tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post7481492604351683960..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: The Rule of Law and the “Natural Born Citizen” ClauseMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-20586702333791231812011-09-12T01:46:53.014-04:002011-09-12T01:46:53.014-04:004zoltan,
First, Madison in making that statement...4zoltan, <br /><br />First, Madison in making that statement was only defining a “Citizen of the United States” which is a requirement to be eligible to be a Representative, not an Article II "natural born Citizen." <br /><br />Second, both our early Congress and our U.S. Supreme Court agreed with David Ramsay. <br /><br />The early Naturalization Acts all show that a child born in the United States to alien parents is an alien. Except for the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by the First Congress and which was repealed by the Third Congress in 1795, the same is true of Congress by process of elimination, i.e., in all its naturalization acts Congress has never had to tell us that a child born in the U.S. to two citizen parents is a “citizen of the United States.” <br /><br />No U.S. Court has ever ruled that a person born on U.S. soil to one or two alien parents is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” On the contrary, the only definition of a "natural born Citizen" ever given to us by the U.S. Supreme Court is a child born in the U.S. to citizen parents. As authority for this definition, there exists the following cases: The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites and quoted from Emer de Vattel, Section 212 of The Law of Nations); Inglis v. Trustee of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 29 U.S. 99 (1830); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Daniels, J., concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (gives the same Vattelian definition); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (not a Supreme Court case but persuasive); Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1883) (not a U.S. Supreme Court case but persuasive); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (not a U.S. Supreme Court case but persuasive); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (cites and quotes Minor’s Vattelian/American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen”) and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (confirmed that a child born in the U.S. to citizen parents, even if those parents are naturalized U.S. citizens, is a “natural born Citizen”); contra the state case of Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009) (declared that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” But the court never even raised the issue that there was no proof before the court that Obama was "born within the borders of the United States." In fact, the Ankeny court, while dismissing the plaintiffs' case, never ruled that Obama was "born within the borders of the United States." Nor did it rule that he was a "natural born Citizen." Ankeny did not even know who the very influential Vattel was and mistakenly concluded that the 14th Amendment case of Wong Kim Ark ruled Wong Kim Ark to be an Article II “natural born Citizen” rather than a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States.” In so ruling, the Ankeny court also incorrectly equated a British "natural born subject" with a U.S. "natural born Citizen" and incorrectly relied upon Wong Kim Ark). So, there exists no U.S. Supreme Court decision that ever said that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents. They all said born in the U.S. to citizen parents.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-11981991066429381702011-09-12T01:15:21.111-04:002011-09-12T01:15:21.111-04:00Mr. Apuzzo,
I read Dr. Ramsay's dissertation,...Mr. Apuzzo,<br /><br />I read Dr. Ramsay's dissertation, but he provides no authority for his views. <br /><br />Why should we accept Dr. Ramsay's view as being the standard for what the Framers thought? Especially as this view was rejected by James Madison. <br /><br />What evidence does Dr. Ramsay cite to support his conclusion on how citizenship is acquired?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-2481268054055037752011-09-10T11:00:08.873-04:002011-09-10T11:00:08.873-04:00Julie I can understand, that the Progressives in c...Julie I can understand, that the Progressives in congress, and through out the United States want to change our constitution's NBC dictate; they have used every means possible to do this; but again they cannot write laws that are contrary to our Constitutional Republic's laws so derived therefrom. So I have to assume you are a Progressive. Any legislation that purports to change the intent, and meaning of our constitution is in, and off itself flawed. Just as the Senate tried to do for McCain to make him an NBC, it did not hold water in my opinion as it was the Progressive's in the Senate's one more attempt to legitamize what cannot be legitamized, and was outside their authority to do so; but that never matters to the Progressives sitting in congress, or those who support them. So, Julie I disagree with you in your assumption about Obama's eligibility.Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-51067500919659964152011-09-10T00:26:49.985-04:002011-09-10T00:26:49.985-04:00Julie,
