U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: “Official Notice of Dispute” Filed with New Hampshire Attorney General on Four Presidential Candidates’ Eligibility (Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, Santorum)
Source:
The Post & Email
URL Source: http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11 ... ential-candidates-eligibility/
Published: Nov 14, 2015
Author: Robert Laity
Post Date: 2015-11-14 17:57:34 by Hondo68
Keywords: Party of non Americans, globalists, America-last
Views: 6443
Comments: 26
New Hampshire Attorney General Joseph Foster took office in May 2013. New Hampshire’s attorney general is appointed by the governor rather than elected by the people. (Nov. 13, 2015) — [Editor's Note: The following email was sent to Attorney General Joseph Foster on November 13, 2015.] From: Robert Laity From: Robert Laity Joseph Foster OFFICIAL NOTICE OF DISPUTE AS TO THE Dear Attorney General Foster, I wish to NOTIFY you that the bona-fides of four Republican Candidates to be President is hereby DISPUTED. It is claimed that the following persons do NOT meet the United States Constitutional requirement that one be a “Natural-Born Citizen” in order to be President under Article II,Sec.1. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett,U.S.Supreme Court 88 U.S. 162 (1875) ruled that: “The Constitution does not,in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that….It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents [Emphasis added] who are citizens became themselves,upon their birth, citizens also….these were natural born citizens” The court went on to make reference to the citizenship status of those citizens who derived their citizenship from parents who were not citizens themselves, saying “as to this class there have been doubts”. I am disputing the bona-fides of: Marco Rubio-NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. However his Parents were un-naturalized “Permanent resident” Cuban citizens when he was born Ted Cruz-NOT an NBC. He was born in Canada to a Cuban Father and American Mother who may have naturalized as a Canadian. Bobby Jindal- NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to Parents who were un-naturalized Citizens of India at the time of Bob Jindal’s birth. Rick Santorum-NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to a Father who was an Italian citizen not naturalized at the time of Rick’s birth. See: There is NO “President” Obama: http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17//2010/there-is-no-president-obama/ Submitted, Robert C. Laity I understand that State of New Hampshire law provides that this complaint be addressed within (90) days. Date of Complaint is 11/13/2015. Poster Comment: Let the record show that the GOP is pushing a record number of ineligable candidates this time, 4 citizens of the world, America last globalist bankster puppets. 
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 5:17 AM
To: New Hampshire Board of Elections ; Joseph Foster, Attorney General of New Hampshire
Subject: Fw: OFFICIAL NOTICE OF DISPUTE; AS TO the Non Bona Fides of FOUR Republican Candidates for Presidency of the United States of America
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 5:13 AM
To: electionlaw@doj.nh.gov ; Joseph Foster, Attorney General of New Hampshire
Subject: OFFICIAL NOTICE OF DISPUTE; AS TO the Non Bona Fides of FOUR Republican Candidates for Presidency of the United States of America
Attorney General
State of New Hampshire
NON BONA FIDES OF FOUR REPUBLICAN
CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT
This is a repeat of what Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012 and John McCain did in 2008. Both of them are ineligible.
Founder and President
Society for the Preservation of
our American Republic
43 Mosher Drive
Tonawanda, NY 14150
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
I am pretty sure, America needs Jeb! or Romney. The massive US government CIA/FBI funded MSM tells us so.
Obama put this arguement to rest. Putin could be president and no one could say he was not natural born.
Nancy Pelosi certified that the British Kenyan, Indonesian exchange student, Obama is eligible. Paul Ryan is now speaker of the House, and very qualified to perform the requisite perjury and lying to certify the eventual GOP illegal alien presidential candidate. Let the record show that birther insanity has not ended. Let the record show that the Puke & Efail remains an absurd source. The proper authority to which such complaints must be addressed, pursuant to RSA 665.7, is the Ballot Law Commission http://sos.nh.gov/admincontact.aspx It is at the Secretary of State's Office, 107 North Main Street, Rm. 204 And he needs to file and original and five (5) copies. See: http://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8589949931 Not that this has not been tried before. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2808514/posts UnlawfulPresident.com ^ | 11/16/11 | Unlawful President Posted on 11/16/2011, 4:26:21 PM by ExtremePatriot A hearing to review removal of Barack Obama from the New Hampshire primary ballot will be conducted this Friday at 2 p.m. at the NH Legislative Office Building, Room #307 (33 N. State St., Concord). The Ballot Law Commission will review a complaint filed by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. of California and a leader in the Obama eligibility movement which charges that Obama has presented a forged birth certificate on whitehouse.gov, uses a social security number not assigned to him, and does not meet the Natural Born definition confirmed by Minor v. Happersett of requiring two U.S. citizen parents at birth. At least one NH state legislator will appear at the meeting, but at least two have signed onto the complaint as well. Taitz requests donations or air miles to be able to testify in person if called on by the commission. The public can attend the meeting. Apparently, the bullshit citation of Minor v. Happersett did not work out so well. At least Dr. Orly found the right agency in 2011. Robert Laity and P&E are still as lost as ever. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/665/665-7.htm ELECTIONS CHAPTER 665 BALLOT LAW COMMISSION Jurisdiction Section 665:7 665:7 Filing Disputes. – The ballot law commission shall hear and determine disputes arising over whether nomination papers or declarations of candidacy filed with the secretary of state conform with the law. The decision of the ballot law commission in such cases shall be final as to questions both of law and fact, and no court shall have jurisdiction to review such decision. Source. 2003, 151:8, eff. Jan. 1, 2004. FOR THE FUTILE 2011 ATTEMPT by Dr. Orly Taitz, see: - - - http://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=30144 Obama 2011-4 Complaint [NH Ballot Law Commission] [80 pp] - - - http://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=26749 Obama 2011-4 DECISION AND ORDER [NH Ballot Law Commission] [3 pp] - - - http://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=30145 Obama 2011-4 Request for Rehearing [NH Ballot Law Commission] [18 pp] - - - http://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=30126 Obama 2011-4 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION [NH Ballot Law Commission] [1 page] = = = = = = = = = = At 2: http://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id—26749 BALLOT LAW COMMISSION BLC-2011-4 COMPLAINT OF DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ. AGAINST BARACK OBAMA DECISION AND ORDER On November 18, 2011, the Ballot Law Commission ("the Commission") held a public hearing, pursuant to RSA 665:7 to hear and determine disputes arising over whether nomination papers or declarations of candidacy filed with the Secretary of State conform with the law. Specifically, the above-captioned complaint alleged that President Barack Obama's name should not appear on the Presidential