U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: 14th Amendment Citizenship
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jul 24, 2013
Author: Senators Trumbull, Howard and Williams -
Post Date: 2013-07-24 11:23:20 by We The People
Keywords: None
Views: 14426
Comments: 25
14th Amendment Citizenship "[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." Not my words. Those are the words of Senator Trumbull, one of two Senators that drafted the 14th. Here's some further explanations by Senators Trumbull and Howard: "The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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." Senator Howard "Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens." Senator Trumbull Mr. HOWARD: "I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now." Then there's the on-record statement of Senator Williams: "In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Then "natural born citizen" is clarified by Representative John Bingham, often considered the "father" of the 14th: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen" Then of course, we have the oath of citizenship: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen..."
Poster Comment: Obama does not qualify to be President of the United States of America. Period.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: We The People (#0)
So, what is the number(s) of the code that specifically states the qualifications for president, their definitions, and what law was broken?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
LOL! The "number of the code" is Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution that states "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."
The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations That's Vattel's Law of Nations which defines Natural Born Citizen, that the Constitution refers to. Obama, Mitt, and McCain are all ineligible to be president of the US. UK/Kenya, Mexico, and Panama... they're good to go. Fortunately Mitt's Mexican born father George never renounced his allegiance to Mexico, and neither did Mitt.
"[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." Not my words. Those are the words of Senator Trumbull, one of two Senators that drafted the 14th. [...] Then "natural born citizen" is clarified by Representative John Bingham, often considered the "father" of the 14th: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen" The John Bingham quote from March 9, 1866 addressed different wording which appeared in the Civil Rights Bill of 1866. S-61, introduced by Sen. Lyman Trumbull on January 5, 1866 became the Civil Rights Act of 1866. H.R. 127 proposed the 14th Amendment and was introduced by the father of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham. Senator Jacob Howard submitted the citizenship clause as an amendment to H.R. 127 on May 30, 1866. Senator Howard's citizenship clause did not exist when Rep. Bingham's statement was made. In debate on the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, its author Senator Jacob Howard stated on May 23, 1866: And, on May 30, 1866 Senator Howard stated: However, the original intent is not binding upon an interpretation of a constitutional amendment. It is not a piece of legislation passed by congress. It is ratified by the people. They vote based on the plain text language of the proposed amendment. The plain text language of the citizenship clause is:
Yes, but they may or may not be 'natural born citizens' as is the requirement stated in the Constitution. " Then "natural born citizen" is clarified by Representative John Bingham, often considered the "father" of the 14th: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen" Obama's father is not and never was a citizen of the United States.
If that's the case, can "shall not be infringed" be interpreted as "may be infringed on any whim"?
Minor v. Happersett en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett "The opinion (written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite) first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization" and that the Constitution "does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." Under the common law, according to the court, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."[12] The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth."
I should think not. The plain text, as ratified by the people, is quite clear to me. What I am saying is that if you could quote a drafter claiming his intent was that it only applied to the active duty armed forces, that would be irrelevant. It would have to be judged on what the people, in ratifying, reasonably understood the words to mean.
As stated, this quote refers to wording in a Civil Rights bill, not to the citizenship clause of the 14th Amdt which did not exist at the time of this statement. Rep. Bingham was not the author of the citizenship clause. It was written and submitted in the Senate by Senator Jacob Howard.
Wasted effort. See Wong Kim Ark.
It refers to the common law understanding of the requirements to be considered a natural born citizen, as understood by the court.
I know that you're correct. I've made the same argument several times over. What I can't figure out is why others don't realize it.
Which said that he was a US citizen, not a natural born one.
