tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post7690010635704767849..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Would the Founders and Framers Have Allowed the Son of a British “Natural Born Subject” Father and U.S. Citizen Mother To Be President and Commander in Chief of the United States in 2009?Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger181125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-63164292763669629382011-01-25T20:23:30.659-05:002011-01-25T20:23:30.659-05:00At Fogbow (Politijab)
gentrfam wrote:Michael agree...At Fogbow (Politijab)<br />gentrfam wrote:Michael agrees that the founders were very familiar with Calvin's Case.<br /><br />MichaelN wrote:<br />Indeed, so familiar with Calvin's case that they new the difference between the differing circumstances that produced what were called 'natural born subjects' - which in England was not an eligibility criteria for highest office of a republic.<br /><br />i.e. one circumstance, per high allegiance, natural, absolute, pure and unlimited allegiance, by nature & birthright &<br /><br />the other circumstance, per local allegiance, something mean and small, and extremely uncertain.<br /><br />They were also so familiar with Calvin's case to know that an alien visiting the dominion in amity was FIRST considered a 'subject' (noun) to be able to produce a 'natural born subject'.<br /><br />They were also so familiar with Calvin's case to know that it was not the soil or the climate that made a 'subject born' i.e. NOT only jus soli.<br /><br />They were also so familiar with Calvin's case to know that NOT all who were born in the dominion were 'natural born subjects'<br /><br />They were also so familiar with Calvin's case to know that 'natural born subject' was not a criteria for eligibility for highest office.<br /><br />They were also so familiar with Calvin's case and extremely educated to know that an English 'subject' (noun) was one who was a subject of the sovereign and not necessarily subject to (adj) jurisdiction (law).<br /><br />They also chose to make the citizens as sovereigns of the new found constitutional republic, and not subjects of ANY sovereign.<br /><br />They also were so familiar with Calvin's case and extremely educated to know that ONLY a sovereign can beget a sovereign.<br /><br />They also chose to protect the office of POTUS of the republic from ANY foreign influence or claim, to the extent that "something mean and small, and extremely uncertain" would NOT meet that protective measure.<br /><br />They were also so familiar with Calvin's case to make the choice & wisely choose high allegiance, natural, absolute, pure and unlimited allegiance, by nature & birthright as the preferred criteria for eligibility for POTUS.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-80743234421735901322011-01-21T04:04:58.629-05:002011-01-21T04:04:58.629-05:00In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three stateme...In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,'' that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected.<br /><br />Intent = protect the office of POTUS from ANY foreign influence and claim<br /><br />Absurdity = the kid of any alien, born in USA, is eligible to be POTUS<br />.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-83006508877639357932011-01-19T20:29:20.248-05:002011-01-19T20:29:20.248-05:00Well, the problem is NOT in not KNOWING what an NB...Well, the problem is NOT in not KNOWING what an NBC is, it is in getting a 'controlling legal authority' to acknowledge it.<br /><br />In this instance the ONLY controlling legal authority that CAN 'Declare' what the definition, meaning and intent of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen IS, is the SCOTUS.<br /><br />They know it, Congress knows it, most politicians know it but right now anyone can say it is whatever they want and not be wrong until SCOTUS speaks to the question.<br /><br />But I would love to hear from Puzo1 regarding 'omissions' as it would relate to Constitutional 'imperatives', De Facto Officer Doctrine and 'nullification' as it might relate to de facto officers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-92198575790041933562011-01-18T19:40:08.255-05:002011-01-18T19:40:08.255-05:00Amos asked;