Primary Ballot as a candidate for the nomination of the Democratic Party and that the Secretary of State had inappropriately ruled that the President's name should be included. The complainant appeared and testified at the hearing, as did a number of other witnesses, including elected members of the New Hampshire legislature. The complainant testified that she has been engaged full-time over the last three years in an investigation into the President's birth certificate and social security number. She requested that the Commission overturn the decision of the Secretary of State and remove the President's name from the ballot, or, in the alternative, require the President to provide to the Commission a copy of his original birth certificate and application for his social security number. She testified on a number of issues, including those cited Obama Order above and the question of how long the President attended Columbia University. The Commission notes that there is no provision of the Constitution that involves Social Security numbers or attendance at Columbia University or graduation from that institution as a requirement for becoming President of the United States. RSA 655:47 requires the filing of a declaration of candidacy with the Secretary of State in a form prescribed by that statute, and signed under penalties of perjury. RSA 655:48 requires the payment to the Secretary of State at the time of filing the declaration of candidacy a fee of $1,000. Assistant Secretary of State Karen Ladd provided the Commission with a signed copy of the President's declaration of candidacy, as well as a copy of the check in payment of the fee. She testified that Vice President Joseph Biden filed the President's declaration of candidacy. In making its decision, the Commission notes, as a preliminary matter, that the candidate in question is the incumbent President of the United States. The matters asserted before the Commission are not new, and have been raised in a number of forums, both before and after the election of the President in 2008 and his inauguration in 2009. The Commission well could have declared the entire question moot or stale, given the fact that no federal determination about the eligibility of candidate and President-elect Obama questioned his eligibility under the Constitution when he was elected. The Commission did not do so, giving the complainant the opportunity to provide evidence. In answer to a direct question, the complainant admitted that no adjudicatory body has ever sustained any of the theories advanced which question President Obama's eligibility to be elected to that office. Obama Order As counsel advised the Commission at its hearing, the jurisdiction of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission is limited to that afforded it by the legislature in its enabling legislation. That does not include investigation of asserted criminal activity, conspiracy or other matters. The Commission has no staff, no budget and receives no compensation for the service members provide the state. Even if there were facts asserted which deserve investigation, those allegations should be investigated by federal law enforcement or election officials. Absent an obvious defect in a filing for office (such as residency in a district different from that in which a candidate has filed, etc.), the Commission is limited to a review of the sufficiency of the filing of a candidate. After such review, and absent such a showing, there is absolutely no basis to reject President Obama's declaration of candidacy or to deny him a place on the 2012 Presidential Primary Ballot. The Commission voted, unanimously, to uphold the decision of the Secretary of State to include the name of Barack Obama on the ballot. So ordered, Date: 11/30/11 New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission /s/ Bradford E. Cook, Esq., Chairman Obama Order
“The Constitution does not,in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that….It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents [Emphasis added] who are citizens became themselves,upon their birth, citizens also….these were natural born citizens” Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167-168: No issue of citizenship was before the Court in 1875 in Minor, because, Page 7 of the Transcript of Record for Minor v. Happersett shows the "Cause Submitted on agreed statement." The Agreed statement begins on page 8 of the Transcript of Record, and on page 9 documents that both sides agreed: [emphasis added] The matter of Ms. Minor's citizenship was not at issue. As submitted, the only question at issue was whether a woman could be disenfranchised due to not being male. Therefore, the Court actually ruled that, Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 170: And, therefore, the Minor court, while expressing some doubts existed in 1875, did not have jurisdiction to decide those doubts, and did not resolve those doubts. As a legal citation upon the issue, it is pure bullshit. And such doubts were extinguished by a series of Federal cases culminating in the great case of Wong Kim Ark. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) At 165: Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides† that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,"‡ and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. 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 * Articles of Confederation, § 3, 1 Stat. at Large, 4. † Article 2, § 1. ‡ Article 1, § 8. - - - - - 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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. As the Court stated, As for the purposes of Minor, it was not necessary to resolve the issue of the citizenship of children born within the jurisdiction of foreign parents, the Court went right ahead and did not decide it. That is not to say that the U.S. Supreme Court did not decide it. It did and it is very well known, The case is Wong Kim Ark. Fortuately, I just happen to have a complete copy of the Transcript of Record in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In stating the case presented to the court, George D. Collins representing Appellant (United States) wrote at 2: For anyone who is still confused regarding what the issue before the court was, counsel for Appellant, who brought the appeal, made it explicitly clear. Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against his argument and there is over a century of precedent that what has been recycled as birther blather is nonsense. Indeed for any who didn't get it at page 2, Collins summarized in his final paragraph at 39: The Appellant explicitly, albeit unsuccessfully, argued that the District Court erred in ruling "that the respondent is a natural-born citizen." The Supreme Court affirmed that ruling of the District Court. And, from the Brief of the WINNING side, Wong Kim Ark: All italics as in original, boldface added, hyperlinks added. - - - Resp. Br. at 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1895 No. 449 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, vs. WONG KIM ARK, Appellee - - - Resp. Br. at 4 The single question presented upon this appeal is this: Are the children born in this country of alien residents not connected with the diplomatic service citizens of the United States? - - - Resp. Br. at 6-8 Briefs of the Government Before proceeding to any independent discussion of this subject it will perhaps be useful to refer to the main points upon which the Government relies in support of its contention that Wong Kim Ark was not at the time of his birth "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. It is substantially conceded that the Fourteenth Amendment is but declaratory of the law as it previously existed, and it is practically admitted that, sinch the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, every judicial decision directly upon the question in controversy has been adverse