You said:
"Obama is eligible to b...Julie, <br /><br />You said: <br /><br />"Obama is eligible to be president because they added the amendments under 1401 in the US Code of Laws creating his eligibility."<br /><br />To understand what you are saying, please provide what language Congress added as an amendment to Section 1401 and when it added that language. Also, provide a citation with a link.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-58719850408159612662011-09-09T20:29:17.491-04:002011-09-09T20:29:17.491-04:00At what point did I dispute anyone here writings o...At what point did I dispute anyone here writings on NBC? The US <br />Code of Law is not a change to the Constitution or a change to the amendment. But the law can be used as a supporting clause of interpretation if such clause falls under a section in the constitution or a word in the constitution....ie immigration. So....the amendments added to 1401 by the then Democratic held House in 2008 1 year before Obama simple clarification and gives support of the legal citizenship to those identified in the amendment in the event it may be challenged in a court of law. I am not trying to say what it was, i am simply trying to say that congress made these changes 1 year before Obama become President..opening the door for him to become President.<br /><br />I appreciate everyone being clear on their standing on NBC because I believe in that and understand it and I hope we can uphold that in the Presidency. Unfortunately, in today's world with the President and the DOJ they are recreating the law thru the code to minimize the strength of the Constitution to dissolve the strength of the very thing the Constitution was built on....the LAW.......Juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09073473541293994608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-48273935550932341162011-09-09T08:42:52.777-04:002011-09-09T08:42:52.777-04:00Julie -- you are so wrong; congress cannot codify ...Julie -- you are so wrong; congress cannot codify what our constitution does not allow; in this case to change the meaning of NBC congress would need to prepare and amendment, pass it, send it on the the president to sign off, and then the hard part, get 3/4 of the various states to say "yes"; and in today's political climate that is impossible. I think you miss read the USC.Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-10350639518313911402011-09-09T00:22:15.911-04:002011-09-09T00:22:15.911-04:00To Julie: You are wrong. A Citizen at Birth is no...To Julie: You are wrong. A Citizen at Birth is not necessarily a Natural born Citizen at Birth. Read this essay for more on this:<br /><br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/of-trees-and-plants-and-basic-logic_05.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/of-trees-and-plants-and-basic-logic_05.html</a><br /><br />CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">ProtectOurLiberty.org</a><br /><a href="http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">CDR Kerchner's Blog</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-26391441527497929912011-09-09T00:10:52.320-04:002011-09-09T00:10:52.320-04:00Julie,
You argue that Obama is eligible to be pr...Julie, <br /><br />You argue that Obama is eligible to be president under 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a). But 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) does not create an Article II “natural born Citizen” <br /><br />First, concerning citizenship, Congress only has naturalization powers under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Hence, it has no power to create an Article II "natural born Citizen" which exists under natural law and not by positive law and which has always been defined by our U.S. Supreme Court as a child born in the country to citizen parents. <br /><br />Second, recognizing that Congress's powers are limited when it comes to citizenship, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 only addresses "citizens" of the United States, not Article II "natural born Citizens" of the United States. <br /><br />This means that if Obama is a "citizen" of the Unites States under Sec. 1401 through birth in Hawaii (a fact which he has yet to conclusively prove), that does not make him an Article II "natural born Citizen."Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-87049360961323383792011-09-08T23:41:00.794-04:002011-09-08T23:41:00.794-04:00Obama is eligible to be president because they add...Obama is eligible to be president because they added the amendments under 1401 in the US Code of Laws creating his eligibility.Juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09073473541293994608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-13139365178894231692011-09-01T22:02:47.341-04:002011-09-01T22:02:47.341-04:00To @Atticus Finch
Hello Mr. Finch: My name is CDR...To @Atticus Finch<br /><br />Hello Mr. Finch: My name is CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret). You write like a lawyer or a person legally trained. What is your real name? What is your profession? The owner of this blog posts under his real name and I think you should too given your proliferation of posts here. I'd like to know who you are. What is your real name and profession? Thank you.<br /><br />CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-19049803513070673842011-09-01T19:47:55.337-04:002011-09-01T19:47:55.337-04:00Atticus Finch wrote:
'At birth, a child acquir...Atticus Finch wrote:<br />'At birth, a child acquires only one allegiance that is the allegiance of his place of birth. William Blackstone wrote: 'Natural allegiance is such as is due from ALL men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth.' Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book One chapter 10 (1765).” '<br />-----------------------------<br /><br />Response:<br /><br />Not true!<br /><br />Lord Coke said (Calvin's case)that NOT ALL men born within the king's dominions have natural allegiance.<br /><br />Quote from Coke:<br />"that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,"<br /><br />According to Lord Coke, it was the ligeance of the subject father (wife same as husband)that was PARAMOUNT & ESSENTIAL in determining the NB subject status of the child.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-85883244425686508072011-09-01T17:10:06.772-04:002011-09-01T17:10:06.772-04:00From FactCheck.org:
"When Barack Obama Jr. wa...From <a href="http://factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-kenyan-citizenship/" rel="nofollow">FactCheck.org:</a><br />"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject <b>whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:</b>"<br /><br />I'm still trying to figure out how a Natural Born Citizen of the United States can, at birth, have his citizenship status governed by a foreign country's act (as admitted here by FactCheck).bdwilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03723935463347132039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-83440103111869775192011-09-01T16:41:34.823-04:002011-09-01T16:41:34.823-04:00Atticus finch,
You said: “At birth, Obama's...Atticus finch,<br /> <br />You said: “At birth, Obama's sole allegience was his place of birth which was the United States. Dual citizenship at birth does not equate dual allegiance. the child at birth does not acquire the allegiance of his alien parents. In other words, a child born in the United States is not bound by the allegiance of his alien parents. At birth, a child acquires only one allegiance that is the allegiance of his place of birth. William Blackstone wrote: 'Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth.' Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book One chapter 10 (1765).” <br /><br />The following cases, among many, show that you are simply wrong in saying that citizenship can somehow be separated from allegiance. Rather, since the beginning of time, we have always recognized that citizenship and nationality follow allegiance and that allegiance is the basis of citizenship and nationality: <br /> <br />Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491 (1950): “The United States has long recognized the general undesirability of dual allegiances.”<br /><br />Kawakita v. United States, 343 U. S. 717 (1952): “one who has a dual nationality will be subject to claims from both nations, claims which at times may be competing or conflicting,” that one with dual nationality cannot turn that status “into a fair-weather citizenship,” and that “circumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do acts which otherwise would not be compatible with the obligations of American citizenship,”<br /><br />Justice Brennan, concurring in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144 (1963), a case about native-born citizens, said: “We have recognized the entanglements which may stem from dual allegiance. . . .”<br /><br />Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971): “The Congress has an appropriate concern with problems attendant on dual nationality. These problems are particularly acute when it is the father who is the child’s alien parent and the father chooses to have his family reside in the country of his own nationality. The child is reared, at best, in an atmosphere of divided loyalty. We cannot say that a concern that the child’s own primary allegiance is to the country of his birth and of his father’s allegiance is either misplaced or arbitrary.”Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-25483740020903912172011-09-01T16:38:40.050-04:002011-09-01T16:38:40.050-04:00Atticus finch,
How can you refuse to acknowledge...Atticus finch, <br /><br />How can you refuse to acknowledge that either place of birth or parents are a source of allegiance? Even your own Madison quote acknowledges this long-established truth. To justify your untenable position on Obama, you argue that place of birth is all that drives allegiance and therefore citizenship. You avoid admitting that one can gain allegiance and therefore citizenship from one's parents. How then can you explain that John McCain was born in Panama but yet, because he was born to U.S. citizen parents, was declared by Tribe, Olson, and our Senate in SR501 to be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States." <br /><br />Your reliance on Hamilton’s quote as a source to define a “natural born Citizen” is misplaced. Madison was only defining a “Citizen of the United States” under Article I, not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. Madison relied upon the