Congress: "And 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." Another congressional act in 1795 issued a similar assurance, though it changed the language from "natural born citizen" to "citizen." But the State Department clarifies the issue, saying that the 1790 language is honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
Then conveniently... In April 2010, Solum republished the same article as an online draft, in which he clarified his original statement so that it would not be misunderstood as excluding the children of one citizen parent. (Bullshit and he knows it!) In a footnote he explained, "based on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a 'natural born citizen'." He further extended natural born citizenship to all cases of jus soli as the "conventional view".[49] Although Professor Solum stated elsewhere that the two-citizen-parents arguments "weren't crazy", he believes "the much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural born citizen." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat...zenship_status_of_parents At one time it was understood that to be a natural born citizen one had to be born on American soil of two citizen parents. Now, it's watered down so that a child of illegal aliens can be president. And we have American citizens arguing for that.
Being a Democrat or Republican candidate for president is now one of those jobs that Americans won't do. George W. Bush was the last American willing to stoop that low. Now we have Panamanians, Kenyans, and Mexicans from the D&R crime syndicate. Marco Cubio and Arnold Schwarzenegger vs Bunny (Loretta) Snatchez and Obama's drunk Kenyan uncle next? Loretta Sanchez, who stole B1 Bob Dornans seat with illegal alien votes will most likely be the next DHS head. "The opinion (written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite) first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization" and that the Constitution "does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." Under the common law, according to the court, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."[12] The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth." From the Agreed Statement of Facts as it appears in the Transcript of Record of Minor v. Happersett (at pages of 9-10 of the pdf). It was an agreed fact the Virginia Minor was a citizen of the United States. It was not something decided by the Court. Minor v. Happersett At the time of Minor, the Court acknowledged that some people held doubts about the citizenship status of children born in the U.S. of alien parents. It then stated that for the purposes of the Minor case it was not necessary to solve those doubts and proceeded to not resolve those doubts. The issue of citizenship was not before the Minor court. It was established by an agreed statement of facts in the pleadings. The issue was addressed by the Wong Kim Ark court and resolved therein. Dicta in Minor which did not resolve the issue of children of aliens could set no precedent. The holding in Wong Kim Ark still holds.
John McCain was not born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States so the 14th Amdt does not apply. The Federal citizenship statute then in effect applied to persons born outside the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. Assuming McCain was born within the Canal Zone, he would have been within the jurisdiction but outside the territory of the United States. The law was changed after the birth of McCain when it was realized that persons born outside the U.S. in certain places did not fall under the 14th Amdt or the Federal law as phrased. The law was stated to be retroactive to cover people who had been born in the CZ. At issue would be if Congress could make one not a citizen at birth, by retroactive law, a citizen at birth, i.e., a natural born citizen. Precisely where McCain was born is another interesting issue. McCain has never produced a birth certificate.
A Panamanian banana republican.
LOL! That's funny stuff!
And what exactly was that holding, just so I don't have to search for hours?
I don't like posting this, but... 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: 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: St. George Tucker, the editor, says this in a footnote: 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): 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: 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. Sometimes miscited is Emmerich de Vattel, in his work Les Driot des Gens (Law of Nations), taking out of context the words from Book I: But he was writing of the rule of jus sanguinis that was municipal law (not the law of nations) for countries on the European Continent. A little further down, he explains: 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: 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. In an 1825 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 issue was examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the dissenting opinion of J. Curtis (which should be read in combination with the dissenting opinion of J. McLean for a better understanding of the issues in the case) in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. 576 (1856): The issue was examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): The closest the U.S. Supreme Court has come to addressing eligibility to be president was in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): However, some who argue against Obama's eligibility bring up the issue of the citizenship of his parents, saying that even if he were natural born on U.S. soil, he would not be a citizen because he would not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, as provided in the Fourteenth Amendment. At the time of adoption of that amendment, that would have excluded the children of unassimilated Amerinds, foreign diplomats, and foreign invaders, discussed in the opinion in Ankeny v. Governor, which although not a precedent, provides an excellent compilation of the arguments pertaining to this topic. Amerinds have since all been brought within the jurisdiction of the United States. There is no