to the Government's present position. It is, however, urged most earnestly by the Solicitor General and by Mr. Collins, the amicus curiae, that this long-standing interpretation of who was a citizen of the United States is wrong, and has been wrong from the very beginning, in that the Courts have resorted to the common law to aid them in their decisions, while the question was really one of the law of nations. Further than that, the Government seriously presses the point that there is no common law in the United States, and that, therefore, in ascertaining the meaning of words used in the Constitution, but not there defined, it is not permissible to inquire how they were commonly understood by lawyers at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, or in other words what their meaning was at common law. The two fundamental theories, therefore, now advanced by the Government, and upon which its entire argument stands or falls are: First. That there is no common law in the United States. Second. That the question of citizenship in a nation is to be determined by the rules of international law. (a) Perhaps we do not fully understand the argument of the Government that there is no common law in the United States, but as we read the authorities which have been cited by the Solicitor General, the Court has simply held that "there are no common law offenses against the United States" (United States vs. Britton, 108 U. S. 199-206). This proposition is too well established to admit of dispute, but it is not clear how it can affect the present discussion. The question whether a man is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States is not, we take it, to be determined by the common law, but by the principles of common law, which is a very different matter. In other words, it has often been decided by this Court that, in determining the meaning of the words used in the Constitution and the statutes of the United States and not therein defined, it is both proper and necessary to seek in the common law, as the source and origin of our jurisprudence, there true definition; and the question fairly raised here is not whether there is a common law in the United States, but whether it is admissible, in construing and defining words used in the Constitution, to refer to the common law. The case of Smith vs. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, is referred to upon the brief of the Solicitor General in support of the proposition that there is no common law in the United States. If the counsel for the Government had read this case through he would have found on page 478 the following statement: - - - Resp. Br. at 10-11: (b) The second theory of the appellant is that the question of citizenship in the United States is to be determined by the law of nations and not by the law of the United States. We should have supposed it difficult to find a question more widely separated from the domain of international law than the status of a citizen in any country. It would seem as if the right of citizenship was for each country to determine for itself, and that any nation would guard with jealous interest the right to decide who should be its members. That is to say, it is a matter of local and national law, as distinguished from international law, and the United States would be the last to surrender the privilege of determining, by its own law, who were or were not its citizens. This proposition of this government has, we think, arisen from a mistaken notion as to the true character of the question in this case, and it seems comewhat remarkable that the Solicitor General should take the position that the Government of the United States is to be administered, not in accordance with the laws of the United States, but in accordance with the law of nations, and that the vital question of who compose the great body of their citizens is to be determined, not by the law of the United States, but by the rules of international law. In the case of Scott v. Sandford, 19 How., 399, 451; Chief Justice Taney used the following language: Mr. Justice Story, in Inglis vs. Trustees of the Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet., 99, 162, when speaking upon the question of citizenship, said: Mr. Stanberry, then Attorney-General, said in Warren's Case, 12 Opin. Atty.-Gen., 319, 325: - - - Resp. Br. at 13-14: It is not at all certain that this principle of International law, as it is called, which is supposed to declare that a child born to aliens while residing in a foreign country takes the nationality of his father, is anything more than a name. As a matter of fact, no nation, so far as we have been been able to ascertain, decides or pretends to decide the status of its citizens by any other law than its own. It is true that different nations have different laws upon this subject, and the laws of some of these nations are more or less in accord, but there is no great unanimity among them. England now holds to the rule that birth within its dominions makes a man a subject of the Queen, unless, if born of aliens, he elects the nationality of his parents (33 Vict., Chap 14). In France, a similar doctrine prevails, and it is as follows: In Denmark, Portugal and Holland the law is apparently the same as that of France, as Lord Cockburn in his work on Nationality says, at pages 14 and 15, that birth within their dominions confers citizenship on the offspring of alien parents, subject to the right of the individual concerned to reject it at majority. Another rule is adopted by Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece, the Grand Duchy of Baden, Russia, Russia-Poland and the Ottoman Empire, where birth within their dominions confers citizenship on the offspring of alien parents on the right being claimed on certain specified conditions (Cockburn on Nationality, 14 and 15). It is clear, therefore, that each country has enacted its own law as to who is or who is not its citizen, and has never fallen back upon any principle of international law for the decision of the question. All that can possibly be argued from the state of the law of citizenship in the different countries of Europe is that it might be advisable for the people of the United States to pass a law or amend their constitution, if they saw fit, so as to conform with the laws of the majority of these countries, but we fail to see how the counsel for the government have shown that the status of a citizen was or ever can be determined in the Courts of a country be the law of nations or by any other law than its own. It other words, the question before this honorable Court is not what is the proper policy for the United States to adopt, but what is the meaning of an amendment of their constitution, and the constitution must be interpreted, as we think, by the light of the principles of our own law and not by the law of other countries or the law of nations. "The laws of the United States determine what persons shall be regarded as citizens, irrespective of such persons' pleasure or tthe laws or pleasure of any other government" (State vs. Adams, 45 Iowa, 99, 101). - - - Resp. Br. at 28-29: In McKay vs. Campbell, 2 Sawy., 118, the syllabus is as follows: Also at 29: "The term 'citizen' as understood in our law is precisely analagous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a 'subject of the King' is now 'a citizen of the State'" (State vs. Manuel, 3 Dev. & Battle's N. C. R., 26). - - - Resp Br. at 31: In the first section of the act of Congress approved March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. at Large, 103), it is enacted: We take it that no difference in meaning can be assigned to the clause "under the jurisdiction of the United States," found the the naturalization act, and the words of the Fourteenth Amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." - - - Resp. Br. at 32: It is a little difficult to see what distinction can be drawn between