Hawaii Department of Health Obama FAQ

Posted on January 25, 2010 by Dr. Conspiracy

This web page has been up since last summer, but somehow I failed to publish a link to it. I suppose in response to the flood of inquiries about Barack Obama’s birth certificate, the Hawaii Department of Health has decided to put up a web page just to address questions about the Department of Health regulations.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.

View all posts by Dr. Conspiracy →

This entry was posted in Birth Certificate. Bookmark the permalink.

481 Responses to Hawaii Department of Health Obama FAQ

Saint James says:

January 25, 2010 at 7:36 pm Saint James(Quote)

Dr.C, what do you think will the birthers say about the HDH Obama FAQ? LOL!

1. “Ahah! you would not have provided this link if you were not hiding something!”

2. “Ahah! you must have cleaned up Obama’s record that’s why you now provide the link!”

3. “You can provide all the links that you want, but according to Lucas Smith, Obama was born in Kenya”
misha says:

January 25, 2010 at 8:19 pm misha(Quote)

It doesn’t matter. The Constitution requires that both parents be citizens, to be president.

I can’t find anything myself, but Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo all say that’s the case. And they are the greatest constitutional lawyers in US history.

Orly Taitz for Attorney General!

(Did I pour on the sarcasm thickly enough?)
Black Lion says:

January 25, 2010 at 9:50 pm Black Lion(Quote)

This is even funnier…From our buddy Mario’s website…

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

“I believe that the RNC and DNC at the highest levels in 2008 were both complicit in shutting down all discussion of Obama’s eligibility issue in the Congress, Main Stream Media, Print Press, and in the leading conservative Talk Show radio stations. I believe that the RNC and the DNC were complicit in subverting Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of our Constitution as to the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President, i.e., the person eligible for that office must be a “natural born Citizen”, i.e., one born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country such that the child born has singular and sole allegiance at birth to the USA and no citizenship at birth with any other country via his parents or due to the place or location of birth. A natural born Citizen needs no law or resolution of Congress to give or clarify citizenship status. Natural born Citizenship status can only be obtained by the facts of nature at the child’s birth. This is natural law. This is what the founders and framers of our Constitution required for the singular and most powerful office of the President and Commander in Chief of the military. John Jay and George Washington put that requirement into the Constitution for exactly the reason that the person serving in that office would have no foreign influences on him/her at birth due to the facts and circumstances of his/her citizenship at birth. Only “natural born Citizenship” in the USA per natural law guarantees no other allegiance or citizenship claims by an another country at birth. If you are born on the U.S. soil of parents who are both citizens, no other country can claim you as a Citizen of their country and you are only governed by the laws of the USA at your birth. This is natural law as written by Vattel in 1758 in his legal book, “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law”. The 1775 edition of this legal book was used as a reference by Benjamin Franklin and other founders to set up our new nation in 1776 in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and also in drafting the new form of federal government in 1789 and the writing of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation.

Obama was born British. How can a person born a British Subject ever be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” of the USA, to constitutional standards? He cannot. Our founders must be rolling over in their graves witnessing what transpired in the 2008 election cycle.”
NBc says:

January 25, 2010 at 10:58 pm NBc(Quote)

Oh the ignorance… Well, it seems Mario is close to admitting defeat. Now the whole country was against him.
Saint James says:

January 25, 2010 at 11:10 pm Saint James(Quote)

HA HA HA HA HA…You almost got me there! ha ha ha ha. Thanks goodness I have to read your post twice! ha ha ha ha
Saint James says:

January 25, 2010 at 11:15 pm Saint James(Quote)

“Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so!”….Judge Land to Orly Taitz
misha says:

January 25, 2010 at 11:48 pm misha(Quote)

The time has come, the walrus said
To speak of many things
Of shoes, of ships, of sealing wax
Of cabbages and kings
And why the sea is boiling hot
And whether pigs have wings.
chufho says:

January 26, 2010 at 2:02 am chufho(Quote)

you got it right 2 parents
chufho says:

January 26, 2010 at 2:18 am chufho(Quote)

Does Dr. Fukuno have a law degree and if not how can you believe her interpitation of constitutional law.
misha says:

January 26, 2010 at 2:39 am misha(Quote)

“you got it right 2 parents”

Re-read my post verrrry carefully. And have more coffee.
misha says:

January 26, 2010 at 2:43 am misha(Quote)

“how can you believe her interpitation of constitutional law.”

She’s not interpreting anything. The Ark decision made anyone born on US soil a natural born citizen, as opposed to a naturalized citizen.

Obama was born in Honolulu, ergo he is NBC. Got it?
John says:

January 26, 2010 at 3:37 am John(Quote)

Wong Kim Ark was not delared a Natural Born Citizen. Wong Kim Ark was only declared a US Citizen although the court did state that Wong Kim was entitled to rights to that of a Natural Born citizen. A person who is a Natural Born citizen is based on Natural Law and no law or statue is required or needed to determine that he or she is a citizen because by natural law (Naturally or by a law of nature) a person born to citizens, members, or native of a community or country is by definition a citizen of that country. Laws likes the 14th Amendment basically provided a way for persons to recieve US citizen by birth by merely being born in the country. It could be considered a form of instantaneous naturalization. Persons who are NBCs don’t require the 14th Amendment or any other rule or statute to be declared as citizens.
misha says:

January 26, 2010 at 5:12 am misha(Quote)

John: I read on the internet that barnyard animals become skittish when you are near. Why is that? Are the rumors true?
misha says:

January 26, 2010 at 6:19 am misha(Quote)

Remember the sage words of SC Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer:

If you give a cat a fish, he will have a meal.
If you teach a cat to fish, he will empty your aquarium.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

January 26, 2010 at 7:47 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Dr. Fukino’s comment about Obama being a natural born citizen may be taken as her opinion (correct). Her statement about Obama’s vital records (birth certificate) saying he was born in Hawaii may be taken as authoritative.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

January 26, 2010 at 7:55 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Charles Kerchner: “I believe that the RNC and DNC at the highest levels in 2008 were both complicit in shutting down all discussion of Obama’s eligibility issue in the Congress, Main Stream Media, Print Press, and in the leading conservative Talk Show radio stations.”

OK, let me get this straight. The Republican National Committee conspired with the Democrats to get Obama elected, and Rush Limbaugh went along. The man has an obvious disconnect with reality. 🙄
Scientist says:

January 26, 2010 at 8:10 am Scientist(Quote)

As someone who has spent a lifetime studying the “laws of nature” I must ask you for the experimental evidence behind your statements. In fact, in most human and primate societies, the young frequently leave the band they were born into and attach to a different band. It’s nature’s way of reassorting the gene pool and preventing inbreeding.
John says:

January 26, 2010 at 8:49 am John(Quote)

Charles explained all this in a recent interview. I think he hits the nail right on the head. It believed that MSM blackout was started by the Bush Administration and is currently being perpetuated by the Obama administration. People have to remember that after Obama was elected by the people, there was transition period between the Bush and Obama Administration. It is believed, the Bush Administration knew Obama was inelgibilble but he been elected by the people. They feared that if they removed him for being ineligible there would be riots in the street. So the Bush Administration allowed Obama to serve despite ineligiblity because they thought it was in best interests of national security. The Bush Administration further contacted all the big MSM talking heads and told them that under no cirumstances are they the fuel the Birther Movement because there would riots in the street. The MSM media talking heads were threatened if they decided to go against this top directive. In my opinion this the only reasonable and rational explanation for continued Cone of Silence that is being orchestrated by the MSM.
kimba says:

January 26, 2010 at 8:59 am kimba(Quote)

“Allowed Obama to serve”??? And just why would the Bush Administration have the authority to “allow” anything? You live in a funny little fantasy world, John. Starting on November 5, 2008, Bush and his administration began to slip away from their responsibilities. By late December, the Bushes were gone. The moving vans had already removed the majority of their possessions when they for Texas for Christmas. Bush went to Texas and did not return to Washington until after the New Year started. Bush gave up the last two months of his Presidency to Obama and the transition team.
“Allowed”, “directives”, “orchestrated” my ass, John. Before 2008 was over, Bush had quit and gone home, relieved to dump his mess on Obama.
kimba says:

January 26, 2010 at 9:02 am kimba(Quote)

Note to John: Just because you say the same untrue thing over and over, doesn’t make it true. WTF, “instantaneous naturalization” not natural born? You’re off your nut if you have to reach that far to try to disqualify Obama. You are a ridiculous and silly person.
Greg says:

January 26, 2010 at 9:39 am Greg(Quote)

Is Dr. Fukino a mathematician? If not, how can you believe her when she says that 2 + 2 = 4?

Is she a rocket scientist? If not, how can you believe her when she says that the earth orbits the sun?
Black Lion says:

January 26, 2010 at 9:52 am Black Lion(Quote)

John, do you actually believe that garbarge? No wonder why the birther movement is filled with cranks and GOP politicans have been able to exploit them as much as they have. To take the large leap in logic to believe that the GOP and the Democrats, and Bush and Obama would agree on anything is astounding. But these are the same people that believe that a pregnant woman with no money would take a 3 day and 15,000 mile flight to visit Kenya to have a baby without any sort of proof so to them anything is possible.
Scientist says:

January 26, 2010 at 9:54 am Scientist(Quote)

John: So the Bush Administration allowed Obama to serve despite ineligiblity because they thought it was in best interests of national security.

So, John, why are YOU threatening national security?
Black Lion says:

January 26, 2010 at 9:58 am Black Lion(Quote)

Now John is attemting to show that he understands the law. And unfortunately for him he shows is absolute ignorance of the law or understanding of how it works…

First of all Justice Gray in the WKA ruling stated the following…

“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

“The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

“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. 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.”

Now unless English has changed that much since 1898 the part where Justice Gray says that “all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens”, means that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. The Wong ruling was very specific. It is just you have to stop listening to Mario and Leo to get your legal comprehension. So you can continue with your so called natural law nonsense all you want. But here in the real world we rely on written laws. And the Wong ruling has established as law anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen with 2 exceptions.
Black Lion says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:02 am Black Lion(Quote)

Charles is obviously delusional. I think Mario is afraid of him so that is why he continues to back Kerchner’s losing play. Mario has become so invested in the birther movement that he cannot get himself out. Even when faced with the obvious inaccuracies in his filings, he continues to go down the path of ignorance and losing. Anyone reading Kerchner’s rants can tell that he has some serious issues with reality. What is even more scary is that there are people like John that actually believe him…
John says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:13 am John(Quote)

One of the problems with Natural Born citizen is that it has never been litigated…in its proper context of Article II Section I of the US Constitution. Further while it can shown that in passing Natural Born citizen has been defined only to mean to born in this country, no SCOTUS decision has ever specifically defined what Natural Born citizen means under Article II Section I. Further, there has never any counter argument put forth to the court on this point. Finally, the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is not unnamious. Many court cases have distenting opinions which has shown that Natural Born citizen does mean born on US Soil to Parents who are US Citizens. If this argument ever does go before SCOTUS, it very possible to recieve a unnamious decision or an overwhemly majority that Natural Born Citizen means born on US Soil to Parents who are US Citizens. Birthers have built a magnificient case against Barack Obama’s Natural Born citizenship and Obots simply have no counter arguments to show that Obama is Natural Born citizen who was or is free from Foreign Influence and therefore eligible to serve as POTUS. Being free from Foreign Influence was pretty irrevelent in the Wong Kim Ark case, but is the heart of the Obama case.
Sallyven says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:17 am Sallyven(Quote)

Add Dr. John C. Eastman, a PhD and Professor of Law to your list of conspiracy nutjobs, because this legal memorandum he penned in 2006 clearly shows the error in Wong Kim Ark:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Legalissues/lm18.cfm

“It is today routinely believed that under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to obtain U.S. citizenship. However strong this commonly believed interpretation might appear, it is incompatible not only with the text of the Citizenship Clause (particularly as informed by the debate surrounding its adoption), but also with the political theory of the American Founding.”

“…Despite the clear holding of Elk and the persuasive dicta from Slaughter-House that mere birth on U.S. soil is not sufficient to meet the constitutional prerequisites for birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court held otherwise in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, with expansive language even more broad than the holding of the case itself. It is that erroneous interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, adopted 30 years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, that has colored basic questions of citizenship ever since.”

“…Justice Gray appears not to have appreciated the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.

More troubling than his rejection of the persuasive dicta from Slaughter-House, though, was the fact that Justice Gray also repudiated the actual holding in Elk, which he himself had authored… Justice Gray simply failed to appreciate what he seemed to have understood in Elk, namely, that there is a difference between territorial jurisdiction, on the one hand, and the more complete, allegiance-obliging jurisdiction that the Fourteenth Amendment codified, on the other.

Justice Gray’s failure even to address, much less appreciate, the distinction was taken to task by Justice Fuller, joined by Justice Harlan, in dissent. Drawing on an impressive array of legal scholars, from Vattel to Blackstone, Justice Fuller correctly noted that there was a distinction between the two sorts of allegiance—“the one, natural and perpetual; the other, local and temporary.” The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment referred only to the former, he contended. He noted that the absolute birthright citizenship urged by Justice Gray was really a lingering vestige of a feudalism that the Americans had rejected, implicitly at the time of the Revolution and explicitly with the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment.

… Indeed, Congress has by its own actions with respect to Native Americans—both before and after this Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark—rejected the claim that the Citizenship Clause itself confers citizenship merely by accident of birth. None of these citizenship acts would have been necessary—indeed, all would have been redundant—under the expansive view of the Citizenship Clause propounded by Justice Gray…”
Scientist says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:24 am Scientist(Quote)

John: If this argument ever does go before SCOTUS, it very possible to recieve a unnamious decision or an overwhemly majority that Natural Born Citizen means born on US Soil to Parents who are US Citizens

You mean this SCOTUS?? The one standing there at the inauguration? How much are you willing to wager???

http://filer.case.edu/ned2/Thomas_sleeping.jpg
Bovril says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:37 am Bovril(Quote)

With regard to “Dr” Eastman, anyone who holds to the disgustingly racist elements of The Slaughterhouse Cases has serious issues.

AND…..expect the stake to be finally plunged firmly into the heart of this as part of the upcoming McDonald v Chicago case before the Supreme Court.

Whilst the case is one regarding the incorporation of the Second Amendment it is being asked under both the due process and P+I elements of the 14th Amendment.

Actual constitutional scholars who are following this are generally of the opinion that Slaughterhouse and it’s ilks will be firmly kicked into touch.
Scientist says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:38 am Scientist(Quote)

Silly Sally-I hope you read the entire poece, not just the part you like. Prof Eastman is arguing that Congress should pass a law denying citizenship to the child of 2 illegal aliens. Even if I bought his argument (I don’t) and such a law were found constitutional (unlikely) you must understand that it would not deny citizenship to the US-born child of a US citizen, which Obama is. Furthermore, even in the event that such a law were passed and found constitutional it could not be applied retroactively. Barack Obama’s citizenship is established by the law at the time of his birth, which is crystal clear that he was and always will be a citizen at birth.
Lupin says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:53 am Lupin(Quote)

Meretricious Mario wrote:

“How can a person born a British Subject ever be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” of the USA… Our founders must be rolling over in their graves…”

Remind me already, where did these darned founders came from?
Black Lion says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:53 am Black Lion(Quote)

John, again shows siginificant ignorance of the law. A ruling in front of the SCOTUS does not have to be unanimous. For instance in Wong, the court ruled in favor of Wong 6-2. So there were only 2 out of 8 justices that agreed with the ridiculous theory that a NBC needed 2 citizen parents. And in the past 100 years, Wong has been positively cited over 1000 times and has been used many times as the ruling to reference regarding citizenship. Now you delusionally think that somehow in 2010 if a case did go in front of the SCOTUS, that they would rule any different. Scalia and Roberts have already spoken highly of the Wong ruling. As a matter of fact could you give me one justice that you feel would overturn Wong? Maybe in the birther world of fantasy, but in the real world it’s not going to happen. Birthers have built cases not based on any laws. That is why they have gone 0 for 66. The birthers are just too obtuse to understand that this issue is dead. President Obama is the lawful President and a NBC is someone that is born in the US regardless of the citizenship status of the parents or abroad to 2 parents that were citizens…
Lupin says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:54 am Lupin(Quote)

“…the earth orbits the sun…”

Die, heretic, die!

🙂
Black Lion says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:56 am Black Lion(Quote)

Basically Eastman has a beef with how Gray ruled. Tough. The SCOTUS decided the way they decided. They heard the so called birther arguments from George Collins and specifically ruled against that argument. They preferred to rely on English Common law. But Eastman never addresses the issue of a baby being born to one US citizen so you can’t be sure of is opionion in that case. I would imagine his thoughts would be a bit different.
Black Lion says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:58 am Black Lion(Quote)

They were of mostly European descent…Which was why English was the language spoken here and English common law was used to base our legal system on….Of course the birthers neglect that piece of history…
Lupin says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:59 am Lupin(Quote)

Black Lion: “Mario has become so invested in the birther movement that he cannot get himself out.”

IMHO, Mario will get out exactly 1.5 seconds after his client’s first check bounces or he stops being paid.

Not that I would blame him, mind you.
Lupin says:

January 26, 2010 at 11:01 am Lupin(Quote)

This might be more convincing if, in fact, your primary Vattel didn’t totally contradict you and state that “Natural Law” (whatever that is) only required one parent for the child to be a native (NBC). Tough luck.
Lupin says:

January 26, 2010 at 11:03 am Lupin(Quote)

Tell that to our future presidents, little Pablo, little Kim or little Isaac.
misha says:

January 26, 2010 at 11:12 am misha(Quote)

“Tell that to our future presidents, little Pablo, little Kim or little Isaac.”

Which is exactly what is going to happen. I can’t wait for this crowd to face voting for ~~Kenneth The Page~~ Jindal.
Saint James says:

January 26, 2010 at 11:12 am Saint James(Quote)

John you said …”Natural Born citizen is that it has never been litigated”?

Come on John, where have you been? There are so many precedential court decisions about what natural born citizenship means.

Let’s make it easy for you shall we? But promise that you’ll read it with a keen comprehension!

Ankeny v Indiana (court of appeals decision) This is a of November 12, 2009
“Barack Hussien Obama is a NATURAL BORN CITZEN of the United States of America”
chufho says:

January 26, 2010 at 12:18 pm chufho(Quote)

with the possibility of being born elseware and to have the birth registered in hawaii this would still be opinion (trust but verify). And as to the opinion of being a natural born citizen shows that to much ambiguity exists. Otherwise she would have not had to offer an opinion. She would have had to only state that he has a birth certificate on file which is still no proof only a statement of conjecture
chufho says:

January 26, 2010 at 12:27 pm chufho(Quote)

mathematics is an absolute science, with the same set of factors we should all come to the same conclusion.As to a natural born citizen it is not a mathematic problem it is a legal problem only remedied by careful thought and debate and to have all the facts decided by people way more competant than any of us.I wish it was as simple as 2+2=4.
chufho says:

January 26, 2010 at 12:30 pm chufho(Quote)

it was to be a monumental election of obama but if it was dicovered that he was not elligble (riots in the street) was the fear
NBc says:

January 26, 2010 at 12:34 pm NBc(Quote)

Let’s look at a few devastating examples

First some warm-ups

Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) 96 F.3d 1467, affirmed.

There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that 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.” 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.

US v Marguet Pillado 560 F.3d 1078

It is a commonplace that the traditional ways of transmitting and acquiring citizenship at birth are jus soli and jus sanguinis. In this country, the former is provided for by the Constitution,2 and the latter is provided for by the enactments of Congress.3

Podea v Marshall, 83 F.Supp. 216 (1949)

Note: It is a long recognized and well established principle that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890; Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320.

And it is equally well established in our law that the plaintiff, while an infant could not divest himself of such citizenship, whether by his own acts, or the acts of his parents. In re Reid, D.C., 6 F.Supp. 800, 805; McCampbell v. McCampbell, D.C., 13 F.Supp. 847, 849; United States ex rel. Baglivo v. Day, D.C., 28 F.2d 44; Perkins v. Elg, supra, 307 U.S. at page 334, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320.

Consequently, the naturalization of plaintiff’s parents as Roumanian citizens while he was an infant had no legal effect upon plaintiff’s American citizenship. True, under Roumanian law, he thereby became a national of Roumania, and was subject to its laws while in residence there; but, rather than losing his citizenship thereby, he acquired dual nationality. Perkins v. Elg, supra; United States ex rel. Rojak v. Marshall, D.C., 34 F.2d 219; United States ex rel. Scimeca v. Husband, 2 Cir., 6 F.2d 957, 958; In re Reid, supra, 6 F. Supp. at page 804.

Vassilios v Kennedy 95 F.Supp. 630 (1961)

Note: A man born in the US to Greek Parents, considered to be a Greek citizen under Greece’s Jus Sanguini rules and a US citizen under the 14th Amendment was found to be a natural born citizen of the United States. Both the fact that he was born to two aliens and the fact that he possessed a dual allegiance formed no objection to the ruling that he was a natural born citizen

Tomasicchio v Acheson, 98 F.Supp. 166 (1951)

Note: The following ruling in the District of Columbia outlines how citizenship is not an issue of international law but rather municipal law. And how in the United States, a child born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents, is a citizen. Furthermore, it describes in significant detail the concept of Dual Nationality. This should lay to rest most of the claims that President Obama, by virtue of being born with dual allegiances, was not a natural-born citizen. Since, as many have observed, the Constitution only recognizes two forms of citizenship, namely a natural-born citizen and a naturalized citizen, the precedents in the Court that find that Dual Citizenship is not a disability to maintaining one’s US citizenship, even when voting, or taking part in a foreign country’s military.

Civil Rights Act 1866, Mr Raymond

I do not see where we get any authority to except these native-born Africans from the general rule of law that all born upon the soil are subjects of citizens of the Government. That is the rule in England, it is the rule in France, it is, and always has been, the rule in this country. There are only two classes of citizens, so far as I can detect, provided for in the Constitution of the United States. In the second article, I think, it is declared that none but a “natural born” citizen shall be President of the United States. That clause, and the one relating to naturalization, implying that there may be naturalized citizens, are the only two classes designating the classes of citizens within the contemplation of the Constitution of the United States.

Mission Failed….
Black Lion says:

January 26, 2010 at 12:34 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Whatever…Obviously the birthers think everyone is as stupid and myopic as they are…If he was ineligible, people would have been fine with it. You are crazy to think that there would be “rioting”. But you would have needed proof, which you did not have then and do not have now because the President was born in HI.
Black Lion says:

January 26, 2010 at 12:40 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Not at all…She said “Born in Hawaii”…She did not say born somewhere else and registered in HI, a statute that did not exist in 1961 and would not allow the birthplace to say Honolulu. So your “possibily” becomes not possible in the real world of facts. Her statement is authoritative because she is the only person allowed by law to make that statement. And she said it with absolute clarity. Born In Hawaii….
Black Lion says:

January 26, 2010 at 12:43 pm Black Lion(Quote)

It is…Born in the US you are a natural born citizen. It is really that simple. You are the one making it more complex by inventing other classes of citizens, pretending that the phrase “born in Hawaii” could mean something else, and trying to ignore a mountain of real evidence to believe in conjecture and individuals with agendas and criminal records. For 63 million Americans, it is that simple, for 1% of kooks, it isn’t. That is too bad for them…
SFJeff says:

January 26, 2010 at 12:45 pm SFJeff(Quote)

“It is believed, the Bush Administration knew Obama was inelgibilble but he been elected by the people”

Ummm what about before the election? Did the Bush Administration suddenly realize the day after the election he wasn’t eligible? Hint: if President Obama wasn’t eligible after the election, the same people would have realized he was not eligible before the election.

And exactly how would any of this rational explain why John McCain wouldn’t have raised any objection? He could be ranting about this on the Senate floor if he wanted to? Or Hilary Clinton before the primary?

“In my opinion this the only reasonable and rational explanation for continued Cone of Silence that is being orchestrated by the MSM.”

Your ratinoal explanation is a vast conspiracy involving both political parties(one of whom is doing everything it can to thwart President Obama’s goals, and also the Republicans), every congressperson, every media source, the Supreme Court- oh and the voters too, since we all were complicit in voting him into office.

Or perhaps the more rational explanation of why the media is not reporting this issue is the same reason they are not reporting on controversy about Flat Earth, or how we never landed on the Moon.

Either there is a vast conspiracy that controls all politicians and media sources, but oddly enough allows loud mouthed individuals to run around screaming the truth, or nobody else but those individuals believes in the conspiracy.
NBc says:

January 26, 2010 at 12:55 pm NBc(Quote)

It is consistent with history, legal and legislative precedent.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

January 26, 2010 at 12:59 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

While law isn’t quite math, both use logic applied to rules to come up with conclusions.

However, in the case of the natural born status of folks like Omama, a dozen courts have already decided.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

January 26, 2010 at 1:03 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

“Trust but verify” sounds good, except that Obama eligibility denialists trust nothing and reject all verifying evidence.
SFJeff says:

January 26, 2010 at 1:07 pm SFJeff(Quote)

Am I missing something? President Obama was confirmed as President over a year ago, and I haven’t seen the strong influence the Kenyan government has had over him. Or maybe I have missed him ceding over territory back to Great Britain?

I really love the rational of this argument-the President must be free of foreign influence- yet a year later there is absolutely no evidence that he has favored any of the various countries that Birthers claim he might be a citizen of.

This is of course irrelevant to the actual eligibility issue- as are their arguments- but I think it shows what common sense will tell people: Just because a baby is born with dual citizenship(or eligibility for dual citizenship), does not mean that he or she will have any allegiance to other countries.

In my business we are expected to use “reasonable care” in complying with government regulations. Reasonable care is usually defined to us as what a “reasonable” person would expect under those circumstances.

“Reasonable” people do not have any concerns about President Obama’s eligibility, and we all used ‘reasonable care’ when we voted him into office.
SFJeff says:

January 26, 2010 at 1:11 pm SFJeff(Quote)

“One of the problems with Natural Born citizen is that it has never been litigated…in its proper context of Article II Section I of the US Constitution. Further while it can shown that in passing Natural Born citizen has been defined only to mean to born in this country, no SCOTUS decision has ever specifically defined what Natural Born citizen means under Article II Section I.”

If this is a real concern, wouldn’t this have applied to all of our previous Presidents? If there is no common understanding of what NBC means, then how could voters have known whether President Bush or President Clinton were eligible?

The answer is, the voters do understand what NBC means. And they voted with that knowledge. There is a small minority of people who want to overthrow that election by any means possible. I think that is wrong.
Scientist says:

January 26, 2010 at 1:13 pm Scientist(Quote)

Jeff- No, the conspiracy even includes the birthers. Notice how they always mangle grammar, spelling and syntax and say things so obviously wrong it takes no more than a quick Google to disprove them. Of course, they are really brilliant, highly educated scholars, every last one, but they are required to pretend to be stupid ignoramuses so that the world will underestimate them.
NBc says:

January 26, 2010 at 1:38 pm NBc(Quote)

It is believed, the Bush Administration knew Obama was inelgibilble but he been elected by the people.

It is believed that we are visited by aliens… Come on John, there is no foundation for your beliefs, other than a dislike of Obama and his policies. Why not stand up like a man and admit to this?
NBc says:

January 26, 2010 at 1:51 pm NBc(Quote)

And logic is something birthers often tend to avoid. Point in case John and Sven…
SFJeff says:

January 26, 2010 at 1:55 pm SFJeff(Quote)

what does “it is believed” even mean? Its like saying “mistakes were made”- who the hell made them? Who believes this John?- if its your opinion, say “I believe”
Miss M says:

January 26, 2010 at 1:57 pm Miss M(Quote)

@Scientist Your above post:

So what you just explained to John is what is wrong with his brain. He is probably a product of inbreeding. Which is likely why he can’t grasp common logic and he speaks in circles.

I understand you. But that is because my parents weren’t related.
NbC says:

January 26, 2010 at 2:08 pm NbC(Quote)

Now you are misrepresenting Wong Kim Ark. In fact the 14th amendment proponents clearly claimed that it merely repeated that which the Constitution already provided for.

Birth on Soil has always been the natural way.

That you want to reinterpret the facts is interesting but they are not supported in any fact, legal or legislative precedent.

Not bad though…
Bob Weber says:

January 26, 2010 at 3:12 pm Bob Weber(Quote)

misha: (Did I pour on the sarcasm thickly enough?)

Misha, just add a dash of Tabasco to the sarcasm and it’s great on scrambled eggs!
Bob says:

January 26, 2010 at 3:16 pm Bob(Quote)

From the DoH’s FAQs:

The index data regarding President Obama is:

Birth Index
Obama II, Barack Hussein
Male

To request index data, provide a first and last name of the individual, and the type of event. There is no cost for the first two requests; all subsequent requests require a prepayment of $7.50 per individual and event requested along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope….mailed to:

State Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801

NO COST for the first two requests for index data!

Has anybody requested this index data?
Bob Weber says:

January 26, 2010 at 3:19 pm Bob Weber(Quote)

Apuzzo: “Obama was born British. How can a person born a British Subject ever be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” of the USA, to constitutional standards? He cannot. Our founders must be rolling over in their graves witnessing what transpired in the 2008 election cycle.”

And yet, between the 2004 Dem National Convention, when Obama prominently mentioned his Kenyan father (after which Obama began to be touted as a future candidate), until well into the 2008 election campaign, not a single commentator of whatever legal expertise so much as hinted that his Kenyan ancestry posed any legal impediment to becoming president! Not even Donofrio, Apuzzo, or Taitz!
NBc says:

January 26, 2010 at 3:23 pm NBc(Quote)

Obama was born British by statute and born a US citizen by Common Law practice. Furthermore, somehow Apuzzo believes that the Founders would let other nations decide who would be natural born US citizens. Of course, since it is municipal law and not international law which guides jus soli citizenship, Mario is going to have a hard time explaining why the Founders would have granted other Countries a right that most countries retain to themselves.

From a logical and legal perspective there is just no foundation for an argument here Mario…
NBc says:

January 26, 2010 at 3:25 pm NBc(Quote)

Yes, James Ho has done some excellent work showing Eastman’s lack of foundation and poor scholarship. Eastman is arguing the losing side’s position, of course, that’s too bad.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

January 26, 2010 at 3:35 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Mario said somewhere he’s taken this on for free.
NBc says:

January 26, 2010 at 3:48 pm NBc(Quote)

More troubling than his rejection of the persuasive dicta from Slaughter-House, though, was the fact that Justice Gray also repudiated the actual holding in Elk, which he himself had authored… Justice Gray simply failed to appreciate what he seemed to have understood in Elk, namely, that there is a difference between territorial jurisdiction, on the one hand, and the more complete, allegiance-obliging jurisdiction that the Fourteenth Amendment codified, on the other.

In fact Justice Gray explains in quite some detail why he is not impressed by the dicta in the Slaughterhouse case and why Elk, is not at odds with his ruling.
At least, once one understands the special position Indians not paying taxes have historically played.
During the 14th Amendment, the argument was raised that the definition “subject to jurisdiction” would make Indians citizens. This was strongly denied by observing that historically Indians not paying taxes are ‘foreign countries’ and thus birth in a foreign country does not make one a US citizen, even though born on US soil, since one is, historically speaking, not under full jurisdiction of the US. The same applies to invading military and children born to foreign dignitaries like Consuls etc.

The concept of allegiance, while interesting, is not really that relevant to the 14th Amendment, but it may help to understand that the term allegiance is similar to the concept of under jurisdiction thereof.

A child, born on US soil, is under full jurisdiction and allegiance of the the United States, even though his parents may claim him as a citizen of their native country. Such however does not make these children not subject to jurisdiction or not owing allegiance to the United States, unless their parents, at the time of their birth, were protected by consulary status (diplomatic immunity) or were invading military or belonged to Indians not paying taxes. In all these cases, well understood in law and common law, the children would not be under the jurisdiction of the United States.

The mere possibility that when returning to the native country of the parents, this country could claim the child as a citizen has no relevance as to whether or not the child was born also under jurisdiction of and under allegiance of the United States of America. The allegiance these Children owe to the US is direct, immediate and complete while residing under US jurisdiction.
Under well established principles, a child when reaching the age of majority can decide with birth right citizenship to pursue. The fact that a child remains located in and loyal to the country of his native birth further supports the only logical conclusion that such a child is a natural born citizen of the United States by Common Law. That under foreign statutes, he may also be a citizen of other countries is of no relevance here.

Eastman indeed, is attempting to undermine the whole concept of birthright citizenship, disallowing well established principles which make any child born on US soil, with minor exceptions, a natural born US citizen.

Even if Eastmen were to believe that a mere law could undo Constitutional principles, this has no relevance to the present topic.

The Slaughterhouse dicta needs to be read in its proper context which suggests at best that at the time the Court realized that the issue of the status of children born to alien parents was not fully resolved.
Thus much of the same Court outlined this in Minor v Happersett and when the Supreme Court finally visited the status of children born to aliens in Wong Kim Ark, it finally settled the issue in favor of Common Law principles.

In fact Justice Miller, in the Slaughterhouse Cases observed

The distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.

Born or naturalized…

The same Justice Miller had also observed

Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:

The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

As Justice Gray observed in Wong Kim Ark

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship),

reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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 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.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.

As to Elk

The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State but who did not appear to have been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen either by the United States or by the State, was not a citizen of the United States, as a “person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the clause in question.

That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was

not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance;

that, by the Constitution, as originally established, “Indians not taxed” were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives in Congress and direct taxes were apportioned among the [p681] several States, and Congress was empowered to regulate commerce not only “with foreign nations” and among the several States, but “with the Indian tribes;” that the Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States, but were alien nations, distinct political communities, the members of which owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes and were not part of the people of the United States; that the alien and dependent condition of the members of one of those tribes could not be put off at their own will without the action or assent of the United States, and that they were never deemed citizens except when naturalized, collectively or individually, under explicit provisions of a treaty, or of an act of Congress; and therefore that

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Certainly President Johnson in his failed attempt to veto the 1866 Civil Rights act understood the meaning of allegiance and ‘subject to foreign power’ to include children born to aliens such as Gypsies or Chinese.

