is the citizenship of the father. In the case of Obama or is that Soetero, the father came from Kenya and was a British subject. The mother was too young to confer citizenship since she had not attained 20 years of age when she gave birth.... (another quirk that needs to be investigated about a mother conferring citizenship). <br /><br />When these citizenship rules are applied to say Arnie Schwarznegger, he cannot run for the office of POTUS because even though he is a citizen he was not born in the USA. This makes him ineligible for the role. <br /><br />Bobby Jindal could probably not run for President because of a similar thing.... he was born in the USA but his parents were Indian citizens... which means a court would have to rule upon his eligibility for running for the office of POTUS. <br /><br />Personally, I am not a "birther" but I do believe that the issue should be brought before the courts in order to have it decided. I also believe that those other records that have been sealed should be opened up for inspection. Someone has something to hide and there is no transparency.Maggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532250145038548627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395816859984121260.post-70398753893895225332009-10-15T18:15:10.120-07:002009-10-15T18:15:10.120-07:00Re: 'In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, on...Re: 'In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have parents - two parents, that are citizens of the Nation, and must be born on the soil of the Nation. It does not get any simpler than this."<br /><br />Is that why why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:<br /><br />Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:<br /><br />“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)<br /><br />Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:<br /><br />“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)<br /><br /> And:<br /><br />Gov. Bobby Jindal, who delivered the Republican response to Obama’s speech, said: “Regardless of party, all Americans are moved by the President’s personal story - the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father, who grew up to become leader of the free world.”<br /><br />Jindal, of course, would be even less of a citizen under Vattel’s concept because neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. His mother was about three months pregnant when they came to the USA.<br /><br />Vattel did say something about a special category of citizens who have two parents, natural citizens, but he actually did not use the term Natural Born Citizen because he wrote in French, and the translations that appeared before the writing of the Constitution did not use the phrase Natural Born. <br /><br />More interestingly, though Vattel did have a category of citizens that had two citizen parents and was born in the country, Vattel NEVER says that leaders of a country should be even citizens, much less natural citizens. He has several cases where countries picked their sovereigns from the nobility of other countries, and he never says doing that was a bad thing.<br /><br />Moreover, Vattel advises such things as that countries should each pick state religions and force people to join those religions–or else allow them to leave the country. So, since the framers of the Constitution did not obey Vattel in all things, did they obey him in the two-parent requirement?<br /><br />Most likely NO. The term “natural born” was already in use in the laws of the American colonies and British law, and it simply meant a citizen due to the place of birth, regardless of the number of parents.<br /><br />There are a couple of other arguments against “the two parents plus born in the USA theory” besides the common law.<br /><br />The first of these is the strict construction approach. If the framers of the Constitution had wanted us to understand that “Natural Born Citizen” should mean either two US parents or two US parents and be born in the USA, surely they would have said so. By not saying so, they certainly knew that people could think that they meant the common law definition of Natural Born Citizen as the equivalent of “Natural Born Subject.” So, for them to not clarify, must have meant that the Common Law definition was just fine.<br /><br />A second point is with the logic of the parents being citizens at the time of birth. Under this theory if one of my parents gets naturalized one day after I was born, I’m not eligible. If both are naturalized a minute before I am born, I am eligible. This may be useful as an arbitrary breakdown of who should and should not be president, but what is the REAL sense behind it? Does the fact that someone was naturalized before really make a difference to someone’s loyalty? What evidence is there that the framers though this, instead of the more commonly used rule of birth in the country, used by the Common Law?<br /><br />As the Wall Street Journal says: "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."smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.com