...United Natural Born Citizens: Are y...Amos asked;<br />...United Natural Born Citizens: Are you concerned,...<br /><br />Well, yes and no.......If the SCOTUS adheres to the law and looks narrowly at the laws, conditions and traditions as they existed when the idiom was inserted into the Constitution into the Executive qualification Clause and thereby attaching both Political and National Security aspects to its usage I am confident that there is only ONE definition that could be Declared by the SCOTUS, that being a definition consistent with Vattel, born in the country of Citizen parents. (Men being the only Statutory Citizens with women and children tacitly acknowledged as such by their relation to the man)<br /><br />Should they look to the works on citizenship from the UN, then yes, I am very concerned.<br /><br />At least we'll know where we stand.<br /><br />But stand by, when I get to the point of Petitioning the SCOTUS this time I will have a number of 'novel' factors to discuss.<br /><br />Please let me know if I've answered you specific thoughts or if I missed something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-11281661270338920412011-01-18T16:49:43.541-05:002011-01-18T16:49:43.541-05:00United Natural Born Citizens: Are you concerned, ...United Natural Born Citizens: Are you concerned, with all the apparent subversiveness, as well as Kagan and Sotomayor, that the definition(s) you are seeking will only benefit Obama. I fear that it would be defined in a way that would make him legitimate.<br /><br />mcamelyne: Regarding specific harm, I would think that sending troops to fight in Afghanistan, and any casualties thereof, can be deemed as harmful.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06711151429356515580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-25226096924553292011-01-18T16:32:03.253-05:002011-01-18T16:32:03.253-05:00MichaelN,
John Yinger states:
"In this l...MichaelN, <br /><br />John Yinger states: <br /> <br />"In this letter, dated July 25, 1787, Jay wrote: <br /><br />‘Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (emphasis in the original).(5)’ <br /><br />The meaning of this letter is not entirely clear. In today's usage, the word ‘administration’ might be thought to limit the focus of the first part of the letter to the executive branch. According to one historian, however, this part was primarily directed at members of the legislative branch.(6) Moreover, the second part of the letter, where the expression ‘natural born’ appears, also may not have been directed at the President; at that point Jay had no way of knowing that the Convention would ultimately make the President the commander-in-chief. Nevertheless, this letter is the only document connected to the Constitutional Convention that explicitly argues for a ‘natural born’ citizen in a high executive position. <br /><br />According to one scholar, Charles Gordon, ‘Possibly this letter was motivated by distrust of Baron von Stuben, who had served valiantly in the Revolutionary forces, but whose subsequent loyalty was suspected by Jay. Another theory is that the Jay letter, and the resulting constitutional provision, responded to rumors that the convention was concocting a monarchy to be ruled by a foreign monarch.’(7) However, Gordon does not give much weight to Jay's letter, and he concludes that ‘no explanation of the origin or purpose of the presidential qualification clause appears anywhere in the recorded deliberation of the Convention.’"(8)<br /><br />The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a "Natural Born Citizen" and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees? by John Yinger(1) Revised Version, April 6, 2000 http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm<br /><br />My response: <br /> <br />If Jay wanted a "strong check" from foreign influence for members of Congress, you can imagine what he wanted for the Commander in Chief of the Military. <br /> <br />Also, that Jay might not have known that the President was going to be given military powers is a non-issue. The point is that he wanted only a "natural-born citizen" to be given the command of the nation's military power. That the President was also given that military power does not in the least change the meaning of the "natural born Citizen" clause, for that person still ended up with the command of that military power. <br />We also have to consider that the "natural born Citizen" clause was adopted soon after the Jay letter was written. <br /> <br />The speculation as to whether the "natural born Citizen" clause meant to preclude any one particular person also does not add much to the debate. Obama’s supporters like to argue this point. Regardless of the intended target of the clause, the clause still stands as written. "For example, I might write a speed-limit law saying no one is to travel on Smith Street over 25 m.p.h. because I know my nasty neighbor travels on the road at 35 m.p.h. Even though in my mind I targeted my neighbor, everyone using that road still has to travel no more than 25 m.p.h. <br /> <br />Finally, as far as what was or what was not discussed in the Constitutional debates, we also have to remember that the proceedings were done in secret. Someone can correct me on this if they have any different information.