And that view was supported by reference to the debates in the Senate upon that act, and to the ineffectual veto thereof by President Johnson in which he said:

By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians 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, mulattoes, 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 facts speak for themselves.
Black Lion says:

January 26, 2010 at 4:05 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Bob, the birthers don’t want the answers…They want to be ignorant so that they can perpetuate their ridiculous conspiracy theories…
Black Lion says:

January 26, 2010 at 4:08 pm Black Lion(Quote)

It is kind of interesting that the so called birther and overall hero of the right, Palin, is now on Team McCain again…

http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/sarah_palin_now_on_saudi_payroll_campaigns_for_rino_mccain/

If I recall McCain is considered to be a RINO so is she abandoning her tebagging base to move more to the center in order to have a chance at winning? Because it seems kind of contradictory to appear at teabag events and then support McCain….
Bob says:

January 26, 2010 at 4:47 pm Bob(Quote)

If I donated a dollar to wikipedia, would the good doctor be kind enough to request the index data, and post what he receives?
Greg says:

January 26, 2010 at 5:45 pm Greg(Quote)

The definition of natural born citizen and whether Obama is one isn’t a legal “problem.” The two-parent theory is less accepted by the legal community than Creationism is accepted by scientists, probably even less accepted than the Flat Earth theory.
Greg says:

January 26, 2010 at 6:12 pm Greg(Quote)

John:

1. Not everything has to be litigated. Some things never will be litigated.

2. All but one of the current justices has signed onto an opinion upholding WKA.

3. I’ll debate you or any other birther in any fair forum.

4. It’s “dissenting,” not “distenting.” You can get a browser add-on which will check your spelling. Unfortunately, there isn’t anything yet to check your logic.
SluggoJD says:

January 26, 2010 at 9:18 pm SluggoJD(Quote)

John, are you on dope?

Barack Obama is President of the United States.
You, on the other hand, are a low life.

In Fantasyland, “a magnificent case against Barack Obama’s Natural Born citizenship” exists.

But in the real world, we laugh our asses off, at all you nutcases who need to get a life.

John, I mean you no harm, even though you’re deluded and mentally disturbed. But I do think you have a serious problem with reality.

Good luck with your inevitable rehab program.
Expelliarmus says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:39 pm Expelliarmus(Quote)

Bob, if you request the index data, you will received a piece of paper with the following information:

Birth Index
Obama II, Barack Hussein
Male

Why would anyone waste the cost of postage to send away for the very information that they have posted on the web site?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

January 26, 2010 at 11:56 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

No. I already blew $5 on a Letter in Lieu of a Certified copy that I never got.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

January 27, 2010 at 12:07 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Apuzzo: “Obama was born British. How can a person born a British Subject ever be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” of the USA, to constitutional standards?

Every signer of the Declaration of Independence was a British subject, as were the writers of the Constitution, its ratifiers and the first few Presidents. I do not think they would roll over in their graves if a former British subject born in the United States became president. You know?
richCares says:

January 27, 2010 at 1:06 am richCares(Quote)

Birthers lost the election, they lost all court cases, they have absolutely no chance of removing Obama (their goal). Their legal theories are over the top (ridiculous) and going nowhere.

So what are they trying to accopmplish by rehashing garbage, other than proving they are losers! Their efforts are useless, strange people they be.
chufho says:

January 27, 2010 at 1:25 am chufho(Quote)

is there a distinction in the constitution for the qualifications of citizenship for congressmen and president and if there is can you explain what the framers meant by being a citizen and a natural born citizen
chufho says:

January 27, 2010 at 1:46 am chufho(Quote)

nothing has yet been verified is why questions still remain . the distinction in the constitution about requirements has yet to be visited
Mario Apuzzo says:

January 27, 2010 at 1:58 am Mario Apuzzo(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy,

I see that you and your people here are still peddling that cockamany idea that the Founders, who had just fought a successful war against the British, used feudal British common law that talks about subjects being born in the obedience, dominions, and perpetual primal natural allegiance of the King to decide who would be eligible to be President and military leader of the new Constitutional Republic.

Oh, and by the way, the Founders proved their loyalty to the new nation by fighting in the revolution. What has Obama done?
misha says:

January 27, 2010 at 2:20 am misha(Quote)

Mario: I have a dilemma.

A man is shot and killed in the center of the Four Corners monument.

When the police arrive, they find the victim in a fetal position, in the exact center of the marker. The victim’s shoes and socks have been removed, and placed in each quadrant of the monument.

Which state would try the murderer: AZ, CO, NM or UT?
misha says:

January 27, 2010 at 2:42 am misha(Quote)

“the Founders proved their loyalty to the new nation by fighting in the revolution. What has Obama done?”

Obama is good, but he cannot time travel. (bada-bing)
Mario Apuzzo says:

January 27, 2010 at 2:45 am Mario Apuzzo(Quote)

misha: Mario: I have a dilemma.A man is shot and killed in the center of the Four Corners monument.When the police arrive, they find the victim in a fetal position, in the exact center of the marker. The victim’s shoes and socks have been removed, and placed in each quadrant of the monument.Which state would try the murderer: AZ, CO, NM or UT?

Misha,

Why don’t you ask your jackass questions of someone else who may be lucky enough to be part of your avant-garde milieu.
misha says:

January 27, 2010 at 2:49 am misha(Quote)

“by fighting in the revolution. What has Obama done?”

He has challenged Gordon Brown to an arm wrestle. (bada-bing)
Lupin says:

January 27, 2010 at 2:55 am Lupin(Quote)

I don’t believe that for a minute. Look at his past character, practice, zero interest in the issues beforehand…
misha says:

January 27, 2010 at 3:00 am misha(Quote)

A tad irritated, are we?

OK, here’s another one: did Joseph Farah rape and murder a barnyard animal in 1990? I’m not saying he did, I’m just asking a question that should be answered.
Lupin says:

January 27, 2010 at 3:02 am Lupin(Quote)

Could you confirm here for the record that you’re working pro bono on this case?

(Personally, I do not object at all to you taking your clients to the cleaners and charging as much as you can get away with.)
misha says:

January 27, 2010 at 3:08 am misha(Quote)

“Could you confirm here for the record that you’re working pro bono on this case?”

Speak slowly into the microphone. Thank you.
misha says:

January 27, 2010 at 3:33 am misha(Quote)

“part of your avant-garde milieu”

Well, I am a photographer.
bob says:

January 27, 2010 at 3:38 am bob(Quote)

Because birfers have this weird obsession with paper versions, see….
misha says:

January 27, 2010 at 5:59 am misha(Quote)

“Why don’t you ask your jackass questions”

Mario: how do you determine which questions are legitimate,and which are jackass questions?
Greg says:

January 27, 2010 at 6:15 am Greg(Quote)

You’re still peddling your nonsense that the Founders were morons.

They had to have used British common law terms to mean something else (are you still saying it’s from Dutch law?) without telling anyone!

If only the founders had written something down – instead you’re left to rely on code (“It says Law of Nations, that MUST mean Vattel!”). Oh, and the ever popular – Reading the Founders’ minds!

Mario, your Constitutional analysis is embarrassingly bad. You should leave it to trained experts.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

January 27, 2010 at 7:22 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Mr. Apuzzo:

You are still peddling that cockamamie idea that the Founders, following the Revolutionary War, became suddenly repulsed by their British heritage and became instant Alglophobes. In fact Americans claimed the British Common Law as their birthright and one of the reasons that the Revolutionary war was fought was the denial by England of parts of the British common law to America.

Yet the colonists insisted from the beginning on the limitation of this “due Subordination.” It was limited first by the rights inherent in the status of subjectship, rights embodied in and defined most clearly by the common law that Americans claimed as their birthright.

The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870, James H. Kettner, Chapel Hill, 1978, p 149 ff.

I suppose those ignorant of the American Revolution might be fooled by your plausible sounding talk, but it is contrary to fact. While Americans did certainly take issue with ideas such as perpetual allegiance, they did not jettison the legal framework underlying all of the colonies/states after the war. This is evidenced by colonial enactments before and after the revolution affirming the principle of citizenship by place of birth.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

January 27, 2010 at 7:31 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

chufho: is there a distinction in the constitution for the qualifications of citizenship for congressmen and president and if there is can you explain what the framers meant by being a citizen and a natural born citizen

Yes, of course. The Constitution makes two references to types of citizen, the naturalized citizen (the Congress has the power to legislate a uniform system of naturalization) and the natural born citizen (in the qualifications to be president). The general term “citizen” encompasses these two. For example, see the Justice Gray writing for the US Supreme court decision in Elk v. Wilkins:

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which 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;’ and the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.

and the US Supreme Court, in Schneider v Rusk:

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1.
Scientist says:

January 27, 2010 at 7:42 am Scientist(Quote)

chufho-I don’t know if you are pretending not to know, but there is no mystery. Naturalized citizens are those who were not citizens at birth, but became citizens at some point later on. They can and do serve in Congress-Sen Martinez is one, having been born a Cuban citizen in Cuba.

Natural born citizens are simply those who are citizens at birth, either by birth in the US or to US citizens abroad. And that’s how the voters understand things and why they (excepy for you and 10 or so of your pals) had no problem voting for either Obama or McCain for President, but wouldn’t vote for Schwazenegger unless the Constitition were amended.
ballantine says:

January 27, 2010 at 10:27 am ballantine(Quote)

Yes, the founder generation hated the British so much they all continued their English-based colonial governments and adopted the English common law.

“The common law of England, so far as it was applicable to our circumstances, was brought over by our ancestors, upon their emigration to this country. The Revolution did not involve in it any abolition of the common law. It has been adopted or declared in force by the constitutions of some of the states, and by statute in others; and where not explicitly adopted, it is yet considered as the law of the land, subject to modifications and express legislative repeal. The common law of England, applicable to our situation and government, is the law of this country, except where altered or rejected by statute, or varied by local usages, under the sanction of judicial decisions.” James Kent, William Hardcastle Browne, Commentaries on American Law, pg. 212 (1894).

“The constitution of New York, of 1777, declared that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, as, together with the acts of the colonial legislature, formed the law of the colony on the 19th of April, 1775, should continue to be the law of .the state, subject, &c. So the common law and statute law of England were referred to in Missouri by the statute of 14th January, 1816, as part of the known and existing law of the territory, so far as the same was consistent with the law of the territory, and which, in a modified degree, was the Spanish law. The common and statute law of England, prior to the fourth year of James I., and of a general nature, were adopted by the convention of Virginia, in 1776, and in 1795 and 1805, by the government of Ohio ; and such is the substance of the statute law of Arkansas. 2 Ark. 206. But the Ohio statute was repealed in 1806. In the Revised Statutes of Illinois, published in 1829, it was declared that the common law of England, and the English statutes of a general nature made in aid of it, prior to the fourth year of James I., with the exception of those concerning usury, were to be rules of decision until repealed. In 1818, the common law was adopted by statute in the State of Indiana, and in 1835, in Missouri, under the same limitations ; and it is understood that the common law and the statute law of England, down to the year 1776, and applicable to their constitution and circumstances, are the law in the states of Mississippi and Georgia. In the latter state the same was declared to be in force by the statute of February 25, 1784. So the common law of England and the statute law of England, prior to 1760, were adopted by statute in Vermont, so far as they were not repugnant to the constitution or statute law of the state. James Kent, John Melville Gould, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Commentaries on Americican Law Vol 1 pg. 643-44 (1901).

The founding generation saw the rights of the common law as their birthright that their ancestors brought over from England which is why founders such as Patrick Henry and George Mason wanted the English common law adopted in the Consitition itself.

“The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.” Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, pg. 65 (1833)
chufho says:

January 27, 2010 at 11:03 am chufho(Quote)

So the fact that obama was born a british subject on US soil would then make him a naturalized citizen if we apply the logic the Dr. has spoken about.
Scientist says:

January 27, 2010 at 11:20 am Scientist(Quote)

Absolutely not, because he was ALSO born a US citizen. Why is it so hard to understand that something can have more than one chracteristic? An apple is red and an apple is a fruit.

Let me give you a concrete example and see if that penetrates your unusually thick cranium:

A Canadian-born man and a Mexican-born woman living in the US get married and have a child. Regardless of whether they naturalized as US citizens that child would have 3 citizenships, US-due to birthplace, Canadian from his father and Mexican from his mother.

Now we can add in a couple of wrinkles, just for fun:

The child moves to France and becomes a citizen there. Now he would have 4 citizenships.

Here’s a further wrinkle. The Caribbean island of Domenica will sell you a citizenship, with no requirement that you ever live there or give up other citizenships. It costs around $100,000. So, if this person can afford the fee, he could add that one too. He would legally have 5 citizenships with 5 passports.

Now let’s pretend he is miraculously brilliant. He is a natural born US citizen so he becomes President of the US. He also becomes President of Mexico and Prime Minister of Canada. Then, because he has a few spare moments, he becomes President of France. After serving brilliantly in all 4 jobs, he decides he has earned a nice retirement, so he moves to Domenica and becomes Prime Minister. Do you get it now???
ballantine says:

January 27, 2010 at 11:49 am ballantine(Quote)

In the early republic, it was understood that only someone born on foreign soil could be naturalized and the term couldn’t apply to the native born. For example:

“But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disabilities of alienage… Congress has power ” to establish an uniform rule of naturalization….An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject…The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.” George Washington Paschal, The Constitution of the United States defined and carefully annotated, note 274, (1968)
NbC says:

January 27, 2010 at 12:12 pm NbC(Quote)

So the fact that obama was born a british subject on US soil would then make him a naturalized citizen if we apply the logic the Dr. has spoken about.

Missing the point again. Citizenship under the US Constitution which is based on English Common Law, is based on birth on US soil which makes one a natural born citizen, regardless of the status of the parents

Statutory Law of England made Obama also a British Subject at birth, such unfortunate dual nationalities are unavoidable but have no effect on a US citizen’s status.

Since Obama clearly elected to pursue his US birthright, the fact that he may have also held other citizenships has no relevance to US law.

Hope this clarifies.

Naturalization can happen at birth or at a later time, in both cases through statutory acts. Obama’s status however is not guided by statutory law but rather the Constitution which outlines the Common Law principle.
NbC says:

January 27, 2010 at 12:18 pm NbC(Quote)

Who are you kidding here Doc, Chufho must surely be aware of these facts and is just playing dumb or is trolling.
I feel generous today and will accept a trolling conclusion…
Greg says:

January 27, 2010 at 1:51 pm Greg(Quote)

is there a distinction in the constitution for the qualifications of citizenship for congressmen and president and if there is can you explain what the framers meant by being a citizen and a natural born citizen

Do you think that citizen and natural born citizen are mutually exclusive terms?

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

It is clear that when the Constitution says “citizen” as a requirement for Congress, it is talking about a class of people that must include the natural born. I mean, surely you aren’t contending that “citizen” is meant to exclude the natural born from serving in Congress, right?

It is also clear that the class of people must include naturalized citizens, since it talks about a time requirement in addition to an age requirement. A Senator must be 30 years old, and a “citizen” for 9 years. If he was born a citizen, he would have been a citizen for 30 years, minimum.

So, it’s clear that citizen is a term that includes natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.

Congress is later given the power to naturalize citizens, so this is consistent with that power.

At no point in the Constitution is there any suggestion of a third category of citizen – someone born here who is not a natural born citizen!

The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution this way – there are two ways to become a citizen, and two only – birth and naturalization.

I can count the number of legal scholars who agree with the 2 parent theory on zero fingers. I can count the number of legal scholars who agree with the idea that the children of illegal aliens aren’t natural born citizens on one or two hands.
chufho says:

January 27, 2010 at 3:06 pm chufho(Quote)

then how many ways can a person be naturalized. I contend that a child born of an alien on US soil is naturalized and not natural born as outlined in the constitution
NbC says:

January 27, 2010 at 3:07 pm NbC(Quote)

then how many ways can a person be naturalized. I contend that a child born of an alien on US soil is naturalized and not natural born as outlined in the constitution

Not according to US Constitution and the Courts
But let that not concern you too much.
SFJeff says:

January 27, 2010 at 3:39 pm SFJeff(Quote)

“I contend that a child born of an alien on US soil is naturalized and not natural born as outlined in the constitution”

The voters also disagreed with you.

I believe that there are specific laws which have to be followed to apply to be naturalized- I think they need to apply and renounce all foreign citizenships.
Scientist says:

January 27, 2010 at 3:41 pm Scientist(Quote)

NbC: I contend that a child born of an alien on US soil is naturalized and not natural born as outlined in the constitution

If by alien, you mean a being from outer space, then you may be correct, since the 14th Amendment says “person” (sorry, Misha, your cat is not a citizen, even if it is an American Shorthair). If you mean a human you are wrong.

If you think I am mocking you, you are correct. After 62 court losses and 1 year into Obama’s Presidency you need to stop wasting the few neurons you still have on this “issue” and try to use your limited brainpower on something more useful. Seriously.
Scientist says:

January 27, 2010 at 3:43 pm Scientist(Quote)

I meant the above comment for chufho, the original “contender”, not NbC who responded.
Mike says:

January 27, 2010 at 3:56 pm Mike(Quote)

I contend that a child born of an alien on US soil is naturalized and not natural born as outlined in the constitution

And I can contend that the moon is made of green cheese – that doesn’t stop it being a big fricking rock.
Mike says:

January 27, 2010 at 3:58 pm Mike(Quote)

It’s easy – questions by Mario always fall into the latter category.
misha says:

January 27, 2010 at 6:37 pm misha(Quote)

“I contend that a child born of an alien on US soil is naturalized and not natural born as outlined in the constitution”

Bully for you. I contend that my cat is capable of voting. I contend that my car has a soul, like a person.

I contend that you cannot comprehend the Ark decision, because you are psycho.
NbC says:

January 27, 2010 at 6:54 pm NbC(Quote)

No freebies from Mario 🙂

I understand… These are trying times
misha says:

January 27, 2010 at 6:56 pm misha(Quote)

“(sorry, Misha, your cat is not a citizen, even if it is an American Shorthair).”

Excuuuse me.
Northland10 says:

January 27, 2010 at 7:56 pm Northland10(Quote)

The birthers want to argue the original intent of the founders. As a guide it might help to see what they said. There may be some sense in the explanation for the citizen requirements for Senators found in the The Federalist Papers.

“… and which, participating immediately in the transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils.” (The Federalist No. 62)[1]

“…foreign birth and education”
There is no mention of parents citizenship, only the individual. It sounds like they are stating: “born and fully raised” in a foreign country. I would assume “education” would be mean raised or brought up, since a strict adhearance to “foreign education” would disqualify anybody who studied abroad.

The birthers seem to be stuck in the, title, nobiliity, citizenship and station stem from your father. That is rather un-American.

Since they think truth only comes from the internet, I am going to properly cite my source which came from a book on my desk (though have some pity, my Turabian/CMS is a little rusty).

[1]Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, The Federalist, a Commentary on the Constitution of the United States, ed. Robert Scigliano (New York: Random House, Inc., 2000), 35.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

January 27, 2010 at 8:55 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

An online copy is available at: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed62.htm
Dr. Conspiracy says:

January 27, 2010 at 9:02 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

I actually met the Prime Minister of Dominica quite a few years ago when she was visiting the US.
Hawaiiborn says:

January 28, 2010 at 2:19 am Hawaiiborn(Quote)

chufho: January 27

Unfortunately for you there are only two ways to become a citizen

Being Naturalized – born of foreign citizenship, moving to the US and taking up the pledge and oath to become a citizen of the US

Natural Born – born on US soil as defined by the Constitution and SEVERAL supreme court cases.

The citizenship of parents do NOT in any form, weigh on the citizenship status of their child.
Hawaiiborn says:

January 28, 2010 at 2:21 am Hawaiiborn(Quote)

false. Obama has been verified by Congress and the STAte of Hawaii of being born in the US.
chufho says:

January 28, 2010 at 2:28 am chufho(Quote)

with no leg to stand on, always resort to name calling
northland10 says:

January 28, 2010 at 7:22 am northland10(Quote)

You are much nicer to the “must provide a link crowd” than I. I am probably just getting snide (and not, obviously, not enough coffee yet this morning).
Dr. Conspiracy says:

January 28, 2010 at 7:51 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

In the end, I think that with this issue a nice answer and a sarcastic answer have the same probability of success: zero. Nevertheless, if Sven, Joseph and their tribe are just getting their jollies by stirring people up, a soft short answer does not feed that troll agenda. In the end, no one takes insults seriously and I started this blog to be taken seriously.

Long-time readers know that I get riled up like everyone else, but I think it’s counter productive and I’m trying to be more thoughtful, more civil and less of an advocate in my comments. Things like “how do you figure that” or “explain the reasoning there” put the burden on those who hold views to understand why they say what they say better.
richCares says:

January 28, 2010 at 11:17 am richCares(Quote)

Hate for Obama does strange things to a birther, they believe the most ridiculous crap without a shred of evidence, they accept garbage from un-named sources because they hate Obama. They quote the most ridiculous comments and believe them without flinching. They never show proof, who needs proof, not a birther. Really strange how reason just seems to go over their heads. Sure, Obama’s mother took a difficult trip back to a third world country to have a baby then had to invent paper that he was born in USA on her return. (though no flights at the time account for it) Birthers appear to occupy the Twilight Zone. They need to return to the mental illness ward.
SFJeff says:

January 28, 2010 at 1:26 pm SFJeff(Quote)

I keep wanting to write a “Unified Theory of why Barry Soetero Ossama Obama is not Eligible to be President” but I can’t remember all of the theories well enough.

Let me make one attempt:

Ann Durham was pregnant by Frank Marshall, and her parents had her marry a Kenyan student- Barrack Obama Sr. in order to prevent anyone from knowing that she had gotten pregnant out of wedlock.

Then shortly before her due date, her husband whisked her off to Kenya where Barry was born in a hut in Obama’s ancestral with Afri-Grannie watching.

U.S. Grannie then filed forged paperwork with Hawaiin officials to cover up that Barry was born in Africa, and arranged to have the newspaper announcements made.

Barry and Mom flew back to Hawaii, and Barry was raised as an American. Later Mom met Soetero and married him- he was then recalled to Indonesia and later had his wife and young Barry come join him. While in Indonesia, 6 year old Barry stood up in front of the U.S. Consul and firmly renounced his U.S. Citizenship, which of course was immediately accepted and processed. Soetero then adopted Barry and they all lived together as a typical Indonesian family until they didn’t.

Barry returned to Hawaii with his Indonesian citizenship intact and perhaps went to school there- but there are no records of him actually attending any schools- so who knows?

At some point Obama Sr. flies back to Africa and disputes the adoption in Courts, and all the records are sealed.

When Barry turns eighteen he forgets to declare his U.S. citizenship and becomes Stateless/British/Kenyan citizen. He attends college receiving scholarships reserved for Indonesian/Kenyan nationals.

While in College he travels to Pakistan to attend a radical Madrassah on his Indonesian passport, because Indonesians could travel anywhere in those days.

While he is in Pakistan he is inducted into a Muslim worldwide conspiriacy to destroy the United States and the puppet masters decide he is the perfect one to be elected President of the United States in 20 years.

He returns to the U.S., a secret Muslim/Communist/Indonesian sleeper agent and starts planning his Presidential aspirations.

Knowing the political climate, he graduates from Harvard Law and doesn’t follow the money making route of big law firms but decides that community activism would be the ideal road to the Presidency.

okay…I can’t go on- but thats a start.
misha says:

January 28, 2010 at 1:36 pm misha(Quote)

What’s the difference between an incontinent dog with food agression, and a birther?
aarrgghh says:

January 28, 2010 at 2:27 pm aarrgghh(Quote)

sfjeff, bravely:

I keep wanting to write a “Unified Theory of why Barry Soetero Ossama Obama is not Eligible to be President” but I can’t remember all of the theories well enough.

i think you forgot when young barry osama returns alone to the u.s. as an indonesia refugee as well as the whole “mom slept with everyone in cuba and their pets” adventure …
Black Lion says:

January 28, 2010 at 2:36 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Or you forgot the part about Young Barry being declared a Indonesian refugee and that is how he was able to return to the US…Or how his mother showed her hatred of the US by marrying foreign men of color…And how he strongarms Columbia University to give him a degree even though he never went to class…And while in Pakistan met with the Taliban…
SFJeff says:

January 28, 2010 at 3:30 pm SFJeff(Quote)

I nominate Misha to rewrite it all into a coherant mass of incoherant theories.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

January 28, 2010 at 5:25 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

I want to hear the part about Obama and the Pirates!
misha says:

January 28, 2010 at 6:56 pm misha(Quote)

“a coherant mass of incoherant theories.”

Is that like organized confusion?
SFJeff says:

January 28, 2010 at 7:35 pm SFJeff(Quote)

“I want to hear the part about Obama and the Pirates!”

I was wondering who would ask about that story.

Obama Sr. as everyone knows was a radical muslim. One of his sons(Obama’s half brother) made the short walk to Somali to join the pirates- this is part of the reason why Barry was groomed to be President- so that once he was elected the radical Muslims could start their campaign of pirate terror with the knowledge that a President Obama would not allow any harm to Somali Pirates.

And where do you think all that money is going anyway? Barry hasn’t provided any proof that he isn’t receiving money from Somali Pirates.
misha says:

January 28, 2010 at 11:38 pm misha(Quote)

Yeah, and where’s the proof that Obama Sr. wasn’t a communist agent, sent by Patrice Lumumba. And how do I know the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth? Obama never denied it.
Gordon says:

January 29, 2010 at 1:49 am Gordon(Quote)

LMAO! Misha your scenario made no mention of an offender in custody. No offender, no murder trial.
MichaelN says:

June 12, 2010 at 8:41 pm MichaelN(Quote)

misha: “The Ark decision made anyone born on US soil a natural born citizen, as opposed to a naturalized citizen.Obama was born in Honolulu, ergo he is NBC. Got it?

No it didn’t.

The decision was ‘citizen’ ONLY, under 14th Amendment.
misha says:

June 12, 2010 at 8:45 pm misha(Quote)

MichaelN: No it didn’t.The decision was citizen’ ONLY, under 14th Amendment.

Are you a lawyer, or a parrot?
MichaelN says:

June 12, 2010 at 8:50 pm MichaelN(Quote)

From Calvin’s case, cited as the authority on English common law and the basis of the judiciary’s opinions in Wong Kim Ark case, whci by the way was not about presidential eligibility, but rather whether born in US gave birth-right to US ‘citizen’ .. nothing to do with ‘natural born’.

“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”

In other words in English common law, the same law that the judiciary in Wong Kim Ark court relied on …………………. born in the land is NOT called ‘natural’.

It is the allegiance to the ‘natural liege’ king that gives the British subject the term ‘natural’, not being born in the land.

Here’s more from Calvin’s case.

“By all which it evidently appeareth, that they that are born under the obedience, power, faith, ligealty, or ligeance of the King, are natural subjects”

The US equivalent to an English ‘natural born subject’ is a 14th Amendment ‘citizen’.
MichaelN says:

June 12, 2010 at 8:58 pm MichaelN(Quote)

misha:
Are you a lawyer, or a parrot?

From the text of Wong Kim Ark court.

The aim of the case.

Justice Horace Gray..

“The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States,…….
…..becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution”

The DECISION of the case (no ‘natural born’ anywhere to be seen) Wong got ’14th Amendment ‘citizen’ and ‘citizen’ ONLY.

“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, ………………..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.

Order affirmed.

* Acts of May 6, 1882, c. 126, 22 Stat. 58; July 5, 1884, c. 220, 23 Stat. 116; September 13, 1888, c. 1015, and October 1, 1888, c. 1064, 2 Stat. 476, 504; May 5, 1892, c. 60, 27 Stat. 25; August 18, 1894, c. 301, 28 Stat. 390.”

.
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:02 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: It is the allegiance to the natural liege’ king that gives the British subject the term natural’, not being born in the land.

And allegiance and birth on soil go together…

Sigh…
Do not waste your time with MichaelN who at PJ has shown that he is not interested in the facts.
MichaelN says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:04 pm MichaelN(Quote)

misha:
Are you a lawyer, or a parrot?

Nope, just a person who doesn’t believe in lies.
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:05 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN:
No it didn’t.The decision was citizen’ ONLY, under 14th Amendment.

And since there are only natural-born or natural-ized citizens and WKA could not be naturalised, the conclusion is simple that by ruling WKA a citizen under the 14th amendment he was a natural born.
Even the dissenting judge understood this.

We have gone through this before Michael, your unwillingness to familiarize with the facts or at least indicate that you are familiar with them is why you have been mostly ignored by PJers.
You have no interest in the facts.
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:05 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: Nope, just a person who doesn’t believe in lies.

Some would consider that statement to be at odds with the facts.
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:07 pm nbC(Quote)

From the government brief it is clear that the issue was whether or not WKA was a natural born citizen. The dissenting judge similarly accepted that the ruling declared WKA eligible for the Presidency.

So who are you trying to fool here?
MichaelN says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:08 pm MichaelN(Quote)

misha:
Are you a lawyer, or a parrot?

Nope, just a person who doesn’t believe lies.

nbC:
And allegiance and birth on soil go together…Sigh…
Do not waste your time with MichaelN who at PJ has shown that he is not interested in the facts.

I just posted verbatim what is said in Calvin’s case, a case that is cited as the paramount precedent in common law as regards the issue of ‘natural born’.

Don’t need to believe ANYONE, just take the facts as they stand.

Here’s a link to Calvin’s case, read for yourself …….
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:10 pm nbC(Quote)

On PJ MichaelN posted “Tim Adams Chief Elections Clerk exposes Obama Birth Certificate Scandal “…

And yet he also insists that he does not believe in lies. I am confused…
MichaelN says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:12 pm MichaelN(Quote)

nbC: From the government brief it is clear that the issue was whether or not WKA was a natural born citizen. The dissenting judge similarly accepted that the ruling declared WKA eligible for the Presidency.So who are you trying to fool here?

Here is Supreme Court judge, Justice Horace Gray’s initial statement in Wong Kim Ark court.

Quote:

“The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,”

Read it for yourself here……..
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:13 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: From Calvin’s case

You forgot the relevant part

Concerning the local obedience it is observable, that as there on the King’s part, so there is a (d) local ligeance of the sub this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. (e) and 3 and 4 Ail and Mar. Dy Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, a concluded (f) contraligeant’ su�¦ debitum; for he owed to the King that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection; which Loa but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a nat. he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject; a fortiori under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which, as it alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to subject; for localis ligeantia, est ligeantia intima et minima, et maxim? incerta. And it is to be observed, that it is nec c�¦lum, nec solum, neither the soil, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born; for come into the realm, and possess town or fort, and have issue the subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject protection of the King.
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:14 pm nbC(Quote)

A better transcription

Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori52 he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject;
</blockquote
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:16 pm nbC(Quote)

Showing that birth under the 14th Amendment is sufficient to make one a natural born citizen. The ruling is quite clear about that.

After all, even the dissenting judge agreed that WKA would be eligible to run for president under this ruling. In other words, being a 14th Amendment citizen by virtue of birth on US soil is sufficient and necessary for one to be a natural born citizen.
MichaelN says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:16 pm MichaelN(Quote)

nbC: From the government brief it is clear that the issue was whether or not WKA was a natural born citizen. The dissenting judge similarly accepted that the ruling declared WKA eligible for the Presidency.So who are you trying to fool here?

Here is Supreme Court judge, Justice Horace Gray’s initial statement in Wong Kim Ark court.

Quote:

“The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,”

Read it for yourself here……..
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

nbC: “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”

In other words in English common law, the same law that the judiciary in Wong Kim Ark court relied on …………………. born in the land is NOT called natural’.

It is the allegiance to the natural liege’ king that gives the British subject the term natural’, not being born in the land.

Here’s more from Calvin’s case.

“By all which it evidently appeareth, that they that are born under the obedience, power, faith, ligealty, or ligeance of the King, are natural subjects”

The US equivalent to an English natural born subject’ is a 14th Amendment citizen’.

Yeah it’s relevant to this part .

“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”

In other words in English common law, the same law that the judiciary in Wong Kim Ark court relied on …………………. born in the land is NOT called natural’.

It is the allegiance to the natural liege’ king that gives the British subject the term natural’, not being born in the land.

Here’s more from Calvin’s case.

“By all which it evidently appeareth, that they that are born under the obedience, power, faith, ligealty, or ligeance of the King, are natural subjects”

The US equivalent to an English natural born subject’ is a 14th Amendment citizen’.
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:17 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: I just posted verbatim what is said in Calvin’s case, a case that is cited as the paramount precedent in common law as regards the issue of natural born’.

You forgot to quote the relevant part that the child born to an alien while on the soil of the King would be born under allegiance of said king and thus be a natural born.

Jus soli my dear friend, it’s all about jus soli.
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:19 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: The US equivalent to an English natural born subject’ is a 14th Amendment citizen’.

So you are accepting that a 14th amendment citizen is a natural born citizen and eligible to run for the presidency?
That’s exactly what both the dissenting judge and the majority ruling agreed upon.

Well that settles it…
MichaelN says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:19 pm MichaelN(Quote)

nbC:
You forgot the relevant partConcerning the local obedience it is observable, that as there on the King’s part, so there is a (d) local ligeance of the sub this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. (e) and 3 and 4 Ail and Mar. Dy Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, a concluded (f) contraligeant’ su�¦ debitum; for he owed to the King that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection; which Loa but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a nat. he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject; a fortiori under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which, as it alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to subject; for localis ligeantia, est ligeantia intima et minima, et maxim? incerta. And it is to be observed, that it is nec c�¦lum, nec solum, neither the soil, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born; for come into the realm, and possess town or fort, and have issue the subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject protection of the King.

Doesn’t change anything, English common law, as I have cited verbatim from Calvin’s case is such that ‘natural’ is used to describe allegiance to a king, it has nothing to do with being born in the land.
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:22 pm nbC(Quote)

Doesn’t change anything, English common law, as I have cited verbatim from Calvin’s case is such that natural’ is used to describe allegiance to a king, it has nothing to do with being born in the land.

On the contrary it has all to do with being born in the land. You found one of the exceptions to natural born: children born to invading military or embassadors. However, the general opinion of Calvin, as accepted by legal scholars is that it is birth on soil that creates the allegiance which makes a child a natural born subject/citizen.

Birth and allegiance go hand in hand, with minor exceptions.
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:23 pm nbC(Quote)

Michael seems to be confused by the term allegiance and how allegiance arises. Calvin case explains that allegiance exists for a child born on its soil, to a foreigner, an alien and that such a child becomes a natural born citizen/subject.

Quote mining Calvin’s case causes MichaelN to fail to see the forest through the trees.
MichaelN says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:24 pm MichaelN(Quote)

nbC:
So you are accepting that a 14th amendment citizen is a natural born citizen and eligible to run for the presidency?
That’s exactly what both the dissenting judge and the majority ruling agreed upon.Well that settles it…

Can’t you read?
What the British call those who are born with a ‘natural’ allegiance to the king are ‘natural born subjects’, ‘born subjects’, subjects born’.
The word ‘natural’ ONLY means a natural allegiance to a ‘natural liege’ king, it has nothing to do with born in the land, as the verbatim quotes from the Calvin case have proven.
On the other matter WKA decision was ‘citizen’ – NOTHING to do with USC Art II ‘natural born citizen’.
MichaelN says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:26 pm MichaelN(Quote)

The US equivalent to what the British might call a ‘natural born subject’ is a US 14th Amendment CITIZEN, with nothing to do with the term ‘natural born’ as used in USC Art II eligibility for POTUS.
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:29 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: The word natural’ ONLY means a natural allegiance to a natural liege’ king, it has nothing to do with born in the land, as the verbatim quotes from the Calvin case have proven.
On the other matter WKA decision was citizen’ – NOTHING to do with USC Art II natural born citizen’.