claim that either of Barack Obama's parents was a foreign diplomat or invader at the time of his birth. Some mis-cite the opinion in Minor v. Happersett, but it only states, in dictum, that natural birth and U.S. citizen parentage would be sufficient to establish U.S. citizenship at birth, not that U.S. citizenship parentage was necessary for the child to be a U.S. citizen. Most of the confusion over the eligibility of John McCain seems to stem from the mistaken notion that "citizen at birth" has the same meaning as "natural born citizen". The meaning is not the same. A naturalization statute can make a person a citizen at birth, but that does not make him "natural born". § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property; These first two correspond to "natural born". The rest are all "naturalized by statute". The Code lumps both into the same section, which is not uncommon. Don't look to the U.S. Code for subtle distinctions. It is not, in general, the law. It is evidence of the law. The Code is derived from the statutes by an office in the House of Representatives, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, established for that purpose. They don't include all the statutes, and don't always get it right. (a)(23) The term ''naturalization'' means the conferring of nationality [NOT "citizenship" or "U.S. citizenship", but "nationality", which means "U.S. national"] of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever. The qualifier "after birth" doesn't mean by an official act done after birth. It means from the moment of birth, or in other words, not before birth. A fetus is not naturalized by statute. Most statutes conferring nationality/citizenship at birth were passed before most of the individuals to whom they apply were born. Some, however, were retroactive. An example of that was the statute that made McCain a U.S. citizen at birth, passed after his birth. But that is naturalization, not natural birth. One might think that while all citizens at birth may not be natural born citizens, all natural born citizens are also citizens at birth. However, it is possible for someone to be natural born without being a citizen at birth, or even being a citizen. Being a child of foreign diplomats or invaders is one way, but it is also possible that someone might be natural born on territory not incorporated into the United States at the time. For example, natural born citizens of Puerto Rico are not natural born citizens of the United States, eligible to be president, while it remains a protectorate or dependency. However, citizens of Puerto Rico have been naturalized by statute to be citizens of the United States at birth. Now if Puerto Rico were admitted as a state, its natural born citizens would then become natural born citizens of the United States, eligible to be president, if otherwise qualified. If it later seceded (with the consent of Congress) its natural born citizens would cease to be natural born citizens of the U.S. Natural born citizenship could also be lost by someone who was natural born on a territory initially claimed by the United States as part of its incorporated territory, but later ceded to the other nation that claims it. The boundary between the U.S. and Mexico was adjusted as the result of shifts in the path of the Rio Grande River, ceding some territory to Mexico that had some people living on it, who were given a choice whether to become U.S. citizens. There are also some disputed territories between the U.S. and Canada, although there may not be any people born or living on them. Other territories disputed between the U.S. and some other nation are not considered incorporated by the United States, but protectorates or dependencies. There is nothing about the concept of "naturalization" that requires some "process", other than the enactment of a declaratory statute. A statute can make a person a citizen at birth of territory that does not include the location where one is born. That is the naturalization process. But it is not "natural birth", which depends only on the location of birth on a particular spot on the Earth. Whatever anyone might later want to call that spot or the territory surrounding it, the child is natural born to that spot. He is not naturalized to that spot. He may be naturalized to another spot, or territory that does not include that spot. That is a change of status, and it is called "naturalization". The concept of citizenship is derived from denizenship, which requires a spot but not a government. Eligibility for office The burden of proof is on the claimant to office. The presumption must be ineligibility unless it is proved otherwise. That direction of presumption is not, by the way, the same as for citizenship for individuals already on U.S. soil, for whom the burden is on someone seeking to deport them. On the other hand, one seeking to vote, or to re-enter the U.S. from outside, has the burden to prove citizenship, although it has historically been sufficient to do this by a notary who knows the individual. There is no constitutional authority to require anyone to present any particular form of identification, especially one issued by the government, that one is not constitutionally required to have, and there is no constitutional authority to require anyone to even have a name, much less any particular form of identification. Names are applied to us by other people. No one owns his name. All anyone can say is that "some people call me xyz". But other people can call anyone anything they please. That includes government authorities. And there is no authority to require anyone to know or say what other people call him. Not that government actors don't try anyway. Summarizing: Poster Comment: This site cites Blackstone and says that many mistakenly believe the origin of "natural born" comes from Vattel's Law of Nations. I believe that to be bullshit because Blackstone was dealing with subjects while Vattel's writings deal with citizens. It makes no sense to me that our founding fathers would assume Blackstones meanings over Vattel's and I don't believe it. 99 times out of 100, if it doesn't make sense it isn't true.