the two cases. It an alien who resides in the territory of this country is "under the jurisdiction of the United States" for the purpose of naturalization, it would seem to follow that a man born here and always residing here must be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" for the purpose of naturalization, it would seem to follow that a man born here and always residing here must be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and must have been so at his birth. - - - Resp. Br. at 34-35: We do not see what substantial distinction can be drawn between the words of the Civil Rights Bill and the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the once case the condition of citizenship is birth "not subject to any foreign power," and in the other it is birth "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The Civil Rights bill was vetoed by President Johnson, and his interpretation of these words perhaps goes as far to show what they were supposed to mean at the time they were used as any other. It was very clear to him that a man in the position of Wong Kim Ark was not subject to the jurisdiction of any foreign power, and was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for he says in his veto message (Congr. Globe, 39th Congress, p. 1679): In United States vs. Rhodes, 1 Abb. U.S. Rep., 28, the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Bill came up for decision in a Federal Court, apparently, for the first time. Mr. Justice Swayne in his opinion said at pages 38, 40 and 41: "'Citizens under our Constitution and laws means free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress.' "We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution." - - - Resp Br. at 36-37: We now come to the construction of this amendment by the lower Courts, and the most important case is that of In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy., 353 [21 Fed. Rep. 905], decided by Mr. Justice Field. The same question was presented in this case in precisely the same way in which it arises here, and it was the held that a Chinaman born in the United States of parents not engaged in any diplomatic capacity was a citizen thereof. The opinion of Mr. Justice Field was concurred in by Judges Sawyer, Sabin and Hoffman. At page 359 the Court said: This is the idea which we have before sought to convey, viz.: that this country could not permit another nation to claim jurisdiction of a man born here. It, is, perhaps, conceivable that this Government might in the future by some law permit the individual himself to elect, when of age, what nation he chose for his country, but it is out of the question for our Government to allow another government to say what country a person born within our territory belongs. - - - Resp. Br. at 39: Perhaps the latest case on this subject is Benny vs. O'Brien, 32 Atlantic Reporter, 696. The question before the Supreme Court of New Jersey was "whether a person born in this country of alien parents who, prior to his birth, had their domicile here, is a citizen of the United States," and in a very well considered opinion it was held that he was, the Court saying, at page 697: - - - Resp. Br. at 41-2 Whenever international law conflicts with the local law of a particular country, "the law of nations, as to particular matters, may be, as for such particular countries, either expanded or contracted by local legislation" (Secretary Bayard, supra). This principle our government would be the first to adopt should any foreign country send its emissaries to our shores for the purpose of compelling those of its subjects who had emigrated to the United States and had not become naturalized or their children born on our soil, to return to the country of their origin. Even enmity to the Chinese race would not permit the creation of any such dangerous precedent. If this case should be decided in favor of the Government, and it should be held that children born in this country to an alien resident are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" and are "subject to a foreign power," what reply can the Secretary of State make to the Government of Russia or Germany or England in the case suggested? Must he say: I admit that the highest tribunal of my country has decided that the men you are taking away by force to join your armies are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of my government, and are subject to the jurisdiction of yours, but that decision does not mean that they are subject to the jurisdiction of your government in the sense that obedience can be compelled to that government and its laws, or that they are 'not subject to the jurisdiction' of my government in the sense that the protection of the Constitution and the laws of this country is withheld from them, and these men, born in this country of subjects of your governemtn, who have been seized by your officers, must be released or the friendly relations between our two governments must cease. - - - Resp. Br. at 48: So, in the case at bar, the people of the United States have not denied to the children born in this country of alien parents the right of citizenship therein, nor have they passed any law declaring them to be the citizens or subjects of the country of their parents, and the question whether they might have done so does not arise in this case. Our position is that any such discussion is foreign to the issue here, which is what is meant by the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and we respectfully submit that the people of this country intended that these words should be construed in accordance with the principles of law of which they and their fathers before them had knowledge, and not in accordance with the Roman law or the law of any European country with which they were unfamiliar. In other words, they intended that the status of citizenship in the United States should be determined in accordance with the law of the United States and not upon the principles of the Roman law. - - - Resp. Br. at 50-51: In the Lynch case, therefore, the identical question was argued and decided which is presented here, viz.: Is the child born in the United States to an alien resident a citizen thereof? The only difference between the two cases is that the appellee in the present case has always lived in the United States, whereas Julia Lynch was taken out of the country when still an infant in arms and did not return until she was fifteen years old. It was urged in behalf of the complainant Lynch, as it is argued here, that there was no common law in the United States. The Chancellor fully and carefully considered the question from this point of view. He quoted with approval from the speech of Mr. Bayard in the House of Representatives in 1802, in which he said: "The Judges of the United States have held generally that the Constitution of the United States was predicated upon an existing common law. * * * The Constitution is unintelligible without reference to the common law. * * * Without this law the Constitution becomes a dead letter" (p. 654), and expressed himself in the following language at page 652: After a most careful analysis of all the authorities on the subject, it was decided that Julia Lynch was a native-born citizen of the United States, and the Chancellor said at page 663: In Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Court stated: At 702-03: "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," contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts. At 704: At 705: Order affirmed. The lower court that was affirmed, concluded at 71 Fed. Rep 392:
The Puke & Efail belongs in the humor section. http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/13/u-s-embassy-warning-to-dual-citizens-cruz-rubio/ BORN TO CUBAN CITIZENS, FIT FOR CUBAN DRAFT By Cody Robert Judy, Presidential Candidate ©2015 [snip]
bump
There is nothing on earth more dangerous than a terminal Vietnam Veteran.