Again contradicted by Justice Gray and the dissenting Judge who all observed that by virtue of birth on US soil, WKA was a natural born citizen.

Yes, Calvin’s case established the concept of birth on soil and allegiance since without allegiance there could be no natural born, even though born on soil. This led to the exclusion of children born to invading military and children born to foreign dignitaries. Calvin Case was the foundation for jus soli where birth on soil and owing allegiance, is sufficient to establish a natural born status.
MichaelN says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:32 pm MichaelN(Quote)

nbC: “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”

In other words in English common law, the same law that the judiciary in Wong Kim Ark court relied on …………………. born in the land is NOT called natural’.

You are speaking to an audience as if I am a third party, this is a problem you have, are you nervous to speak for yourself without the thought that you are being observed by the pack.

Here it is again, straight from Calvin’s case

“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”

I don’t know what’s your problem that you don’t comprehend, this is VERY clear-cut.
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:33 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: The US equivalent to what the British might call a natural born subject’ is a US 14th Amendment CITIZEN, with nothing to do with the term natural born’ as used in USC Art II eligibility for POTUS.

Justice Gray disagrees. He observed that the term is left undefined in the Constitution and its meaning should be found in Common Law. Common Law defined natural born, as you point out, the be born on US soil.

And if your argument were correct, the dissenting judge would not have made the mistake of concluding that under the ruling WKA would be able to run for President.

It’s clear that all agreed that birth on US soil, under the WKA ruling is sufficient to make one a natural born citizen (with some minor exceptions).

As scholars have observed

he decision in Calvin’s Case thus drew a distinction based upon time of birth, permitting Scottish children, but not their Scottish parents, to be natural subjects, thereby grounding the rule firmly in what we know today as the jus soli.

Ouch… So much for the hope of jus sanguinis to be the relevant issue.

As to the 14th Amendment, it merely captures that which makes one a natural born citizen, birth on soil, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Birth and allegiance…
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:34 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: You are speaking to an audience as if I am a third party, this is a problem you have, are you nervous to speak for yourself without the thought that you are being observed by the pack.

Again this claim is belied by my attempts, albeit somewhat foolish in retrospect, to educate you as to the case in question.

Quote mining without understanding the ruling leads to fallacies.

This is another example of this rule.
nbC says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:36 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: I don’t know what’s your problem that you don’t comprehend, this is VERY clear-cut.

That’s very ironic my dear friend. However, I am not confused about Calvin case establishing that it is birth on soil that makes a child, any child so born, subject to the allegiance of and jurisdiction of the King and thus a natural born. Under the same principles, this makes a child a natural born citizen in the US. Sure, it also makes him a 14th amendment citizen since the 14th Amendment merely formalized that which Common Law and the Constitution had already established.
One is either natural-born or natural-ized.
MichaelN says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:40 pm MichaelN(Quote)

nbC:
Again contradicted by Justice Gray and the dissenting Judge who all observed that by virtue of birth on US soil, WKA was a natural born citizen.Yes, Calvin’s case established the concept of birth on soil and allegiance since without allegiance there could be no natural born, even though born on soil. This led to the exclusion of children born to invading military and children born to foreign dignitaries. Calvin Case was the foundation for jus soli where birth on soil and owing allegiance, is sufficient to establish a natural born status.

After it was all said throughout the WKA case, all Wong got was 14th Amendment ‘CITIZEN’ – no ‘natural born’.

You are reading into things that simply are not there, this is a problem you have.

You chop and change to siut your agenda, one one hand you rely on a decision, then on another you cherry-pick comments that were spoken throughout a case and ignore the DECISION.

DECISION for WKA = ‘CITIZEN” – no ‘natural born’.
There is no way that your wish as to what decision you would like to have to further your agenda, is going to change that FACT
Wong = 14th Amendment ‘citizen’.
There is NOTHING in WKA case that was to address WKA’s eligibility for POTUS & the case was NEVER about POTUS eligibility.
MichaelN says:

June 12, 2010 at 9:41 pm MichaelN(Quote)

[This comment has been deleted because all it was was a personal insult. This is against the rules here. I can’t kill them all, but I got this one. Doc.]
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 12, 2010 at 10:24 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: There is NOTHING in WKA case that was to address WKA’s eligibility for POTUS & the case was NEVER about POTUS eligibility.

It is true that US v Wong was not about presidential eligibility; no case is. However, if you read the opinion, not just the finding in the case, you will find that the essential reasoning covers natural born citizenship.

But perhaps we should make an appeal to authority. Dr. Gabriel Chin (a law professor at the University of Arizona) published an article in the Michigan Law Review in September 2008 that said:

The Supreme Court has held that there are only two ways to become a citizen: 1) birth in the United States, thus becoming a citizen under the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or 2) satisfaction of every requirement of a statute enacted by Congress granting citizenship to a class of people. The second category includes naturalization of individual adults or children already born; collective naturalization of groups, such as natives of territory acquired by the United States; and naturalization at birth of certain classes of children born abroad to citizens. Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens. There is also a strong argument that those obtaining citizenship at birth by statute are natural born citizens, well articulated by Charles Gordon in Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma. However, natural born citizenship can be acquired only at the moment of birth. As stated by the leading Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, “ British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. . . . Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.”

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/mccain.pdf

What law school did you say you teach at?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 12, 2010 at 10:34 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: “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”

I don’t know what’s your problem that you don’t comprehend, this is VERY clear-cut.

I’m sorry, but I find that very funny. But antique English aside, you cite but apparently don’t understand what you cited. What you fail to realize is that allegiance and obedience in England is commanded of everyone born in the realm (except ambassadors and invading armies) and has nothing whatever to do with the status of one’s parents. No, it is not the soil or the climate: it is the political community, the law and the obedience due the country and its monach. Hawaii is part of the soil, climate AND political community of the United States, it law and the obedience due to its constitutional republic.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 12, 2010 at 10:45 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: The US equivalent to what the British might call a natural born subject’ is a US 14th Amendment CITIZEN, with nothing to do with the term natural born’ as used in USC Art II eligibility for POTUS.

You’re free to leave your opinion, but that opinion isn’t the opinion of the Supreme Court in US v Wong. You should read the Wong opinion. It is long, but it is full of interesting argument and citations. Wong cites Chancellor Kent approvingly when he says:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 3:39 am MichaelN(Quote)

From Calvin’s case………

Quote:
“And whosoever is born within the fee of the King of England, though it be in another kingdom, is a natural born subject”

As you can see from the quote above, what the British call a ‘natural born subject’ can NOT POSSSIBLY mean the same as what the founding framers meant & intended USC ArticleII ‘natural born citizen’ to mean.

.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 3:51 am MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
You’re free to leave your opinion, but that opinion isn’t the opinion of the Supreme Court in US v Wong. You should read the Wong opinion. It is long, but it is full of interesting argument and citations. Wong cites Chancellor Kent approvingly when he says:

The British were ‘subject’ ONLY to the king.

Calvin’s case……..

“Now are we to speak of legal ligeance, which in our books, viz. 7 Edw. 2. tit. Avowry 211. 4 E. 3. fol. 42. 13 E. 3. tit. Avowry 120, &c. is called Suit Royall, because that the ligeance of the subject is only due unto the King”

“King Edward the third became king of all France: and such as were born within that Earldom, so long as it was under the actual obedience of the King of England, were no aliens, but natural born subjects and never any offer made that we can find to disable them for forein birth.”
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 3:55 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: As you can see from the quote above, what the British call a natural born subject’ can NOT POSSSIBLY mean the same as what the founding framers meant & intended USC ArticleII natural born citizen’ to mean.

Again, your ‘argument’ is contradicted by the following facts

1. The term natural born is undefined in our Constitution
2. It’s meaning thus should be found in Common Law.
3. Common law defined natural born as born on soil, subject to jurisdiction

Calvin’s case shows the same: a child born to a french alien, if born on UK soil is a natural born British citizen/subject.

Allegiance and birth, go hand in hand.

Simple..
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 3:57 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: Dr. Conspiracy:
You’re free to leave your opinion, but that opinion isn’t the opinion of the Supreme Court in US v Wong. You should read the Wong opinion. It is long, but it is full of interesting argument and citations. Wong cites Chancellor Kent approvingly when he says:

The British were ’subject’ ONLY to the king.

Totally ignoring Dr C’s helpful comments.

Why is that?

Subject and citizen are equivalent. Rather than being subject to the jurisdiction of the King, the US natural born in subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. In common terms: the person is born under protection of the US laws, and owing obedience to said laws.

It’s trivially simple. And this has been explained to you many times already. What’s so hard to comprehend?
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 3:58 am MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
It is true that US v Wong was not about presidential eligibility; no case is. However, if you read the opinion, not just the finding in the case, you will find that the essential reasoning covers natural born citizenship.

If the ‘essential reasoning’ was so important, then do you suppose they forgot to include ‘natural born’ in the decision?
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 4:04 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: If the essential reasoning’ was so important, then do you suppose they forgot to include natural born’ in the decision?

Because it was self evident. From the ruling it is trivially self evident that natural born and 14th amendment born are equivalent concepts.

Ask yourself, if this was about 14th Amendment citizenship why did the Court look at the definition of natural born citizen…

There is but one reasonable conclusion, one which was well understood by the Government as well as the dissenting Judge, namely that the issue was really: was WKA a natural born citizen due to his birth on US soil, a concept which was merely clarified by the 14th Amendment.

Surely you must have read the congressional records of the discussions surrounding the 14th Amendment which clearly accepted that children born on US soil, even to aliens, would be natural born citizens eligible to run for President.

Ask yourself why the whole case was about the meaning of the term natural born citizen…
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 4:08 am NbC(Quote)

Just as a reminder to MichaelN, who has already acknowledged the following statement by Justice Fuller

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

The dissenting Justice understood the implications of the ruling by the majority.

And of course, even the government briefs clearly understood the issue

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… (p.2)

Everyone understood, the Government, the majority ruling, the dissenting opinion.
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 4:09 am NbC(Quote)

Of course the Government did not end its brief

Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patiots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? (p. 34)

The Government understood the implications of the lower court’s ruling and what the impact would be if the Supreme Court were to dismiss the appeal…
SFJeff says:

June 13, 2010 at 4:11 am SFJeff(Quote)

Michael,

If all of this was so obvious, why did the voters, by a large majority, elect President Obama?

Clearly the voters believe that the President, being born in Hawaii, was a natural born citizen. As did the Electoral College. As did Congress. As did Chief Justice Roberts.

So….how come you are the one person so much wiser than all of those people?
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 4:18 am NbC(Quote)

We can also look at Lynch v Clarke

Julia Lynch was born to English parents during a temporary sojourn in the United States.

t is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents. So if a Frenchman and his wife, came into England, and had a son during their stay, he was a liege man. This was settled law in the time of Littleton, who died in 1482. (Litt. Tenures, s. 198.) And its uniformity through the intervening centuries, may be seen by reference to the authorities, which I will cite without further comment.
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 4:21 am NbC(Quote)

Similarly in Inglis v Snug Harbor, another Supreme Court case

The rule commonly laid down in the books is that every person who is born within the ligeance of a sovereign is a subject and e converso that every person born without such allegiance is an alien. This however is little more than a mere definition of terms and affords no light to guide us in the inquiry what constitutes allegiance and who shall be said to be born within the allegiance of a particular sovereign or in other words what are the facts and circumstances from which the law deduces the conclusion of citizenship or alienage. Now allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign Two things usually concur to create citizenship first birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign and second birth within the protection and obedience or in other words within the ligeance of the sovereign That is the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power and the party must also at his birth derive protection from and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to the sovereign as such de facto
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 4:23 am NbC(Quote)

Michael, I sincerely hope that my research helps you better formulate your position and arguments. While you have refrained from accepting an invitation to formally debate the issues on Politijab, perhaps the good Doc will allow for such a discussion to take place.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 4:30 am MichaelN(Quote)

NbC:
Totally ignoring Dr C’s helpful comments.Why is that?Subject and citizen are equivalent. Rather than being subject to the jurisdiction of the King, the US natural born in subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. In common terms: the person is born under protection of the US laws, and owing obedience to said laws.It’s trivially simple. And this has been explained to you many times already. What’s so hard to comprehend?

To the British, their ‘natural born subject’ – (‘natural’ only because of allegiance to a jus sanguis king who inherited the position of ruler absolute) could be born abroad, was not eligible for the office of ruler absolute, owed allegiance solely to the ruler absolute whose tenure was passed via jus sanguinis, this ruler was not an elected ruler and was not subject to having to meet an eligibility requirement to assume office and it was a kingdom

The US Article II ‘natural born citizen’ term was coined as a security measure to qualify the executive ‘ruler’, had a birth-right to citizenship only if born in the land, the ‘citizen’ part of this term was already subject to the laws, constitution, etc of the republic so the term ‘natural’ had no use to establish subjugation status, the office that this term was aimed at protecting from foreign influence was not passed down via jus sanguinis, the person who attained this office was via election of the people and it was a republic that rejected the principles of kingdoms.

Chaulk & cheese.

Achieving the US republic’s equivalent of a British ‘natural born subject’ was already met by using the term ‘citizen’ i.e. one who is already subject to the law & constitution, etc.

This was ratified by the later 14th Amendment.
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 4:43 am NbC(Quote)

To the British, their natural born subject’ – (natural’ only because of allegiance to a jus sanguis king who inherited the position of ruler absolute) could be born abroad, was not eligible for the office of ruler absolute, owed allegiance solely to the ruler absolute whose tenure was passed via jus sanguinis, this ruler was not an elected ruler and was not subject to having to meet an eligibility requirement to assume office and it was a kingdom

Somewhat irrelevant

The US Article II natural born citizen’ term was coined as a security measure to qualify the executive ruler’, had a birth-right to citizenship only if born in the land, the citizen’ part of this term was already subject to the laws, constitution, etc of the republic so the term natural’ had no use to establish subjugation status, the office that this term was aimed at protecting from foreign influence was not passed down via jus sanguinis, the person who attained this office was via election of the people and it was a republic that rejected the principles of kingdoms.

Natural born citizen was used to distinguish from naturalized citizen. By limiting the presidency to natural born citizens, the goal was to eliminate the possibility of naturalized European monarchs or generals from gaining access to the Presidency of the United States.
Which is why Hamilton proposed that the President should be native born. A suggestion which was apparently taken seriously, hence the term natural born.

However you are missing the point of Justice Gray’s excellent argument

1. To establish if WKA was a US citizen, the Court had to establish the meaning of natural born citizen, as opposed to natural-ized citizen.
2. Since the Constitution did not define the term, its meaning had to be found as commonly used. Since it was a legal term, and the Constitution is a legal document, the Court found, as had other courts before it, that it had to look at the meaning of the term natural born in Common Law.
3. Under Common Law practices before and after the revolution, natural born referred to birth on US soil and birth subject to the jurisdiction of the US

It’s really that simple.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 4:44 am MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
It is true that US v Wong was not about presidential eligibility; no case is. However, if you read the opinion, not just the finding in the case, you will find that the essential reasoning covers natural born citizenship.

If the ‘essential reasoning’ was so important, then do you suppose they forgot to include ‘natural born’ in the decision?

NbC:
Because it was self evident.

Oh I see, ‘self evident’ kicks-in.

Please spare me this nonsense.

Ok, It’s ‘self evident’ that ‘natural born citizen’ per context of USC Article II is a security measure to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and that includes the influence of foreign parents.

It’s ‘self evident’ therefore that ‘natural’ & ‘born’ were added to ‘citizen’ (aka already subject to the laws, etc) to ensure jus soli – ‘born’ & ‘natural’ to ensure the best possible loyalty, dedication & allegiance via citizen parents.

Here’s some from Calvin’s case that speaks of the problems that arise from those not with so much ties to the nation.

“It followeth next in course to set down the reasons, wherefore an Alien born is not capable of inheritance within England, and that he is not for three reasons. 1. The secrets of the Realm might thereby be discovered. 2. The revenues of the Realm (the sinews of War, and Ornament of Peace) should be taken and enjoyed by strangers born. 3. It should tend to the destruction of the Realm. Which three reasons do appear in the Statutes of 2 Hen 5. cap. and 4 Hen. 5. cap. ultimo. But it may be demanded, Wherein doth that destruction consist; Whereunto it is answered; First, it tends to destruction tempore belli;174 for then strangers might fortify themselves in the heart of the Realm, and be ready to set fire on the Commonwealth, as was excellently shadowed by the Trojan horse in Virgil’s second Book of his Aeneid, where a very few men in the heart of the City, did more mischief in a few hours, than ten thousand men without the walls in ten years. Secondly, tempore pacis,175 for so might many aliens born get a great part of the inheritance and freehold of the Realm, whereof there shall follow a failure of Justice (the supporter of the Commonwealth) for that Aliens born cannot be returned of Juries for the trial of Issues between the king and the subject, or between subject and subject.”
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 4:49 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN:
Achieving the US republic’s equivalent of a British natural born subject’ was already met by using the term citizen’ i.e. one who is already subject to the law & constitution, etc.This was ratified by the later 14th Amendment.

Citizen of course required someone subject to the law and constitution but failed to take into consideration the other aspect of natural born, namely birth on soil.

The 14th Amendment congressional discussions clearly do not support your case. The 14th merely ratified the concept that there exists but two kinds of citizens, natural-born and natural-ized, the former through Common Law practices of birth on soil and subject to its jurisdiction, the latter through an act of congress, aka a statutory law.

In its discussions, the issue was raised if this would allow a child born to aliens to run for the office of the Presidency, and the answer was affirmative.

Again in line with Madison’s statement

“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.”
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 4:51 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: If the essential reasoning’ was so important, then do you suppose they forgot to include natural born’ in the decision?

They did not, as the dissenting Judge observed. Natural born and born on US soil were equivalent terms. Being a US citizen by birth makes one a natural born citizen as well as a 14th amendment citizen.
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 4:53 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: Ok, It’s ’self evident’ that natural born citizen’ per context of USC Article II is a security measure to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and that includes the influence of foreign parents.

That’s not the concern that Jay and the Founding fathers were dealing with. It was meant to prevent foreign influence, especially particular monarchs and generals from naturalizing in the US and running for the office of the President.

As Hamilton had already proposed that the president had to be native born, that term was used in a common variant in the Constitution.

As I said, it’s trivially simple
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 4:57 am NbC(Quote)

Remember that Jay has stated

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

Since a child born on US soil, is not a foreigner, and since such a child is natural-born, this is fully in line with Jay’s desires and worries.

It was Hamilton who had proposed earlier the following Constitution

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

Born a citizen – Aka natural born
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 5:04 am MichaelN(Quote)

NbC: To establish if WKA was a US citizen, the Court had to establish the meaning of natural born citizen, as opposed to natural-ized citizen.

This was a Horace Gray agenda to push his desire to push his ‘fix’ on the US Constitution.

Yes, Horace Gray, known for his tiresome exhaustive demonstrations of what an expert he thought himself on legal history, his fiddling of court transcripts and beholding to the usurper Chester Arthur, who deliberately misled & deceived to gain office (obviously because he himself thought he wasn’t eligible & burned his own records)

The WKA case could have been wrapped-up in one page, as 14th Amendment already said it all, both with regard to born citizens & naturalized.

The decision was for Wong to be 14th Amendment ‘citizen’, they didn’t deliberately leave out ‘natural born’ to be later ‘self evident’.

Horace Gray had bigger plans, that were to have historic precedents put in place, that would have a domino effect through the ensuing court opinions and decisions.
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 5:08 am NbC(Quote)

This was a Horace Gray agenda to push his desire to push his fix’ on the US Constitution.

A somewhat ad hoc explanation, would you not agree, especially in light of the significant precedent supporting Justice Gray’s ruling, which was not just his ruling but the Court’s ruling.

When reason fails, conspiracy festers… Thanks for showing us once again how reason is quickly abandoned when faced with the cold facts.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 5:09 am MichaelN(Quote)

NbC: It was Hamilton who had proposed earlier the following Constitution

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

Interesting that Hamilton’s proposal was improved upon to finally include the added ‘natural’ ………….. now why do you suppose that was?
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 5:16 am NbC(Quote)

The WKA case could have been wrapped-up in one page, as 14th Amendment already said it all, both with regard to born citizens & naturalized.

The decision was for Wong to be 14th Amendment citizen’, they didn’t deliberately leave out natural born’ to be later ’self evident’.

In fact, the WKA case was a culmination of various cases all reaching the same conclusion, a conclusion also strongly supported by scholarly researchers. The issue that needed to be solved in WKA is the definition of ‘citizen’ and especially natural-born citizen as opposed to natural-ized, as the latter was under control of statutes and thus Wong Kim Ark could be denied citizenship through that route.

Since the Constitution failed to define the term citizen and natural born citizen, the Court looked, as it and other courts had done before, to the meaning of the term in common law which led to the ruling in WKA. Of course, as I have shown, the ruling was not unique or unexpected, as various courts had reached the same conclusion. All that was required was for the Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of these terms once and for all.

The suggestion that Justice Gray was doing this for President Chester Arthur is not only unsupported by ANY evidence, contradicted by Dr C’s findings that Arthur’s alien father was well known in those days, and the real focus of those trying to deny Arthur’s presidency focused on the location of Arthur’s birth.

It fascinates me to see how easily Michael reverts to conspiracy when it contradicts his ‘arguments’, when there is a much simpler way of reconciling the facts with his ‘arguments’ which is to reject the latter.

I am not sure why you spent all this effort claiming that WKA was irrelevant only to now claim that WKA was meant to support Chester Arthur, as such you admit that WKA indeed makes a child born on US soil, to alien parents, eligible to the presidency.

Ironic isn’t it…
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 5:18 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: Interesting that Hamilton’s proposal was improved upon to finally include the added natural’ ………….. now why do you suppose that was?

THe latter term was well understood in US Common Law.

Ironically, the opposite happened in the NY Constitutional Conference where the term natural born was changed to native born to avoid confusion as to the manner of birth.

Showing how interchangable these terms really are.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 5:19 am MichaelN(Quote)

More from Calvin’s case, where ‘natural’ doesn’t necessarily relate to place of birth.

Quote:

“There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.

1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.

2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And

3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.

For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are Subjects to the king of England. 2.

The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject.

And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions.”
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 5:21 am MichaelN(Quote)

NbC:
THe latter term was well understood in US Common Law.
Ironically, the opposite happened in the NY Constitutional Conference where the term natural born was changed to native born to avoid confusion as to the manner of birth.Showing how interchangable these terms really are.

So it’s ‘US common law’ now, how convenient.

Yes, it’s interesting how ‘native’ was not used in USC Article II.

Now why do you suppose?
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 5:25 am MichaelN(Quote)

Here’s a ‘US common law’ without any precedent in either ‘US common law’ or British common law.

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 5:25 am NbC(Quote)

More from Calvin’s case, where natural’ doesn’t necessarily relate to place of birth.

Quote:

“There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.

1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.

2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And

3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.

Funny that second requirement. Which shows that birth on soil is a necessity for allegiance, at least under Common Law practices. It seems that Michael’s confusion is that birth and allegiance go hand in hand.
There are only a few instances where a child born on soil would not owe allegiance, even though born on soil.

This is exactly what courts in the US have found: Natural born means born on US soil, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which excludes children born to invading military or foreign dignitaries, and for a while Indians not paying taxes. These children were not born under the protection of and owing obedience to the laws of the United States.

What Michael also fails to appreciate is that the concept ‘jus soli’ was outlined in Calvin’s case where location of birth determines allegiance and thus if a child is natural born. Anyone born on the soil of the King would be under his ligeance, and thus natural born. Birth and location, as Madison so clearly explained, go hand in hand.

I am glad to hear that you have decided to delve a bit deeper into Calvin’s case, the foundation for the concept of jus soli which lies at the foundation of our great Nation as well.
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 5:29 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

And as I and others have patiently explained to you, this does not define the meaning of the term natural born, and thus by US jurisprudence, its meaning has to be found in Common Law. And the Common Law of those days defined natural born to refer to birth on soil, regardless of the status of the parents.

And this is not ‘common law’ but rather the US Constitution. Surely you must appreciate the difference?
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 5:31 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: So it’s ‘US common law’ now, how convenient.

Yes, it’s interesting how native’ was not used in USC Article II.

Because the term was well understood in Common Law. And while natural and native born are almost equivalent, there are instances, where native birth does not make one a natural born, such as in cases of children born to invading military and foreign dignitaries. But these are but minor exceptions
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 5:32 am NbC(Quote)

Michael does raise a good point: US Common law is somewhat of a misnomer as there is no common ‘us common law’. However, that’s not relevant, all that is necessary in this case is to observe that under common law practices before, during and after the revolution, natural born meant something well understood, namely birth on soil, subject to the jurisdiction of the government, regardless of the status of the parents.
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 5:37 am NbC(Quote)

Note also that there is no real legal or historical precedent that would allow one to interpret the term natural born to mean anything like that which MichaelN proposes.
northland10 says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:14 am northland10(Quote)

MichaelN: This was a Horace Gray agenda to push his desire to push his fix’ on the US Constitution.

Darn those liberal activist judges. 😉
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 13, 2010 at 9:21 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: More from Calvin’s case, where natural’ doesn’t necessarily relate to place of birth.

There is always a risk of imposing ones own preconceived notions when reading a text. I have this problem myself. It is important not only to see what the words say, but to understand what the words meant to those who wrote them, and to see what they mean in the larger context.

In this example, your error is failing to realize that in context, “parents be under the actual obedience of the king. ” means everyone born within the kinds dominion except those excluded from the obedience and that specifically foreign emissaries and invading armies. The place of birth determines the parent’s obedience and thereby the obedience of the child.

Do you think Barack Obama Sr. could have punched a Hawaiian policeman and said, “you can’t arrest me because I’m a British citizen and not under your jurisdiction?” The British Ambassador could do that, and his children born in the US wouldn’t be US citizens, but not Barack Obama Sr.
Scientist says:

June 13, 2010 at 10:06 am Scientist(Quote)

Michael N-You are correct that the Wong court didn’t specifically rule that he was a natural born citizen. They didn’t need to since he wasn’t running for President and courts tend to go only as far as they need to go in their rulings. They left the next step to future courts. That’s how the law works-a court says A, then another court, faced with a different set of circumstances says A + B. Then, later, another one says A + B + C and so on

So what did a real court (not internet wags such as you and me and nbc, but real honest to goodness judges) say, only a few months ago?:

“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude 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.”

Now, the problem you have is that they are real judges and you aren’t. So you are welcome to appeal to the US Supreme Court-the same court whose Chief Justice swore Obama in, the court that has so far refused to hear any appeals of dismissed birther cases. But unless and until they overrule Ankeny, I have to go with the real judges.
Greg says:

June 13, 2010 at 10:10 am Greg(Quote)

MichaelN:
This was a Horace Gray agenda to push his desire to push his fix’ on the US Constitution.Yes, Horace Gray, known for his tiresome exhaustive demonstrations of what an expert he thought himself on legal history, his fiddling of court transcripts

What is this nonsense?

and beholding to the usurper Chester Arthur, who deliberately misled &; deceived to gain office (obviously because he himself thought he wasn’t eligible &; burned his own records)

There is no proof that before the election he did anything to hide his father’s status. Many politicians burned their records.

And Gray wrote the same thing when he criticized Dred Scott twenty years earlier, when he was Chief Justice of Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court.

The WKA case could have been wrapped-up in one page, as 14th Amendment already said it all, both with regard to born citizens & naturalized.

See In re Look Ting Sing to see how Justice Field would have decided the case.

The decision was for Wong to be 14th Amendment citizen’,

The decision said the 14th Amendment did NOT change the way that we made citizens!

they didn’t deliberately leave out natural born’ to be later ’self evident’.Horace Gray had bigger plans, that were to have historic precedents put in place, that would have a domino effect through the ensuing court opinions and decisions.

Your conspiracy doesn’t make any sense. Gray wanted to legitimize Arthur’s presidency, so he made Wong only a citizen, not a natural born citizen?

Have you finished reading Wong Kim Ark yet, Michael?

I guess you missed this part:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

There is no citizen that becomes a citizen by being born here who is not a natural born citizen.

Tell us, Michael, if we cross out all of WKA that says Natural born citizen = natural born subject, how do you get from Wong being born here to Wong being a citizen?

What reasoning is left that makes him a citizen?

Enlighten us!
Sef says:

June 13, 2010 at 10:22 am Sef(Quote)

NbC: Michael does raise a good point: US Common law is somewhat of a misnomer as there is no common us common law’. However, that’s not relevant, all that is necessary in this case is to observe that under common law practices before, during and after the revolution, natural born meant something well understood, namely birth on soil, subject to the jurisdiction of the government, regardless of the status of the parents.

If there is no US common law then why is it mentioned in Amendment 7?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 13, 2010 at 12:51 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Sef: If there is no US common law then why is it mentioned in Amendment 7?

I think that in the case of the Amendment, they are talking about the rules and procedures of the court, not a general body of judicial precedent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Sef says:

June 13, 2010 at 1:19 pm Sef(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
I think that in the case of the Amendment, they are talking about the rules and procedures of the court, not a general body of judicial precedent.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Yes, I have read that Wikipedia entry & to me it says that the U.S. has a common law system. Agreed some states do not rely on common law (LA), but the vast majority do. I was under the impression that “common law” was a well-defined term which meant something quite different than “rules & procedures”.
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 3:44 pm NbC(Quote)

Sef:
If there is no US common law then why is it mentioned in Amendment 7?

For the same reason that the Constitution mentions Laws of Nation 🙂

The term ”common law” was used in contradistinction to suits in which equitable rights alone were recognized at the time of the framing of the Amendment and equitable remedies were administered.

As opposed to Common Law…
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm NbC(Quote)

Common Law, especially English Common Law was to certain and differing extents accepted by the various colonies and became part of the State Constitutions. Because of this, there did not exist a true Common Law at the Federal level.
This was argued by the defense, and recently also by Mario Apuzzo, who were missing the obvious fact that it was not argued that there exists a US common law but only that the meaning of terms not defined in the Constitution need to be found in Common Law

Again said: There is no unwritten or common law of the Union Lorman v Clarice 2 McLean 568 572 Fed Gas No 8,516. It is held in Wheaton v Peters 8 Pet 591 657 658: It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The federal government is composed of twenty four sovereign and independent states each of which may have its local usages customs and common law. There is no principle which pervades the Union and has the authority of law that is not embodied in the constitution or laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of our federal system only by legislative adoption When therefore a common law right is asserted we must look to the state in which the controversy originated, in Bucher v Railroad Co 125 US 583 8 Sup Ct Rep 974 it is said: There is no common law of the United States yet the main body of the rights of the people of this country rest upon and are governed by principles derived from the common law of England and established as the laws of the different states

Justice Gray himself addressed this in his ruling
NbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 3:53 pm NbC(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: I think that in the case of the Amendment, they are talking about the rules and procedures of the court, not a general body of judicial precedent.

Upper case Common Law versus lower case common law. Tricky stuff and Doc is correct.
Sef says:

June 13, 2010 at 3:56 pm Sef(Quote)

NbC:
Upper case Common Law versus lower case common law. Tricky stuff and Doc is correct.

OK, thanks for the enlightenment.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 6:30 pm MichaelN(Quote)

NbC: Michael does raise a good point: US Common law is somewhat of a misnomer as there is no common us common law’. However, that’s not relevant, all that is necessary in this case is to observe that under common law practices before, during and after the revolution, natural born meant something well understood, namely birth on soil, subject to the jurisdiction of the government, regardless of the status of the parents.

Yes it is relevant, the whole point is based on reliance on British common law, now that some things found in British common law are distasteful to you & don’t suit your agenda, suddenly things are supposed to be ‘self evident’ or ‘US common law’.

US ‘Citizen’ meant something well understood, namely birth on soil, subject to the jurisdiction of the government, regardless of the status of the parents.

If US ‘natural born’ meant something well understood, namely birth on soil, subject to the jurisdiction of the government, regardless of the status of the parents’ then 14th Amendment would have said ‘natural born’.

Similarly, if the framers intended eligibility for POTUS to be available to born in the land ‘citizen’ without regard to parents’ citizen status, they would simply say ‘born citizen’ or ‘citizen born in United States’ or ‘citizen not naturalized’.

You can’t have it both ways where on one hand you claim the framers were conversant and understood with what some things meant, then when it is pointed out that they were not consistent with some of these things you claim it must have been ‘self evident’, using this wishy-washy ‘self evident’ term as a means to deny the framers had actually not taken on board all of the common law terminology.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 6:35 pm MichaelN(Quote)

NbC: More from Calvin’s case, where natural’ doesn’t necessarily relate to place of birth.

Quote:

“There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.

1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.

2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And

3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.

Funny that second requirement. Which shows that birth on soil is a necessity for allegiance, at least under Common Law practices. It seems that Michael’s confusion is that birth and allegiance go hand in hand.

Now what do you have to say about the other part?

Quote:

“That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.” ?
nbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 6:44 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: Yes it is relevant, the whole point is based on reliance on British common law, now that some things found in British common law are distasteful to you & don’t suit your agenda, suddenly things are supposed to be ’self evident’ or ‘US common law’.

You are somewhat confused but it is hopeful that you are trying to comprehend these issues in more depth.

Let me help you understand:

1. The Founders left the term native born citizen undefined in the Constitution
2. The Supreme Court pointed out that in such cases, the meaning of the term has to be found in how the term is used in Common Law
3. Common Law of those days, as in effect in the colonies and throughout their early years in the Republic show how the term has to be interpreted.

US Citizen’ meant something well understood, namely birth on soil, subject to the jurisdiction of the government, regardless of the status of the parents.

If US natural born’ meant something well understood, namely birth on soil, subject to the jurisdiction of the government, regardless of the status of the parents’ then 14th Amendment would have said natural born’.

Again missing the point. Born on US soil and subject to its jurisdiction is equivalent to natural born as I have shown

Similarly, if the framers intended eligibility for POTUS to be available to born in the land citizen’ without regard to parents’ citizen status, they would simply say born citizen’ or citizen born in United States’ or citizen not naturalized’.

Again missing the point that natural born was a concept well established in law.

You can’t have it both ways where on one hand you claim the framers were conversant and understood with what some things meant, then when it is pointed out that they were not consistent with some of these things you claim it must have been ’self evident’, using this wishy-washy ’self evident’ term as a means to deny the framers had actually not taken on board all of the common law terminology.

The fact that the Founders had not taken on board all the common law terminology is irrelevant for the purpose of determining the meaning of the term ‘natural born’ which is well understood in Common Law.