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-68365680548057714142011-01-17T09:44:41.072-05:002011-01-17T09:44:41.072-05:00Puzo1 asked;
'How do you explain all this?&qu...Puzo1 asked;<br /><br />'How do you explain all this?"...<br /><br />Re: The 1790 naturalization Act that provided for the children born abroad of Us Citizen parents.<br /><br />After reading Joseph Story's Commentaries and divining from the language the GREAT respect for the many Patriots who sacrificed and risked their all in the great endeavor, including traveling abroad to secure loans by which to fund the War and agreements of non-intervention when aid was not offered as well as the purchase of needed goods and contracts for continued trade of exports and too, members of the Military apart for various duties, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that it was in honor of those who were so tasked that they would not be 'penalized' for their sacrifice.<br /><br />That 1795 brought new fears of foreign intrigue and hostile intends from many quarters and caused the provision to be 'repealed' and restoring the condition to its most conservative construction is also understandable.<br /><br />What is NOT clear is why the Congress did not find it appropriate to DECLARE the definition, meaning and intent of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen and then to establish an 'Embassy Doctrine' whereby any US Citizen parents who were in a position of service and under the protection of the US while abroad could follow certain procedures including returning the child to the US in a certain period of time could be agreeably accepted 'as if' a natural born Citizen for Constitutional purposes.<br /><br />In other words, only speculation and opinion can provide suggested answers to the question, lacking any documented debates, records or letters of discussion.<br /><br />Were these 'scrubbed' or simply non-existent...?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-66989572114638715312011-01-17T05:26:41.981-05:002011-01-17T05:26:41.981-05:00Mario.
Please read this,
http://faculty.maxwell...Mario.<br /><br />Please read this, <br /><br />http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm<br /><br />particularly, from here on...<br /><br />"In this letter, dated July 25, 1787, Jay wrote:"<br /><br />read on.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-14161005797901865892011-01-17T05:19:49.657-05:002011-01-17T05:19:49.657-05:00Part 2 of 2
Lord Coke (Calvin's case)
"...Part 2 of 2<br /><br />Lord Coke (Calvin's case)<br /><br />"localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta.53<br />53. ][Ed.: local allegiance is something mean and small, and extremely uncertain.]<br /> <br />ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a<br /><br />[42. ][Ed.: natural, absolute, pure and unlimited allegiance.]<br />[42a. ][Ed.: high allegiance.] <br /><br />The framers in their learned wisdom and with their profound knowledge of English Common Law & Vattel, were extremely cautious to reserve the eligibility for office of POTUS for those who had no risk of influence from any foreign source.<br /><br />The framers notion of a 'natural born Citizen' was 'alta ligeantia' = 'subject born' - 'by nature and birthright'<br /><br />The local allegiance of an alien visitor was, according to Lord Coke "localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta. 53<br />53. ][Ed.: local allegiance is something mean and small, and extremely uncertain.]"<br /><br />It is obvious to anyone with a normal sense of reason, that 'extremely uncertain' was not on the agenda to the framers.<br /><br />To the English - by 'nature' is due by the parent father's allegiance.<br /><br />To the English - by 'birthright' is due by being born in the land of the subjevt father and eligible to inheritance. (i.e.'high allegiance')<br /><br />Lord Coke.