Candidate for Cuban Dictator, Marco Rubio It is good to see you agree that P&E belongs in the humor section. As documented at #4, when Dr. Orly brought forth the ridiculous Minor v. Happersett argument, she was reduced to admitting the argument had no merit:
Obama has not put the "Natural Born Citizen" issue to rest. Article II,Sec.1 is still the law. An NBC is one born IN the US to Parents who are BOTH Americans themselves. The US Embassy staff in Cuba have recently warned Rubio and Cruz that the Cuban Government does not recognize their US Citizenship and that under Cuban Law Rubio and Cruz are still Cubans subject to Cuban laws. This has wide spread implications should they succeed in usurping the Presidency.
The filing HAS been filed with the Ballot Law Commission. Obama is a usurper.The GOP4 are usurpers. McCain is also Dq'd.
PREZ RUN: RUBIO, JINDAL & CRUZ ALL CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE (May 19, 2014 - Devvy Kidd) We know both times Barry aka Obama was submitted as a candidate, the Democratic/Communist Party USA committed fraud. If the Republican Party submits ballot qualification paperwork for Rubio, Jindal or Cruz to be on any presidential ballot, they will also be committing fraud by knowingly and willfully submitting an ineligible candidate. While we have more urgent issues right now, people are already out there working (and donating their hard earned money) to convince their fellow party members that Cruz, Rubio or Jindal should be the next president. I sincerely hope when the time comes, lawsuits will be filed against the Republican Party to keep those ineligible candidates off the ballot. And there you have it. Legal precedent has been established by the DNC. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
You are wasting your time. When Obummer was deemed "Natural Born Citizen" it set a new precedent for the term "Natural Born Citizen". Basically you live in the US some of the time and claim to be an American citizen you are a "Natural Born Citizen". You can raise hell all you want but when the supremes waved their "magic wand" over non "test tube baby" ie "Natural Born Citizen" Obummer it became law because congress was too afraid to step in and stop it.
Obama has not put your absurd foreign law NBC argument to rest. The courts have done so with over a century of precedent directly on point and explicitly rejecting the Law of Nations (International Law) argument. International law has no application to the domestic affairs of any single nation. The two citizen parent requirement has no foundation in American citizenship law which is derived from the common law. Citing Minor v. Happersett as legal authority is an absurdity. The Minor court mentioned, but made no ruling on the issue that was not before it. Dr. Orly tried that argument before the very same Ballot Law Commission and wound up admitting in public, [underline added] In re Look Tin Sing, Circuit Court, D. California, 21 Fed. R. 905, 909, September 29, 1884, FIELD, Justice. [boldface and underline added] This subject was elaborately considered by Assistant Vice-chancellor SANDFORD in Lynch v. Clarke, found in the first volume of his reports. [1 Sandf. 583]. In that case one Julia Lynch, born in New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687 (1897) [boldface added] Plyler v. Doe, 202 U.S. 202, 211 (1982) [boldface added] - - - [10] Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States .... ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."' Id., at 687. Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouvé, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912). - - - - - A Treatise on the Laws Governing the Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States, Washington D.C., John Byrne & Co., 1912, by Clement L. Bouvé, Of the District of Columbia Bar, member of the American Society of International Law. Chapter III: Status; b. Of Aliens Unlawfully Residing in the United States. This point may be considered in connection with the following state of facts: Two aliens, man and wife, both excludable under the immigration laws, succeed in evading the watchfulness of the immigration officials, and in taking up their abode in the United States. After living here for a year a son is born to them. Their unlawful presence becomes known to the immigration officers, and [426] together with their child they are arrested on a warrant of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor ordering their deportation. The facts are admitted. Does the immigration law apply to the son born in this country? Or, in other words, is the child under these conditions born in, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? It is admitted that at the time of the arrest the parents had come to this country with the intention of making it their home, and actually established their home here in pursuance of their original design. In the words of MR. JUSTICE GRAY, every subject of a foreign country while domiciled here is within the allegiance and protection) and consequently subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Does the fact that the parents belong to a class of aliens whose allegiance the United States does not desire and whose entrance into the United States is forbidden by law affect the political status of the child? Obviously not, unless the bare legal prohibition suffices to prevent the parents from acquiring a residence or domicile -- it is immaterial which -- in this country. True, the parents never acquired a municipal status by virtue of or under the immigration law; and they never acquired a lawful domicile in the sense that they were never entitled to enter for the purpose of establishing a home. But the fact remains that they entered this country and proceeded to reside here, until their arrest, in enjoyment of every benefit which the law of the United States confers on persons lawfully