common law of Carolina to define a “Citizen of the United States.” He did not rely on that common law to define a “natural born Citizen.” Additionally, the common law of Carolina was abrogated by the Naturalization Act of 1790 which treated any child born in the United States to alien parents as an alien. We can also see that Madison did not recite the English common law in defining Smith’s citizenship which we know always referred to a subject as owing allegiance to the King. Rather, Madison said that a “citizen” owed allegiance to the “new community.” He did not say that any such allegiance was owed to the President. Consistent with Pufendorf and Vattel, what Madison did was define the first citizens that came into being as a result of revolution. We also know from his Federalist No. 42 that Madison, who called the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in defining terms in the Constitution, would not have relied upon the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.” Finally, even Smith himself during the debates cited and relied upon Vattel and not the English common law to show that he was a “citizen of the United States.” <br /><br />There cannot be citizenship without allegiance. Even our citizens who are naturalized after birth swear sole allegiance to the United States in order to become "citizens of the United States" after birth. <br /><br />You refuse to recognize dual allegiance at birth produced by jus soli. Your irrational position is easily contradicted by the cases of Lynch v. Clarke (1844), U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and Perkins v. Elg (1939) and our own State Department and Foreign Affairs Manual which clearly explain how dual allegiance is produced by either jus soli (citizenship acquired from one’s place of birth) or jus sanguinis (citizenship acquired from one’s parents). I will follow this post with a separate brief comment on dual allegiance. <br /><br />Finally, we are defining an Article II “natural born Citizen” not a “citizen of the United States.” A simple reading of the text of Articles I, II, and the Fourteenth Amendment shows that these are two separate and distinct concepts. Basic rules of constitutional construction inform us that every word or clause in the Constitution has to be given its own meaning. But you continue to conflate a “natural born Citizen” with a “citizen of the United States.” You simply cannot use the meaning of a “citizen of the United States” as the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” You have to provide specific sources that give an exact definition of a “natural born Citizen” rather than through wishful thinking try to weasel your way in by relying on sources that define what a “citizen of the United States” is.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-51081901904945660552011-09-01T15:01:22.684-04:002011-09-01T15:01:22.684-04:00Margie wrote:"It takes SOLE Allegiance to the...Margie wrote:"It takes SOLE Allegiance to the USA to become CIC. Neither of his Father's were American citizens. In Kenya, they are building or built a Barack Hussein Obama Cultural Center in the Village of his Birth."<br /><br />Response:<br /><br />At birth, Obama's sole allegience was his place of birth which was the United States.<br /><br />Dual citizenship at birth does not equate dual allegiance. the child at birth does not acquire the allegiance of his alien parents. In other words, a child born in the United States is not bound by the allegiance of his alien parents.<br /><br /> At birth, a child acquires only one allegiance that is the allegiance of his place of birth. William Blackstone wrote: “Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth.” Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book One chapter 10 (1765). <br /><br /> James Madison observed ““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; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)<br /><br />"All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and allpersons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birthand 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,<br />and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. United States v. Rhodes 27 F Cas 785,789 (Cir. Court D. Kentucky 1866)(internal citations omitted)<br /><br /><br />In McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawyer 118, 162 (District Court D. Oregon 1871) it is said: <br />"The rule of the common law upon this subject is plain and well settled, both In England and America. Except In the case of children of ambassadors, who are in theory born upon the soil of the sovereign whom the parent represents, a child born In the allegiance of the king, is born his subject, without reference to the political status or condition of Its parents. Birth and allegiance go together. “ <br /><br />As such, “At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925) (internal citation omitted)atticus finchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10955608106474375955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-5166778313328420982011-08-31T10:23:12.449-04:002011-08-31T10:23:12.449-04:00It takes SOLE Allegiance to the USA to become CIC....It takes SOLE Allegiance to the USA to become CIC. Neither of his Father's were American citizens. In Kenya, they are building