We used to be a land where we gave up our lives to protect our freedom. Now we give up our freedom to protect our lives.
George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” itooktheredpill.wordpress...-of-natural-born-citizen/ On April 30, 1789, George Washington took the oath of office as President of the United States from the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City. The President and Congress shared space in Federal Hall with the New York Society Library. Some of the records of that Library are of particular interest when considering the influence of the works of Emmerich de Vattel on our Founding Fathers. Why does this matter? Because of how Vattel From Article II Section 1: 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. From Vattel: natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens There is good reason to believe that Vattel’s explanation of the definition of “natural born citizen” played a central role in a letter that Founder John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25th, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” On October 5, 1789, President George Washington checked out two books from the New York Society Library: Emmerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” and volume 12 of the English House of Commons Debates. The ledger does not record whether the president came in person or sent a messenger, nor is there any record of either volume being returned, or the president or vice-president being fined. A few news stories recently have made much ado about how large the library fine would be in today’s dollars. But those same stories have neglected the importance of which books Washington checked out. Again, it is important that we understand the relationship between President George Washington, first Chief Justice John Jay, the works of Vattel, and the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court held its first session on Feb. 1, 1790, in New York City. The New York Society Library charging ledger provides a record of the books borrowed by Chief Justice John Jay, including: Literature History Travel Science Chief Justice Jay must have had his own collection of law books, for few of the books borrowed by him from the New York Society Library are law-related. As that author concluded, there is little doubt that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court had his own collection of law books. And since John Jay wrote to George Washington on multiple occasions, sometimes referencing Vattel, I think there is little doubt that John Jay’s library included the works of Vattel. Here is an excerpt from one of Jay’s letters to Washington… this one being from 28 August 1790: … comprized within two Classes vizt cases of urgent necessity, and cases of convenience—The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel who well understood the Subject, says in the 7th chapter of his 3d Book— That an innocent Passage is due to all Nations with whom a State is at Peace, and that this … (That URL link may not preserve the search results, so just do a search yourself on the bolded text). Other references by the Founders to Vattel can be found here. Now George Washington, having a background as a military General, not an attorney, did not have a copy of Vattel’s works in his personal library. At one of his earliest opportunities to check out Vattel’s work, George Washington did so, and apparently kept it in his library permanently. Our Founders founded this country on “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God“. Vattel was the de facto authority on the “THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS”. Now, if John Jay and George Washington had meant for the usage of “natural born citizen” in Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution to mean something other than We used to be a land where we gave up our lives to protect our freedom. Now we give up our freedom to protect our lives.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "Vattel was the de facto authority on the “THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS”."
We used to be a land where we gave up our lives to protect our freedom. Now we give up our freedom to protect our lives.
Obama does not qualify to be President of the United States of America. Period.
#2. To: mininggold (#1)
So, what is the number(s) of the code that specifically states the qualifications for president, their definitions, and what law was broken?
#3. To: We The People, mininggold (#2)
U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
U.S. Constitution and Vattel’s Law of Nations: The Answer has been there All the Time!
The D&R terror cell hates us because we're free
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#4. To: We The People (#0)
14th Amendment Citizenship
It is not, perhaps, very easy to define with accuracy what is meant by the expression, "citizen of the United States," although that expression occurs twice in the Constitution, once in reference to the President of the United States, in which instance it is declared that none but a citizen of the United States shall be President, and again in reference to Senators, who are likewise to be citizens of the United States. Undoubtedly the expression is used in both those instances in the same sense in which it is employed in the amendment now before us. A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.
Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.
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.
#5. To: nolu chan (#4)
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.