resident here, and under the same duty to carry out their correlative obligations. Their temporary allegiance to the United States was complete and gave rise to reciprocal protection on the part of the state, unaffected by the fact that in order to enjoy and exercise the rights and duties incident thereto they had violated the immigration law. This does not mean that an alien may continue in a position of allegiance to the sovereign against that sovereign's will. The state may prevent the existence of the [427] condition, by making it impossible for the alien to acquire a residence within its territorial limits, or, if the condition exists may withdraw its protection by expelling the foreigner. But as certain as is the fact that any such alien resides within the limits of a given sovereign state, just so certain is it that the mutual relation of allegiance and protection exists. To deny this would be to deny the fact of sovereignty itself, and the existence of a sovereign right, which, like the inherent right of an independent member of the family of nations to expel or exclude aliens, cannot, in the words of MR. JUSTICE FIELD, "be granted away or restrained on behalf of anyone." - - - - - By Constitution or Statute, all thirteen original states adopted so much of the Common Law of England as did not conflict with the U.S. Constitution. https://archive.org/details/constitutionuni00pascgoog The Constitution of the United States, Defined and Carefully Annotated, by George W. Paschal, of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C., W. H. & O.H. Morrison, Law Booksellers, 1868, pp. 168-69. (Emphasis as in original, "Natural Born Citizen" in small caps transliterated to full caps, marginal notes omitted.) On the first Wednesday in December; by act 1st March, 1792. 1 Stat. 239. All the States now choose the electors by the people. See Story's Const. § 1475, 1476. [4.] No person except a natural born citizen, or a i 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. 169. "A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN."—Not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority; in fact the mass of our citizens; all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. As they become citizens, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation. For we have no law (as the French have) to decitizenize a citizen who has become such either by the natural process of birth or the legal process of adoption. Attorney-General Bates on Citizenship, 29th November, 1862, p. 8. The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them). It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. Id. We have no middle class or denizens. (1 Sharswood's Bl. Cora. 374.) Id. 9. But Attorney-General Legaré thought there might be. (4 Opin. 147.) Id. The example of a Roman citizen and St. Paul's case and claim thereto cited. Id. Paul's is a leading case of the "Jus Romanum;" it is analogous to our own; it establishes the great protective rights of the citizen, but, like our own national Constitution, it is silent about his powers. Id. 12. "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" recognizes and reaffirms the universal Define principle common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic. Bates on Citizenship, p. 12. Every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen. Id. Nativity furnishes the rule, both of duty and of right as between the individual and the government. (2 Kent's Com. Part 4, Lect. 25; 1 Bl. Com. ch. 10, p. 365; 7 Coke's Rep. and (Calvin's Case, 11 State Trials, 70) Doe v. Jones, 4 Term. 300; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. 246; Horace Binney, 2 Am. Law, Reorter, 193.) Bates on Citizenship, p. 12.
Your argument against Obama and the GOP4 is another hilarious birther fail. The available argument over McCain's status is the only one that is interesting. McCain never publicly produced any birth certificate. The specifics of his birth are questionable and the applicable law at the time of his birth was screwed up by congress when it was written.
We know both times Barry aka Obama was submitted as a candidate, the Democratic/Communist Party USA committed fraud. What we KNOW is that the nonsense birther argument lost in every venue it was tried. Birther Scorecard & String Cite: Birthers Win *O* - Lose - 220 | Pending - 6 | Total - 226 | Updated Janua... by Jack Ryan http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf Version updated to 11 Aug. 2015. 0 for 226, 1 case pending.
Your faith in judges is admirable if perhaps a bit naive. Remember the judge with the penis pump working while hearing cases? Perhaps when you think of them with awe and reverence, you can remember him.
Yes, the justice system is corrupt. Those are the same type of judges that ruled that it's illegal for anyone in the courthouse to look at a stone with the ten commandments carved on it. 10 Commandments removed by order of NWO judges who believe Obama is a Natural Born US Citizen. And your NWO judges must have already been hard at work 170 years ago. Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. 583 (1844), as published in New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845, pp. 236-260 at 246. Lynch v Clark, NY Legal Observer 236 (1844) Citizenship by nolu chan
The US government does not operate under the cloak of law. It continuously operates under the colour of law. The US government has failed not necessarily by failed juris-prudence but by obeyance to the US Constitution. The nation is out of control, nolu. Get a grip on it.
You get a grip. The Law of Nations crap has been rejected since 13 of the original 13 colonies officially adopted the common law by constitution or statute law. It has been directly argued to courts and been rejected there for nearly two centuries. Nobody's version of International Law determines the domestic law of citizenship in any nation and never has.