It’s really trivially simple my dear friend. I am here to help you to lift the shades. Explain to me what part of my analysis continues to confuse you.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 6:45 pm MichaelN(Quote)

NbC:
Upper case Common Law versus lower case common law. Tricky stuff and Doc is correct.

No upper case here.

WKA case:

“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

Page 169 U. S. 680

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.”

Thus Wong still only got ‘citizen’ in the decision, consistent with the above definition & consistent with 14th Amendment.

Reading into this that Article II ‘natural born citizen’ means 14th Amendment ‘citizen’ is a stretch.
nbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 6:46 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: Now what do you have to say about the other part?

Quote:

“That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.” ?

yes, that was to exclude a minor set of people born on soil but not subject to the jurisdiction.

A well known exception to the concept of jus soli.

The concept of obedience, allegiance all have been well explored in Wong Kim Ark and all point to the same concept that this excludes children born to invading military and to foreign dignitaries, and in case of the US, Indians not taxed.

If you want to argue that Obama falls in any of these categories, please explain.
nbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 6:50 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: “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

Page 169 U. S. 680

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.”

Thus Wong still only got citizen’ in the decision, consistent with the above definition & consistent with 14th Amendment.

Reading into this that Article II natural born citizen’ means 14th Amendment citizen’ is a stretch.

Of course, MichaelN is now making a common logical fallacy (lower case) where he ignores the context of the ruling which is indeed about Common Law.

The ‘only citizen’ ignores the ruling which clearly recognizes only two kinds of citizens: natural-born and natural-ized. Since WKA could not be natural-ized, the alternative is that he is a natural-born citizen.

Again, trivially simple when considering context.

Context Michael, context.
Glad to be of help.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:04 pm MichaelN(Quote)

nbC:
You are somewhat confused but it is hopeful that you are trying to comprehend these issues in more depth.
Let me help you understand:
1. The Founders left the term native born citizen undefined in the Constitution
2. The Supreme Court pointed out that in such cases, the meaning of the term has to be found in how the term is used in Common Law
3. Common Law of those days, as in effect in the colonies and throughout their early years in the Republic show how the term has to be interpreted.

I would like to have your answer.

Now what do you have to say about the other part from Calvin’s case?

Quote:

“That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.” ?

Then you might like to explain how you might consider illegal aliens in US are under the actual obedience of the ‘king’. (aka US laws & constitution)
nbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:08 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: “That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.” ?

Then you might like to explain how you might consider illegal aliens in US are under the actual obedience of the ‘king’. (aka US laws & constitution)

Are they not accountable to the laws of the United States and even though aliens, protected by the Constitution?
By virtue of their presence, legally or not, in our Country they are accountable to our laws.

But remember that Obama was not born to illegal aliens. Stay focused Michael, stay focused. You’re doing fine.
Scientist says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:10 pm Scientist(Quote)

MichaelN: Then you might like to explain how you might consider illegal aliens in US are under the actual obedience of the ‘king’. (aka US laws & constitution)

Are bank robbers citizens? The fact that one breaks the law, doesn’t mean one isn’t subject to it. I suggest you go visit a foreign country to which you have no ties and break a few laws. See if you find yourself subject to their laws. We’ll hear back from you in 20-30 years.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:10 pm MichaelN(Quote)

nbC:
Of course, MichaelN is now making a common logical fallacy (lower case) where he ignores the context of the ruling which is indeed about Common Law.The only citizen’ ignores the ruling which clearly recognizes only two kinds of citizens: natural-born and natural-ized. Since WKA could not be natural-ized, the alternative is that he is a natural-born citizen.Again, trivially simple when considering context.Context Michael, context.
Glad to be of help.

So you get to decide what’s in context and what’s not?

There may be two types of ‘citizens’, but if you remain consistent with Common Law there a various means of acquisition of ‘citizen’ & the language of the USC indicates two types of born citizens are made distinct.
Ref: USC Article I, Article II & 14th Amendment.
Scientist says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:11 pm Scientist(Quote)

MichaleN- How come real judges don’t buy your arguments?
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:11 pm MichaelN(Quote)

Scientist:
Are bank robbers citizens?The fact that one breaks the law, doesn’t mean one isn’t subject to it.I suggest you go visit a foreign country to which you have no ties and break a few laws.See if you find yourself subject to their laws.We’ll hear back from you in 20-30 years.

Just address the question asked.
Scientist says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:14 pm Scientist(Quote)

MichaelN: Just address the question asked.

Anyone within a country is subject to their laws unless they have diplomatic immunity. Some may break the law. Some may get away with breaking the law, but if caught they will quickly learn they are subject to it.
nbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:14 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: So you get to decide what’s in context and what’s not?

There may be two types of citizens’, but if you remain consistent with Common Law there a various means of acquisition of citizen’ & the language of the USC indicates two types of born citizens are made distinct.
Ref: USC Article I, Article II & 14th Amendment.

It’s the context itself which determines if something is in context.

Under common law there were two ways of acquiring citizenship: Datus and Natus: granted and born.

Under English law there were two forms of ‘naturalization’: one by the King (Denizen) and one by Statute (naturalized citizen).

Under US law, a similar concept existed but was seldomly used: Private Law.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:15 pm MichaelN(Quote)

Scientist: MichaleN- How come real judges don’t buy your arguments?

It seems they are afraid to have it in their court, much like the Congress are afraid to face it.
Now why would that be if it is so clear cut?
Scientist says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:15 pm Scientist(Quote)

MichaelN: It speaks of obediance’.

So a born US citizen who fails to obey the law and commits a crime loses citizenship? Wow!!!
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:16 pm MichaelN(Quote)

Scientist:
Anyone within a country is subject to their laws unless they have diplomatic immunity.Some may break the law.Some may get away with breaking the law, but if caught they will quickly learn they are subject to it.

It speaks of ‘obediance’
The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:16 pm The Sheriff's A Ni-(Quote)

MichaelN: It seems they are afraid to have it in their court, much like the Congress are afraid to face it.
Now why would that be if it is so clear cut?

0 for 64 sounds pretty clear cut to me.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:17 pm MichaelN(Quote)

Scientist:
So a born US citizen who fails to obey the law and commits a crime loses citizenship?Wow!!!

Yeah WOW
It speaks of ‘obedience’ – address the question.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:18 pm MichaelN(Quote)

The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
0 for 64 sounds pretty clear cut to me.

64 incidences of being afraid, yes it’s very damning
Scientist says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:20 pm Scientist(Quote)

MichaelN: Now why would that be if it is so clear cut?

See Ankeny vs Gov of Indiana. Why hasn’t it been appealed to SCOTUS? Afraid of the result????

If you want a second chance, get an actual candidate to file suit in the proper court (state court) contesting ballot placement BEFORE the 2012 election. Then you will get a ruling-I would be a good sum, you won’t like it, but you will get one. Till then, you’re out of luck, my friend.
The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:22 pm The Sheriff's A Ni-(Quote)

MichaelN:
64 incidences of being afraid, yes it’s very damning

Yep, it has everything to do with them being ‘afraid’ and, say, noting that the plaintiffs have zilch standing at all.

And they’re the ones being ‘afraid’, of course, and not the old white folks wetting their pants and throwing a hissy-fit the instance a black man with a funny name took their White House.
Scientist says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:23 pm Scientist(Quote)

MichaelN: speaks of obedience’ – address the question.

I did. Now you: Does a US citizen lose their citizenship for committing a crime in the US??

I am waiting for an answer….
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:27 pm MichaelN(Quote)

nbC:
Stay focused Michael, stay focused. You’re doing fine.

Here’s the present focus.

Now what do you have to say about the other part from Calvin’s case?

Quote:

“That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.” ?

‘Obedience’
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:28 pm MichaelN(Quote)

The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
Yep, it has everything to do with them being afraid’ and, say, noting that the plaintiffs have zilch standing at all.And they’re the ones being afraid’, of course, and not the old white folks wetting their pants and throwing a hissy-fit the instance a black man with a funny name took their White House.

When all else fails, pull out the tired ‘ol race card.
Give it a rest, it’s past it’s use-by-date.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:29 pm MichaelN(Quote)

Scientist:
I did.Now you:Does a US citizen lose their citizenship for committing a crime in the US??
I am waiting for an answer….

No you didn’t you danced around it, to do everything but address the question.
Scientist says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:32 pm Scientist(Quote)

MichaelN: No you didn’t you danced around it, to do everything but address the question

Ankeny v Gov Indiana

Have a nice rest of your life….
The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

June 13, 2010 at 7:34 pm The Sheriff's A Ni-(Quote)

MichaelN:
When all else fails, pull out the tired ol race card.
Give it a rest, it’s past it’s use-by-date.

When caught wearing bedhseets while standing next a burning cross, whine about ‘race cards’. I hit a little too close to home there, I see.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 8:02 pm MichaelN(Quote)

nbC:
Of course, MichaelN is now making a common logical fallacy (lower case) where he ignores the context of the ruling which is indeed about Common Law.The only citizen’ ignores the ruling which clearly recognizes only two kinds of citizens: natural-born and natural-ized. Since WKA could not be natural-ized, the alternative is that he is a natural-born citizen.Again, trivially simple when considering context.Context Michael, context.
Glad to be of help.

Here’s something that you might like to take in ‘context’
USC Article II ‘natural born citizen’ was in the context’ of protecting the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, this includes influence from parents who may be of ill intent.
It is without ANY Common Law precedent to establish this measure for office of a president of a republic.
Us had ALREADY defined what a born ‘citizen’ was to US i.e. 14th Amendment.
From that point on, reliance on the Common Law with regards to the establishment of the base-citizen by birth-right, is exhausted & we are into an unprecedented eligibility for office of president of a republic, with no further need for Common Law, they had been there done that.
This is now in the ‘context’ of which of the ‘citizens’ might not be a safe bet as CiC POTUS.
Of the pool of ‘citizens’, there were those who were to be excluded from CiC POTUS due to the foreign influence security issue, so ‘natural’ was added (not to ‘subject’ but to ‘citizen’) & ‘born’ was added to exclude the naturalized.
The ‘natural’ was added to address the security issue of foreign influence.
One can see this security concern was in fact a serious consideration to the British, but not in the ‘context’ of the matter of a CiC.

Here is what can be found in Calvin’s case that addresses the matter of national security.

Quote:
“It followeth next in course to set down the reasons, wherefore an Alien born is not capable of inheritance within England, and that he is not for three reasons.
1. The secrets of the Realm might thereby be discovered.
2. The revenues of the Realm (the sinews of War, and Ornament of Peace) should be taken and enjoyed by strangers born.
3. It should tend to the destruction of the Realm. Which three reasons do appear in the Statutes of 2 Hen 5. cap. and 4 Hen. 5. cap. ultimo.
But it may be demanded, Wherein doth that destruction consist; Whereunto it is answered; First, it tends to destruction tempore belli;174 for then strangers might fortify themselves in the heart of the Realm, and be ready to set fire on the Commonwealth, as was excellently shadowed by the Trojan horse in Virgil’s second Book of his Aeneid, where a very few men in the heart of the City, did more mischief in a few hours, than ten thousand men without the walls in ten years.”

You might also like to consider this from Calvin’s case.

Quote:

“But the time of his birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the king of England, unlesse at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance AND OBEDIENCE of the king”

“There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.

1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.

2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And

3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.

For the first, it is termed ACTUAL OBEDIENCE, because though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are Subjects to the king of England. 2.
The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, BUT ANY PLACE WITHIN THE KING’S DOMINIONS WITHOUT OBEDIENCE CAN NEVER PRODUCE A NATURAL SUBJECT”

Without OBEDIENCE – no natural subject, even if born in the land.

And you still haven’t addressed the part.

“That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.”

.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 8:08 pm MichaelN(Quote)

The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
When caught wearing bedhseets while standing next a burning cross, whine about race cards’.I hit a little too close to home there, I see.

You’re wishing and dreamin’ – that’s not seeing.
Just so we can get off your smear tactic and back to reality, I think Alan Keyes would run rings around Obama as POTUS.
MichaelN says:

June 13, 2010 at 8:10 pm MichaelN(Quote)

Scientist:
Ankeny v Gov IndianaHave a nice rest of your life….

Calvin’s case versus wishful thinking ………… I intend to.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 13, 2010 at 8:12 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

MichaelN:
No upper case here.WKA case:“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 ofPage 169 U. S. 680parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”Thus Wong still only got citizen’ in the decision, consistent with the above definition & consistent with 14th Amendment.Reading into this that Article II natural born citizen’ means 14th Amendment citizen’ is a stretch.

If we’re playing the grammar game; the way the constitution is written “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” The clause is either you’re a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States. The way it is written with the commas and all makes the terms two separate clauses. You are either a natural born citizen (of anywhere) or a citizen of the United States. It does not say Natural Born Citizen of the United States
Sef says:

June 13, 2010 at 8:15 pm Sef(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
If we’re playing the grammar game; the way the constitution is written “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”The clause is either you’re a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States.The way it is written with the commas and all makes the terms two separate clauses.You are either a natural born citizen (of anywhere) or a citizen of the United States.It does not say Natural Born Citizen of the United States

Thank you!!!
Scientist says:

June 13, 2010 at 8:15 pm Scientist(Quote)

MichaelN: USC Article II natural born citizen’ was in the context’ of protecting the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, this includes influence from parents who may be of ill intent.

Now this is silly (as Monty Python said). If foreign countries want influence in the executive or legislative branches, they don’t waste their time sending someone to father a chikl on the 1 in 100,000,00 chance that they will grow up to be President in 50 or 60 years. They just buy the influence with cash money. It worked just fine for Saudi Arabia with the 2 Bushes.

As for parents of ill intent, anyone, including those whose ancestors have been in the US for 10 generations can have ill intent. I don’t see your intent as so good, in all honesty.

No one buys what you’re peddling. No court, no legislature. No one except a few sore losers. Try peddling something else. You’re embarassing yourself.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 13, 2010 at 8:19 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Scientist:
Now this is silly (as Monty Python said).If foreign countries want influence in the executive or legislative branches, they don’t waste their time sending someone to father a chikl on the 1 in 100,000,00 chance that they will grow up to be President in 50 or 60 years.They just buy the influence with cash money.It worked just fine for Saudi Arabia withthe 2 Bushes.As for parents of ill intent, anyone, including those whose ancestors have been in the US for 10 generations can have ill intent.I don’t see your intent as so good, in all honesty.No one buys what you’re peddling.No court, no legislature.No one except a few sore losers.Try peddling something else.You’re embarassing yourself.

Exactly this kind of paranoid thinking by MichaeIN and others relies on a monarchy or dictatorship government. The president isn’t all powerful. They would get more bang for their buck infiltrating the legislative branch and invoking change on our laws. Or buying off judges than they would trying to work on the hope that the child they plant one day becomes well known and wins several elections and convinces a lot of voters to vote for him only to bring about a moderate platform where he constantly tries to appease the opposition party. Seems like a waste of resources.
Scientist says:

June 13, 2010 at 8:26 pm Scientist(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Exactly this kind of paranoid thinking by MichaeIN and others relies on a monarchy or dictatorship government. The president isn’t all powerful. They would get more bang for their buck infiltrating the legislative branch and invoking change on our laws. Or buying off judges than they would trying to work on the hope that the child they plant one day becomes well known and wins several elections and convinces a lot of voters to vote for him only to bring about a moderate platform where he constantly tries to appease the opposition party. Seems like a waste of resources.

Not to mention the fact that at least half the time, kids do exactly the opposite of what their parents tell them.

I would love to hear how exactly a parent’s passport means anything to a child. Most kids are far more influenced by the latest pop trends than by what passport a parent holds, especially a father that isn’t even there. Obama is an American. His virtues are American as are his flaws. He may be a bi-coastal, urban, academic American that seems strange to some provincial types, but I can find plenty more like him in any college community and they are American to the core.
nbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 9:06 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: Obedience’

Following the laws and rules…
nbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 9:08 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: “That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.”

Oh yes I have. Again, understanding how the term is used rather than relying on what you believe it means helps.

Obedience means that one follows the laws and rules laid out by the king.

As to the reason for Natural Born, it was to keep foreigners from becoming the Commander of the armed forces.

nothing more, nothing less…
nbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 9:15 pm nbC(Quote)

Let me quote:

The place is observable but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. And there fore if any of the king’s ambassador in foreign nations have children there of their wires being English women by the common laws of England, they are natural born subjects and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions. Cr Car 001 G02 March 91 Jenk Cent 3 But if enemies should come into any of the king’s dominions and surprise any castle or fort and possess the same by hostility and hare issue there that issue is no subject to the king though he be born within his dominions for that he was not born under the king’s ligeance or obedience

Obedience follows from presence in the country and being held to the laws of the country. As I explained, and as historical and legal references continue to show, obedience or subject to jurisdiction are terms to exclude a minor group of those born to invading military, foreign dignitaries or Indians not paying taxes.

It’s trivially simple.

Do you have any more confusions that could benefit from my assistance Michael?
Greg says:

June 13, 2010 at 9:20 pm Greg(Quote)

MichaelN: Us had ALREADY defined what a born citizen’ was to US i.e. 14th Amendment.

The Constitution was adopted in 1787.

The 14th Amendment was written in 1866.

BUT ANY PLACE WITHIN THE KING’S DOMINIONS WITHOUT OBEDIENCE CAN NEVER PRODUCE A NATURAL SUBJECT”

Quote mining again, Michael.

Lord Coke explains what he means in the part right before what you put in all caps:

For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof

If the King has actual POSSESSION of the land, then its inhabitants are under his actual OBEDIENCE. If he has THEORETICAL possession of the kingdom, like France, then the subjects there are only under his THEORETICAL obedience.

You’re going to have to do more than Ctrl-F to figure out what Calvin’s Case means, Michael.
nbC says:

June 13, 2010 at 9:29 pm nbC(Quote)

Greg: You’re going to have to do more than Ctrl-F to figure out what Calvin’s Case means, Michael.

My point exactly
Greg says:

June 13, 2010 at 9:38 pm Greg(Quote)

If US natural born’ meant something well understood, namely birth on soil, subject to the jurisdiction of the government, regardless of the status of the parents’ then 14th Amendment would have said natural born’.

No, if there are only two possible types of citizen, and you want to ensure all rights to both types of citizen, you describe them generally.

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.

There are two possibilities here, born or naturalized.

They didn’t write:

All persons born in the United States becomes a natural born citizen of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. And all persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Because that would just be stupid if there was only one type of born citizen!

The writers of the 14th Amendment knew it would make the children of aliens into citizens. They also knew that it would make the children of aliens eligible for the Presidency!

Now, you’ve got 200+ years of judicial history, Michael, find me a single case of someone who was:

1. Born here
2. Became a citizen because of that birth
3. Not eligible for the Presidency.

You can’t do it. It doesn’t exist.

You know what you can find?

Racists and tax evaders trotting out the 14th Amendment “different kind of citizen” argument at every opportunity, and being rejected at every opportunity.

There are two types of citizen. Born and naturalized.

You’ve got just your own misreadings of selected quotes from WKA and Calvin’s Case (and it’s obvious that you’ve not read either) and not a single scholar or court case supporting your interpretation. When a lawyer lacks any historical or legal basis for his arguments, his logic had better be impeccable. Yours is sorely lacking!
SFJeff says:

June 13, 2010 at 10:16 pm SFJeff(Quote)

So Michael,

You keep arguing Calvin but refused to answer my simple question:

Clearly 69 million voters disagree with your interpretation of NBC. The Electoral College disagreed.

Luckily you have explained Congress and the Courts- they are all ‘afraid’- of what pray tell? That idiot Bachmann is not to scared to lie about everything else having to do with Obama- but on this one thing she is?

So- tell me Micheal- how come all the voters, the Electoral College and Chief Justice Roberts all disagree with your interpretation of NBC?

Is there any room in your mind for the possibiility that everyone else is right and you and the other 10 people who believe this nonsense are wrong?
Southpaw says:

June 13, 2010 at 10:54 pm Southpaw(Quote)

This is a legal question and hardly a conspiracy. As Chief Justice Waite stated in Minor v. Happersett:

“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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. …”

There is doubt and this has not been decided by the Supreme Court.

To argue that “natural born citizen” equates to “born citizen” and the word natural has no meaning is suspect.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 13, 2010 at 11:04 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

@ MichaelN

Just a question. Are you copying and pasting from Apuzzo, or making this stuff up on your own? I ask because I wanted to know if Apuzzo finally realized that Calvin’s case is the precedent he needs to worry about and has started trying to rewrite history about it too.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 13, 2010 at 11:10 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaellN: “That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.” ?

Obedience’

Are you seriously arguing that non-citizens don’t have to obey US laws when they are in the US? If not, then the preceding does not advance your “argument.”

MichaelN, I have found that you are repeating yourself and trying to make the same point in multiple places, and generally failing to pay attention to the conversation and posting so frequently as to disrupt the community. Act responsibly or you will be banned from the blog.

Acting responsibly means not raising the same point in different places, posting frequently, making very short denial comments and not addressing the content of other comments in your replies.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 13, 2010 at 11:11 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Southpaw: This is a legal question and hardly a conspiracy.As Chief Justice Waite stated in Minor v. Happersett:“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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. …”There is doubt and this has not been decided by the Supreme Court.To argue that “natural born citizen” equates to “born citizen” and the word natural has no meaning is suspect.

From Minor V Happersett there are only two types of citizens those who are native born and those who are naturalized. Either you’re natural born or you’re naturalized. You can’t be neither. Being born in this country makes you natural born
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 13, 2010 at 11:35 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Southpaw: To argue that “natural born citizen” equates to “born citizen” and the word natural has no meaning is suspect.

If you will tell me what “natural” means in the phrase “naturalized citizen” then I will tell you what the word “natural” means in “natural born citizen.” Is that fair?

Since you’re new here, I have no idea the sophistication of your understanding of Minor, or whether you have even read it all. So let me give you a quick quiz to help me know how to address your comments in the future.

1) In context, is the quotation you gave from Minor intended to apply to the period before the 14th Amendment, to the period after the 14th Amendment or both?

2) If, as the court said, the definition of natural-born citizens most be found in the common-law with which the framers were familiar, what common law was this, and what does this common law have to say about natural-born citizens.

3) Does Minor answer the question: “Are all citizens either natural born or naturalized”?

4) Can you find any language in Minor that suggests that there are persons born citizens who are not natural born citizens?

Some folks here have strongly asserted that decision in US v. Wong is not about who is a natural born citizen (even though it uses that phrase) and is therefore irrelevant to proving the argument. To be consistent, wouldn’t you also have to say that the decision in Minor v Happersett was not about who is a natural born citizen (even though it uses that phrase) and therefore irrelevant to proving the argument? You can’t pick your cases just because you don’t like the answer they give.
G says:

June 13, 2010 at 11:51 pm G(Quote)

MichaelN:
64 incidences of being afraid, yes it’s very damning

I believe its been way past 64 for quite some time now. Closer to 0-70 from last count.

The key point is NOT a single one of these frivolous cases has seen anything but total failure at every single level.

So, yeah, keep telling yourself that everyone’s all “afraid” of you silly birthers. I guess you have to try to convince yourself of that to keep going.

Back in reality, you are merely a legal waste of time and the only thing you succeed in doing is inviting mockery.

So good luck with your false bravado thing and your vivid imagination. I guess you will need that to carry you through the next 2.5 years and probably for another 4 more after that.
Southpaw says:

June 14, 2010 at 12:05 am Southpaw(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
From Minor V Happersett there are only two types of citizens those who are native born and those who are naturalized.Either you’re natural born or you’re naturalized.You can’t be neither.Being born in this country makes you natural born

I would say being born in this country makes you native born
Sef says:

June 14, 2010 at 12:07 am Sef(Quote)

Southpaw:
I would say being born in this country makes you native born

True, but natural born is not a subset of native born.
Southpaw says:

June 14, 2010 at 12:10 am Southpaw(Quote)

Sef:
True, but natural born is not a subset of native born.

According to what definition? Where is it defined?
nbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 12:22 am nbC(Quote)

Sef: Southpaw:
I would say being born in this country makes you native born

True, but natural born is not a subset of native born.

Natural born is native born within the jurisdiction. Thus excluding a small group of children born to invading military and foreign dignitaries.

There are some who include jus sanguinis as natural born but that’s hardly self evident as these people derive their citizenship status from statute not from Common Law or the 14th Amendment.
nbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 12:23 am nbC(Quote)

Southpaw: I would say being born in this country makes you native born

Yes, and if born under jurisdiction you are natural born
nbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 12:25 am nbC(Quote)

Southpaw: There is doubt and this has not been decided by the Supreme Court.

To argue that “natural born citizen” equates to “born citizen” and the word natural has no meaning is suspect.

In fact, this was decided in Wong Kim Ark. They even quote Minor v Happersett.
G says:

June 14, 2010 at 12:34 am G(Quote)

Southpaw: I would say being born in this country makes you native born

Are you trying to make some distinction between natural born and native born?

If so, please explain your position and give examples of each, so we can understand the difference you are implying.

I realize you are a new poster here, but this topic has been covered and rehashed a number of times on this blog, and to my recollection, just about all of the findings came to show the terms “native” and “natural” being used completely interchangeably.

Therefore, from what I’ve seen to date, that is a distinction without a difference.
nbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 12:44 am nbC(Quote)

Doc already discussed Town v Town or better known as Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan. The judge used much of the same reasoning adopted later in WKA, thus the claim by MichaelN about Justice Gray appears to be on even more muddy foundations.

In Lynch v Clarke 1 Sandf Ch 584 it is said aa follows Upon principle therefore I can entertain no doubt but that by the law of the United States every person born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States whatever was the situation of bis parents is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was found by the counsel who argued this cause and so far as I have been able to ascertain it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective States or of the United States. This circumstance itself in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the administration of justice furnishes a strong inference that there has never been any doubt but that the common law rule was tho law of the land. This inference is confirmed and the position made morally certain by such legislative judicial and legal expositions as bear upon the question. Before referring to these I am bound to say that the general understanding of the legal profession and the universal impression of the public mind so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it is that birth in this country does of itself constitute citizenship. Thus when at an election the Inquiry is made whether a person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien if he answers that he is a native of this country it is received as conclusive that he is a citizen. No one inquires further. No one asks whether his parents were citizens or were foreigners. It is enough that he was born here whatever was the status of his parents. I know that common consent is sometimes only a common error and that public opinion is not any authority on a point of law. But this is a question which is more important and more deeply felt in reference to political rights than rights of property. The universality of the public sentiment in this instance is a part of the historical evidence of the state and progress of the law on the subject indicates the strength and depth of the common law principle and confirms the position that the adoption of the Federal Constitution wrought no change in that principle
Plutodog says:

June 14, 2010 at 1:36 am Plutodog(Quote)

MichaelN:
This was a Horace Gray agenda to push his desire to push his fix’ on the US Constitution.Yes, Horace Gray, known for his tiresome exhaustive demonstrations of what an expert he thought himself on legal history, his fiddling of court transcripts and beholding to the usurper Chester Arthur, who deliberately misled & deceived to gain office (obviously because he himself thought he wasn’t eligible & burned his own records)The WKA case could have been wrapped-up in one page, as 14th Amendment already said it all, both with regard to born citizens & naturalized.The decision was for Wong to be 14th Amendment citizen’, they didn’t deliberately leave out natural born’ to be later ’self evident’.Horace Gray had bigger plans, that were to have historic precedents put in place, that would have a domino effect through the ensuing court opinions and decisions.

Yep and those other poor stoopid justices — 5 of ’em, just fell into dastardly Horace’s trap and went along with the conspiracy…a 6-2 victory for dastardly Horace and Evil Usurper Chester! Wow! Thank gawd the birfers have finally arrived to unravel the nefarious plot and put things straight!
MichaelN says:

June 14, 2010 at 1:55 am MichaelN(Quote)

NbC:
They did not, as the dissenting Judge observed. Natural born and born on US soil were equivalent terms. Being a US citizen by birth makes one a natural born citizen as well as a 14th amendment citizen.

But indeed they did!

The DECISION in WKA was ‘citizen’ under 14th Amendment – NOTHING whatsoever to do with eligibility for POTUS & NOTHING to do with USC Art. II ‘natural born citizen’.

You are trying to fit the decision with what you wish it meant.

The WKA DECISION is consistent with Common Law per Calvin’s case as I have shown you, but hang in there you are doing fine.

You really need to learn to accept when you are wrong.

Just because there is a history of ‘precedents’ that have been based on the first incidence of wrong, doesn’t make the wrong aright, it simply means it’s been wrong for a long time.
That’s the problem with the Common Law system, fellow colleagues in the judicial system are extremely loathe to embarrass on of their own and be the first to say the emperor has no clothes. ………….. it takes some guts.

You see the appointment of a judges into SCOTUS by a political entity, does not make those appointed judges more learned than other of the legal profession that may be more suited or expert in the field of Constitutional Law.

For example, here is a person expert in Law, who runs rings around the wishy-washy incompetence of Horace Gray & his ‘fixing’ the USC to suit his agenda.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/03/From-Feudalism-to-Consent-Rethinking-Birthright-Citizenship
MichaelN says:

June 14, 2010 at 1:58 am MichaelN(Quote)

Plutodog:
Yep and those other poor stoopid justices — 5 of em, just fell into dastardly Horace’s trap and went along with the conspiracy…a 6-2 victory for dastardly Horace and Evil Usurper Chester!Wow! Thank gawd the birfers have finally arrived to unravel the nefarious plot and put things straight!

You might need to pick-up on the finer points that shock-Horace either deliberately failed to mention, or he was just so full of himself, he didn’t even see it.

NbC:
They did not, as the dissenting Judge observed. Natural born and born on US soil were equivalent terms. Being a US citizen by birth makes one a natural born citizen as well as a 14th amendment citizen.

But indeed they did!

The DECISION in WKA was ‘citizen’ under 14th Amendment – NOTHING whatsoever to do with eligibility for POTUS & NOTHING to do with USC Art. II ‘natural born citizen’.

You are trying to fit the decision with what you wish it meant.

The WKA DECISION is consistent with Common Law per Calvin’s case as I have shown you, but hang in there you are doing fine.

You really need to learn to accept when you are wrong.

Just because there is a history of ‘precedents’ that have been based on the first incidence of wrong, doesn’t make the wrong aright, it simply means it’s been wrong for a long time.
That’s the problem with the Common Law system, fellow colleagues in the judicial system are extremely loathe to embarrass on of their own and be the first to say the emperor has no clothes. ………….. it takes some guts.

You see the appointment of a judges into SCOTUS by a political entity, does not make those appointed judges more learned than other of the legal profession that may be more suited or expert in the field of Constitutional Law.

Foe example, here is a person who runs rings around the wishy-washy incompetence of Horace Gray & his ‘fixing’ the USC to suit his agenda.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/03/From-Feudalism-to-Consent-Rethinking-Birthright-Citizenship
MichaelN says:

June 14, 2010 at 2:01 am MichaelN(Quote)

Plutodog:
Yep and those other poor stoopid justices — 5 of em, just fell into dastardly Horace’s trap and went along with the conspiracy…a 6-2 victory for dastardly Horace and Evil Usurper Chester!Wow! Thank gawd the birfers have finally arrived to unravel the nefarious plot and put things straight!

You might need to pick-up on the finer points that shock-Horace either deliberately failed to mention, or he was just so full of himself, he didn’t even see it.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/03/From-Feudalism-to-Consent-Rethinking-Birthright-Citizenship
MichaelN says:

June 14, 2010 at 2:10 am MichaelN(Quote)

The ten worst Supreme Court decisions of all-time (part one)
http://crankycon.politicalbear.com/2009/04/15/the-ten-worst-supreme-court-decisions-of-all-time-part-one/

About shock-Horace. (incompetent & fiddler of court transcripts)

Quote:
“Gray is best known for his decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.

This case was heard twice, though only the second hearing resulted in a decision; the justices, feeling that the opinions written had not adequately explained their view of the situation (the case was about the constitutionality of a national income tax), wished to rehear the case.

After the first hearing, Gray wrote that he sided with the defendant (Farmer’s Loan & Trust), arguing that the tax was indeed constitutional.

He was in the minority, however. After the second hearing, Gray changed his stance, joining with the majority in favor of the plaintiff.

He chose not to write a dissenting or concurring opinion, in either hearing.

Horace Gray was also the author of the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, ruling that a child born in United States to foreign parents is automatically a citizen of the United States.”
NbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 2:16 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: But indeed they did!

I am fascinated by Michaeln’s response which ignores how the Court looked at the definition of natural born, how the government brief described the case as “is WKA natural born” and the dissenting Judge who agreed that under the ruling, WKA and others would be eligible to run for president.

While he claims that Gray was somehow politically motivated, I have shown how other courts have reached the same conclusion.

So now he attempts to use ad hominem arguments to reject Justice Gray’s ruling.

Fascinating…
NbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 2:22 am NbC(Quote)

I guess it’s too hard to argue the facts and reason and logic of the case. No surprise as Justice Gray’s decision had been preceded by several similar decisions.

So far MichaelN has failed to provide any support for his interpretation of natural born, again understandable.
MichaelN says:

June 14, 2010 at 2:23 am MichaelN(Quote)

nbC:
Yes, and if born under jurisdiction you are natural born

OBEDIENCE is the word.

Common Law – Calvin’s case.

Quote:
“. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, BUT ANY PLACE WITHIN THE KING’S DOMINIONS WITHOUT OBEDIENCE CAN NEVER PRODUCE A NATURAL SUBJECT”
NbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 2:34 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN:
OBEDIENCE is the word.Common Law – Calvin’s case.Quote:
“. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, BUT ANY PLACE WITHIN THE KING’S DOMINIONS WITHOUT OBEDIENCE CAN NEVER PRODUCE A NATURAL SUBJECT”

Obedience, jurisdiction, they are all very similar concepts here MichaelN. Understanding is part of the path towards enlightenment.
Obedience basically means that the people involved have to abide by the laws of the monarch (that is the King, just to be helpful here Michael).
In other words, unless you were under protection from and owing obedience to the laws and rules from the monarch, your off spring could not be natural born.
As Calvin’s case shows, a french man temporarily residing in Britain and having a child would make the child a natural born.

Hope that this helps. I am glad you show a continued interest in learning.
Plutodog says:

June 14, 2010 at 2:36 am Plutodog(Quote)

MichaelN: When all else fails, pull out the tired ol race card.
Give it a rest, it’s past it’s use-by-date.

It’s only past it’s use-by-date when bigots stop being bigoted, Mikey.
MichaelN says:

June 14, 2010 at 2:46 am MichaelN(Quote)

MichaelN:
OBEDIENCE is the word.Common Law – Calvin’s case.Quote:
“. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, BUT ANY PLACE WITHIN THE KING’S DOMINIONS WITHOUT OBEDIENCE CAN NEVER PRODUCE A NATURAL SUBJECT”

Is that ‘self evident’ enough?
NbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 2:50 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: Foe example, here is a person who runs rings around the wishy-washy incompetence of Horace Gray & his fixing’ the USC to suit his agenda.

