Saturday, November 21, 2009

Video About Natural Born Citizen - Three Little Words

Video About Natural Born Citizen - Three Little Words

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B278681E23614868

This excellent video was created and produced by a commenter in our group. Thank you Sir.


Also see another great new graphical presentation by Erica of the JeffersonsRebels blog:
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/graphic-obama-unconstitutional-usurper.html

To further help our publicity and education campaign visit this site: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Synergy at Work! If we all do a little, together we can accomplish a lot!
Charles Kerchner, CDR USNR (Ret), Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
###

12 comments:

jayjay said...

Charles:

Good idea to post both *.avi and *.mp4 versions so we have a choice ...

mtngoat61 said...

Good job. I posted a link to the new video over in my Goat's Ledge.

http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=5438

M Publius Goat
Goat's Ledge

Guy4013 said...

Hi Charles and Mario,

I just came across William Rawl's definition of Natural Born Citizen.

It is the first time I've seen his name associated with the definition.

What do you make of it?

Thanks

Puzo1 said...

al said...

"After observing court after court employ every feebly contrived excuse imaginable in order to avoid being forced to properly deal with the Obama eligibility situation, I AM BEYOND 100% FED-UP WITH THEIR OBVIOUS B/S! From what I have seen, the "top" Judges and Congressmen have less character and credibility than the lowest of the low street walking crack addicts! As God is my witness, I no longer have ANY respect whatsoever for the useless "justice system" of this formerly great nation. [editor's deletion]WHAT A COMPLETE and TOTAL FRAUD and SHAM UPON THE PEOPLE THE ALLEGED "JUSTICE SYSTEM" and "CONGRESS" HAVE BECOME! OFF TO HELL WITH EVERY LAST ONE of THE USELESS [editor's deletion]."

Puzo1 said...

Guy4013,

William Rawle, in 1829, wrote:

"The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a 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 entitied to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that he so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, 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."
William Rawle, A view of the Constitution of the United States of America‎ 2nd ed. (1829)

But Rawle provides no authority for his definition of what is a “natural born Citizen.” He also recognizes that his is not the only definition of the term, acknowledging that there were other authorities (he mentions Locke) who think differently. He simply states that his definition is correct and that of others is incorrect. It should be noted that when Rawle rejected the notion that a child could wait until the years of discretion to elect his or her citizenship, he was actually rejecting Vattel’s view espressed on the subject in Section 212.

Why should we accept Rawle's view as the standard for what the Framers believed about what a "natural born Citizen" was? What evidence does Rawle cite to support his conclusion on what is a "natural born Citizen?"

Guy4013 said...

Thanks Mario for your reply.

I just believe that is Mr. Rawle's opinion and does not have any effect upon our laws.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Just like Senator Leahy's opinion from April, 2008,

" My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American PARENTS (Two), you are naturally a natural born American Citizen".

That's from the Democrat Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

That's his opinion which is supported by no less than seven SCOTUS cases.

Mr Rawle is entitled to his opinion and so is Senator Leahy.

Puzo1 said...

I just left this comment regarding William Rawle at Dr. Conspiracy's blog:

"Dr. Conspiracy,

Your answer and that of Greg is exactly what I expected. You cannot cite any authority on which Rawle relied for his personal opinion as to what a "natural born Citizen" is. And by the way, Rawle was just one of those "authorities" to whom Minor referred when it said "some authorities" (the Court did not even feel it merited mentioning their names) go further and consider as "citizens" those born in the country without reference to their parents. Note that our Supreme Court did not cite any case that so held but just referred to "some authorities" that took what the Court described as a doubtful position.

Rawle was an ardent abolitionist. He became a member of the Maryland Society promoting abolition in 1792 and then its president in 1818. He also argued against the constitutionality of slavery before the state supreme court in 1805. We have to consider whether his postition on slavery colored his view of who was a "natural born Citizen." By the way, and despite your feable attempt at trying to make the issue a racial one, today Vattel's definition of "natural born Citizen" has no race, color, religion, sex, etc. implications.

We also have to consider that Rawle's family were Loyalists, not American patriots. That could explain his leanings toward the English common law rather than the public law or the law of nations.

Additionally, Rawle's claim to fame in our Supreme Court decisions is on the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms), not citizenship. On citizenship, Rawle is an unknown when compared to Vattel.

Also, I am not the one re-writing history. Rather that is you and anyone who would want to deny Vattel's place is American history. I wonder why someone would deny what Vattel did for our country. Is it because he was Swiss and not English? Who are the real racists?

By the way, I like how you address me, "fake travel ban." You are really getting desperate. Do you not see that yours is a losing case in the real court of justice? And do not tell me about the "birther" batting average. How can you and your ilk keep such a ridiculous score if the "birthers" have yet to get up to bat.