I believe he demolished any concept of natural born citizen. It no longer exist. If memory serves me it was placed in law because founding fathers feared people with allegiance to England would lead America back to England. The fulfillment of natural born citizen is that of can you spell your name in English. If not we will provide an interpreter for you! ;)
George Washington warned us about your Illuminati masters. Nimrod in your youtube is showing a basically unreadable copy of an irrelevant letter. The first link below gives the image, and the second the page transcript, of the page in the youtube, as it appears at the Library of Congress Digital Collection. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw2&fileName=gwpage021.db&recNum=199 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28gw360394%29%29 Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798. Dear Sir: You letter of the 17th. instant was handed to me by Mr. Lear, and I should have sent you the enclosed check on the Bank of Alexandria for two hundred and fifty dollars sooner, had we not expected you at this place on friday or Saturday last, according to promise, and been looking for you every day since. All I ask is, that you would have me secured in the loan of this sum, for the purpose of erecting a Hotel for Mr. Turnicliff,56 in the same manner you do the $750 lent on your own A/c. [Note 56: William Tunnicliff. On October 24 Washington wrote to Bushrod Washington: "I think you are perfectly right in accepting the appointment of Associate Judge, [of the United States Supreme Court] not only for the reasons you have mentioned but on every other account...The Elections in New Jersey are not favourable, and in Pennsylvania, so far as we have heard, are bad. What these and such like will produce, is left for wiser heads than mine to foretell. I auger very ill of them. I wish your Circuit may be pleasant and honorable to you and that you may return safe to your family and friends. The season is propitious for a Southern tour, and I hope your attention to the duties of your present office will give satisfaction." This extract was printed in a sales catalogue, 1921. Bushrod Washington's letter, to which this is answer, is dated October 19, and is in the Washington Papers.] The family here unite in love and best wishes for Mrs. Law, Eliza and yourself; and I am, with great esteem etc. The youtube shows the above letter and chops off the bottom of the page. The actual letter in question starts on the bottom of the page (not shown) and the bulk of it is on the next page (not shown). We might as well have a readable copy of Washington's actual well-known letter. Washington, himself, was a Mason. The letter was written to assuage the concern of Reverend Snyder who "feared lest the Masonic lodges in the United States might be infected with the views of the Illuminati." Washington assured Snyder that he "did not believe that the lodges of freemasons in this country had, as societies, endeavored to propagate the diabolical tenets of the former [Illuminati], or pernicious principles of the latter [Jacobinism]." It has been my privilege and honor to save the world from the cabal yet again. Your faithful and obedient servant, nolu. The Writings of George Washington, Vol. 14, 1798-1799, G.P. Putnam's Sons (1893), pp. 119-120 Mount Vernon, 24 October, 1798. Reverend Sir, I have your favor of the 17th instant before me, and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter is, to explain and correct a mistake, which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged often to write letters have led you into. It was not my intention to doubt, that the doctrines of the Illuminati and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more fully satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea that I meant to convey was, that I did not believe that the lodges of freemasons in this country had, as societies, endeavored to propagate the diabolical tenets of the former, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). That individuals of them may have [120] done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects, and actually had a separation of the people from their government in view, is too evident to be questioned. My occupations are such, that little leisure is allowed me to read newspapers or books of any kind. The reading of letters and preparing answers absorb much of my time. With respect, I remain, Sir, &c. _____ 1 A Maryland clergyman who feared lest the Masonic lodges in the United States might be infected with the views of the Illuminati. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28gw360395%29%29 The Transcript at the Library of Congress: Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798. Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into. It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned. My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time. With respect, etc.
Your faith that you can make up your own version of the law and anybody that matters will give a damn, is perhaps a bit naive. 1995 OK CIV APP 123, 914 P.2d 1060 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502 "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11."
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
#3. To: Justified, foreign allegiances, guest worker president (#2)
Obama put this arguement to rest
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#4. To: hondo68 (#0)
Let the record show that the GOP is pushing a record number of ineligable candidates this time, 4 citizens of the world, America last globalist bankster puppets.
Concord, N.H. 03301 CHAPTER 665
BALLOT LAW COMMISSION
General Provisions Challenge to remove Obama from NH ballot to be heard Friday (Orly Taitz)
TITLE LXIII
In answer to a direct question, the complainant admitted that no adjudicatory body has ever sustained any of the theories advanced which question President Obama's eligibility to be elected to that office.
Jane Clemmons
Margaret-Ann Moran
Martha Van Oot
Jameson French
#5. To: hondo68 (#0)
I wish to NOTIFY you that the bona-fides of four Republican Candidates to be President is hereby DISPUTED. It is claimed that the following persons do NOT meet the United States Constitutional requirement that one be a “Natural-Born Citizen” in order to be President under Article II,Sec.1. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett,U.S.Supreme Court 88 U.S. 162 (1875) ruled that:
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 [88 U. S. 168] 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 admitted by the pleadings that the plaintiff is a native-born, free white citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri; that the defendant is a registrar, qualified and acting as such; that the plaintiff, in proper time and in proper form, made application to him to be registered, and that the defendant refused to register the plaintiff solely for the reason that she is a female, (and that she possesses the qualifications of an elector in all respects, except as to the matter of sex, as before stated.)
The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen—a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
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.
Brief on Behalf of Appellant (United States Government)
The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen....
To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor.
Extracts from Brief on Behalf of Respondent (Appellee Won Kim Ark)
"There is, however, one clear exception the the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law and are to be read in the light of its history. The code of constitutional and statutory construction which therefore is gradually formed by the judgments of this Court in the application of the Constitution and the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof, has for its basis, so much of the common law as may be implied in the subject and constitutes a common law resting on national authority."
"The answer to the question, Who is a citizen? is different in different States, and depends on the laws and constitution of each." (Aristotle, Politics, Book III, c. s. 2 and 3.)
"But in considering the question before us, it must be borne in mind that there is no law of nations standing between the prople of the United States and their Government, and interfering with their relation to each other. The powers of the Government and the rights of the citizen under it, are positive and practical regulations plainly written down. * * * And no laws or usages of other nations, or reasoning of statesmen or jurists * * * can enlarge the powers of the Government or take from the citizens the rights they have reserved."
"The ground of this doctrine is that each Government had a right to decide for itself who should be admitted or deemed citizens."
"A question as the status or citizenship, if it arose in the United States, would be determined by our own law."
"The French law considers all children of foreigners born in France as French citizens, unless before coming of age they decline French citizenship. * * * Otherwise they are amenable to obligatory military service and punishment as deserters if they endeavor to evade it" (49 Alb. L. J., 20).
"By the common law a child born within the allegiance of the United States is born a subject there of, without reference to the political status or condition of the parents."
"That any alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof."