Oh my god… John Eastman…
You rely on him for your education… no wonder you are so confused.

Hilarious. But it does help to understand where you are coming from. This may take a bit more time and effort for you to find the facts.
NbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 2:52 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: Is that ’self evident’ enough?

Yes, subject to the jurisdiction captures that one nicely.

Your point? I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The obedience part is meant to exclude children born to invading military and foreign dignitaries.

What did you think it meant?
NbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 2:56 am NbC(Quote)

NbC: Oh my god… John Eastman…

I raise you James C. Ho, far better informed on the issues.

Looking forward to our continued education
MichaelN says:

June 14, 2010 at 3:03 am MichaelN(Quote)

NbC:
Obedience, jurisdiction, they are all very similar concepts here MichaelN. Understanding is part of the path towards enlightenment.
Obedience basically means that the people involved have to abide by the laws of the monarch (that is the King, just to be helpful here Michael).
In other words, unless you were under protection from and owing obedience to the laws and rules from the monarch, your off spring could not be natural born.
As Calvin’s case shows, a french man temporarily residing in Britain and having a child would make the child a natural born.Hope that this helps. I am glad you show a continued interest in learning.

“so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local OBEDIENCE,”

But the Frenchman, Sherley.

“, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;

The Frenchman was NOT OBEDIENT.

The offspring of the Frenchman hypothetically would have been a ‘natural born subject’ had the Frenchman been OBEDIENT.

Similarly the illegal aliens who have children within US have disobeyed the laws of USA, (aka dis-OBEDIENT) ‘can NEVER produce a natural born subject’.

Stick with it, hang in there, you are showing some signs of getting it right.
MichaelN says:

June 14, 2010 at 3:14 am MichaelN(Quote)

It’s all about OBEDIENT parents for a ‘natural born subject’ to be produced.

Quote from Calvin’s case:

““There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.

1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.

2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And

3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.

For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are Subjects to the king of England. 2.

The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject.

And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions.”
Scientist says:

June 14, 2010 at 5:35 am Scientist(Quote)

MichaelN: It’s all about OBEDIENT parents for a natural born subject’ to be produced.

Thank goodnes for George W’s little drunk-driving law-breaking escapade, then. That would make Jenna and Barbara non-natural born citizens by your lights. I really don’t think the world could stand a 3rd generation Bush President.

By the way, as far as I know, neither of Obama’s parents were judged to have disobeyed any laws, so he, unlike the Bush twins, is a natural born citizen.

I’m glad we cleared that up.
MichaelN says:

June 14, 2010 at 5:42 am MichaelN(Quote)

NbC:

Yes, subject to the jurisdiction captures that one nicely.

Your point?

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

The obedience part is meant to exclude children born to invading military and foreign dignitaries.

What did you think it meant?

I’m not ‘trying’ to say anything ……………. I said it.

Obedience doesn’t mean anything other than obedience.

‘subject to’ is not necessarily voluntary, if at all.

‘subject to’ means, being in a position or in circumstances that place one under the power or authority of another or others …………. it’s not a voluntary act.

Where ‘obedience’ is a matter of choice.

‘obedience’ means, the act of obeying, or the state of being obedient; compliance with that which is required by authority ………… it’s the state resulting from a voluntary act of being obedient.

If the parents don’t choose to be obedient, then, by their own act they are not obeying the law of the land.

This would be the case for instance of an illegal alien in US, who by virtue of disregarding the law of the land, is not performing an act of obedience to the law, then according to Common Law, they can never produce a ‘natural born subject’.

Did you learn something?
MichaelN says:

June 14, 2010 at 6:08 am MichaelN(Quote)

NbC:
The obedience part is meant to exclude children born to invading military and foreign dignitaries.What did you think it meant?

Cite the source you find in Calvin’s that supports your assertion.

Here’s what I found, with nothing that suggests ‘obedience’ refers only to invading military and foreign dignitaries, they are merely an example given to illustrate the meaning.

Quote:

There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And
3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.

For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are Subjects to the king of England. 2.

The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject.

And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions.

But if Enemies should come into any of the king’s dominions and surprise any Castle or Fort, and |[18 b] possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the king, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the king’s ligeance or obedience.

But the time of his birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the king of England, unlesse at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the king.

And that is the reason that Antenati in Scotland (for that at the time of their birth they were under the ligeance and obedience of another king) are Aliens born, in respect of the time of their birth.’

You might appreciate this point with more clarity by reading this part from Calvin’s where again examples are used to illustrate & there is no specific wording that gives weight to the notion of ‘invading military’ or ‘foreign dignitaries’ as being the topic of the reasoning. .. it speaks of ‘strangers’ ………… merely people.

Quote:

“It followeth next in course to set down the reasons, wherefore an Alien born is not capable of inheritance within England, and that he is not for three reasons.

1. The secrets of the Realm might thereby be discovered.

2. The revenues of the Realm (the sinews of War, and Ornament of Peace) should be taken and enjoyed by strangers born.

3. It should tend to the destruction of the Realm. Which three reasons do appear in the Statutes of 2 Hen 5. cap. and 4 Hen. 5. cap. ultimo.

But it may be demanded, Wherein doth that destruction consist; Whereunto it is answered; First, it tends to destruction tempore belli;174 for then strangers might fortify themselves in the heart of the Realm, and be ready to set fire on the Commonwealth, as was excellently shadowed by the Trojan horse in Virgil’s second Book of his Aeneid, where a very few men in the heart of the City, did more mischief in a few hours, than ten thousand men without the walls in ten years.”
MichaelN says:

June 14, 2010 at 6:14 am MichaelN(Quote)

NbC:
Oh my god… John Eastman…
I raise you James C. Ho, far better informed on the issues.Looking forward to our continued education

So you address the points raised by and the opinions of John Eastman.

‘Oh my god’ just doesn’t cut it.
Bovril says:

June 14, 2010 at 6:44 am Bovril(Quote)

Since we’re on the subject of clowns and the wholly delusional (MichaelN passim)….

A little while ago I mentioned that “I love it when Birfers go cannibal” referring to the seeming inherent back stabbing in the Birfer and related foks.

From the ring master of his own circus of fools, the Dr Rev Manning, these little gems.

http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=8627

==========================QUOTE====================

I am further prepared to publicly state that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Scott Brown, and the national leadership of The Tea Party will treat Lt. Col. Terry Lakin as if he is a leper.

I am yet further determined to say publicly that The Tea Party leadership, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin are more hypocritical than any political movement to date.

==========================QUOTE====================
.
.
.
==========================QUOTE====================

Fox News hired Glenn Beck, a closet Nazi, to co-op the alleged racist Americans against Obama to Fox News. They came by the millions in the late afternoon sitting at home brooding over what was happening to America.

==========================QUOTE====================
.
.
.
.==========================QUOTE====================

However, I do know that Glenn Beck is a closet Nazi, more hypnotizing with a cult like and gullible following like Obama’s.

.==========================QUOTE====================
.
.
.
.==========================QUOTE====================
What’s the difference between The Democrats, Republicans and The Tea Party? Answer: Only the Tea Party is still wearing diapers.

.==========================QUOTE====================

Oh and all in alleged support of Terry LAkin…..

I repeat…..I love it when Birfers go cannibal….>8-)
NbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 7:09 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: Cite the source you find in Calvin’s that supports your assertion.

You quoted it yourself. Birth on the soil makes one natural born but it requires obedience which excludes invading military and foreign dignitaries.

It’s trivially simple
NbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 7:12 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: Oh my god’ just doesn’t cut it.

I understand. Just amazed at your choice of ‘authority’. I thought we were making progress but this is a major setback.
Did I mention the work by James Ho?
NbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 7:16 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: Where obedience’ is a matter of choice.

Nope. Once you are within the domain of the monarch, you have made your choice and you owe obedience.
I understand that these are perhaps somewhat confusing concepts and I now see where your confusion lies.
Remember the french man who was visiting the realm of the monarch and whose off spring, if born on its soil, would be natural born? That’s because when one resides in the realm of the monarch one owes the monarch full obedience. It’s part of the territory so to speak.

Tricky concepts indeed but I see some breakthrough progress now that your confusion has been identified.
NbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 7:20 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: Similarly the illegal aliens who have children within US have disobeyed the laws of USA, (aka dis-OBEDIENT) can NEVER produce a natural born subject’.

Nope, the exceptions only include invading military and foreign dignitaries. Illegal aliens are not invading military who are following the orders of a competing monarch.
Illegal aliens may have broken the laws but are still obedient to the laws. Which is why they get deported or arrested for crimes committed on US soil.
Did you think they were immune to our legal system?

Of course, as I pointed out, Barack obama was clearly not an illegal alien so the discussion has become a little ‘off track’. Now that I understand that you are relying on Eastman, I see the source of your confusion more clearly.
NbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 7:22 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: The circus might have left town, but you might still be able to catch-up.

Are you intent on abiding by the rules of this forum? Such ad hominem attacks are frowned upon… See Michael, you have to show obedience to the rules more carefully. Do you think that you are part of an excepted class?
Scientist says:

June 14, 2010 at 7:31 am Scientist(Quote)

NbC: Are you intent on abiding by the rules of this forum?

Clearly, NbC, Michael is not. If he were, then he would have responded to the question I posed him more than once-Do those who break the law forfeit citizenship for themselves and/or their children? If so, which offenses make one’s offspring non-citizens-felonies? misdemeanors? parking violations? I mean, if a US citizen blatantly and willfully fails to feed a parking meter, their children should be considered non-citizens and should be deported (though to where I’m not sure).
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 14, 2010 at 7:57 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because though the King of England hath absolute right

Basically, as others have pointed out, your argument is not valid because of your interpretation of the word “obedience” in a sense alien to the text. As you can see by the brief snip from your own post, obedience IN THIS TEXT is not something given but something owed. You seem to have this misconception stuck in your mind and I see no help in shaking it loose, so I won’t try further. Two points I would add:

1) Wong Kim Ark, the son of two Chinese subjects of the Emperor of China, was declared a citizen of the United States based in large part on Calvin’s Case.

2) Calvin’s case describes those born subjects in the realm as “natural born subjects.” The case never suggests that there is some class of subject who is born a subject , but not a natural born subject.

You might say that you understand this, and I do not. However, I rely on what the Supreme Court says about Calvin’s Case and not my own opinion:

[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
Greg says:

June 14, 2010 at 8:15 am Greg(Quote)

MichaelN: For example, here is a person expert in Law, who runs rings around the wishy-washy incompetence of Horace Gray & his fixing’ the USC to suit his agenda.

1. Eastman admits that whatever he thinks the law should be, it is the law that those born here of aliens are citizens.

2. Eastman doesn’t pretend there’s some lesser citizen who is born here but still not eligible for the Presidency. There are two options: Natural born citizen or alien

3. His article is directed to the children of illegal aliens, not the child of one foreign student and one citizen. Not even Eastman would sign onto your arguments.

Are you now prepared to argue that Obama is an illegal alien?

As for obedience, let me repeat:

For the first, it is termed ACTUAL obedience, because though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in ACTUAL POSSESSION thereof

Actual Possession = Actual Obedience.

It is not based on the actions of the subject, but whether or not the King has ACTUAL POSSESSION of the territory in question!

Please go grab a Blacks Law Dictionary and look up:

Actual Possession
Constructive Possession
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 14, 2010 at 8:26 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: It’s all about OBEDIENT parents for a natural born subject’ to be produced.

Do you think that long form birth certificates have a check box or a number scale to indicate how obedient the parents are? Is the child of a rape victim not a natural born citizen because the father was at the moment of conception being disobedient? Is a baby born in the car when the father is racing to the hospital not a natural born citizen because the father was speeding?

Open rebellion and treason is like the invading army thing. It doesn’t apply illegal aliens, and it CERTAINLY does not apply to Barack Obama.
Sven Magnussen says:

June 14, 2010 at 8:28 am Sven Magnussen(Quote)

Black Lion: Or you forgot the part about Young Barry being declared a Indonesian refugee and that is how he was able to return to the US…

Yes!

An ARO in Connecticut certainly explains BHO’s II Connecticut SSN.

Let’s see the SS-5! It will state whether or not BHO II applied to the SSA as a citizen or a legal alien.

Keep Hope alive, Black Lion.
Black Lion says:

June 14, 2010 at 8:33 am Black Lion(Quote)

If anyone with any kind of legal backgound actually believed in the birther interpretation of the 14th amendment or Wong Kim Ark, they would be pushing that individual out on every birther website and publication. It is that deep down they know that their so called “belief” is not grounded in law, but what they wish the law stated.

For example Arizona. They want to change the 14th amendment to prevent the children of illegal immigrants from being natural born US citizens. If they believed in the birther theory, they would not be pushing to change the 14th amendment.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/07/2010-06-07_arizona_sen_russell_pearce_make_children_of_illegal_immigrants_pay_tuition_to_at.html

“A state senator is looking to draft legislation that would keep children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally from becoming citizens, as well as making them pay tuition to attend public schools.”

“The Arizona Republican is looking to draft legislation that will target the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which states that, “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.”

Pearce called this “policy” from the Constitution “a magnet that attracts illegal immigrants.”
Black Lion says:

June 14, 2010 at 8:39 am Black Lion(Quote)

Sven Magnussen: Yes!An ARO in Connecticut certainly explains BHO’s II Connecticut SSN.Let’s see the SS-5! It will state whether or not BHO II applied to the SSA as a citizen or a legal alien.Keep Hope alive, Black Lion.

No problem Sven. We all enjoy your fantasy theory and fictionalized account of the “Young Barry” saga. Especially since you steadfastly refuse to accept the fact that President Obama was born in HI and never needed to naturalize or anything else. But how you attempt to continually push these wild theories even when there is no one piece of real evidence is astounding. I salute your persistence in this matter. You remind me of the Post and Fail or WND. Pushing unsubstantiated fiction in the face of contrary evidence no matter what. Amazing.
NbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 12:17 pm NbC(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: You might say that you understand this, and I do not. However, I rely on what the Supreme Court says about Calvin’s Case and not my own opinion:

But but… we all know that Justice Gray was evil…
MichaelN says:

June 14, 2010 at 8:56 pm MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
Do you think that long form birth certificates have a check box or a number scale to indicate how obedient the parents are? Is the child of a rape victim not a natural born citizen because the father was at the moment of conception being disobedient? Is a baby born in the car when the father is racing to the hospital not a natural born citizen because the father was speeding?Open rebellion and treason is like the invading army thing. It doesn’t apply illegal aliens, and it CERTAINLY does not apply to Barack Obama.

It is as I have stated …………………. illegal alien in US = not OBEDIENT to the laws of the land by virtue of being an illegal alien.

Therefore according to Common Law, an illegal alien in the US can never produce a ‘natural born’.

Calvin’s case clearly sets it all out & Calvin’s case is apparently the hallmark of Common Law.

Furthermore, as can be seen in Calvin’s case the term ‘natural’ relates to a natural allegiance to the king, not to jus soli born in the land.

Funny how people point to Common Law, then deny it when it’s not suitable to push their agenda.
Greg says:

June 14, 2010 at 9:11 pm Greg(Quote)

MichaelN: Calvin’s case clearly sets it all out & Calvin’s case is apparently the hallmark of Common Law.

It’s 2010, and Calvin’s Case was decided in 1608, 402 years ago. Hundreds and hundreds of scholars have written about it.

Why is it that only MichaelN, in the year 2010, has read Calvin’s Case this way?

Have you read all of the case yet, Michael? Or just the two paragraphs you’ve found with your Ctrl-F?

Here’s a test of your theory that it’s the person’s obedience that is described in “actual obedience.” Here’s a part of the country that went into and out of “actual obedience:”

King William the first brought this Dukedom of Normandy with him, which by five descents continued under the actual obedience of the Kings of England, and in or about the sixth year of King John, the Crown of England lost the actual possession thereof, until King Henry the fifth recovered it again, and left it to King Henry the sixth, who lost it in the 28th year of his reign: wherein were (as some write) one Archbishoprick, and six Bishopricks, and an hundred strong towns and fortresses, besides those that were wasted in warre.

Seems to me that

Actual obedience = Actual possession.
G says:

June 14, 2010 at 10:04 pm G(Quote)

Bovril: A little while ago I mentioned that “I love it when Birfers go cannibal” referring to the seeming inherent back stabbing in the Birfer and related foks.

From the ring master of his own circus of fools, the Dr Rev Manning, these little gems.

LMAO! Thanks for sharing, Bovril.
Plutodog says:

June 14, 2010 at 10:06 pm Plutodog(Quote)

Greg:
It’s 2010, and Calvin’s Case was decided in 1608, 402 years ago. Hundreds and hundreds of scholars have written about it.
Why is it that only MichaelN, in the year 2010, has read Calvin’s Case this way?
Have you read all of the case yet, Michael? Or just the two paragraphs you’ve found with your Ctrl-F?
Here’s a test of your theory that it’s the person’s obedience that is described in “actual obedience.” Here’s a part of the country that went into and out of “actual obedience:”
Seems to me that
Actual obedience = Actual possession.

Yeah…but not so helpful when trying to propagate racist conspiracy theories…
nbC says:

June 14, 2010 at 10:28 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: It is as I have stated …………………. illegal alien in US = not OBEDIENT to the laws of the land by virtue of being an illegal alien.

Therefore according to Common Law, an illegal alien in the US can never produce a natural born’.

Are you saying that illegal aliens are above the law? Of course not, and thus they owe obedience to the laws of the United States. Trivially simple

Furthermore, as can be seen in Calvin’s case the term natural’ relates to a natural allegiance to the king, not to jus soli born in the land.

Failing to understand the development of the concept of jus soli and misreading the Calvin case.

Too bad Michael.

And so we go round and around with Michael unable to familiarize himself with the facts. Which is why he is being ignored by most on Politijab.

I prefer pointing out the many errors in his claims. I find it educational and even therapeutic. Although I do find myself feeling slightly guilty occasionally
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 14, 2010 at 11:51 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: It is as I have stated …………………. illegal alien in US = not OBEDIENT to the laws of the land by virtue of being an illegal alien.

Therefore according to Common Law, an illegal alien in the US can never produce a natural born’.

But that’s the wrong conclusion. If you say that Calvin’s case denies natural born citizenship to illegal aliens in Britain, then all that flows from it must follow the same conclusion, and that means that an illegal aliens in the US can never produce a “citizen.” Calvin’s case never creates this thing called a “natural born subject” that is different from anyone born a citizen in the country. In that case, either you are a “natural born citizen” or you are born an alien. And there are some that make that argument against citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.

AND this web site is about Obama Conspiracy Theories, not immigration policy. Obama’s father and mother were not illegal aliens.

However the fact of the matter is that the children of illegals born in the United States ARE citizens and that is based on the reasoning of US v Wong, and Wong relates back to Calvin’s case which says that the offspring of an alien temporarily residing in the country is a natural born subject.
Ozzie says:

June 15, 2010 at 3:11 am Ozzie(Quote)

What is so hilarious about MichaelN is that he purports to be some sort of expert on Calvin’s case, yet it was only pointed out to him several days ago on PJ’s and initially he thought it was referring to John Calvin.

So excuse me Mikey if I find your interpretations less than convincing…
MichaelN says:

June 15, 2010 at 3:17 am MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
But that’s the wrong conclusion. If you say that Calvin’s case denies natural born citizenship to illegal aliens in Britain, then all that flows from it must follow the same conclusion, and that means that an illegal aliens in the US can never produce a “citizen.” Calvin’s case never creates this thing called a “natural born subject” that is different from anyone born a citizen in the country. In that case, either you are a “natural born citizen” or you are born an alien. And there are some that make that argument against citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.
AND this web site is about Obama Conspiracy Theories, not immigration policy. Obama’s father and mother were not illegal aliens.However the fact of the matter is that the children of illegals born in the United States ARE citizens and that is based on the reasoning of US v Wong, and Wong relates back to Calvin’s case which says that the offspring of an alien temporarily residing in the country is a natural born subject.

The one you call ‘an alien temporarily residing in the country’ is , according to Calvin’s case, ONLY IF OBEDIENT, a ‘natural subject’,(the ‘natural’ relates to ‘natural ligience’ to a ‘natural liege’) ………………. then, a child born to that ‘natural subject’, whilst the natural subject’ is in OBEDIENCE, whilst in the realm, is a ‘natural born subject’, because the child was born in the land to a ‘natural subject’.

In other words, substituting ‘subject’ for ‘citizen’, the child is a ‘natural born citizen’, if born to a citizen parent & in the land the parent is a citizen of.

Here’s the pertinent text from Calvin’s case:

Quote:
“Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori52 he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject; for localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta.53 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:”

The Frenchman Sherley, if obedient, makes it a strong enough case for him to be a ‘natural subject’ and because he has been obedient then he qualifies as a ‘natural subject’, then if he has ‘issue HERE’ (a child BORN IN THE LAND) then that child is a ‘natural born subject’.

I don’t know why you can’t grasp that simple concept, it is so normal (a kindergarten child would grasp this)………………. that a child, born in the land, to which his/her parent has allegiance & is obedient to the state & it’s laws, for that child to be a ‘natural born citizen’ of that state.

The British used ligeance & obediance as the essential bench-marks to establish a ‘natural subject’, the equivalent to a US ‘citizen’ via naturalization, bacuse the US didn’t have that same means to incorporate a visitor as a ‘citizen’.

Sherley was a Frenchman, yet he was claimed a ‘natural subject’ of England and he was only a visitor………… that doesn’t happen in US.

That was the British form of claiming their ‘subjects’, but the US form of claiming their ‘citizens’ was only at birth in the land (14th Amendment) or via naturalization for those who sought to apply for permission to be a ‘citizen’.

As surely you can now see that, to be a ‘natural born subject’ of Britain, first the parent has to be an ‘natural subject’ and be born ‘here’ (in the land).
MichaelN says:

June 15, 2010 at 3:31 am MichaelN(Quote)

‘and be born here’ should read;

and be born ‘here’ to that ‘natural subject’
MichaelN says:

June 15, 2010 at 4:09 am MichaelN(Quote)

MichaelN: It is as I have stated …………………. illegal alien in US = not OBEDIENT to the laws of the land by virtue of being an illegal alien.

Therefore according to Common Law, an illegal alien in the US can never produce a natural born’.

Are you saying that illegal aliens are above the law? Of course not, and thus they owe obedience to the laws of the United States. Trivially simple

No, you are asserting that’s what I said.

Obedience, in the context we are discussing, is obeying the law.

One may owe obedience, but if one doesn’t perform to fulfill the debt owed, then one is in breach of the contract ……….. when one is not obedient, then one has failed to be obedient……………. Trivially simple

The illegal aliens who enter US are not in obeyance of the law, they are not obedient, therefore, according to Common Law per Calvin’s case, they can never produce a ‘natural born citizen’ …………. Trivially simplest.
MichaelN says:

June 15, 2010 at 4:14 am MichaelN(Quote)

MichaelN: EDIT: It doesn’t matter how the parent qualified for natural subject’The point is, that it takes a natural subject’ (equivalent to a US citizen’) & a child born in the land to that ‘natural subject’, for that child to be a natural born subject’.
MichaelN says:

June 15, 2010 at 4:16 am MichaelN(Quote)

MichaelN: MichaelN: It is as I have stated …………………. illegal alien in US = not OBEDIENT to the laws of the land by virtue of being an illegal alien.Therefore according to Common Law, an illegal alien in the US can never produce a natural born’.
Are you saying that illegal aliens are above the law? Of course not, and thus they owe obedience to the laws of the United States. Trivially simple
————————————————————————————-
No, you are asserting that’s what I said.
Obedience, in the context we are discussing, is obeying the law.
One may owe obedience, but if one doesn’t perform to fulfill the debt owed, then one is in breach of the contract ……….. when one is not obedient, then one has failed to be obedient……………. Trivially simple

The illegal aliens who enter US are not in obeyance of the law, they are not obedient, therefore, according to Common Law per Calvin’s case, they can never produce a natural born citizen’ …………. Trivially simplest.
Ozzie says:

June 15, 2010 at 5:08 am Ozzie(Quote)

Bit sensitive about your lack of knowledge Mikey? Your familiarity (or complete lack thereof) with Calvin’s case is germane to the argument at hand.

Care to enlighten us as to why your days old “knowledge” of Calvin’s case, completely counter to the overwhelming majority of legal opinion regarding it, is somehow worthy of believing?
Scientist says:

June 15, 2010 at 6:17 am Scientist(Quote)

MichaelN: In other words, substituting ’subject’ for citizen’, the child is a natural born citizen’, if born to a citizen parent & in the land the parent is a citizen of.

Barack Obama was born to a citizen parent in the land she was a citizen of. His other parent was lawfully admitted to the US, hence “obedient”. So Barack Obama indisputably meets Michael’s own definition of “natural born citizen”.
Greg says:

June 15, 2010 at 6:57 am Greg(Quote)

MichaelN: The point is, that it takes a natural subject’ (equivalent to a US citizen’) & a child born in the land, for that child to be a natural born subject’.

No, as I pointed out at PJ, “natural subject” is not the same as a citizen. The Frenchman in Coke’s analogy had not been naturalized, he was still a Frenchman when his child was born, but his temporary allegiance was enough to create a natural born subject!

Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum; for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject

An alien in amity, as opposed to an enemy alien owes enough allegiance to create a natural born subject in his children!

Regardless of whether one interprets Calvin’s Case to forbid citizenship to illegal aliens, Barack Obama Sr. was not at war with the United States, he was an alien in amity with a local obedience strong enough to create a natural born citizen in his son!

The obedience that Calvin’s Case is talking about has nothing to do with the individual’s obedience. It has to do with whether the land in question has to obey the King. Is it a theoretical obedience, which flows from theoretical POSSESSION or is it an actual obedience which flows from ACTUAL POSSESSION!

Use your CTRL-F skills and search out the various uses of obedience and see if I’m not correct.

It’s not an ad hominem argument, by the way, to point out that you lack credibility on this subject because you only heard of the case last week and you clearly have not read more than two paragraphs of it!
MichaelN says:

June 15, 2010 at 8:18 am MichaelN(Quote)

Scientist:
Barack Obama was born to a citizen parent in the land she was a citizen of.His other parent was lawfully admitted to the US, hence “obedient”.So Barack Obama indisputably meets Michael’s own definition of “natural born citizen”.

I could say more, but, the following excerpt will draw your attention the concept that one subject parent is not enough for ‘natural born subject’ to be produced.

In the male dominated world of the day we had reference to the male gender in context of family head, the sovereign of the family, at a family level.

It takes two ‘subject’ parents to produce a ‘natural born subject’.

It was based on the principle of children being a product of marriage, where the wife pledges to love, honor & obey.

Through the marriage we have the obedience of the wife the husband & he is her champion.

Calvin’s case: the last paragraph kinda kicks it home.

Quote:

“There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.

1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.

2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And

3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.

For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are Subjects to the king of England. 2.

The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject.

And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions.”
Bovril says:

June 15, 2010 at 8:27 am Bovril(Quote)

Dear Mikey.

A. Your reading of Calvin is multiply fatally flawed based on actual law as opposed to personal belief or prejudice
B. Your comprehension of early post Elizabethan English is sadly lacking

As per G above

Amity….peaceful relationships and frienship between individuals, groups and/or nations

“momentary and incertain” …..for an indeterminate period of time but not permanently

“if he hath issue here,”….To be the father (or mother) of a child, birthed in the country at question

“which local obedience”…Subject to the laws and jurisdiction i.e. not a diplomat or an invading soldier

“ligeantia and obedientia “…Allegiance and obedience, inherent in birth under the hand of the king…not his ACTUAL hand but the metaphor of both protection and discipline/punishment

So, to translate

If you are not a diplomat or invading soldier and resident in “the kingdom”, you are in the legal boundaries and temporary control of “the King”. You obey the laws, even if they be at variance with those of your native country or be punished.

If an individual is, for whatever reason resident in “the Kingdom” (excluding diplomatic immunity or as an invading soldier) and has, by any means, fathered progeny in the lands, dominions, territories, protectorates etc of “the King” said progeny are inherently subjects of “the King”.

Said progeny are inherently subjects of “the King” with all the rights, responsibilities and privileges as all other children born in the purview of “the King”

“the King” also bears the same responsibilities TO you as every other subject of “the Kingdom”.

Please feel free to substitute “subjects” with “citizen” and “the King” with your political entity of choice.

You will note that this matches IDENTICALLY with the relevant 200+ years of SC judgements, case law, Constitution and amendments of same here inthe USA.

Now, you can continue to argue (badly) until you are apopoleptic and burst a blood vessel, it doesn’t change what the Calvin case actually says, nor how it was and is interpreted in the Constitution and the law.

If you don’t like it, feel free to chase your political representatives to attempt to get a Constitutional Amendment raised, debated and passed. ‘Till then tough titty you fail at the first hurdle
Greg says:

June 15, 2010 at 8:53 am Greg(Quote)

Michael,

Going against what 4 centuries of scholarship says about a case is risky. When I attempt to contradict 4 centuries of scholarship, I first try to figure out what that scholarship says and why they say it and why I am right and they are wrong.

Something is not right simply because you thought it up, Michael. Why does 4 centuries of scholarship about Calvin’s Case disagree with the conclusion you’ve reached about the case after reading it for a week and only reading 2 paragraphs?
Paul Pieniezny says:

June 15, 2010 at 9:59 am Paul Pieniezny(Quote)

Bovril: Now, you can continue to argue (badly) until you are apopoleptic and burst a blood vessel,

Note from the Linguistics department: apopoleptic is a portmanteau word, which combinesthe meanings of “apoplectic” and “(presuppositional) apologetic” (the Latin euphemism for “religious right wing nut job”). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics
Scientist says:

June 15, 2010 at 10:37 am Scientist(Quote)

MichaelN: It was based on the principle of children being a product of marriage, where the wife pledges to love, honor & obey.
Through the marriage we have the obedience of the wife the husband & he is her champion

Michael apparently hasn’t been on a date in the last several decades…
Sef says:

June 15, 2010 at 10:44 am Sef(Quote)

Scientist:
Michael apparently hasn’t been on a date in the last several decades…

Or maybe he’s LDS.
Scientist says:

June 15, 2010 at 10:46 am Scientist(Quote)

Sef: Or maybe he’s LDS.

According to Michael’s “theories”, you need not just 2 citizen parents but a good 20 or so.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 15, 2010 at 11:17 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Scientist: Michael apparently hasn’t been on a date in the last several decades…

Maybe he’s been playing too much Oregon Trail. Mmmm 20 pounds of Buffalo meat, an axle has broken, Susie drowned while trying to ford the river.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 15, 2010 at 11:17 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Scientist: Michael apparently hasn’t been on a date in the last several decades…

Maybe he’s been playing too much Oregon Trail. Mmmm 20 pounds of Buffalo meet, an axle has broken, Susie drowned while trying to ford the river.
NbC says:

June 15, 2010 at 11:48 am NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: MichaelN: EDIT: It doesn’t matter how the parent qualified for natural subject’The point is, that it takes a natural subject’ (equivalent to a US citizen’) & a child born in the land to that natural subject’, for that child to be a natural born subject’.

After all this MichaelN, in an ad hoc fashion, returns to his flawed position, contradicted by court rulings and history.

Fascinating
Sef says:

June 15, 2010 at 12:04 pm Sef(Quote)

NbC:
After all this MichaelN, in an ad hoc fashion, returns to his flawed position, contradicted by court rulings and history.Fascinating

We should start calling this Möbius logic or maybe Klein logic.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 15, 2010 at 12:16 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

NbC: After all this MichaelN, in an ad hoc fashion, returns to his flawed position, contradicted by court rulings and history.Fascinating

So he basically said that the child born of a parent who is a natural subject becomes a natural born subject. So by his logic Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born of Stanley Ann Dunham an American Citizen.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 15, 2010 at 12:17 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Sef: We should start calling this Möbius logic or maybe Klein logic.

I have to say Sef at times I feel like I’m caught in a Möbius loop when I come here. The same arguments being brought up over and over again with the same twists and turns by birthers
bob says:

June 15, 2010 at 12:23 pm bob(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I have to say Sef at times I feel like I’m caught in a Möbius loop when I come here. The same arguments being brought up over and over again with the same twists and turns by birthers

It is like an episode of Star Trek, but with less science and more fiction.
kimba says:

June 15, 2010 at 12:23 pm kimba(Quote)

MichaelN said” MichaelN: It is as I have stated”

You can’t have a logical discussion with someone whose approach is ” It is as I have stated.” You guys already know that Mikey argues his opinion not the facts. Mikey is wrong. He has already been proven wrong. Mikey simply does not have the knowledge nor is logical enough to understand he’s already beaten. You’re going to end up in the same “no he isn’t, yes he is” round-robin over here that was going on at PJ. I think it’s a waste of all ya’ll’s time and talents.
SFJeff says:

June 15, 2010 at 1:36 pm SFJeff(Quote)

Michael basically only answers questions that he can cut and paste replies.

He still will not answer why 69 million voters disagree with his interpretation of NBC, or how he happens to be only enlightened one.
JoZeppy says:

June 15, 2010 at 2:40 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

It never ceases to amaze me that these birthers seem to think that despite having a lack of any legal training what-so-ever, that somehow, their interpretation of law is controlling, despite the fact that no-one in the real legal community – you know, the people with JDs…like lawyers, judges, law professors, or heck, even law students trying to come up with a publishable journal topic – agrees with them.

If no lawyer has taken your position in 100 years, you can probably assume there is something wrong with your argument.
Bob Ross says:

June 15, 2010 at 2:43 pm Bob Ross(Quote)

kimba: MichaelN said” MichaelN: It is as I have stated”You can’t have a logical discussion with someone whose approach is ” It is as I have stated.”You guys already know that Mikey argues his opinion not the facts.Mikey is wrong. He has already been proven wrong.Mikey simply does not have the knowledge nor is logical enough to understand he’s already beaten.You’re going to end up in the same “no he isn’t, yes he is” round-robin over here that was going on at PJ.I think it’s a waste of all ya’ll’s time and talents.

He’s Rhamses in The Ten Commandments “so shall it be written, so shall it be done”
Sef says:

June 15, 2010 at 2:46 pm Sef(Quote)

In their birther world the ones who post here are probably exponents of “In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king”. They think the same will hold here in the land of the fully sighted.
JoZeppy says:

June 15, 2010 at 3:33 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Sef: In their birther world the ones who post here are probably exponents of “In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king”. They think the same will hold here in the land of the fully sighted.