or built a Barack Hussein Obama Cultural Center in the Village of his Birth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-74348696188256071432011-08-30T22:55:07.016-04:002011-08-30T22:55:07.016-04:00See this article by Commander Kerchner on how Secr...See this article by Commander Kerchner on how Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recently recognized the importance of Emer de Vattel to the Founders and our Constitution: <br /><br />http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/law-of-nations-principles-of-natural-law/<br /><br />Now is this not just grand. The court in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009), which gave us a definition of a "natural born Citizen" which I contend is wrong, did not even know who Vattel was. <br /><br />Ankeny, among the many shortcomings of its decision, conducted no independent historical research or analysis regarding what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution in 1787. In fact, no where in the decision did the court even raise the issue of the Founders’ and Framers’ intent when they wrote the clause in Article II. The Founders and Framers place their trust in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration of Independence, para. 1. They came to learn what natural law was from studying ancient history and its influence in the then modern world. They knew from studying this history and the great publicists, including Emer de Vattel who was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite, that natural law became the law of nations. And Vattel in Section 212 of his The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) defined what a “natural born Citizen” is. There he said that the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The Indiana state court in Ankeny did not even discuss natural law and the law of nations. The court hardly knew who Emer de Vattel was. This should be an indication to anyone who has seriously studied the Obama eligibility issue of how much reliance we can place on the Ankeny court's ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-74646997025567380782011-08-30T19:49:57.810-04:002011-08-30T19:49:57.810-04:00Re. The Obama stolen SSN case dismissal by Judge L...Re. The Obama stolen SSN case dismissal by Judge Lambert today:<br /><br />They all in Washington DC think they are doing this to prevent riots in the streets if Obama is removed as the fraud and ineligible person he his. They think they are protecting the country and saving lives, etc., by preventing riots. But this is only short term rationalization on their part to protect themselves for allowing this fraud to go on this long. It is only going to get worse as they in Wash DC completely destroy the Rule of Law and our fundamental governing document the U.S. Constitution in order to protect Obama and their own butts for their respective parts in the cover up over the last 3+ years. They have painted themselves in a corner with the ongoing cover up and no institution is beyond corruption for the establishment in DC to protect themselves and thus Obama. They think they are saving the nation from a catastrophe (i.e., riots if Obama is removed) when instead they are destroying the very fiber this nation was built on ... the rules of law, not man. Homeland Security is likely briefing all the powers to be in the various institutions in background ... saying we have to keep the lid on this. If it blows there could be race riots in 100 cities. And Obama would likely do it too to stay in power. But, fear of some riots, real or conjured up by the cover up squad, are in the end going to lead to much much worse in this nation as the People learn more and more how corrupt the establishment in DC has become to the point of just ignoring the Constitution and the Rule of Law ... maybe even another Civil War. And the Obama cover up and all those who lead it and enabled it will be the cause. Of course they in DC will place the blame elsewhere and label the supporters of the Constitution and the Rule of Law as the troublemakers. They always do. JMHO.<br /><br />CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)<br />ProtectOurLiberty.org<br />cdrkerchner.wordpress.comcfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-9995875106837998342011-08-30T13:32:48.682-04:002011-08-30T13:32:48.682-04:00PS - didn't mean to diss anybody "in the ...PS - didn't mean to diss anybody "in the fray" against the Muslim Usurper Tyrant, so let me ask a question.<br /><br />What is the status of anything and everything that is still in-play.<br /><br />All I am aware of is Orly Taitz going back to HI on Sep 14 to have another go at prying loose vital records.Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-45254355397735905472011-08-30T11:46:50.469-04:002011-08-30T11:46:50.469-04:00Perhaps the Obama situation is now a Lost Cause. ...Perhaps the Obama situation is now a Lost Cause. Even if a smoking gun is found soon, it will take considerable time for the legal niceties to transpire.<br /><br />I am sure the Establishment will strongly prefer to just let him "die a natural death" by losing the election than an outright act of "political homicide" in prematurely forcing him out of office.