You can keep praying to the altar of the English common law. But that law, apart from its application on local state matters such as contract, torts, property, inheritance, criminal law, etc., only applies to define who were the original citizens (pre 1789) and who later deserved to be part of that class (as per Wong Kim Ark and the 14th Amendment). But clearly, history and several United States Supreme Court cases show you are wrong when you attempt to use the English common law to prove what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is. It was natural law and the law of nations which became federal common law that provides the definition of what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is-a child born in the country to parents who are its citizens."

TJ in Texas said...

Given that the ballot, in the State of Oklahoma, for the Presidential election in 2008 had only two choices: Barack Obama, or John McCain;

Given that the registered voters physically present and voting in the State of Oklahoma are not allowed, by state law, to write-in any other candidate or candidates of their choice in any election;

Given that neither Obama or McCain is a Constitutional "natural born citizen", and neither is therefore qualified to serve as President of the United States;

Given that every registered voter in the State of Oklahoma was disenfranchised, and denied their legal right to vote for an eligible candidate in the election for the President of the United States in 2008;

Are there sufficient grounds for a class-action lawsuit by and on the behalf of these disenfranchised voters?


http://www.elections.state.ok.us/08genlst.pdf
http://www.state.ok.us/~elections/faq.html


It was a restriction on voter's rights because they were prevented from voting for a constitutionally eligible candidate. Oklahoma was the only State in which this occurred. All other states had other (constitutionally qualified) candidates on the ballot, or allowed for write-in votes on the ballot.

The harm was particularized to the voters of the State of Oklahoma, and was not an injury in the abstract to all citizens of the United States.

So-called “Article III standing” has three requirements:
(1) the plaintiff has suffered “an injury in fact,”
(2) that injury bears a causal connection to the defendant’s challenged conduct, and
(3) a favorable judicial decision will likely provide the plaintiff with redress from that injury.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf


If a class action suit could be brought, who in particular should the suit be brought against?

Who would the defendant in this case be? What remedy should be proposed?

Maybe the remedy proposed should be to repeal the law that prevents voters in Oklahoma from writing in a candidate on the ballot. If that is the proposed remedy, the court cannot say that the plaintiffs are trying to strike down the election, but will have to address the Constitutional eligibility of the candidates because it has direct bearing on the alleged disenfranchisement. That might solve the problem of the jurisdiction of the court as well, if the court has jurisdiction over the law prohibiting a write in vote.

I think if it isn't possible to confront a problem head-on, you have to confront it from another angle.

TJ in Texas said...

Mario,

You quoted William Rawle for Guy4013,

In part:

"The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States."

If I understand this correctly, anyone who was born a citizen of a State then automatically became a citizen of the United States.

The reason the court in Minor v Happersett expressed doubts as to the basic citizenship of children born in the US "without reference to the citizenship of their parents" is because each state had their own laws about who was a citizen of a state and who was not. Some states allowed children of aliens to be citizens of the State, and some did not. The States of California, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Virginia and Kentucky all at one time made citizenship of a child conditional on the citizenship of the parents, and the children of aliens born in these states were then not citizens of the state or citizens of the United States.

How then could "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens" be a natural born citizen of the United States?

Obviously, they could not.

Apparently Rawle didn't know what he was talking about.

jayjay said...

TJ in Texas:

What you say may well be true once Mr. O. is found by SCOTUS to be ineoigible ... then there are a lot of charges both civil and criminal that can be brought against him.

Until then, he is only eligible in the "minds" of the Obots and other Flying Monkeys, but after he is legally found to be ineligible even they will have no leg to stand on - not that they do now in any event.

TJ in Texas said...

jayjay,

The whole point of the Oklahoma thing is that it could be an avenue to get a ruling that the definition of "natural born citizen" is a person born in the country to two citizen parents, and that both McCain and Obama aren't eligible to the office. Since the main premise is that the voters were disenfranchised, the court would have to decide if the candidates were eligible under the "natural born citizen" clause.

It could be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Do you see what I'm saying?

jayjay said...

TJ in Texas:

I understand your point readily enough but the difficulty I see with it is the same court-originated roadblocks as the other suits have all run into - jurisdiction, standing, etc.

These are all judicial fictions created by the Judicial Branch but they are nonetheless real obstacles and provide a convenient "hiding place" for the creven judges that we seem to have.

I can see no favorable outcome for the course you suggest (though I'd certainly like to) in view of those court-generated tactics.

Once Obama would be found not eligible (however that might be done) the game - and its rules - change completely; but he has not YET been so found.