<br /><br />"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born"<br />and<br />"natural ligeance is not circumscribed within any place."<br /><br />In England, 'natural allegiance' on the part of an alien visitor was due to the person and position of the sovereign, not the land, or the law of the land.<br /><br />Unlike the English, in USA, an alien visitor being 'subject to the jurisdiction' does not make one a US citizen by the Law of Nature, (the alien to USA must apply for citizenship and be gifted), furthermore the alien born visitor in USA has no 'natural allegiance' due to either the US 'sovereign' (i.e. in this case, US sovereign Citizens) or the land, but in England one had to be a 'subject' to the sovereign to produce a 'natural born subject', and the English, (unlike USA), deemed alien born visitors as 'subjects' by the Law of Nature.<br /><br />In England, only a sovereign can produce sovereigns, by birth descent - nature and birthright.<br /><br />In USA, only sovereign Citizens can produce sovereign Citizens, by birth descent - nature and birthright.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-35745649463307480582011-01-17T05:19:00.044-05:002011-01-17T05:19:00.044-05:00Part 1 of 2
Mario, I have just posted this on Fog...Part 1 of 2<br /><br />Mario, I have just posted this on Fogbow (Politijab) forum.<br /><br />Maybe this will stimulate some reasoning.<br /><br />Lord Coke (in Calvin's case) said .........<br /><br />"There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.43 The second is called ligeantia acquisita,44 not by nature but by acquisition or denization, being called a denizen, or rather donaizon, because he is subditus datus.45 The third is ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other. The fourth is a legal obedience, or ligeance which is called legal, because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of it; and this to be done upon oath at the Torn or Leet"<br /><br />As you can see there are two types of allegiances that produce the born subjects, although the born subjects are both apparently called 'natural born subject'.<br /><br />One ( the 'high allegiance') type of allegiance that produces the born subject is "ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita, and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia"<br /><br />The other is "ligeantia localis wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance"<br /><br />'alta ligeantia' = 'subject born' - 'by nature and birthright'<br />i.e. because of the condition of the father, who is already a subject (apparently a local born subject as opposed to an alien born)<br /><br />'ligeantia localis' = 'a subject made by gift' - by nature and GIFT.<br /><br />i.e. gifted because they are born in a lesser allegiance to an alien born who is NOT already a local born subject)MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-87615560771699911342011-01-17T03:30:50.394-05:002011-01-17T03:30:50.394-05:00MichaelN,
Vattel at Sec. 212 of The Law of Nation...MichaelN,<br /><br />Vattel at Sec. 212 of The Law of Nations said that natural-born citizens are "born in the country" to citizen parents. <br /><br />In Sec. 215, on being born out of the country, he said that place of birth alone does not change the citizenship of a child, for that child follows the condition of the father (meaning father and mother). But then he also said with such a child who may be born out of the country, a nation may pass its own laws which would control the status that person would have and that those laws need to be followed. <br /><br />Amending the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795 changed "natural born citizen" to "citizen of the United States" for those who were born out of the U.S. to citizen parents. By doing this, early Congress signaled that a child born abroad to citizen parents would not be declared a "natural born Citizen." Rather, he or she would be declared a "citizen of the United States." This is important since so many founders and framers were in these Congresses, given that Article II said that after the Constitution's adoption, only a "natural born Citizen" could be President, and given that Congress only has the constitutional power to naturalize persons who, with the exception noted above, it has called since 1790 “citizens of the United States.” <br /><br />How do you explain all this?Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-41004923196774487532011-01-17T03:22:00.810-05:002011-01-17T03:22:00.810-05:00"MichaelN said...