<br /><br />Is it time to turn all our efforts to PREVENTING future and further rape of the constitution. How can we ensure that The Message gets out about Rubio and Jindal and to prevent them from being on the presidential ticket?<br /><br />For constitutionalists this would seem to be the current most urgent and pressing problem.Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-50688571967126183122011-08-29T22:12:01.755-04:002011-08-29T22:12:01.755-04:00What makes you think that I'm an "Obot&qu...What makes you think that I'm an "Obot"? I haven't attempted any support of Obama here, have I?<br /><br />In the end, your first response shows just how mediocre your understanding of legal precedent is. I'm a lawyer...I also have literally been trained in this. It was the courts (and not "Obama courts" mind you) that has shown you have no argument...for the very reasons I'm stating.Frank Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01255379675429624429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-67861738312269176332011-08-28T12:47:55.497-04:002011-08-28T12:47:55.497-04:00Did the founding fathers not start with a fresh sl...Did the founding fathers not start with a fresh slate when drafting our constitution? Were the framers of our constitution not opposed to English Common Law having just jetisoned England? For those Progressives who say otherwise, why would Franklin order copies of Vattel's Law of Nations for the reference books to be used by the frammers? It would appear to me to be that the framers wanted something different for our new nation; not a model of England which they had just defeated on the field of battle to separate our new nation from English control. Hence when you read the rationale of the Progressives that our nation's foundatation, and legal system is based on English Common Law they are only playing to their Progressive wishes for all of us bedamned our Constitutional Republic which our founding father forged out of winning the battle to oust England from our lands. Was Englishe Common Law practiced in some of the states, yes, but when our constitution was ratified that all became moot. English common does not influence our laws, only our constitution does. I know the Progressives hate this thought, and reasoning, but reality is reality our laws are derived from our constitution; those which are not should be espunged from our leagal system by the courts, including SCOTUS whos job it is to monitor the decisions of the courts, and where decisions are inconsitent with constitutional dictates struck down. It is the court's job according to our constitution. As we go about cleaning up our federal government we should also go about cleaning up our judicial system. God save our nation from within.Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-86831130310035072532011-08-27T03:08:02.390-04:002011-08-27T03:08:02.390-04:00Correction to prior posting - (Atticus Finch's...Correction to prior posting - (Atticus Finch's text was missing)<br /><br />Atticus Finch wrote:<br />"The term "natural born citizen" in the Constitution was derived from the English common law term "natural born subject" since the term citizen is analogous to the common law term subject."<br /><br />Response:<br />The English term 'natural born subject' was used to describe one who was born in the realm of the English sovereign and (according to Lord Coke - Calvin's case) 'under the ligeance of a subject' for if one were to be born in the realm & not 'under the ligeance of a subject' then that 'issue is no subject'.<br />Furthermore the English term 'natural born subject' was used to describe a 'subject' of a sovereign who could never attain highest office and was not a qualification for any high office, whereas the framers' USC Article II term 'natural born Citizen' was a qualification for highest office and such a citizen was NOT subject to any sovereign.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-29248802323405677742011-08-26T14:34:35.295-04:002011-08-26T14:34:35.295-04:00Puzo1:
Atticus just can't seem to stop himsel...Puzo1:<br /><br />Atticus just can't seem to stop himself in citing (really mis-citing) inappropriate cases and writings as though they are meaningful.<br /><br />That is the sure sign of a Flying Monkey and it it a technique they widely use. Even their ringleader Kevin Davidson (doc c.) uses this technique extensively when he's not heaping abuse and derision on those who do not agree with him ... or when he's not out and out lying.jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-57062183510923208952011-08-26T02:44:58.541-04:002011-08-26T02:44:58.541-04:00Atticus Finch wrote:
<>
The English term ...Atticus Finch wrote:<br /><><br />The English term 'natural born subject' was used to describe one who was born in the realm of the English sovereign and (according to Lord Coke - Calvin's case) 'under the ligeance of a subject' for if one were to be born in the realm & not 'under the ligeance of a subject' then that 'issue is no subject'.<br />Furthermore the English term 'natural born subject' was used to describe a 'subject' of a sovereign who could never attain highest office and not a qualification for any high office, whereas the framers' USC Article II term 'natural born Citizen' was a qualification for highest office and such a citizen was NOT subject to any sovereign.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.com