Good God you’re not kidding. I’ve actually read through some of the WND forums. Never in my life have I seen so many pseudo-intellectuals arguing complete and total misinterpretations of the law (and considering my prior legal nuts of choice were tax protesters, that says a lot). Pretty sad, really. The resident expert there is that NM Paralegal bloke, whose twisted interpretations and total lack of knowledge or complete misunderstanding of basic legal concepts makes it very clear why paralegals are not permitted to practice law. The funniest thing is all the nuts there turn to him like he’s the their own Oliver Wendell Holmes, sharing his infinite legal wisdom with them all.
Black Lion says:

June 15, 2010 at 3:39 pm Black Lion(Quote)

JoZeppy: Good God you’re not kidding. I’ve actually read through some of the WND forums. Never in my life have I seen so many pseudo-intellectuals arguing complete and total misinterpretations of the law (and considering my prior legal nuts of choice were tax protesters, that says a lot). Pretty sad, really. The resident expert there is that NM Paralegal bloke, whose twisted interpretations and total lack of knowledge or complete misunderstanding of basic legal concepts makes it very clear why paralegals are not permitted to practice law. The funniest thing is all the nuts there turn to him like he’s the their own Oliver Wendell Holmes, sharing his infinite legal wisdom with them all.

The only idiots worse then the ones on WND are the ones that post to the Post and Fail. The most ridiculous ones are the infamous “Cody Robert Judy”, who I think considers himself the Private Atty General of the US and Steve Craig, loser of one of the earlier cases against Obama. Also there is the rabid birther poster “Beneiah”, who just reposts the Dred Scott decision as proof that Obama is ineligible….These characters are some disturbed individuals….
Mary Adams says:

June 15, 2010 at 4:01 pm Mary Adams(Quote)

Oooh my.

Mikey got whupped at PJ and is getting thoroughly whupped again here.

Typical birther. He doesn’t learn.
MichaelN says:

June 16, 2010 at 4:53 am MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
So he basically said that the child born of a parent who is a natural subject becomes a natural born subject.So by his logic Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born of Stanley Ann Dunham an American Citizen.

From the British Common Law perspective, according to British common law, because Obama junior was born to a British ‘natural subject’ he is at least a British ‘subject born’ at best a British ‘natural born subject’.

Furthermore, because Stanley Ann Dunham married a British ‘natural subject’, she is claimed by British as a ‘natural subject’ too.

Therefore it follows that, to the British, Obama junior is a ‘natural born subject’ of England or at the least a ‘subject born’ aka a British ‘subject’.

“British Nationality Act, 1948

1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56.

Part II

Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Citizenship by birth or descent.

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects;”
—————————————————————————-
Obama junior has publicly admitted to being born a British subject.

From the US perspective.

Obama junior alleges he was born in a US state, let’s say it’s true (but this claim is unsubstantiated)

He is born to a US citizen mother, who by British Common Law & Acts is also a British ‘subject’ by virtue of marriage to a British ‘natural subject’.

Stanley held the status of being both a US citizen & a British Subject.

Even if Stanley Ann was an alien, Obama junior would still be a US citizen under 14th Amendment, given that it were true that he was actually born in Hawaii as he says but has not substantiated.

It seems Obama junior is a dual citizen.

Article II of USC says ‘natural born citizen’ for POTUS, but according to Common Law, ‘natural’ means ligience to one sovereign, not two.

For the British at Common Law ‘born’ means born to two British ‘subjects’.

If it is so that the founding framers intended the same meanings of these words as the British Common Law, then in USC Article ………..

British ‘natural’ = ligience to one British king

USC Art.II ‘natural’ = allegiance to the one US republic nation

British ‘born’ = child of two subject parents

USC Art. II = child of two citizen parents

British ‘subject’ = a subject of the king

US ‘subject’ = a ‘citizen’ of the US republic

Which ever way you go, Obama cannot possibly be a USC Art. II ‘natural born citizen’.

Let’s say you take it that Stanley Ann was British ‘subject’ by marriage to Obama senior, well then Obama would clearly be a British ‘natural born subject’ and not eligible for POTUS.

On the other hand, let’s take it that Stanley Ann was not a British ‘subject’ by marriage to Obama senior, then Obama junior would at the least be a ‘subject born’ aka still a British ‘subject’ and not eligible for POTUS and not meet all the requirements per the Common Law.

i.e. per Calvin’s case at Common Law……… (‘parents’ = plural & BOTH ‘under actual obedience’)

Quote:

“There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.

1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.

2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.

And

3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom,”

Obama senior being a British ‘natural subject’ had to maintain ‘obedience’ to the king & therefore he could not provide ‘obedience’ to US to which he had no ‘natural ligience’ anyway, therefore only Stanley maintained ‘obedience’ to US, not enough for the Common Law principle to apply & render Obama junior in compliance with the principles of Common Law that we are supposed to define USC Art. II ‘natural born citizen’.

At best Obama junior is a 14th Amendment ‘citizen’.

At Common Law he doesn’t qualify as a ‘natural born’.
MichaelN says:

June 16, 2010 at 5:59 am MichaelN(Quote)

Bovril: “which local obedience”…Subject to the laws and jurisdiction i.e. not a diplomat or an invading soldier

“ligeantia and obedientia “…Allegiance and obedience, inherent in birth under the hand of the king…not his ACTUAL hand but the metaphor of both protection and discipline/punishment

‘Obedience’ is not being ‘subject to’, ‘obedience’ is a voluntary act of submission, or conversely, to be disobedient is to reject being ‘subject to’.

That’s why it speaks of ‘without obedience …… there never can be a ‘natural born subject’.

Obedience is a choice, that one is not ‘subject to’ but rather expected and may not be forthcoming.

The mention of Ambassadors, is simply an example, it doesn’t mean that only Ambassadors and their English wives, can produce ‘natural born subjects’ even outside the realm, of course he’s not gonna say the butcher, the baker & the candle-stick maker.

The principle being expressed is that under Common Law, that it takes BOTH parents to be ‘subjects’ to produce a ‘natural born subject’.

It’s really that simple, as much as you might hate it.
Bovril says:

June 16, 2010 at 6:16 am Bovril(Quote)

Dear Michael

I…, suggest you read some of the literature of the period in the original, Shakespeare would be a good start.

‘Cause guess what, according to the law and the Constitution I’m right, you are wrong….
…

Show me ANY actual legal support for your case….go one, I know you can(‘t)
MichaelN says:

June 16, 2010 at 7:41 am MichaelN(Quote)

Bovril: So, to translate
You obey the laws, even if they be at variance with those of your native country or be punished.

If one don’t obey the laws, one is not ‘obedient’, not only will one be punished if apprehended, but both parents also don’t get to have your off-spring deemed a ‘natural born subject’.

If one of the parents fails in obedience, then still no ‘natural born subject’ for the child…………. BOTH parents must ‘actually’, in fact, be obedient.

It speaks of parents in the plural, both parents must maintain obedience and that obedience is a matter of choice, that’s why it is said without obedience, never will a ‘natural born subject’ be produced.

Obedience is owed to both the king by Law of Nature & legally by municipal law.

Without ‘actual obedience’ of the TWO parents, then no ‘natural born subject’.

It’s a choice.

The word ‘actual’ in the context of Calvin’s case, means an act of obedience, one has the right to choose ‘obedience’, then if one does it is ‘actual’.

“actuel existing, from Late Latin āctuālis relating to acts, practical, from Latin āctus”
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 16, 2010 at 8:09 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: Obedience’ is not being ’subject to’, obedience’ is a voluntary act of submission

That is, put succinctly, the point at which you misread Calvin’s Case, leading to the invalidity of your argument as whole.

The dictionary has more than one definition of “obedience” (source: dictionary.com):

1) the state or quality of being obedient
2) a sphere of authority or jurisdiction

You’re reading the first into Calvin’s Case, when in actuality Lord Coke uses the second.The first makes no sense when Coke talks about all persons born in the realm being under the obedience of the king, but it makes perfect sense if one uses the second definition – jurisdiction. In fact, books about Calvin’s case will use terms other than “obedience” to avoid the confusion (such as yours) of an old-style usage of the word. (See following.)

Calvin’s case says that obedience exists solely because one is within the realm. There’s nothing voluntary about it. The ambassador is not excused because he refuses but because the King agrees by treaty and/or international custom exempts him from the jurisdiction (think “diplomatic immunity”), and an invading army is excluded because so long as they hold territory the King can neither enforce jurisdiction, nor can he fulfill his own mutual obligation to the people there (being a subject involves responsibilities both of the subject and the monarch).

Rather than continuing to contribute to the chaos in the world, I suggest you spend some time reading a copy of James Kettner’s book, The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870 that has a very nice opening chapter on English law, covering Calvin’s case at length, titled “Natural-Born Subjects and the Theory of Natural Allegiance.” That chapter begins opens with this sentence: “English law held in practice, long before it explained in theory, that persons born within the royal dominions were the king’s subjects.” Later (p. 15) Kettner says:

Although over time there was some controversy over the details of the law, English jurists consistently maintained that either birth or descent could identify the natural-born subject. In modern analytical terms, the system combined the principles of the jus soli and (birthplace) and the jus sanguinis (descent) in determining subject-ship.

Speaking specifically of Lord Coke’s decision in Calvin’s Case (p. 18-19):

Coke described allegiance and protection as a double, reciprocal bond (‘duplex et reciprocum ligamen“), and he claimed that “power and protection draweth leigance.” By this he did not mean that the subject-king relationship was a contractual one dependent on the continuous and effective exercise of protection. Rather a person born within the actual protection of the king would remain a subject even though the protection of the king might be lost. A natural-born subject inhabiting a territory conquered by a foreign sovereign, for example, would assume new obligations toward the conquering power, but this would not destroy his primal natural allegiance….Children born under the new sovereign would owe allegiance to him alone.

While I have a commitment to open debate on this web site, I also have a commitment toward sound, evidence-based information. I hate to see uninformed blather on my site, and that’s why I took the time to read a 350 page book on American citizenship to insure that my views expressed here were well-informed and not my own crank interpretations.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 16, 2010 at 8:56 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

MichaelN: From the British Common Law perspective, according to British common law, because Obama junior was born to a British natural subject’ he is at least a British ’subject born’ at best a British natural born subject’.Furthermore, because Stanley Ann Dunham married a British natural subject’, she is claimed by British as a natural subject’ too.Therefore it follows that, to the British, Obama junior is a natural born subject’ of England or at the least a ’subject born’ aka a British ’subject’.“British Nationality Act, 19481948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56.Part IICitizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.Citizenship by birth or descent. 5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects;”—————————————————————————-Obama junior has publicly admitted to being born a British subject.From the US perspective.Obama junior alleges he was born in a US state, let’s say it’s true (but this claim is unsubstantiated)He is born to a US citizen mother, who by British Common Law & Acts is also a British ’subject’ by virtue of marriage to a British natural subject’.Stanley held the status of being both a US citizen & a British Subject.Even if Stanley Ann was an alien, Obama junior would still be a US citizen under 14th Amendment, given that it were true that he was actually born in Hawaii as he says but has not substantiated.It seems Obama junior is a dual citizen.Article II of USC says natural born citizen’ for POTUS, but according to Common Law, natural’ means ligience to one sovereign, not two.For the British at Common Law born’ means born to two British ’subjects’.If it is so that the founding framers intended the same meanings of these words as the British Common Law, then in USC Article ………..British natural’ = ligience to one British king USC Art.II natural’ = allegiance to the one US republic nationBritish born’ = child of two subject parents USC Art. II = child of two citizen parentsBritish ’subject’ = a subject of the kingUS ’subject’ = a citizen’ of the US republicWhich ever way you go, Obama cannot possibly be a USC Art. II natural born citizen’.Let’s say you take it that Stanley Ann was British ’subject’ by marriage to Obama senior, well then Obama would clearly be a British natural born subject’ and not eligible for POTUS.On the other hand, let’s take it that Stanley Ann was not a British ’subject’ by marriage to Obama senior, then Obama junior would at the least be a ’subject born’ aka still a British ’subject’ and not eligible for POTUS and not meet all the requirements per the Common Law.i.e. per Calvin’s case at Common Law……… (parents’ = plural & BOTH under actual obedience’)Quote:“There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom,”Obama senior being a British natural subject’ had to maintain obedience’ to the king & therefore he could not provide obedience’ to US to which he had no natural ligience’ anyway, therefore only Stanley maintained obedience’ to US, not enough for the Common Law principle to apply & render Obama junior in compliance with the principles of Common Law that we are supposed to define USC Art. II natural born citizen’.At best Obama junior is a 14th Amendment citizen’.At Common Law he doesn’t qualify as a natural born’.

Once again you’re talking in circles. The 14th Amendment did not make a 3rd class of citizen. According to minor v happersett there are only two types of citizens those who are native and those who are naturalized. Obama can’t both be neither naturalized or native. Your logic doesn’t fit legal theory. As for the dual citizenship tripe if that were true several of our presidents would have been unfit to be president because of some other country saying they were citizens at birth because of their parents. All this is moot however as I stated before the way the constitution is written it does not say Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
Plutodog says:

June 16, 2010 at 9:23 am Plutodog(Quote)

The insanity of suggesting a newborn child is a citizen only if his parent or parents do not break any laws is breathtaking. But then that kinda describes Mikey all around, don’t it?
Plutodog says:

June 16, 2010 at 9:26 am Plutodog(Quote)

“Breathtaking” doesn’t really even say it all. It’s absurd, it’s cruel, it’s irrational, it’s pointless, it’s silly, it’s totally without logic or the barest form of humanity. Mikey, why don’t you just admit, you don’t like the darker skinned folks? It would be more rational even in all its bigotry.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 16, 2010 at 9:36 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

@ MichaelN

Here are the steps you left out in your argument:

1) You failed to consider the section of the BNA 1948 that deals with illegitimate children. They are not made citizens of the UK and colonies by this act.
2) You inaccurately say: “Obama junior has publicly admitted to being born a British subject.”
3) You inaccurately say that “[Obama’s birth in the US] is unsubstantiated.” I call your attention to the Hawaii Department of Health substantiation.
4) You failed to substantiate the claim: “He is born to a US citizen mother, who by British Common Law & Acts is also a British ’subject’ by virtue of marriage to a British natural subject’.”
5) You mistate: “British natural’ = ligience to one British king ” In Calvin’s Case “nutural legience” derives from place of birth. Jus sanguinis subject-ship is derived from legislation, i.e. BNA 1948 and predecessor legislation.
6) You failed to provide any argument in support of “USC Art.II natural’ = allegiance to the one US republic nation”
7) You failed to provide any argument in support of “USC Art. II = child of two citizen parents”
8 ) You use the wrong definition of “obedience” when you say: “Obama senior being a British natural subject’ had to maintain obedience’ to the king; therefore he could not provide obedience’ to US to which he had no natural ligience’ anyway,”
9) And finally you say “At best Obama junior is a 14th Amendment citizen’.”

You do realize that Amendments CHANGE the Constitution. You can’t argue based on original intent, because the 14th Amendment is just as much a part of the Constitution as the rest of it. The Supreme Court Dred Scott decision said that the descendants of Slaves were not citizens, nor could they ever become citizens. Would you argue that the descendants of Slaves today are citizens, but not natural born citizens? Unless you are willing claim that, then the 14th Amendment changed the requirements for being a natural born citizen.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 16, 2010 at 9:57 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Obama can’t both be neither naturalized or native.

And the one thing we can get from the Dred Scott decision is that persons born in the United States cannot be naturalized.
Sef says:

June 16, 2010 at 9:58 am Sef(Quote)

MichaelN:
If one don’t obey the laws, one is not obedient’, not only will one be punished if apprehended, but both parents also don’t get to have your off-spring deemed a natural born subject’.If one of the parents fails in obedience, then still no natural born subject’ for the child…………. BOTH parents must actually’, in fact, be obedient.It speaks of parents in the plural, both parents must maintain obedience and that obedience is a matter of choice, that’s why it is said without obedience, never will a natural born subject’ be produced.Obedience is owed to both the king by Law of Nature & legally by municipal law.Without actual obedience’ of the TWO parents, then no natural born subject’.It’s a choice.The word actual’ in the context of Calvin’s case, means an act of obedience, one has the right to choose obedience’, then if one does it is actual’.“actuel existing, from Late Latin āctuālis relating to acts, practical, from Latin āctus”

So, Mikey, I guess this means that if you (or your spoise) EVER went as much as 1 ft/sec over the speed limit any children you might EVER have are precluded from being NBC. Are you going to report this so they can be crossed off the eligibility list?
Scientist says:

June 16, 2010 at 10:03 am Scientist(Quote)

MichaelN: That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.

You mean here??

http://www.kingsdominion.com/#actions

Does the birth have to take place on the roller coaster or would the food court suffice? What about the parking lot?
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 16, 2010 at 10:08 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Obama can’t both be neither naturalized or native.And the one thing we can get from the Dred Scott decision is that persons born in the United States cannot be naturalized.

Exactly that’s why these arguments lack merit. That and there’s no legal foundation.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 16, 2010 at 10:13 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: If one don’t obey the laws, one is not obedient’, not only will one be punished if apprehended, but both parents also don’t get to have your off-spring deemed a natural born subject’.

So a baby born in the back seat of a car on the way to the hospital to a father that is speeding is not a natural born citizen? You are being obtuse.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 16, 2010 at 10:16 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Scientist: Does the birth have to take place on the roller coaster or would the food court suffice? What about the parking lot?

According to MichaelN, I think it would depend on whether they are legally parked or not.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 16, 2010 at 10:22 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: So a baby born in the back seat of a car on the way to the hospital to a father that is speeding is not a natural born citizen? You are being obtuse.

According to MichaelIN any baby made in the back of a tbird during the 60s while out of wedlock wouldn’t be a natural born citizen
Bovril says:

June 16, 2010 at 10:22 am Bovril(Quote)

For those who get a semi-literate Birfer who tries to argue Dredd Scott is good law, I usually refer them straight to the DC v Heller and Chicago V McDonald Second Amendment cases.

If they feel that racist piece of cack is such good law, they are on the side of the folks who wish to restrict or remove their 2A rights.

Dredd Scott, amongst other things led to the grotesquery of the Slaughter House Cases where the Bill of Rights was not deemed to automatically apply to the states as well as the gutting the Privileges and Immunities clauses of the 14th.

In both Heller and McDonald the opposing council held their noses and tried to argue that equality before the law doesn’t really mean equality and that some elements of the Bill of Rights are more important or more inherently subject to judicial and political gerrymandering than others.

Usually you will hear a minor cereberal implosion followed by waaaaah denial.

(I will state that I am both liberal in my opinions and a strong 2A supporter….not mutually exclusive as many from both extremes of the political spectrum believe)
ballantine says:

June 16, 2010 at 10:35 am ballantine(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: @ MichaelNHere are the steps you left out in your argument:1) You failed to consider the section of the BNA 1948 that deals with illegitimate children. They are not made citizens of the UK and colonies by this act.2) You inaccurately say: “Obama junior has publicly admitted to being born a British subject.”3) You inaccurately say that “[Obama’s birth in the US] is unsubstantiated.” I call your attention to the Hawaii Department of Health substantiation.4) You failed to substantiate the claim: “He is born to a US citizen mother, who by British Common Law & Acts is also a British ’subject’ by virtue of marriage to a British natural subject’.”5) You mistate: “British natural’ = ligience to one British king ” In Calvin’s Case “nutural legience” derives from place of birth. Jus sanguinis subject-ship is derived from legislation, i.e. BNA 1948 and predecessor legislation.6) You failed to provide any argument in support of “USC Art.II natural’ = allegiance to the one US republic nation”7) You failed to provide any argument in support of “USC Art. II = child of two citizen parents”8 ) You use the wrong definition of “obedience” when you say: “Obama senior being a British natural subject’ had to maintain obedience’ to the king; therefore he could not provide obedience’ to US to which he had no natural ligience’ anyway,”9) And finally you say “At best Obama junior is a 14th Amendment citizen’.” You do realize that Amendments CHANGE the Constitution. You can’t argue based on original intent, because the 14th Amendment is just as much a part of the Constitution as the rest of it. The Supreme Court Dred Scott decision said that the descendants of Slaves were not citizens, nor could they ever become citizens. Would you argue that the descendants of Slaves today are citizens, but not natural born citizens? Unless you are willing claim that, then the 14th Amendment changed the requirements for being a natural born citizen.

.

Great point on the 14th Amendment. This point has been completely missed by the birthers. The legislative history of the 39th congress makes pretty clear that no one thought they were changing the original constitution or adding a new type of citizen, but rather clarifying what was the law under the original consitution by removing the ambiguity from Taney’s Dred Scott decision as to whether blacks could be citizens under the original constitution. There were only two kinds of citizens under the original constitution, natural born and naturalized and Dred Scott made clear that blacks could be neither.
.

While some congressmen seemed to think such language from Dred Scott could be ignored, Senator Johnson argued forcefully that Dred Scott had held that blacks could not be citizens under the original constitution and hence a constitutional amendment was necessary to make them citizens. No one made a serious attempt to dispute him. Accordingly, unless the 14th Amendment amended the definition of natural born citizen, how can a black man be president?
.

At least three members of such Congress specifically stated their actions would make blacks eligible for the presidency and the most important congressmen involved the citizen debate all tied the definition of citizenship by birth under either the the 14th Amendment (or its predecessor, the Civil Rights Act) to the definition of natural born citizen in the original constitution. No one said they were creating a new class of citizens and it was repeatedly stated that there were only two types of citizens, those “born in the country or were made such by naturalization.” Senator Howard, author of the 14th Amendment
SFJeff says:

June 16, 2010 at 10:50 am SFJeff(Quote)

Still no reply from Micheal explaining how he has some sort of greater understanding of presidential eligibility than the voters
Sef says:

June 16, 2010 at 10:57 am Sef(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
According to MichaelIN any baby made in the back of a tbird during the 60s while out of wedlock wouldn’t be a natural born citizen

And since 9 months did not elapse between Stanley Ann & Barack, Sr’s marriage & Jr’s birth …
MichaelN says:

June 17, 2010 at 3:18 am MichaelN(Quote)

So, according to Common Law, we have a Frenchman who, if obedient, makes a strong enough case for him to be a British ‘natural subject’, due to both ligience and obedience,

England claims him as a ‘natural liege subject’.

In US on must become naturalized to be in ligience and obedience and thus a ‘citizen’.

In England, the child of the Frenchman & his wife (the basis of child production is by Christian marriage), if born in England, is claimed by the English as a ‘natural born subject’.

Similarly, in US, the child of the equivalent i.e. naturalized US ‘citizen’, if born in the US, is a ‘natural born citizen’.

In US, due to 14th Amendment, a child born in theUS to parents, who are subject to the jurisdiction of US, is a ‘citizen’ of US & a child of such a ‘citizen’ if born in US, is a ‘natural born citizen’.

In Calvin’s case, an example is given as to what constitutes a British ‘natural born subject’ in the most extreme case i.e. out of the dominion of the king, to demonstrate the essential importance of TWO ‘natural subjects’ (plural) parentS of ligence & obedience to the SAME ‘natural liege’ king, by using ambassadors & their English wives, (models of utmost ligience & obedience).

Bottom-line, by resorting to Common Law as can be found in Calvin’s case, it becomes clear that the British only applied the term ‘natural born subject’ to a child born to both parents who had ligience & obedience in common to the same king & the eligibility for ‘natural born subject’ of TWO parents was extended to those born out of the king’s dominion.

The ‘natural born’ is one born of two parents with the same ‘natural liegence & obedience’ to the same sovereign.

In the case of the commoners, it may be doubtful they maintain ‘obedience’ if their child if born outside the dominion of the king and thus this child may be only a ‘subject born’, but ‘ought’ to (aka ‘should’) be a ‘natural born subject’.

“for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori52 he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, OUGHT to be a natural born subject”

but it is for sure that those whose obedience could not be doubted i.e. an ambassador and his English wife, DO produce a ‘natural born subject’ even outside of the king’s dominion.

“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:”

Obama’s parents were not of the same ligience & obedience to the same sovereign, and therefore, according to Common Law, Obama cannot be a ‘natural born citizen’ of US, but he is a British subject (not citizen’) by his father and quite possibly a British ‘natural born subject’ or a ‘subject born’.
MichaelN says:

June 17, 2010 at 3:34 am MichaelN(Quote)

ballantine: At least three members of such Congress specifically stated their actions would make blacks eligible for the presidency and the most important congressmen involved the citizen debate all tied the definition of citizenship by birth under either the the 14th Amendment (or its predecessor, the Civil Rights Act) to the definition of natural born citizen in the original constitution. No one said they were creating a new class of citizens and it was repeatedly stated that there were only two types of citizens, those “born in the country or were made such by naturalization.” Senator Howard, author of the 14th Amendment

Calvin’s case speaks of two types of born citizens, ‘subject born’ & ‘natural born subject’.

This doesn’t change the principle that there are two ways to be a citizen, i.e. born and naturalized.

The US claims ‘born’ citizens via 14th Amendment, without anything required of the parents.

England claims ‘born’ subjects via natural liegence & obedience, of BOTH parents.

England claims ‘natural born subjects’ via BOTH parents, married, who have undoubted ligience & obedience in common to the SAME sovereign.

Go figure the rest, it will come to you.
MichaelN says:

June 17, 2010 at 5:53 am MichaelN(Quote)

What do you reckon this means?

Calvin’s case.

“And there is great reason, that the Law of nature should direct this case, wherein five natural operations are remarkable; First the King hath the crown of England by birth right, being naturally procreated of the blood royal of this Realm; Secondly, Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right, ”

Accordingly, Calvin was apparently a ‘natural born subject’ both by procreation & birth-right, i.e. by parents who BOTH were in ligience AND obedience to the king & not necessarily of the dominion (the equivalent to a US ‘natural born citizen’ albeit not necessarily of the land)

It appears there are TWO types of born British subjects.

We have a ‘subject born’, not necessarily a ‘natural born subject’ & we have the ‘natural born subject’.

A ‘subject born’ (almost, but not quite the equivalent to a US 14th Amendment born ‘citizen’, because of the Common Law, the both parents are a factor in England, just to achieve ‘subject born’ (without the ‘natural’)

‘Subject born’…………….

“There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.

1. That the PARENTS be under the actual obedience of the king.

2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And

3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.

For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are Subjects to the king of England. 2.

The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject.”

‘natural born subject’………………..

“And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions.”

A British ‘natural born subject’ must be born to TWO married British subjects & born anywhere.

Two types of born subjects.
LMK says:

June 17, 2010 at 6:43 am LMK(Quote)

Guess MichaelN isn’t going to debate at PJ. Too bad.

Michael, you keep saying that this is so simple. Why is it then that you have yet to sway anyone with your argument? Many folks here and at PJ are highly educated (not that one can’t be highly intelligent without higher ed). If you are really right, then where are the cases that support your hypothesis? It is that simple. If you are right, then there should be at least 1 case that backs you up.

Where is it???
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 17, 2010 at 8:05 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

NC1, Accordingly, Calvin was apparently a natural born subject’ both by procreation & birth-right, i.e. by parents who BOTH were in ligience AND obedience to the king & not necessarily of the dominion (the equivalent to a US natural born citizen’ albeit not necessarily of the land)

It appears there are TWO types of born British subjects.

Yes there are two kinds of British subjects, born in the realm, and born outside the ream of subjects. The status of the second type was somewhat doubtful, evolving and clarified over time. Kettner wrote (The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870, p. 15) “… a statute of 1709 explained that the “child inheritors” referred to in De natis [De natis ultra mare (1350)] were to be deemed natural-born subjects, not merely aliens with special property rights.”
Greg says:

June 17, 2010 at 9:04 am Greg(Quote)

So, according to Common Law, we have a Frenchman who, if obedient, makes a strong enough case for him to be a British natural subject’, due to both ligience and obedience,

England claims him as a natural liege subject’.

No, you’ve completely bumbled that passage.

Use your Ctrl-F skills, Michael and look at every use of the phrase “natural subject” in Calvin’s Case and you’ll find it a synonym for “natural born subject.”

The paragraph you’re messing up says that a Frenchman in England has enough allegiance to England to make a natural subject because if he has children, they are natural born subjects.

Let me give you a parallel phrase to see if you can spot your error:

Your sperm is strong enough to make a child, because if it combines with an egg, a child will be born.

Have I said your sperm is a child? No. I have said if a condition is met, a child will be created. If the Frenchman has issue that child will be natural born.

The Frenchman does not become a subject himself.

You have also messed up “actual obedience.”

I have explained this at least twice above. Actual obedience comes from actual possession, as opposed to theoretical possession.

The King of England had theoretical possession of France. Children born there were not natural born subjects. He had actual possession of Ireland. Children born there were natural born subjects.
nbC says:

June 17, 2010 at 12:43 pm nbC(Quote)

MichaelN: So, according to Common Law, we have a Frenchman who, if obedient, makes a strong enough case for him to be a British natural subject’, due to both ligience and obedience,

Almost… Good effort though.

When a frenchman if visiting on British soil and has an issue (baby) on that soil, his offspring is a natural born subject/citizen.

As Greg has pointed out you’re confusing various concepts. No worries, we are here to help you understand where you went wrong.

Born on British soil to parents who are owing, temporary or permanent, ligience (sic) to the King makes one a natural born.
Same rule applied in the United States. Born on US soil, with minor exceptions, would make one a natural born.

Hope this clarifies.
Greg says:

June 17, 2010 at 1:51 pm Greg(Quote)

Michael, here’s a paragraph of the case which explains many of your misreadings:

There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita, and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.43 The second is called ligeantia acquisita, 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 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, 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

Footnote 43 – subject born
Footnote 45 – subject made by gift

subditus natus – Natus means born, Michael, as explained later in the case:

Every man is either Alienigena, an Alien born, or subditus, a subject born. Every Alien is either a friend that is in league, or an enemy that is in open war. Every Alien enemy is either pro tempore, temporary for a time, or perpetuus, perpetual, or specialiter permissus, permitted especially. Every subject is either natus, born, or datus, given or made: And of these briefly in their order.

The alien, when he’s in England, has a local ligeance and obedience to the King:

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.

Actual obedience is discussed 11 times in the case, Michael, and it is clear that it is determined not by the actions of the individuals, but by whether the King is in actual possession of the land in question. He gives an example:

Samaria in Syria was the chief City of the ten Tribes: but it being usurped by the king of Syria, and the Jews taken prisoners, and carried away incaptivity, was after inhabited by the Panyms. Now albeit Samaria of right belonged to Jurie, yet because the people of Samaria were not under actual obedience, by the judgment of the chief Justice of the whole world they were adjudged Alienigenae, Aliens

The King had a right to Samaria, but was not in actual possession of the land, so the people born there were aliens.

The other 10 times the phrase is used confirm that actual possession is the meaning of actual obedience. He discusses soldiers sent into wars in France, for example the Lord Talbot. Since, at the time, “the greatest part thereof then being under the King’s actual obedience” the children born in France were natural born subjects. Henry VI had actual possession of Lyon for a time, so the children born during that possession were natural born subjects. William I had actual possession of Normandy, but King John lost it, King Henry V regained it and Henry VI lost it after 28 years of rule. It was out of English possession until the rule of Edward III. When it was in English possession, or, as the case says, “so long as it was under the actual obedience of the King of England,” the children were natural born subjects. Callice, too, was in the possession of King Edward III until the fifth year of Queen Mary, Guines and Tournay were also, for a time, in English possession. When these places were under English control, they were in actual obedience to the King, and so children born there were natural born subjects.

You can do the Ctrl-F as easily as I can, Michael.
MichaelN says:

June 17, 2010 at 4:57 pm MichaelN(Quote)

To be a ‘natural born subject’ of England, one must be born to a ‘natural subject’ of England.

Sherley the Frenchman had to be deemed a ‘natural subject’ BEFORE his offspring could be a ‘natural born subject’ of England.

Quote from Calvin’s case:
Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori52 he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject;
—————————————————–

But USA doesn’t make aliens as citizens so easy as the British, in US such visitors must be naturalized to gain citizenship.

Therefore to be a US ‘natural born citizen’ one must be born of US citizen parents.
misha says:

June 17, 2010 at 5:35 pm misha(Quote)

MichaelN: Therefore to be a US natural born citizen’ one must be born of US citizen parents.

I have to agree with you. In fact, I did an internet search, and found a legal expert who agrees with you.

Thanks for pointing this out.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 17, 2010 at 5:38 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

MichaelN: To be a natural born subject’ of England, one must be born to a natural subject’ of England.Sherley the Frenchman had to be deemed a natural subject’ BEFORE his offspring could be a natural born subject’ of England.Quote from Calvin’s case:Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori52 he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject;—————————————————–But USA doesn’t make aliens as citizens so easy as the British, in US such visitors must be naturalized to gain citizenship.Therefore to be a US natural born citizen’ one must be born of US citizen parents.

Incorrect in order to be natural born one has to be born in the US regardless of citizen parents. That is why some lawmakers are trying to change the laws to exclude kids born of alien parents
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 17, 2010 at 5:39 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: Sherley the Frenchman had to be deemed a natural subject’ BEFORE his offspring could be a natural born subject’ of England.

The “natural subject” refers to the child, not the father. Text like this is beyond your reading level. Deal with it and move on.
Sef says:

June 17, 2010 at 6:13 pm Sef(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
Incorrect in order to be natural born one has to be born in the US regardless of citizen parents.That is why some lawmakers are trying to change the laws to exclude kids born of alien parents

There would be no discussion about “anchor babies” if 2 citizen parents were necessary for NBC status of a child. It seems the birthers & the xenophobes have not compared notes. Of course, they cannot just “change the laws”. They need a Constitutional amendment.
misha says:

June 17, 2010 at 6:20 pm misha(Quote)

Sef: There would be no discussion about “anchor babies” if 2 citizen parents were necessary for NBC status of a child. It seems the birthers & the xenophobes have not compared notes. Of course, they cannot just “change the laws”. They need a Constitutional amendment.

Exactly. See my http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/10/likely-scenario.html
Scientist says:

June 17, 2010 at 6:37 pm Scientist(Quote)

MichaelN: Therefore to be a US natural born citizen’ one must be born of US citizen parents.

But, in order to be President one only has to be a “natural born citizen”, not a “US natural born citizen”.
nbc says:

June 17, 2010 at 7:14 pm nbc(Quote)

MichaelN: To be a natural born subject’ of England, one must be born to a natural subject’ of England.

You are wrong of course, a child born on English soil, even to a foreigner temporarily residing there, would become a natural born.

Glad to be of assistance my dear friend. Hope this clarifies this rather trivial issue.
Greg says:

June 17, 2010 at 9:29 pm Greg(Quote)

MichaelN: To be a natural born subject’ of England, one must be born to a natural subject’ of England.

WRONG!

that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; FOR IF he hath ISSUE here, that ISSUE is a natural born subject

See my parallel quote above:

Your sperm is strong enough to make a child, because if your sperm joins with an egg, a child will result.