"By the first section of the bill all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indains not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, negroes, mullatoes and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races born in the United States is, by the bill, made a citizen of the United States."
"The act of Congress confers citizenship. Who are citizens, and what are their rights? The Constitution uses the words 'citizen' and 'natural-born citizen'; but neither that instrument nor any act of Congress has attempted to define their meaning. * * * 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 ony 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. * * *
"The jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country."
"Two facts must concur -- the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States according to the Fourteenth Amendment, which means, according to the Civil Rights Act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power. Allan Benny, whose parents were domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power. * * * Therefore Allan Benny is a citizen of the United States in virtue of his birth here of alien parents, who, at the time of his birth, were domiciled in this country."
"The Constitution of the United States, like those of all the original States, * * * presupposed the existence and authority of the common law. The principles of that law were the basis of our institutions. In adopting the State and national Constitutions * * * our ancestors rejected so much of the common law as was then inapplicable to their situation, and prescribed new rules for their regulation and government. But in doing so, they did not reject the body of the common law. They founded their respective State Constitutions and the great national compact upon its existing principles, so far as they were consistent and harmonious with the provisions of those Constitutions."
"Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural-born citizen."
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
But it would be useless to incumber this already lengthy opinion with further argument and observations upon this interesting question. Arriving at the conclusion, as I do, after careful investigation and much consideration, that the supreme court has as yet announced no doctrine at variance with that contained in the Look Tin Sing decision and the other cases alluded to, I am constrained to follow the authority and law enunciated in this circuit. Counsel for the United States have argued with considerable force against the common-law rule and its recognition, as being illogical, and likely to lead to perplexing, and perhaps serious, international conflicts, if followed in all cases. But these observations are, obviously, addressed to the policy of the rule, and not to its interpretation. The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority. It may be that the executive departments of the government are at liberty to follow this international rule in dealing with questions of citizenship which arise between this and other countries, but that fact does not establish the law for the courts in dealing with persons within our own territory. In this case the question to be determined is as to the political status and rights of Wong Kim Ark under the law in this country. No foreign power has intervened or appears to be concerned in the matter. From the law as announced and the facts as stipulated, I am of opinion that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment. He has not forfeited his right to return to this country. His detention, therefore, is illegal. He should be discharged, and it is so ordered.
#6. To: hondo68 (#0)
U.S. Embassy Warning to Dual Citizens - Cruz & Rubio
#7. To: BobCeleste (#0)
#8. To: nolu chan (#6)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#9. To: hondo68 (#8)
In answer to a direct question, the complainant admitted that no adjudicatory body has ever sustained any of the theories advanced which question President Obama's eligibility to be elected to that office.
#10. To: Justified (#2)
#11. To: nolu chan (#4)
#12. To: nolu chan, Robert Laity, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#9)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#13. To: Justified (#2)
Obama put this arguement to rest. Putin could be president and no one could say he was not natural born.
#14. To: hondo68, Robert Laity (#12)
#15. To: Robert Laity, Justified (#10)
Obama has not put the "Natural Born Citizen" issue to rest. Article II,Sec.1 is still the law. An NBC is one born IN the US to Parents who are BOTH Americans themselves.
In answer to a direct question, the complainant admitted that no adjudicatory body has ever sustained any of the theories advanced which question President Obama's eligibility to be elected to that office.
Independently of the constitutional provision, it has always been the doctrine of this country, except as applied to Africans _brought here and sold as slaves, and their descendants, that birth within the dominions and jurisdiction of the United States of itself creates citizenship.
The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange; and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words, "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States," as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [10]
II (D): Municipal Status (Individual or Communicated);
2. Under the Immigration laws.
(B) Through the Acquisition of American Citizenship
(2.) By Birth in United States Territory.
(b) Children of Aliens Born
b. Of Parents Unlawfully Residing in United States. [425]
168c. On the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November; by act 23d January, 1845. 6 Stat. 121.
#16. To: Robert Laity (#11)
The filing HAS been filed with the Ballot Law Commission. Obama is a usurper.The GOP4 are usurpers. McCain is also Dq'd.
#17. To: hondo68 (#12)
PREZ RUN: RUBIO, JINDAL & CRUZ ALL CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE (May 19, 2014 - Devvy Kidd)
#18. To: nolu chan (#17)
#19. To: nolu chan, NWO Judges (#17)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#20. To: hondo68, NWO Judges (#19)
Yes, the justice system is corrupt.
5. It is a necessary consequence, from what I have stated, that the law which had prevailed on this subject, in all the states, became the governing principle or common law of the United States. Those states were the constituent parts of the United States, and when the union was formed, and further state regulation on the point terminated, it follows, in the absence of a declaration to the contrary, that the principle which prevailed and was the law on such point in all the states, became immediately the governing principle and rule of law thereon in the nation formed by such union. If there had been any diversity on the subject in the state laws, it might have been difficult to ascertain which of the conflicting state rules was to become, or did become, the national principle. And if such diversity had existed, it is reasonable to believe that the framers of the constitution would have borne in mind, and enacted a uniform rule, or authorized Congress to establish one. The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it, furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "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," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the colonies and in the states, under the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
#21. To: nolu chan, hondo68, (#20)
#22. To: buckeroo (#21)
The nation is out of control, nolu. Get a grip on it.
#23. To: nolu chan (#15)
#24. To: nolu chan, buckeroo, Bushbot Illuminati, NWO (#22)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#25. To: hondo68, buckeroo (#24)
George Washington warned us about your Illuminati masters.
The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.
TO G. W. SNYDER.1
The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.
#26. To: Dead Culture Watch (#18)
Your faith in judges is admirable if perhaps a bit naive.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]