The term or usage of '..."MichaelN said... <br />The term or usage of 'natural' in both English Common Law & in US Constitution was with reference to the condition of the father of the 'natural born' off-spring."<br /><br />..Excellent point ...reminded me of previous reserch in the USCodes....<br /><br />"TITLE 38 > PART II > CHAPTER 18 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 1831<br />Prev | Next § 1831. Definitions<br />How Current is This? In this chapter: <br />(1) The term “child” means the following: <br />(A) For purposes of subchapters I and II of this chapter, an individual, regardless of age or marital status, who— <br />(i) is the natural child of a Vietnam veteran; and <br />(ii) was conceived after the date on which that veteran first entered the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. <br />(B) For purposes of subchapter III of this chapter, an individual, regardless of age or marital status, who— <br />(i) is the natural child of a veteran of covered service in Korea (as determined for purposes of section 1821 of this title); and <br />(ii) was conceived after the date on which that veteran first entered service described in subsection (c) of that section. "<br /><br />More examples of the Congress recognizing 'natural parents' for the purposes of granting and or denying benifits ... see Title 42 at Social Security and Veterans Benifits....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-50935935425165879842011-01-17T03:01:54.826-05:002011-01-17T03:01:54.826-05:00puzo1 asked;
"[C]an anyone find any legal or...puzo1 asked;<br /><br />"[C]an anyone find any legal or historical support for what Justice Gray said?..."<br /><br />I have looked and tried to find upon what basis Judge Gray or the various other Judges made such 'dictum' in regards to 'citizenship' cases before them.<br /><br />I the various State Constitutions the 'adoption' of the English Common Law 'structure' was said to be continued 'EXCEPT' when any such 'statute' therein would be repugnant to the various Constitutions.<br /><br />In order for the Federal Courts to accept the 'English Common 'statutory' Law' it would have been necessary for it to have been noted in the Constitution or within the Congressional Acts establishing the Courts.<br /><br />After the adoption of the Constitution the States, at various times, dropped the language acknowledging the use of 'English Common Law', being satisfied the the 'construction of the Legislated laws being applied to the Rules, Regulations and Procedures 'adopted by the Courts were sufficient to be considered 'American Common Law'.<br /><br />Being unable to find the 'original case briefs' of the various 'citizenship cases' we are left with the 'summary recitations' found in the SCOTUS Opinions which shed very little light on the question of why they often cited 'English Common Law' on the subject of 'citizenship' when it is wholly obvious from the State Constitutions and the 1st & subsequent Naturalization Acts the 'English Common Laws' on Citizenship was considered 'repugnant' to the Republican form of Guv'mnt.<br /><br />Had it been otherwise there is a fair chance that Sanford v Scott would have been decided differently and perhaps staving off the Civil War to a more agreeable Political solution.<br /><br />But it must also be noted that in every instance the question concerned 'citizenship' only and that NEVER has the question asked that would require a definition of natural born Citizen, that is, within a case that has been heard on the merits in whole.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-63712208768413375022011-01-17T01:28:25.180-05:002011-01-17T01:28:25.180-05:00The term or usage of 'natural' in both Eng...The term or usage of 'natural' in both English Common Law & in US Constitution was with reference to the condition of the father of the 'natural born' off-spring.<br /><br />'nature' was not to do with the soil.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-90085096150620376582011-01-17T01:24:16.888-05:002011-01-17T01:24:16.888-05:00Mario said:
"Would anyone care to offer an ex...Mario said:<br />"Would anyone care to offer an explanation as to why Justice Gray would make such a statement?<br /><br />Can anyone find any legal or historical support for what Justice Gray said?"<br /><br />Gray was owing to Chester Arthur, the first of the usurpers, so Gray had an agenda.<br /><br />Wasn't Gray referring to the individual states, and not the United States as a single entity?MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-8133230154195634872011-01-17T01:04:36.153-05:002011-01-17T01:04:36.153-05:00paralegalnm,
Note that our First Congress(whose m...paralegalnm,<br /><br />Note that our First Congress(whose members contained 20 persons who had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 17 signers of the Constitution, eight of whom were members of the Committee of Eleven that drafted the "natural born Citizen" clause) and Third Congress (<br />which included Oliver Ellsworth (April 29, 1745 – November 26, 1807) an American lawyer and politician, a revolutionary against British rule, a drafter of the United States Constitution, an the third Chief Justice of the United States; Roger Sherman (April 19, 1721 – July 23, 1793) was an early American lawyer and politician. He served as the first mayor of New Haven, Connecticut, and served on the Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of Independence, and was also a representative and senator in the new republic. He was the only person to sign all four great state papers of the U.S.: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution; Rufus King (March 24, 1755 – April 29, 1827) was an American lawyer, politician, and diplomat. He was a delegate for Massachusetts to the Continental Congress. He also attended the Constitutional Convention and was one of the signers of the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787; and other Founders and Framers)(see Wikipedia), with the signature of President George Washington on both acts, in the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, respectively, did not distinguish whether the child born to an alien was born in or out of the United States. In either case, the child was not a citizen and had to naturalize, either derivatively from the naturalizing parent if done before the child reached the age of majority or on his or her own if done thereafter. <br /><br />Yet Justice Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) made the statement that the United States following the revolution and the adoption of the Constitution and down to 1898 adopted and used the English common law as the basis for the rules of decision for defining our national citizenship. <br /><br />Would anyone care to offer an explanation as to why Justice Gray would make such a statement? <br /><br />Can anyone find any legal or historical support for what Justice Gray said?Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-53470770572664899172011-01-16T09:44:32.376-05:002011-01-16T09:44:32.376-05:00smrstrauss is incorrect.