#6. To: nolu chan (#4)
However, the original intent is not binding upon an interpretation of a constitutional amendment.
#7. To: nolu chan (#4)
#8. To: We The People (#6)
can "shall not be infringed" be interpreted as "may be infringed on any whim"?
#9. To: We The People (#5)
"[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen"
#10. To: We The People (#7)
Minor v. Happersett
#11. To: nolu chan (#9)
As stated, this quote refers to wording in a Civil Rights bill, not to the citizenship clause of the 14th Amdt
#12. To: hondo68 (#3)
That's Vattel's Law of Nations which defines Natural Born Citizen, that the Constitution refers to.
#13. To: nolu chan, We The People (#10)
See Wong Kim Ark.
The D&R terror cell hates us because we're free
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#14. To: hondo68, nolu chan (#13)
But McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country’s borders, since his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. As a congressional act stated in 1790:
#15. To: nolu chan, hondo68, (#14)
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”
#16. To: All (#15)
n a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review Lawrence Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that "there is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'".
#17. To: We The People (#16)
to be a natural born citizen one had to be born on American soil of two citizen parents. Now, it's watered down so that a child of illegal aliens can be president. And we have American citizens arguing for that.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., is among the possible candidates. // Defense Department Congressional Picks for DHS Head Include Backers of Mass Surveillance
The D&R terror cell hates us because we're free
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#18. To: We The People (#7)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett
It is admitted, by the pleadings, that the plaintiff is a native-born, free, white citizen of the United States....
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
#19. To: We The People, hondo68 (#15)
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”
#20. To: nolu chan (#19)
(Edited)
The D&R terror cell hates us because we're free
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#21. To: hondo68 (#20)
A Panamanian banana republican
#22. To: nolu chan (#18)
The holding in Wong Kim Ark still holds.
#23. To: All (#22)
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.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
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.
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.
[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 (g) a natural born subject;
§ 212. ... The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
§ 214. ... there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
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.
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.
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been in conformity with the common law that free persons born within either of the colonies were subjects of the King that by the Declaration of Independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, except so far as some of them were disfranchised by the legislative power of the States, or availed themselves, seasonably, of the right to adhere to the British Crown in the civil contest, and thus to continue British subjects.
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(23) naturalization defined
#24. To: All (#23)
definedexplained the Natural Law definition of a term that our Founders wrote into our Constitution, and the implications to Barack Hussein Obama. . The works of Jonathan Swift; “Don Quixote”, Voltaire’s, “Candidus, or “All For the Best,” as the volume is noted in the ledger; “The Fair Syrian, a novel”; Frances Burney’s, “Cecilia, or Memoirs of an Heiress”; “Arabian Nights Entertainments, consisting of one thousand and one stories, related by the Sultaness of the Indies” and John Aubrey’s “Miscellanies,” a collection of stories on ghosts and dreams.
. Plutarch’s, “Lives”; “Lives of the Admirals, and other Eminent British Seamen”; “The History of the Five Indian Nations of Canada”; “The History of the Revolution of South Carolina, from a British Province to an Independent State”; and “An Essay on the Life of the Honorable Major-General Israel Putnam.”
. Captain James Cook’s, “A Voyage towards the South Pole, and Round the World”; “A Tour through Sicily and Malta”; “Travels into Muscovy, Persia, and Paris of the East-Indies, containing an accurate description of whatever is most remarkable in those countries”; “A Voyage Round the World in the Years 1766-1769,” by the Comte Louis Antoine de Bougainville; “A General Description of China, containing the topography of the fifteen provinces which compose this vast empire”; “Travels in Spain”; “Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile in 1768-1773"; and “Travels in North America in the Years 1780-1782", by the Marquis Francois Jean de Chastellux.
. Comte de Buffon’s “Natural History”; “Chambers’, Cyclopaedia, or General Dictionary of Arts and Sciences”; and “Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man.”
how Vattel defined itthe Natual Law definition as explained by Vattel, don’t you think they would have explicitly said so?
#25. To: All (#24)
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]