Your sperm is NOT a child. The ALIEN IN AMITY in NOT a natural subject, he is an alien.

Please, Michael, RTFC, RTFC!
Greg says:

June 17, 2010 at 9:39 pm Greg(Quote)

Michael, if “natural subjects” and “natural born subjects” are two different things, then please explain the uses of the phrases in the following paragraph:

By all which it is manifest, that Callice being parcel of France, was under the actual obedience and commandment of the King, and by consequent those that were born there, were natural born subjects, and no aliens. Callice from the reign of King Edward the third until the fifth year of Queen Mary, remained under the actual obedience of the king of England. |[22 b] Guines also, another part of France, was under the like obedience to King Henry the sixth, as appeareth by 32 Hen. 6. fol. 4. And Tournay was under the obedience of Henry the eighth., as it appeareth by 5 Eliz. Dyer, fol. 224. for there it is resolved, that a bastard born at Tournay, whiles it was under the obedience of Henry the eighth, was a natural subject, as an issue born within this realm by aliens. If then those that were born at Tournay, Callice, &c. whiles they were under the obedience of the king, were natural subjects, and no aliens, it followeth, that when the kingdom of France (whereof those were parcels) was under the king’s obedience, that those that were then born there, were natural subjects, and no aliens.

So, in Callice, according to the first sentence, everyone born there when the territory is in the actual possession of the King is a natural born subject, but according to the last sentence, is only a natural subject.

Here’s a clue, Michael. You’ve now read what, 3 paragraphs of the decision? The decision was written in 1608, 402 years ago. Hundreds of scholars have read the decision, the whole decision, and none of them have found a difference between natural subject and natural born subject.

Why do you think your interpretation, based on reading 3 paragraphs is better than the interpretation of every scholar and judge who has ever looked at the case before?

In other words, if England had two different types of subject, why didn’t they know?
NbC says:

June 18, 2010 at 2:36 am NbC(Quote)

Greg: Why do you think your interpretation, based on reading 3 paragraphs is better than the interpretation of every scholar and judge who has ever looked at the case before?

Because MichaelN has already made up the conclusion and is now looking for the matching ‘evidence’?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 18, 2010 at 8:05 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Greg: @ MichaelN Why do you think your interpretation, based on reading 3 paragraphs is better than the interpretation of every scholar and judge who has ever looked at the case before?

Greg, do you really want to suggest that he read more of the case? It might generate even more nonsense.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 18, 2010 at 9:11 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Sef: There would be no discussion about “anchor babies” if 2 citizen parents were necessary for NBC status of a child. It seems the birthers & the xenophobes have not compared notes. Of course, they cannot just “change the laws”. They need a Constitutional amendment.

Exactly the term anchor babies wouldn’t exist otherwise. The birthers somehow think there is a third class of citizen that exists outside of the law and the constitution
Bovril says:

June 18, 2010 at 9:36 am Bovril(Quote)

The correct and only phrase for scary brown hued “anchor babies” is US Citiizen.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 18, 2010 at 9:52 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: Greg, do you really want to suggest that he read more to the case? It might generate even more nonsense.

Oh no please don’t make him read I think the universe might implode
SFJeff says:

June 18, 2010 at 3:55 pm SFJeff(Quote)

Speaking of Anchor Babies- have any of our distinguished contributors ever seen any actual numbers regarding how many ‘anchor babies’ are born in the U.S. per year?

Serious question- I really have no idea whether the number is a dozen or 200,000, and I would love to know for future discussions on the horrors of anchor babies.
misha says:

June 18, 2010 at 4:06 pm misha(Quote)

SFJeff: Serious question- I really have no idea whether the number is a dozen or 200,000, and I would love to know for future discussions on the horrors of anchor babies.

Which is what I wrote about: http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/10/likely-scenario.html

Bobby Jindal and Michelle Malkin were anchor babies.
Bovril says:

June 18, 2010 at 4:28 pm Bovril(Quote)

Herein lies the problem…..The only folks who seem to have any numbers (without attributation or adequate analysis) are Birfer/Anti-immigration organizations.

They make claims of anywhere between 300,000 and 750,000+ per year.

These figures are invariably pulled out of thin air or cloaked in some pseudo scientific rationale where they make up some huge number for total illegal immigrants in the USA and apply a high birth ratio per thousand.

Several glaring examples of FAIL here, the first one of the top of my head is they are assuming a balanced sexual split 50/50 (which is where the demographic fail is). Since the majority of illegals TEND (but not invariably) to be heavily weighted to the male side this skews the figures instantly.

The next stage is the whole “Anchor baby” racist theme where the racist muppets equate…”Get a kid a US citiizenship and the family automatically gets a by….ERRRRR fail.

As per Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U.S. 139 (U.S. Supreme Court March 2, 1981) the SC has upheld the principle that simply having a minor with US citizenship does not create extenuating circumstances.

Next we have “Ahhhhhhh but then they’ll SPONSOR THEM IN !!!!!”….’cause yeah most illegal immigrants are rubbing their hands with glee to know that Miguel will, in 21 years time be able to act as a sponsor…..Oh, did I mention that doesn’t work either?

See, even with a US citizen sponsor, if mom or pop have ever been convicted of a crime or been an illegal and deported, guess what…….no USA for YOU …..

I could continue but feel too tired of racist fuckwits to want to play.
Daniel says:

June 18, 2010 at 7:38 pm Daniel(Quote)

Wait a minute…. Whaddaya mean “cause I wanna” doesn’t constitute a direct and tangible interest?
Scientist says:

June 18, 2010 at 8:32 pm Scientist(Quote)

I don’t think anyone knows how many “anchor babies” are born every year. Certainly it is more than a dozen. is it as many as 200,000? I don’t know, nor I think does anyone.

I actually can see a rationale to require that at least one parent be a legal resident in order to pass citizenship. A few weeks ago, I posted a summary of the laws of various countries. Some countries, like the US, grant citizenship to all those born on its soil. Canada does. Interestingly, so does Mexico. Brazil does as well. On the other hand, many, like Australia, and most European countries require that at least one parent be a legal resident. A few, like Switzerland, Japan and China require that 1 parent be a citizen. Of course, none, except for Birfestan requires both parents to be citizens. To do so, would be, in effect, to stop your citizens from marrying non-citizens, which frankly would be an absurd intrusion into individual rights.

Given the 14th amendment I don’t see how this could be changed in the US without an amendment, and I simply don’t see this as a major problem, certainly not one worth amending the Constitution over. Making people citizens is actually good for a country. It’s how small insignificant countries become major powers. As has been pointed out these “anchor babies” can only sponsor relatives when they reach adulthood. They will have to show that they have sufficient income to support their relatives and the relatives will not be eligible for welfare. Unlike illegal immigrants, these citizens and those they sponsor will have full rights and will not be unfairly competing for jobs.

Such issues are really a distraction from the serious issues that we do face.
MichaelN says:

June 18, 2010 at 10:12 pm MichaelN(Quote)

I think the argument is flawed, that the Frenchman Sherley was an alien and therefore the child of any alien is an English ‘natural born subject’ & therefore a child of an alien in US is a ‘natural born citizen’.

Because Shirley was ‘alien born’ it doesn’t mean that he was, or could not be an English ‘natural subject’ by the ‘Law of Nature’

The US doesn’t embrace visitors to US as ‘citizen’ by the same means as the English claim their visitors a ‘natural subjects’, although the children of such aliens in US are ‘citizens’, the parents are not, and must be naturalized for their children to be ‘natural born’, otherwise their children (under 14th Amendment) are merely ‘citizens’ born.

Per Calvin’s case, by the Law of Nature, Sherley, although ‘alien born’, was considered in the context of parenting a child in England, as an equal ‘subject’.

Sherley was considered as a ‘natural subject’ by the Law of Nature, this was a prerequisite to production of a ‘natural born subject’

“By these and many other cases that might be cited out of our books, it appeareth, how plentiful the authorities of our laws be in this matter.
Wherefore to conclude this point (and to exclude all that hath been or could be objected against it) if the obedience and ligeance of the subject to his sovereign be due by the law of nature, if that law be parcel of the laws, as well of England, as of all other nations, and is immutable, and that postnati and we of England are united by birthright, [7-Coke-14 b] in obedience and ligeance (which is the true cause of natural subjection) by the law of nature”

” The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction; and this is lex �¦terna, the moral law, called also the law of nature. And by this law, written God in the heart of man, were the people of God a long time gone law was written by Moses, who was the first reporter or writer of The Apostle in the second chapter to the Romans saith, Cum enim gentes qu�¦ elegem non habent naturaliter ea qu�¦ legissunt faciunt. And this is within the moral law, honora patrem, which doubtless doth extend to him that is pater patri�¦. And these be the words of the Great Divine, Hoc Deus in Sacris Scripturis jubet, hoc ut quilibet subditus obediat superior and Aristotle, nature’s secretary, lib. 1. Cap. 5. that jus naturale est, quod apud omnes homines eandem habet potentiam. agree Bracton, lib. 1. cap. 5. and Fortescue, cap. 8. 12. 13. and Student, cap. 2. and 4. And the reason hereof is, for that God a [7-Coke-13 a] to all, and therefore the law of God and nature is one to al nature is the faith, ligeance, and obedience of the subject due to superior.”

“Concerning the local obedience it is observable, that as there on the King’s part, so there is a (d) local ligeance of the sub this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. (e) and 3 and 4 Ail and Mar. Dy Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, a concluded (f) contraligeant’ su�¦ debitum; for he owed to the King that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection; which Loa but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a nat. he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject;”

For the English, both parents, in wedlock, as ‘natural subjects’ may produce a ‘natural born subject’.

For the US, both parents, (marriage laws not to strict), as ‘citizens’ may produce a ‘natural born citizen’.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 18, 2010 at 10:52 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

MichaelN: I think the argument is flawed, that the Frenchman Sherley was an alien and therefore the child of any alien is an Englishnatural born subject’ & therefore a child of an alien in US is a natural born citizen’.Because Shirley was alien born’ it doesn’t mean that he was, or could not be an English natural subject’ by the ‘Law of Nature’The US doesn’t embrace visitors to US as citizen’ by the same means as the English claim their visitors a natural subjects’, although the children of such aliens in US are citizens’, the parents are not, and must be naturalized for their children to be natural born’, otherwise their children (under 14th Amendment) are merely citizens’ born.Per Calvin’s case, by the Law of Nature, Sherley, although alien born’, was considered in the context of parenting a child in England, as an equal ’subject’.Sherley was considered as a natural subject’ by the Law of Nature, this was a prerequisite to production of a natural born subject’“By these and many other cases that might be cited out of our books, it appeareth, how plentiful the authorities of our laws be in this matter.
Wherefore to conclude this point (and to exclude all that hath been or could be objected against it) if the obedience and ligeance of the subject to his sovereign be due by the law of nature, if that law be parcel of the laws, as well of England, as of all other nations, and is immutable, and that postnati and we of England are united by birthright, [7-Coke-14 b] in obedience and ligeance (which is the true cause of natural subjection) by the law of nature”” The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction; and this is lex �¦terna, the moral law, called also the law of nature. And by this law, written God in the heart of man, were the people of God a long time gone law was written by Moses, who was the first reporter or writer of The Apostle in the second chapter to the Romans saith, Cum enim gentes qu�¦ elegem non habent naturaliter ea qu�¦ legissunt faciunt. And this is within the moral law, honora patrem, which doubtless doth extend to him that is pater patri�¦. And these be the words of the Great Divine, Hoc Deus in Sacris Scripturis jubet, hoc ut quilibet subditus obediat superior and Aristotle, nature’s secretary, lib. 1. Cap. 5. that jus naturale est, quod apud omnes homines eandem habet potentiam. agree Bracton, lib. 1. cap. 5. and Fortescue, cap. 8. 12. 13. and Student, cap. 2. and 4. And the reason hereof is, for that God a [7-Coke-13 a] to all, and therefore the law of God and nature is one to al nature is the faith, ligeance, and obedience of the subject due to superior.”
“Concerning the local obedience it is observable, that as there on the King’s part, so there is a (d) local ligeance of the sub this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. (e) and 3 and 4 Ail and Mar. Dy Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, a concluded (f) contraligeant’ su�¦ debitum; for he owed to the King that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection; which Loa but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a nat. he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject;”For the English, both parents, in wedlock, as natural subjects’ may produce a natural born subject’.For the US, both parents, (marriage laws not to strict), as citizens’ may produce a natural born citizen’.

Incorrect once again Michael. You refuse to read the whole entire case and instead stick to a few paragraphs. Those born of aliens are native born citizens/natural born. So tell me something what would you say of the child of a woman who is raped and conceives the child without knowing if the father is a US citizen or an alien? Do you punish the child and claim he isn’t a natural born citizen?
MichaelN says:

June 18, 2010 at 11:47 pm MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I think the argument is flawed, that the Frenchman Sherley was an alien and therefore the child of any alien is an English natural born subject’ & therefore a child of an alien in US is a natural born citizen’.

Because Shirley was alien born’ it doesn’t mean that he was, or could not be an English natural subject’ by the ‘Law of Nature’

The US doesn’t embrace visitors to US as citizen’ by the same means as the English claim their visitors a natural subjects’, although the children of such aliens in US are citizens’, the parents are not, and must be naturalized for their children to be natural born’, otherwise their children (under 14th Amendment) are merely citizens’ born.

Per Calvin’s case, by the Law of Nature, Sherley, although alien born’, was considered in the context of parenting a child in England, as an equal ’subject’.

Sherley was considered as a natural subject’ by the Law of Nature, this was a prerequisite to production of a natural born subject’

“By these and many other cases that might be cited out of our books, it appeareth, how plentiful the authorities of our laws be in this matter.
Wherefore to conclude this point (and to exclude all that hath been or could be objected against it) if the obedience and ligeance of the subject to his sovereign be due by the law of nature, if that law be parcel of the laws, as well of England, as of all other nations, and is immutable, and that postnati and we of England are united by birthright, [7-Coke-14 b] in obedience and ligeance (which is the true cause of natural subjection) by the law of nature”

” The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction; and this is lex �¦terna, the moral law, called also the law of nature. And by this law, written God in the heart of man, were the people of God a long time gone law was written by Moses, who was the first reporter or writer of The Apostle in the second chapter to the Romans saith, Cum enim gentes qu�¦ elegem non habent naturaliter ea qu�¦ legissunt faciunt. And this is within the moral law, honora patrem, which doubtless doth extend to him that is pater patri�¦. And these be the words of the Great Divine, Hoc Deus in Sacris Scripturis jubet, hoc ut quilibet subditus obediat superior and Aristotle, nature’s secretary, lib. 1. Cap. 5. that jus naturale est, quod apud omnes homines eandem habet potentiam. agree Bracton, lib. 1. cap. 5. and Fortescue, cap. 8. 12. 13. and Student, cap. 2. and 4. And the reason hereof is, for that God a [7-Coke-13 a] to all, and therefore the law of God and nature is one to al nature is the faith, ligeance, and obedience of the subject due to superior.”

“Concerning the local obedience it is observable, that as there on the King’s part, so there is a (d) local ligeance of the sub this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. (e) and 3 and 4 Ail and Mar. Dy Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, a concluded (f) contraligeant’ su�¦ debitum; for he owed to the King that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection; which Loa but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a nat. he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject;”

For the English, both parents, in wedlock, as natural subjects’ may produce a natural born subject’.

For the US, both parents, (marriage laws not to strict), as citizens’ may produce a natural born citizen’.

Why do you think it would be a punishment?
MichaelN says:

June 18, 2010 at 11:51 pm MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
Incorrect once again Michael.You refuse to read the whole entire case and instead stick to a few paragraphs.Those born of aliens are native born citizens/natural born.So tell me something what would you say of the child of a woman who is raped and conceives the child without knowing if the father is a US citizen or an alien?Do you punish the child and claim he isn’t a natural born citizen?

I just showed you how, to the English, Sherley was not an alien in the context of production of a his child born in England ………… he was a ‘natural subject’ by the ‘Law of Nature’ and thus Common Law.

Sherley was ‘alien born’ …………but for the purposes of producing a ‘natural born subject’ he was a ‘natural subject’.

Btw, for a child to not be a ‘natural born citizen’ is not a punishment.
nbC says:

June 19, 2010 at 12:19 am nbC(Quote)

I just showed you how, to the English, Sherley was not an alien in the context of production of a his child born in England ………… he was a natural subject’ by the ‘Law of Nature’ and thus Common Law.

He was not a natural subject of the United Kingdom in any meaningful sense and remained an alien. Thus the statement that a child born to an alien while on the soil of the English King becomes a natural born citizen.

I am glad that you are attempting to educate yourself but in doing so you ignore centuries of scholarly research that prove you wrong.

Does that not concern you or does the end justify the means?

And yes, taking away the rights is a punishment.
MichaelN says:

June 19, 2010 at 1:02 am MichaelN(Quote)

nbC: I just showed you how, to the English, Sherley was not an alien in the context of production of a his child born in England ………… he was a natural subject’ by the ‘Law of Nature’ and thus Common Law.

Sherley was alien born’ …………but for the purposes of producing a natural born subject’ he was a natural subject’.

Btw, for a child to not be a natural born citizen’ is not a punishment.

I just showed you how, to the English, Sherley was not an alien in the context of production of a his child born in England ………… he was a natural subject’ by the ‘Law of Nature’ and thus Common Law.

Sherley was alien born’ …………but for the purposes of producing a natural born subject’ he was a natural subject’.

Btw, for a child to not be a natural born citizen’ is not a punishment.

nbC:
He was not a natural subject of the United Kingdom in any meaningful sense and remained an alien. Thus the statement that a child born to an alien while on the soil of the English King becomes a natural born citizen.I am glad that you are attempting to educate yourself but in doing so you ignore centuries of scholarly research that prove you wrong.Does that not concern you or does the end justify the means?And yes, taking away the rights is a punishment.

But he was included as a ‘natural subject’ as I have just shown you.

A child of an alien had no ‘right’ as a ‘natural born citizen ‘in the first instance, so no rights have been ‘taken away’ & it is not a punishment for one to be ineligible for a job.

The parents must first be considered as English subjects’ to be able to produce a English natural born subject’, the alien born’ Sherley was postnati’, united by birthright to be an English subject’ along with the rest.

To be a English natural born subject’ one had to be born of an English subject’ parent.

“and that postnati and we of England are united by birthright, [7-Coke-14 b] in obedience and ligeance (which is the true cause of natural subjection) by the law of nature”

In context:

“Wherefore to conclude this point (and to exclude all that hath been or could be objected against it) if the obedience and ligeance of the subject to his sovereign be due by the law of nature, if that law be parcel of the laws, as well of England, as of all other nations, and is immutable, and that postnati and we of England are united by birthright, [7-Coke-14 b] in obedience and ligeance (which is the true cause of natural subjection) by the law of nature”

“There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.”

Please spare me the fallacy you employ with this nonsense – “centuries of scholarly research that prove you wrong”

You be one who would burn at the stake the person who found the earth wasn’t flat?

You cite Common Law, you get Common Law – it is clear the English defined an English ‘natural born subject’ as one born of two parents, in wedlock, BOTH in liegience & obedience to the king and if obedient, they are English ‘natural subjects’ even if ‘alien born’.

Learn to live with it.
nbc says:

June 19, 2010 at 2:34 am nbc(Quote)

MichaelN: But he was included as a natural subject’ as I have just shown you.

He could not be a natural subject since that is a status that an alien cannot hold. Only naturalization or birth can make one a natural born subject.

So you agree that under English common law, which was in effect in the early states, that a child born to an alien was a natural born citizen.

In fact, wedlock did not matter either, it was the father really who decided if born outside the English soil, otherwise, birth on soil made a natural born citizen.

As I said I appreciate your efforts but you are ignoring the simple facts while quote mining parts you do not seem to fully comprehend.
That’s the problem with end justifying the means.
nbc says:

June 19, 2010 at 2:37 am nbc(Quote)

MichaelN: You be one who would burn at the stake the person who found the earth wasn’t flat?

Shame on you for suggesting such foolish notions.
There is no support for your position. Do not flatter yourself
SFJeff says:

June 19, 2010 at 2:40 am SFJeff(Quote)

“Learn to live with it.”

Actually, we are all living with the reality. We have a President who is a Natural Born Citizen whose father was not a citizen of the United States. I know that. 69 million voters knew that. Congress knew that. Chief Justice Roberts knew that. Only Micheal doesn’t
Whatever4 says:

June 19, 2010 at 2:44 am Whatever4(Quote)

Michael, do you know what postnati means? Also, by what mechanism does ~~Sherly~~ [the Frenchman] become non-alien just because he has a child? You are confusing me with your “analysis”.
MichaelN says:

June 19, 2010 at 4:27 am MichaelN(Quote)

Whatever4: Michael, do you know what postnati means? Also, by what mechanism does ~~Sherly~~ [the Frenchman] become non-alien just because he has a child? You are confusing me with your “analysis”.

Ist question – answer:

Postnati = born after

In this context, born after the adoption of the ‘rules’ or law that determined who was ‘subject’.

2nd question – answer:

“for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject”
MichaelN says:

June 19, 2010 at 4:34 am MichaelN(Quote)

nbc:
.In fact, wedlock did not matter either, it was the father really who decided if born outside the English soil, otherwise, birth on soil made a natural born citizen.

“There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king”

“And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions.”
MichaelN says:

June 19, 2010 at 4:48 am MichaelN(Quote)

nbc: He could not be a natural subject since that is a status that an alien cannot hold. Only naturalization or birth can make one a natural born subject.

I just showed you that Sherley would be deemed a ‘natural subject’, had be remained obedient, strong enough to make him a ‘natural subject’, even though he was ‘alien BORN’.

“a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject”

Then as a ‘natural subject’, a child he produced ‘here’ would be a ‘natural born subject’.

I know it’s distasteful for you, but you will have to learn to live with it.

Even the office of head of state in England must descend via jus sanguinis, so what’s your problem with founding framers adopting the same principle of jus sanguinis for US head of state?
MichaelN says:

June 19, 2010 at 4:57 am MichaelN(Quote)

Sherley could only be indicted for treason if he was considered a ‘subject’, he was a ‘natural subject’ by the ‘Law of Nature’, albeit ‘alien born’.

“Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;”

“But if an alien enemy come to invade this realm, and be taken in warr, he cannot be indicted of treason: for the indictment cannot conclude contra ligeant’ suae debitum, for he never was in the protection of the King, nor ever owed any manner of ligeance unto him, but malice and enmity,”
Mike says:

June 19, 2010 at 6:41 am Mike(Quote)

This guy’s still here and he still doesn’t get it? What do we have to do, go all Clockwork Orange on him?
MichaelN says:

June 19, 2010 at 7:39 am MichaelN(Quote)

Mike: This guy’s still here and he still doesn’t get it? What do we have to do, go all Clockwork Orange on him?

Which guy?

What precisely is it that ‘he still doesn’t get’?

What’s your take on the Frenchman?

That’s ok, if you haven’t got an argument, continue to sit in the gallery and throw junk, if that’s what makes you feel good about yourself.

That’s Common Law for ya, like it or not, reach back into Common Law & you find Law of Nature, there you find that family creates family,tribal members create tribal members, ‘subjects create subjects’, ‘citizens’ create ‘citizens’, kings create kings, all in obedience of the Law of Nature.

US eligibility for POTUS sets to establish, that which is unprecedented in Common Law yet in observance of the Law of Nature, where the ‘monarch’ is created for the ‘citizens’ by the ‘citizens’.
MichaelN says:

June 19, 2010 at 7:51 am MichaelN(Quote)

Mike: This guy’s still here and he still doesn’t get it? What do we have to do, go all Clockwork Orange on him?

Actually that’s quite Mengele-ish …………… creepy!

Are you a member of the Democrats?
Sef says:

June 19, 2010 at 8:50 am Sef(Quote)

MichaelN: That’s Common Law for ya, like it or not, reach back into Common Law & you find Law of Nature, there you find that family creates family,tribal members create tribal members, ’subjects create subjects’, citizens’ create citizens’, kings create kings, all in obedience of the Law of Nature.

But neither Common Law, Civil Law nor Constitutional Law are static. They “evolve” (sorry, that is probably a “bad word” for you)
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 19, 2010 at 9:50 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: US eligibility for POTUS sets to establish, that which is unprecedented in Common Law yet in observance of the Law of Nature, where the monarch’ is created for the citizens’ by the citizens’.

This is not Alice in Wonderland. Saying things do not make them so.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 19, 2010 at 9:57 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: I just showed you that Sherley would be deemed a natural subject’, had be remained obedient, strong enough to make him a natural subject’, even though he was alien BORN’.

Well, if the Frenchman’s amity made him a natural subject, then I would presume that Barack Obama Sr’s amity (not being at war) with the United States, and owing to the United States a local allegiance would likewise be sufficient to make his child born in the Untied States a natural born citizen of the United States.

I believe that for the purposes of Obama’s eligibility, you have conceded the argument.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 19, 2010 at 10:05 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: “for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject”

Finish the quote:

for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;

So would you agree that Barack Obama Sr. while legally residing in the United States was under the protection of the United States, and owed local obedience to the government and laws of the United States, thereby under the precedent you cite had allegiance strong enough to make him a “natural citizen” sufficient so that his children born in the United States would be natural born citizens?

That is precisely what the Supreme Court said in (US v Wong) just before giving the preceding citation from Calvin’s Case:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.

You can parse it any way you want. The children of resident aliens in the United States are natural born citizens. It’s just that simple.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 19, 2010 at 10:19 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: Hawaii DoH changed the rules and stopped issuing long form birth certificates in June 2009.

While you are working on coming up with proof that your attacks on Obama are not because you are the paid agent of Islamic terrorists, how about some proof for the preceding citation.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 19, 2010 at 10:29 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nbc: He could not be a natural subject since that is a status that an alien cannot hold. Only naturalization or birth can make one a natural born subject.

Let me address you and perhaps one of the lawyers here. Exactly how is that phrase “strong enough to make a natural subject” in Calvin’s Case parsed?

It would seem to me that the “natural subject” must be the father or the child. If it is the father, then I would understand it to imply that some action of natural law makes anyone under the jurisdiction of the country a subject (according to nature). In this case I think subject and citizen are not interchangeable. Under this reading “natural subject” and “naturalized subject” would have different meaning, the former a temporary subject under natural law, and the other someone made a permanent subject through the action of government.

The alternative is that the “natural subject” is the child in which the word “make” refers to fathering the child or make refers to the action of natural law on the child through the temporary allegiance of the father.

Under either reading, Barack Obama Sr. was whatever is needed to meet the requirement so that “if he has issue here” the child is a natural born subject, and in this case I think “citizen” may be substituted for the American case.
Greg says:

June 19, 2010 at 10:44 am Greg(Quote)

I think the argument is flawed, that the Frenchman Sherley was an alien and therefore the child of any alien is an English natural born subject’ & therefore a child of an alien in US is a natural born citizen’.

Sherley wasn’t his name.

Sherley = surely.

And he doesn’t become a subject of any kind. Subjects can inherit. Aliens cannot. The father in this instance remains alien, but his children would be able to inherit as subjects. I gave you several examples from the case, including the children born in Normandy. “The question is then, whether men born in Normandy, after one King had them both, were inheritable to lands in England…”

Because Shirley was alien born’ it doesn’t mean that he was, or could not be an English natural subject’ by the ‘Law of Nature’

Natural subject = natural born subject.

At this point, I’m assuming you’re ignoring my arguments because you know you cannot reply. You know you’re wrong.

At this point, your arguments are getting embarrasing.

Sherley, although alien born’, was considered in the context of parenting a child in England, as an equal ’subject’.

Nope. He was considered an alien, with a local and temporary allegiance, which was, nonetheless, strong enough to make his issue natural born.

which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for IF HE HATH ISSUE here, that ISSUE is a natural born subject

For the English, both parents, in wedlock, as natural subjects’ may produce a natural born subject’.

Nope. If they are in England, and they are not ambassadors, or invading armies, they owe enough allegiance to create a natural born subject – alta ligeantia.

I just showed you

No, you repeated your argument, which I had debunked earlier. Repeating it doesn’t make it better. It just makes it repetitive. And wrong.

Please spare me the fallacy you employ with this nonsense – “centuries of scholarly research that prove you wrong”

You be one who would burn at the stake the person who found the earth wasn’t flat?

Your analogy is fatally flawed, Michael. It would be like claiming that obviously the Pope didn’t imprison Galileo because he said the world wasn’t the center of the universe because the world isn’t the center of the universe.

We’re not talking about the world being round or flat, Michael, we’re talking about whether Lord Coke said it was round or flat. He either said round or flat, and whether you can parse it to mean the other doesn’t mean that the case was interpreted by England or Horace Gray to mean that.

In short, you’re saying, “I don’t care whether or not England really made the children of aliens into natural born subjects, I say they did, so they did!”

Postnati = born after

In this context, born after the adoption of the rules’ or law that determined who was ’subject’.

No, this was the case of the postnati. In all contexts of this case, postnati mean those born after the joining of the English and Scottish kingdom.

Keep proving how little you understand of this case, though, it is really helpful to guage the extent of your lack of knowledge!

Sherley could only be indicted for treason if he was considered a ’subject’, he was a natural subject’ by the ‘Law of Nature’, albeit alien born’.

“Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;”

Do you understand footnotes? The editor translates the Latin in the footnote:

“against the duty of his allegiance.”

An alien in amity owes an allegiance to the King, even without becoming a subject!

“localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta” – “local allegiance is something mean and small, and extremely uncertain”

An alien enemy by contrast, owes no allegiance!

for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, 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, nor under the protection of the King.

You keep pointing to the narrow holding of Wong Kim Ark as your saving grace (Only a citizen). Try reading the holding of this case. Search for the term “antenati.”

…the Antenati remain aliens as to the Crown of England, because they were born when there were several Kings of the several kingdoms…

Those born BEFORE are STILL aliens, not natural subjects, but ALIENS! And what happens to their children?

postnati and we of England are united by birthright, [7-Coke-14 b] in obedience and ligeance (which is the true cause of natural subjection) by the law of nature”

Those born AFTER = natural born subjects.

Before = aliens
After = natural born subjects!

Michael, I’ve shown repeatedly that your reading of the case is entirely wrong, that your interpretation of the two paragraphs you’ve actually read doesn’t even make sense with any other part of the case, that it makes nearly all of Lord Coke’s examples incomprehensible.

I think it’s pretty telling that you have chosen not to reply to any of my posts.
MichaelN says:

June 19, 2010 at 10:48 am MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: MichaelN: “for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject”Finish the quote:
So would you agree that Barack Obama Sr. while legally residing in the United States was under the protection of the United States, and owed local obedience to the government and laws of the United States, thereby under the precedent you cite had allegiance strong enough to make him a “natural citizen” sufficient so that his children born in the United States would be natural born citizens?That is precisely what the Supreme Court said in (US v Wong) just before giving the preceding citation from Calvin’s Case:
You can parse it any way you want. The children of resident aliens in the United States are natural born citizens. It’s just that simple.

14th gives citizenship to the child, not the alien parents.

US only gives citizenship to the parents if they are born or naturalized.

The English gives ‘subject’ to the parents FIRST, for the child of that ‘subject’ to be a ‘natural born subject’.

Jus sanguinis, just like jus sanguinis for the monarch of England & just like jus sanguinis for the ‘monarch’ of US.

That’s how simple it REALLY is.

Why do you want to ‘punish’ the truly ‘natural born’ by denying them their birth-right?

If you can accept the English requirement for jus sanguinis for head of state, why can’t you accept it for US head of state?

Could it be that you have been so dogmatic for so long that your belief is so ‘right’, that it would be too much of an embarrassment to face & accept the truth?

Why do you really think that 14th only says ‘citizen’ for those ‘citizens’ of the born variety and not ‘natural born’?

Why do you think Wong only got ‘citizen’ and not ‘natural born’?

Why do you think the framers said ‘natural born citizen’ and not ‘born citizen’?

Think Occam’s razor, it might help you.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 19, 2010 at 11:00 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: If you can accept the English requirement for jus sanguinis for head of state, why can’t you accept it for US head of state?

Because the US Constitution did not make such a requirement.

MichaelN: “Why do you think Wong only got citizen’ and not natural born’?”

But he did. Just read the whole thing.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 19, 2010 at 11:02 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Greg: Sherley wasn’t his name.

Damn. I read it right the first time, and then all this Sherley stuff appeared as a name, and I though I must have misread. Conclusion: always go back and check.
MichaelN says:

June 19, 2010 at 11:11 am MichaelN(Quote)

Greg: Sherley could only be indicted for treason if he was considered a ’subject’, he was a natural subject’ by the ‘Law of Nature’, albeit alien born’.

“Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;”

“But if an alien enemy come to invade this realm, and be taken in warr, he cannot be indicted of treason: for the indictment cannot conclude contra ligeant’ suae debitum, for he never was in the protection of the King, nor ever owed any manner of ligeance unto him, but malice and enmity,”

Greg:
Sherley wasn’t his name.
Sherley = surely.
And he doesn’t become a subject of any kind. Subjects can inherit. Aliens cannot. The father in this instance remains alien,

Impossible…..

Sherley could only be indicted for treason if he was considered a ’subject’, he was a natural subject’ by the ‘Law of Nature’, albeit alien born’.

“Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;”

“But if an alien enemy come to invade this realm, and be taken in warr, he cannot be indicted of treason: for the indictment cannot conclude contra ligeant’ suae debitum, for he never was in the protection of the King, nor ever owed any manner of ligeance unto him, but malice and enmity,”

It doesn’t matter a hoot how temporary was the Frenchman’s duration of being a ‘natural subject’ by ‘The Law of Nature’.

The point is that he was accepted as a ‘natural subject’, consistent with ‘The Law of Nature’, FIRST, to be able to produce a ‘natural born subject’.

So it makes perfect sense that the ‘obedience’ is what is nurtured in the child by the ‘subject’ or ‘citizen’ parents.

Similarly the alien is not so reliable to nurture such ‘obedience’.

Article II of USC head of state = jus sanguinis, ‘citizens’ make ‘natural born citizens’, make presidents.

Head of state England = jus sanguinis, ‘subjects’ make ‘natural born subjects’, kings make kings.

Resort to Common Law, is a resort to ‘The Law of Nature’.

Learn to live with it.
Greg says:

June 19, 2010 at 11:12 am Greg(Quote)

The English gives ’subject’ to the parents FIRST, for the child of that ’subject’ to be a natural born subject’.

No they don’t. The case is about two groups of people, the Antenati, those born before the kingdoms joined, and the Postnati, those born after.

If you can accept the English requirement for jus sanguinis for head of state, why can’t you accept it for US head of state?