Tories/Loyalists, specif...smrstrauss is incorrect.<br /><br />Tories/Loyalists, specifically those who served with the British Army were barred from naturalization. <br /><br />Therefore, under the 1795 Uniform Naturalization Act, et seq, his children born in the United States to a U.S. wife would not be citizens at birth, nor eligible to naturalize until they turned twenty-one. <br /><br />Read the naturalization acts carefully. There is no exception for native-born children of aliens being citizens at birth. They only became citizens upon naturalization of the parent/father.<br /><br />The courts undermined legislated act by introducing one small aspect of English law and calling it a principle and precedent to follow, which was a violation of jurisprudence and the constitution.<br /><br />We are now suffering the consequences of liberal judicial activism, or calling it what it was, stupidity and lack of due diligence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-52155839895403308892011-01-13T17:30:34.909-05:002011-01-13T17:30:34.909-05:00In regards to the Natural Born Citizen Clause, tho...In regards to the Natural Born Citizen Clause, those who are well familiarized with Chapter 6 of Locke's second Treatise on Government, labeled "Paternal Power", at once know what a Natural Born Citizen is...the natural product of his Citizen Father who rears the child up in his own Citizenship. It is not from the mother, but from the father...or as Locke puts it, "of Paternal Power."<br /><br />http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=222&chapter=16297&layout=html&Itemid=27<br /><br />Notice he did NOT say parental, but paternal. He did not say maternal, but paternal. <br /><br />§. 52. "...in a discourse of this nature...which seems so to place the power of parents over their children wholly in the father, as if the mother had no share in it....<br /><br />§. 53. <br />...absolute dominion, and regal authority, when under the title of paternal power it seemed appropriated to the father...contend so much for the absolute power and authority of the fatherhood, as they call it....<br /><br />§. 59.<br />...all the laws a man is under...what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it..., at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him<br />till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government. ...<br /><br />There are numerous other points Locke makes on the same lines. <br /><br />Simply put: <br />A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is then defined for us as being that of a Son of his Citizen Father, born to the same soil and legience of his father, and reared up and taught in the land-legience-governance of his father naturally to join that same Government on the soil of his native birth as that of his father's, until he effectually takes his place as an extension of his father as a citizen in the land of his father...so that when the father dies, the citizenship of the nation is naturally extended, and does NOT die off. <br /><br />Without the father being a citizen of the same government and legience to which the child is born into, there is no presumption of a natural transition in both the law of nature AND the positive laws of an established government. In fact, there is a break in that "citizenship" if the child is born into the legience alien to that of the father, so that we cannot declare the child to be thus a "Natural Born Citizen" under Locke, nor under the later United States Constitution.Brianroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06460377944201908161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-28302542433801813852011-01-11T00:26:21.980-05:002011-01-11T00:26:21.980-05:00Mario & Charles.
Please go here and read.
Th...Mario & Charles.<br /><br />Please go here and read.<br /><br />There may be a possibility that an action launched in Hawaii would achieve discovery.<br /><br />http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-report-on-obamas-democratic-party.htmlMichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-38938707449684677862011-01-08T13:05:44.622-05:002011-01-08T13:05:44.622-05:00Another sell out. Speaker of the House John Boehn...Another sell out. Speaker of the House John Boehner was quoted as saying:<br /><br />"The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That's good enough for me."<br /><br />Wow, he would have made a great Founding Father:<br /><br />Speaker John Boehner - We declare our independence!<br /><br />King of England - You cannot do that because I say so.<br /><br />Speaker John Boehner - Okay, never mind.<br /><br />Maybe John Boehner isn't getting enough sleep at night and it is affecting his judgment. I hear that it is difficult to sleep without a backbone.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00506386638130850542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-91907192963234351962011-01-07T22:42:31.201-05:002011-01-07T22:42:31.201-05:00These are great arguments regarding the nuance of ...These are great arguments regarding the nuance of the law and all the mitigating issues, but they are mostly academic at this point, unless Taitz's case suddenly grows legs and runs. It is obvious that Congress and the Supreme Court are only interested in protecting the institution, not the Constitution.<br /><br />Instead,going after Obama for a specific harm he has caused would bypass the standing issue by a plaintiff. I reviewed all the executive orders, but couldn't find any that caused specific harm. Specific legislation that Obama signed was approved by Congress so dilutes the impact and requires a significant number of plaintiffs to get over the standing issue.<br /><br />If there are no specific harms caused by the executive orders, unless you want to represent some politically incorrect Iranians or Sudanese, could a class action lawsuit be initiated with 20 million signatures sufficiently to overcome the standing issue? This suit doesn't have to go all the way, just allow discovery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-21676832311933427092011-01-07T22:26:23.670-05:002011-01-07T22:26:23.670-05:00These are great arguments regarding the nuance of ...These are great arguments regarding the nuance of the law and all the mitigating issues, but they are mostly academic at this point, unless Taitz's case suddenly grows legs and runs. It is obvious that Congress and the Supreme Court are only interested in protecting the institution, not the Constitution.<br /><br />Instead,going after Obama for a specific harm he has caused would bypass the standing issue by a plaintiff. I reviewed all the executive orders, but couldn't find any that caused specific harm. Specific legislation that Obama signed was approved by Congress so dilutes the impact and requires a significant number of plaintiffs to get over the standing issue.<br /><br />If there are no specific harms caused by the executive orders, unless you want to represent some politically incorrect Iranians or Sudanese, could a class action lawsuit be initiated with 20 million signatures sufficiently to overcome the standing issue? This suit doesn't have to go all the way, just allow discovery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-87681253085999183422011-01-07T22:17:12.829-05:002011-01-07T22:17:12.829-05:00I think it likely that a suit directly going after...I think it likely that a suit directly going after the birth issue is pretty much dead in the water. Congress and the Supreme Court are more interested in protecting the system than the law.<br /><br />I reviewed all of the executive orders that have been issued but can't find any where there might be obvious harm. Is there any action that Obama has taken since he was sworn into office which caused specific harm? Is so, litigating that harm would bypass the standing issue and open the door for a suit against Obama for NBC status and ineligibility. <br /><br />If there has been no harm, then could a class action suit be brought to obviate the standing issue? Would 20 million participants be sufficient to get over the standing issue hump?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-40184853881511560502011-01-07T16:38:19.488-05:002011-01-07T16:38:19.488-05:00Ted said...
"Moreover, I think the new GOP Ho...Ted said...<br />"Moreover, I think the new GOP House of Representatives CAN take up the issue under new Speaker Boehner, saying the Old Congress was misled by Pelosi's Certification of Eligibility for Obama."<br /><br />in a more perfect world than ours...it would probably happen...but...in our real world where politicians remain above the law...a back door deal would probably be made that you and i would never hear about...jshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03556528525557443583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-54459316228526507182011-01-06T12:07:55.195-05:002011-01-06T12:07:55.195-05:00BREAKING NEWS, IN RED, ON DRUDGE:
Protester shout...BREAKING NEWS, IN RED, ON DRUDGE:<br /><br />Protester shouts ‘What about Obama?’ as congressman reads section of Constitution on presidential eligibility…developing…Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04011502155494655727noreply@blogger.com