Exactly which requirement are you talking about? Are you talking about hereditary rule? The thing that Americans rejected explicitly?

Are you really confused on the difference between hereditary rule and jus sanguinis?

In the 1600s, England tried to say that the children of aliens should be disallowed from serving in government. They rejected that change, reaffirming that the children of aliens were natural born subjects. They could serve in government.

Why do you really think that 14th only says citizen’ for those citizens’ of the born variety and not natural born’?

Because nobody realized that anyone could think there was a third type of citizen?

Your question is like asking why the founders didn’t say that citizenship was limited to humans. Why didn’t they explicitly say that space aliens couldn’t be citizens?

Why do you think Wong only got citizen’ and not natural born’?

Because when there are only two types of citizen, natural born citizen and naturalized citizen, and it’s obvious that Wong isn’t naturalized, then saying he’s a citizen is the same as saying he’s a natural born citizen!

All cars are black or white. This car isn’t white. It is a car. Why haven’t I said it’s a black car? Because there are only two options. There was no third option!

People who play at Wimbledon are Great Tennis Players. John played at Wimbledon. He’s a tennis player.

Why didn’t I say he was a Great Tennis Player? Because tennis player is part of Great Tennis Player and proving the greater includes the lesser.

How did Wong become a citizen if not because Natural Born Citizen meant the exact same as Natural Born Subject?

The case says, explicitly, that the 14th Amendment doesn’t change anything about the meaning of the terms in issue, only confirms that it extends to blacks. If the amendment didn’t change anything, how did Wong become a citizen?

Finally, if there was a third option, a “just a citizen,” why did everyone in the case (the dissent, the government lawyers, Wong’s lawyers) think that if Wong became a citizen, he’d be eligible for the Presidency? And if Gray had intended to make Wong ineligible for the Presidency, given the fact that everyone else thought Wong was eligible for the Presidency, why didn’t he mention it more explicitly?

Occam’s razor is not your friend, Michael!
MichaelN says:

June 19, 2010 at 11:23 am MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
Because the US Constitution did not make such a requirement.But he did. Just read the whole thing.

He did not, that is a lie.

The case before the Wong court:

“The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States,…………………………….becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

“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.”
——————————————————————————————–

The decision of the Wong court:

“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, ………………………………………. 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.

Order affirmed.”

No ‘natural born’ for Wong, yet it was discussed profusely in the dicta.

Now why is that?

Remember Occam’s razor.
Greg says:

June 19, 2010 at 11:26 am Greg(Quote)

Impossible…..

Sherley could only be indicted for treason if he was considered a ’subject’,

Nope. You’re misreading this.

The point is that he was accepted as a natural subject’, consistent with The Law of Nature’, FIRST, to be able to produce a natural born subject’.

Nope, you’re misreading this. He owes a temporary allegiance, as an alien in amity!

So it makes perfect sense that the obedience’ is what is nurtured in the child by the ’subject’ or citizen’ parents.

Nope. You’re misreading this. Search all the instances of “ACTUAL OBEDIENCE” and “ACTUAL POSSESSION.” Actual obedience relies on the King’s POSSESSION of the land, not the actual individual obedience.

Why do you think the people of Normandy are sometimes natural subjects, sometimes natural born subjects and sometimes aliens in the case? Normandy passes into and out of ACTUAL POSSESSION!

It doesn’t matter a hoot how temporary was the Frenchman’s duration of being a natural subject’ by The Law of Nature’.

Close. It doesn’t matter a hoot how temporary his alleigance was when determing if his CHILDREN become natural born subjects.

Natural subject = natural born subject.

Use CTRL-F to find all the uses of NATURAL SUBJECT and you’ll see it is the same phrase as Natural born subject.

AS I’VE SHOWN ABOVE!

Similarly the alien is not so reliable to nurture such obedience’.

Utter misreading of the case!

so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject; for localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta.

The alien’s allegiance is local and temporary but it still makes a natural born subject, even though “local allegiance is something mean and small, and extremely uncertain.”

Article II of USC head of state = jus sanguinis, citizens’ make natural born citizens’, make presidents.

Not true.

Resort to Common Law, is a resort to The Law of Nature’.

Learn to live with it.

Learn to read it! Learn to read the WHOLE case! How do you think the antenati “REMAIN aliens” but can have natural born subjects in the postnati?

Common law is not as you imagine it! You putting your imaginary gloss on a case and misreading it in its entirety does not make it into common law!

Here’s how common law understood Calvin’s Case:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.
Greg says:

June 19, 2010 at 11:31 am Greg(Quote)

No natural born’ for Wong, yet it was discussed profusely in the dicta.

In short, here’s the reasoning of the case:

1. Those born here are natural born citizens.
2. Wong was born here
3. Wong is a citizen.

Occam’s razor says that saying 2 implies 1 and that 3 is simply a case of the greater includes the lesser.

Occam’s razor says that you’d be able to give a coherent reading of the reasoning of the case without adding stuff that wasn’t in the case if Wong was intended to be a third type of citizen.

Occam’s razor is not your friend!
Greg says:

June 19, 2010 at 11:39 am Greg(Quote)

Occam’s razor says that the uses of “natural subject” and “natural born subject” in this paragraph of Calvin’s Case shows they were the SAME concept:

By all which it is manifest, that Callice being parcel of France, was under the actual obedience and commandment of the King, and by consequent those that were born there, were natural born subjects, and no aliens. Callice from the reign of King Edward the third until the fifth year of Queen Mary, remained under the actual obedience of the king of England. |[22 b] Guines also, another part of France, was under the like obedience to King Henry the sixth, as appeareth by 32 Hen. 6. fol. 4. And Tournay was under the obedience of Henry the eighth., as it appeareth by 5 Eliz. Dyer, fol. 224. for there it is resolved, that a bastard born at Tournay, whiles it was under the obedience of Henry the eighth, was a natural subject, as an issue born within this realm by aliens. If then those that were born at Tournay, Callice, &c. whiles they were under the obedience of the king, were natural subjects, and no aliens, it followeth, that when the kingdom of France (whereof those were parcels) was under the king’s obedience, that those that were then born there, were natural subjects, and no aliens.

Occam’s Razor says that if aliens became subjects then Lord Coke wouldn’t have said:

that a bastard born at Tournay, whiles it was under the obedience of Henry the eighth, was a natural subject, as an issue born within this realm by aliens

You and Occam’s Razor are not on speaking terms!
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 19, 2010 at 1:20 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: He did not, that is a lie.

I would remind you that you are guest here. Are you this uncivil when you visit with people in real life?

I repeat my comment, that if you look at the entire opinion in Wong, you will see that the argument shows him a natural born citizen. Your misconception is that there is a difference between “born a citizen” and “natural born citizen.” Courts use these terms interchangeably.
Scientist says:

June 19, 2010 at 1:25 pm Scientist(Quote)

MichaelN: Even the office of head of state in England must descend via jus sanguinis, so what’s your problem with founding framers adopting the same principle of jus sanguinis for US head of state?

You need to brush up on your English history. On several occasions, England imported their rulers-William of Orange from Holland and the Hanoverians (from who today’s Queen is descended) from Germany-are two. The first couple of Hanoverians didn’t even speak English.

The husband of the current Queen, Philip, is Greek, and that doesn’t stop their eldest son, Charles, from being first in line for the throne if his mother ever dies (she may decide to live forever). Let’s look at the symmetry:

Queen Elizabeth II – English; Stanley Ann Dunham- American
Prince Philip-foreign; Barack Obama Sr-foreign
Charles, son of Elizabeth and Philip-next in line for English throne
Barack Obama Jr, son of Stanley Ann and Barack Sr-President of the US

It’s beautiful how that works.

Anyway, the American people of today, not a bunch of English judges, nor Swiss philosophers, nor even pigtailed founders choose their President. That’s the real simplicity of it.
NbC says:

June 19, 2010 at 1:34 pm NbC(Quote)

Greg: Nope, you’re misreading this. He owes a temporary allegiance, as an alien in amity!

Exactly. In order to become a natural subject, he would have to be born on soil or be naturalized. Neither happened.

Which is why the offspring of temporary visitors to English soil are natural born citizens, even though their parents owe only temporary allegiance.
NbC says:

June 19, 2010 at 1:38 pm NbC(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: I repeat my comment, that if you look at the entire opinion in Wong, you will see that the argument shows him a natural born citizen. Your misconception is that there is a difference between “born a citizen” and “natural born citizen.” Courts use these terms interchangeably.

Yes, that’s true. These terms, natural, and native born or born a citizen are used quite interchangeably.

Wong is clear, so clear that even the dissenting Judge accepts that under its ruling WKA would be eligible for the Presidency.

Why MichaelN continues to disagree with the Judges, both on the majority and minority side as well as the Government’s position on the issue seems rather strange.

Wong Kim Ark was all about natural born citizen, since WKA could, by US law of those days, not be a naturalized citizen and thus the only alternative path to citizenship was through birth on US soil, which would make him a natural born citizen

Trivially simple
NbC says:

June 19, 2010 at 1:43 pm NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: is strong enough to make a natural subject

I see where the confusion is located. Strong enough to make a natural subject refers to the offspring, not the father.
NbC says:

June 19, 2010 at 1:45 pm NbC(Quote)

MichaelN: No natural born’ for Wong, yet it was discussed profusely in the dicta.

Now why is that?

Because they are the same. Duh… Even the government’s brief was clear here, and the dissenting Judge observed that WKA would be eligible for the presidency.

So close and yet so unable to apply Occam’s razor correctly.
No worries Michael, Greg, Dr C and others are here to assist you through these troubling times
NbC says:

June 19, 2010 at 1:48 pm NbC(Quote)

Greg: The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.

The inevitable conclusion of course, which is based on Common Law and Common sense. Why do some people insist that the US had somehow adopted Jus Sanguini when there is NO evidence of such. In fact, if Jus Sanguini were the foundation, why then did the first Congress pass an act making children born abroad to US citizen fathers, (natural born) citizens?

Because they realized that jus sanguini was not the standard.

Trivially simple
NbC says:

June 19, 2010 at 1:51 pm NbC(Quote)

It was almost universally conceded that citizenship by birth in the United States was governed by the principles of the English common law. It is very doubtful whether the common law covered the case of children born abroad to subjects of England Statutes were enacted in England to supply this deficiency or to remove the doubt which existed in regard to the matter. Hence it was deemed necessary to enact a similar law in the United States to extend citizenship to children born to American parents out of the United States/

Source: Citizenship of the United States By Frederick Van Dyne

As I said, trivially simple
NbC says:

June 19, 2010 at 1:53 pm NbC(Quote)

SImilarly

States and are therefore not its subjects Acquisition of United States Citizenship by Birth Citizenship and nationality being equivalent terms the acquisition of citizenship in the United States was determined from the outset by the common law of England I e by the jus soli All persons born in the limits and under the actual obedience of the United States were its natural born citizens and it is in this sense that the phrase is used in section one of article two of the constitution Conversely all persons born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States though of citizen parents were aliens for the English statutes by which these persons were naturalized were not part of our law The naturalization act of March 20 1790 declared that the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea or out of the limits of the United Slates shall be held as natural born citizens provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States

Source: The law of nationality
By Munroe Smith

Time after time…
Northland10 says:

June 19, 2010 at 2:51 pm Northland10(Quote)

MichaelN: Sherely, you must be a Natural Subject.
A Frenchman: No, I’m an alien, and stop calling me Shirley.
J. Edward Tremlett says:

June 19, 2010 at 3:05 pm J. Edward Tremlett(Quote)

I think the problem here is that MichaelN – like the other Birthers he’s cribbing from – is trying to play the original Castle Wolfenstein while the rest of the world’s on the latest Resident Evil. You couldn’t have had the latter without the former, but we’ve moved WAY on from there.
Mike says:

June 19, 2010 at 4:18 pm Mike(Quote)

MichaelN: Actually that’s quite Mengele-ish …………… creepy!Are you a member of the Democrats?

You’re being foolish on purpose, right? I was making a satirical reference to the part of A Clockwork Orange where Malcolm McDowell has his eyes held open and is brainwashed, as a means of highlighting your apparent inability to understand what’s right in front of your nose. You may not know the film; I shouldn’t think they’ve ever referenced it on Grand Ole Opry or Jerry Springer.
Mike says:

June 19, 2010 at 4:44 pm Mike(Quote)

MichaelN: Which guy?

That’d be you; I thought it wouldn’t be necessary to point it out, given the context, but you appear to have reading comprehension issues.

What precisely is it that ‘he still doesn’t get’?

That you’re utterly wrong, that your reading of the case is faulty and based on bias and ignorance. In other words, that you’re the kind of substandard thinker (for which “birther” is basically a synonym) that gets eaten for breakfast around here.

What’s your take on the Frenchman?

If he had children in the United Kingdom, they would be natural-born subjects. See also story, end of. You’re flogging a dead horse.

That’s ok, if you haven’t got an argument, continue to sit in the gallery and throw junk, if that’s what makes you feel good about yourself.

That’s cute. Did your parents have any kids that lived? Note to Doc – feel free to edit…

That’s Common Law for ya, like it or not, reach back into Common Law & you find Law of Nature, there you find that family creates family,tribal members create tribal members, subjects create subjects’, citizens’ create citizens’, kings create kings, all in obedience of the Law of Nature.

Tosh. Common law is simply tradition, judicial precedent, social convention and habit. It has nothing to do with some mythical natural law which you or anyone else pulls out of some orifice.

US eligibility for POTUS sets to establish, that which is unprecedented in Common Law yet in observance of the Law of Nature, where the monarch’ is created for the citizens’ by the citizens’.

Rubbish. Your law of nature is whatever suits in any given moment, i.e., it is mere rhetoric and nonsense.

More to the point, this jockeying over common law is moot, and pointless. There is no common law citizenship in the United Kingdom anymore, and none in the United States.
Greg says:

June 19, 2010 at 5:07 pm Greg(Quote)

Michael’s not playing the old game that no one plays anymore. He’s the guy who thinks he can jump over the flagpole in Super Mario Brothers and get to a super special level. If he squints real hard and parses every word in a few select paragraphs in the cases and he claps as hard as he can and really, truly, believes he can make sure that there is an extra type of citizenship for Obama or tinkerbell gets her wings, or something.

The law has always considered Obama an NBC. There is no 3d type of citizen. And there’s no jumping over the flagpole. But, you’re right, even if he could jump over the flagpole, we’ve all gotten WII’s.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 19, 2010 at 5:19 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

MichaelN:
Why do you think it would be a punishment?

You’re making it sound like it
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 19, 2010 at 5:24 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

MichaelN:
I just showed you that Sherley would be deemed a natural subject’, had be remained obedient, strong enough to make him a natural subject’, even though he was alien BORN’.“a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject”Then as a natural subject’, a child he produced ‘here’ would be a natural born subject’.I know it’s distasteful for you, but you will have to learn to live with it.Even the office of head of state in England must descend via jus sanguinis, so what’s your problem with founding framers adopting the same principle of jus sanguinis for US head of state?

So using your same logic once Barack Obama Jr was born Barack Obama Sr would become a natural subject
Whatever4 says:

June 19, 2010 at 5:30 pm Whatever4(Quote)

MichaelN: Jus sanguinis, just like jus sanguinis for the monarch of England & just like jus sanguinis for the monarch’ of US.That’s how simple it REALLY is.If you can accept the English requirement for jus sanguinis for head of state, why can’t you accept it for US head of state?

—

English monarchs aren’t at ALL equivalent to the American Presidency. The title is inherited regardless of the contemporary will of the people. It’s held for life. The title is outside the normal governmental functions and different from the common people. Comparing apples to giraffes.
Mike says:

June 19, 2010 at 6:17 pm Mike(Quote)

Whatever4: —English monarchs aren’t at ALL equivalent to the American Presidency. The title is inherited regardless of the contemporary will of the people. It’s held for life. The title is outside the normal governmental functions and different from the common people. Comparing apples to giraffes.

Sorry, nitpicking here: it is inherited, yes, but subject to the will of Parliament, and held subject to the same. It’s been that way for a good few centuries, dating back possibly to the late Tudors, and definitely since the Stuarts – the clashes between Crown and Parliament didn’t end too well for the Crown in the short or long term, the Restoration notwithstanding. In historical terms, these struggles can also be seen as a precursor to the American Revolution – see also the Glorious Revolution, Bill of Rights, and the Commonwealth of Great Britain.

Sorry, went off a bit there…
Northland10 says:

June 19, 2010 at 6:30 pm Northland10(Quote)

MichaelN: …you find Law of Nature, there you find that family creates family,tribal members create tribal members, subjects create subjects’, citizens’ create citizens’, kings create kings, all in obedience of the Law of Nature.

It appears your are arguing that the “Law of Nature” dictates your station in life and cannot be changed. Is your argument that President Obama is “above his station”?

That whole argument is rather unAmerican, I must say.
Mike says:

June 19, 2010 at 6:41 pm Mike(Quote)

Northland10: Is your argument that President Obama is “above his station”?

“Uppity” is the usual word…
nbC says:

June 19, 2010 at 8:17 pm nbC(Quote)

Northland10: It appears your are arguing that the “Law of Nature” dictates your station in life and cannot be changed. Is your argument that President Obama is “above his station”?

Well said. We can remain assured that Michael will thus ignore this.
MichaelN says:

June 20, 2010 at 1:53 am MichaelN(Quote)

Whatever4:
—English monarchs aren’t at ALL equivalent to the American Presidency. The title is inherited regardless of the contemporary will of the people. It’s held for life. The title is outside the normal governmental functions and different from the common people. Comparing apples to giraffes.

It’s not about comparing monarch of a kingdom to president of a republic.

It’s about comparing the principle of jus sanguinis which is common to both heads of state to qualify for the office.

This is where a resort to Common Law is a resort to ‘The Law of Nature’.

The resort to Common Law in WKA had run it’s course at that point when the birthright to subjectship/citizenship was established, after that point Common Law had no relevance.

From thereon, the matter of ‘natural born’ as regards the eligibility for a president of a republic, had no basis in Common Law…………… ergo: there was no precedent in Common Law of England for eligibility for presidency of a republic.

US had created it’s own precedent in that matter.

England required ligience & ACTUAL obedience, then those who were in ACTUAL obeyance were considered ‘subjects’, then a child of those subjects would be a ‘natural born subject’.

Not so in USA, where the child born in the land under the ‘jurisdiction’ was deemed a birthright ‘citizen’, without the parents having to be in ligience or ACTUAL obedience to the US sovereign state.

In US, such a child was not called ‘natural born’.

Btw, ‘jurisdiction’ is a climate of law, a power over, and not an ACT performed by either the 14th Amendment child or the parents of said child.

Obedience IS an act performed & this obedience is THE paramount, essential ingredient for one to FIRST be a subject/citizen & to then for such a subject/citizen to be able to produce a ‘natural born’.

Aliens in majority in US, i.e. those that were not born as US citizens or not naturalized, may well be under the jurisdiction of US, but this doesn’t qualify them as what is termed a ‘subject’ by English standard, to produce a ‘natural born’ & it’s for sure they aren’t a ‘citizen’ of US.

These alien parents don’t owe ligience or obedience to US, they owe it to the sovereign of which they come, they are only within the jurisdiction of US & are to respect the laws of their host, subsequently their children born in the US have a birthright to be a ‘citizen’ of US & that’s why these children are only called ‘citizen’ and not called ‘natural born citizen’.

England insists not only on being under jurisdiction, but also ligience & ACTUAL obedience as paramount for one to be a subject, then for such subject to be able to produce a ‘natural born’.

Not so US, they insist on born in the land, under the jurisdiction or formal naturalization to be a ‘citizen’, then for such ‘citizen’ to be able to produce a ‘natural born’.
MichaelN says:

June 20, 2010 at 2:18 am MichaelN(Quote)

Put it this way.

In England it was the ligience & actual obedience that automatically ‘naturalized’ the person to be an English ‘subject’, then a child of that ‘subject’ would be a ‘natural born subject’.

US equivalent – ‘citizen’ by born in the land or formal naturalization, then a child of that ‘citizen’ would be a ‘natural born citizen’.

It’s really that simple.
MichaelN says:

June 20, 2010 at 2:59 am MichaelN(Quote)

nbC:
Well said. We can remain assured that Michael will thus ignore this.

I am pointing out that Lord Coke argued this in Calvin’s case.
MichaelN says:

June 20, 2010 at 3:13 am MichaelN(Quote)

Northland10:
It appears your are arguing that the “Law of Nature” dictates your station in life and cannot be changed.Is your argument that President Obama is “above his station”?That whole argument is rather unAmerican, I must say.

You keep on having these apparitions.

I am pointing out that Lord Coke cited ‘Law of Nature’ in Calvin’s case & that it shows that it takes both parents to be English ‘subjects’ to produce an English ‘natural born subject’.

It has nothing to do with Obama at this point, it has to do with what is meant by USC Article II ‘natural born citizen’ & how with resort to Common Law of England, it can’t possibly mean that a 14th Amendment ‘citizen’ equates to Art.II ‘natural born citizen’, because by observance of English Common Law, it takes the both parents being citizens that produce a US ‘natural born citizen’.
MichaelN says:

June 20, 2010 at 3:18 am MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
You’re making it sound like it

How for example?
MichaelN says:

June 20, 2010 at 3:20 am MichaelN(Quote)

Greg: Michael’s not playing the old game that no one plays anymore. He’s the guy who thinks he can jump over the flagpole in Super Mario Brothers and get to a super special level. If he squints real hard and parses every word in a few select paragraphs in the cases and he claps as hard as he can and really, truly, believes he can make sure that there is an extra type of citizenship for Obama or tinkerbell gets her wings, or something.The law has always considered Obama an NBC. There is no 3d type of citizen. And there’s no jumping over the flagpole. But, you’re right, even if he could jump over the flagpole, we’ve all gotten WII’s.

I’m not saying there is a 3rd type of citizen, what I am saying that in USA, there are TWO types of born citizens.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 20, 2010 at 7:38 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: I’m not saying there is a 3rd type of citizen, what I am saying that in USA, there are TWO types of born citizens.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Rogers v Bellei, that might be true. The first is citizen-born in the United States and the second citizen-born overseas. Those like President Obama in the first class are “uncontroversially natural born citizens” according to law professor Gabriel Chin. Supreme Court Justice Scalia says “natural born citizen” is “jus soli.”

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/supreme-court-justice-scalia-believes-natural-born-citizenship-is-jus-soli/
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 20, 2010 at 7:41 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: I am pointing out that Lord Coke cited ‘Law of Nature’ in Calvin’s case & that it shows that it takes both parents to be English subjects’ to produce an English natural born subject’.

And how was the Frenchman more an English subject than Barack Obama Sr. an American subject?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 20, 2010 at 7:55 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: It’s really that simple.

Are you really that simple?

Perhaps you should read up on naturalization in England. It required an Act of Parliament.
Greg says:

June 20, 2010 at 8:14 am Greg(Quote)

MichaelN: what I am saying that in USA, there are TWO types of born citizens.

And I’m saying that’s wrong. I’d also like to point out you can’t seem to count. When the court says there are two types of citizen, born and naturalized, and you say there are two types of “born citizens,” that’s three! If you then split the naturalized citizens into two types, that would be four. 2 + 1 = 3.

You’re trying to jump over the flagpole, my friend. No amount of misinterpretation of Wong Kim Ark or Calvin’s Case is going to make Obama ineligible.

England required ligience & ACTUAL obedience, then those who were in ACTUAL obeyance were considered subjects’

ACTUAL OBEDIENCE = ACTUAL POSSESSION

It has nothing to do with the obedience of the individual.

In England it was the ligience & actual obedience that automatically naturalized’ the person to be an English subject’, then a child of that subject’ would be a natural born subject’.

Here’s a clue, Michael.

In England, aliens could not own real property. They could not inherit lands. Subjects could own real property. They could inherit.

Are you really claiming that simply living in England made aliens able to own property and inherit? Can you point out where Lord Coke said that aliens didn’t need to go through the naturalization or denization process in order to buy property or inherit?

If the Frenchman moved back to France, could he appeal to the English consul?

If aliens were made, automatically, into subjects, what were the naturalization and denization processes for?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 20, 2010 at 8:23 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: It’s not about comparing monarch of a kingdom to president of a republic.

It’s about comparing the principle of jus sanguinis which is common to both heads of state to qualify for the office.

This is where a resort to Common Law is a resort to The Law of Nature’.

The resort to Common Law in WKA had run it’s course at that point when the birthright to subjectship/citizenship was established, after that point Common Law had no relevance.

From thereon, the matter of natural born’ as regards the eligibility for a president of a republic, had no basis in Common Law…………… ergo: there was no precedent in Common Law of England for eligibility for presidency of a republic.

US had created it’s own precedent in that matter.

England required ligience & ACTUAL obedience, then those who were in ACTUAL obeyance were considered subjects’, then a child of those subjects would be a natural born subject’.

Not so in USA, where the child born in the land under the jurisdiction’ was deemed a birthright citizen’, without the parents having to be in ligience or ACTUAL obedience to the US sovereign state.

In US, such a child was not called natural born’.

Btw, jurisdiction’ is a climate of law, a power over, and not an ACT performed by either the 14th Amendment child or the parents of said child.

Obedience IS an act performed & this obedience is THE paramount, essential ingredient for one to FIRST be a subject/citizen & to then for such a subject/citizen to be able to produce a natural born’.

Aliens in majority in US, i.e. those that were not born as US citizens or not naturalized, may well be under the jurisdiction of US, but this doesn’t qualify them as what is termed a subject’ by English standard, to produce a natural born’ & it’s for sure they aren’t a citizen’ of US.

These alien parents don’t owe ligience or obedience to US, they owe it to the sovereign of which they come, they are only within the jurisdiction of US & are to respect the laws of their host, subsequently their children born in the US have a birthright to be a citizen’ of US & that’s why these children are only called citizen’ and not called natural born citizen’.

England insists not only on being under jurisdiction, but also ligience & ACTUAL obedience as paramount for one to be a subject, then for such subject to be able to produce a natural born’.

Not so US, they insist on born in the land, under the jurisdiction or formal naturalization to be a citizen’, then for such citizen’ to be able to produce a natural born’.

These and all the other falsehoods of the births we do steadfastly reject.
Mike says:

June 20, 2010 at 10:20 am Mike(Quote)

Oh, good grief… Do we need to go step by step through the four kinds of allegiance before you’ll get it, MichaelN? Or are you steadfast and determined to be ignorant?
MichaelN says:

June 21, 2010 at 3:23 am MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
And how was the Frenchman more an English subject than Barack Obama Sr. an American subject?

You mean – “than Barack Obama Sr. an American ‘citizen’?

Because US only allows people to be citizens by 14th Amendment, the alien parent doesn’t get to be a US ‘citizen’ because the child get to, the parent has to formally naturalize.

The English automatically ‘naturalized’ people who were in the dominion of the king, by ‘Law of Nature’ with ligience and actual obedience as paramount essentials to be considered an English ‘subject’.

The Frenchman was not considered and ‘alien’ for any purpose other than ownership of land & equity, he was ‘alien born’ and yet still considered an English ‘subject’ in observance of ‘Law of Nature’.

The Frenchman was indicted for treason, something an ‘alien’ in England could not be charged with.

Something Obama senior could not be charged with in US.

The English required the parent to be a ‘subject’ BEFORE the child could be a ‘natural born subject’.
MichaelN says:

June 21, 2010 at 4:01 am MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Rogers v Bellei, that might be true. The first is citizen-born in the United States and the second citizen-born overseas. Those like President Obama in the first class are “uncontroversially natural born citizens” according to law professor Gabriel Chin. Supreme Court Justice Scalia says “natural born citizen” is “jus soli.”http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/supreme-court-justice-scalia-believes-natural-born-citizenship-is-jus-soli/

Two type of born US ‘citizen’

The US Constitution says born a ‘citizen’ via 14th Amendment, it doesn’t say ‘natural’.

USC Article II says ‘natural born citizen’.

Judiciary don’t get to re-write USC & make the two DIFFERENT terms mean the same.

If the USC mentions two types of born ‘citizens’, it’s the duty of the judiciary to uphold the USC.

Don’t you think these judges have an agenda, if they refuse to even look at and consider the most obvious meaning of Article II ‘natural born citizen’, they avoid it like the plague, that’s no accident nor is it, as if the notion of jus sanguinis AND jus soli or jus sanguionis alone is not a reasonable criteria for POTUS eligibility?

They dance around this option of what Article II NBC might really mean, as if it doesn’t exist, as worthy of any consideration, in fact they don’t even want to go there ……….. now why would that be?

In England it takes BOTH parents as ‘subjects’ in ligience and ACTUAL obedience of the king via ‘Law of Nature’ to produce a ‘natural born subject’.

‘Obedience’ in the English Common Law per Lord Coke, does not mean ‘subject to jurisdiction’, by being in the dominion makes one ‘subject to jurisdiction’, which is a declaration of power over one, an involuntary state of subjugation, it’s not a voluntary act that has to be met, on the other hand ‘obedience’ is an act on the part of the ‘subject’ that can be performed or not performed.

That’s why it was said in Calvin’s case that without actual obedience a ‘natural born subject’ can never be produced ……….. it was an optional act, as made clear with the hypothetical of the Frenchman, who was not considered an ‘alien’, because we was indicted for treason, because he became dis-obedient.

Had the Frenchman CHOSEN to remain obedient, then the hypothesis was that it was strong enough to make a ‘natural subject’ (by Law of Nature) & THEN his children, if born in England would be ‘natural born subjects’, of course the premise was that he be in wed-lock with a ‘subject’ wife, who would also have to be in ligience and in actual obedience to the king.
MichaelN says:

June 21, 2010 at 4:12 am MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Rogers v Bellei, that might be true. The first is citizen-born in the United States and the second citizen-born overseas. Those like President Obama in the first class are “uncontroversially natural born citizens” according to law professor Gabriel Chin. Supreme Court Justice Scalia says “natural born citizen” is “jus soli.”http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/supreme-court-justice-scalia-believes-natural-born-citizenship-is-jus-soli/

These judges have a way with screwing around with ‘native’ & ‘natural’ as do many others in the various dicta that has been espoused.

Why don’t these judges err in favor of the other common sense alternative to what ‘natural born citizen’ was intended to mean by founders of a republic, who at the time of composing Article II, saw no precedent in English Common Law for eligibility for a president of a republic?

They avoid it like the plague, which is strong evidence of an agenda outside of their sworn duty as unbiased and impartial adjudicators.
MichaelN says:

June 21, 2010 at 4:14 am MichaelN(Quote)

The fact that the Frenchman as mentioned in Calvin’s case, was indicted for treason, is sufficient to conclude he was considered an English ‘subject’.
MichaelN says:

June 21, 2010 at 4:38 am MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: These and all the other falsehoods of the births we do steadfastly reject.

That’s likely because you have a political agenda, rather than an impartial approach that would have the truth be known.

Apparently you can’t stand the thought that your political favorite is not be what he claims and that would really let the side down if he were proven to be a usurper.

That’s why there is little if ANY support for the matter of Article II NBC to be thrashed-out in the court from those in support of their political favorite.

If you are so right, as you claim, one would expect strong support on the part of the Obama supporters for the matter to get into court, in fact one would expect you would push it there with much fervor.

Instead you claim a false ‘victory’ because the matter has not even been heard in the courts.

The truth will eventually come to light, much to your dread.
Mike says:

June 21, 2010 at 6:55 am Mike(Quote)

MichaelN: That’s likely because you have a political agenda, rather than an impartial approach that would have the truth be known.

KAPOW!

That’s the sound of an irony meter breaking.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 21, 2010 at 7:48 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: Why don’t these judges err in favor of the other common sense alternative to what natural born citizen’ was intended to mean by founders of a republic, who at the time of composing Article II, saw no precedent in English Common Law for eligibility for a president of a republic?

They did this because the founders, many of whom were common law lawyers, and some trained in England, use the language of common law (including “natural born”) and not your notion of “common sense.”
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 21, 2010 at 7:51 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: Apparently you can’t stand the thought that your political favorite is not be what he claims and that would really let the side down if he were proven to be a usurper.

No i is because I can’t stand the assertion of rumor over evidence and the misrepresentation of history. I can’t stand cheaters and propagandists. I can’t stand smears.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 21, 2010 at 7:54 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: The English automatically naturalized’ people who were in the dominion of the king, by ‘Law of Nature’ with ligience and actual obedience as paramount essentials to be considered an English subject’.

No, they did not. You might as well be arguing that the earth is flat at this point, all the sense you’re making.
MichaelN says:

June 21, 2010 at 8:30 am MichaelN(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
They did this because the founders, many of whom were common law lawyers, and some trained in England, usethe language of common law (including “natural born”) and not your notion of “common sense.”

Do you suppose then, that they must have missed the part where the Frenchman as mentioned in Calvin’s case, was indicted for treason, sufficient to conclude he was considered an English subject’ & that a ‘natural born subject’ was a product of BOTH parents being ‘subjects’?
Greg says:

June 21, 2010 at 11:13 am Greg(Quote)

MichaelN: The Frenchman was indicted for treason, something an alien’ in England could not be charged with.

Not true. An alien in amity could be charged with treason. An alien enemy could not.

Still haven’t read more than the three paragraphs of the case, have you, Michael.

Do you suppose then, that they must have missed …

We suppose you’ve misread that paragraph of the case, Michael.

Apparently you can’t stand the thought that your political favorite is not be what he claims and that would really let the side down if he were proven to be a usurper.

You are so wedded to your view of the world that you’ll read only 3 paragraphs out of a 71 page case and think your misinterpretation is 100% accurate despite the fact that your interpretation is shared by no one in the 402 years since the case was decided!

If you are so right, as you claim, one would expect strong support on the part of the Obama supporters for the matter to get into court

Fallacy of the false dilemma.

But, if it’s good for us, it must be good for you. If we aren’t sure of our position because we don’t want the case decided in a courtroom (wasting precious judicial resources on a non-issue) you must be terrified of exposing your views to critical scrutiny because you steadfastly refuse to debate at PJ!

Obedience’ in the English Common Law per Lord Coke, does not mean subject to jurisdiction’, by being in the dominion makes one subject to jurisdiction’, which is a declaration of power over one, an involuntary state of subjugation, it’s not a voluntary act that has to be met, on the other hand obedience’ is an act on the part of the subject’ that can be performed or not performed.

Nope.

Actual obedience = actual possession.

If the king is in actual possession of a land, then its subjects are in actual obedience.

Try explaining the examples of Normandy, Callice and the others, which Lord Coke explains go into and out of actual obedience with your messed up notion of obedience, Michael!

In England it takes BOTH parents as subjects’ in ligience and ACTUAL obedience of the king via ‘Law of Nature’ to produce a natural born subject’.

You really could not be more wrong, Michael. It is amazing. Lord Coke says, in plain English, that the children of aliens are natural born subjects, and that the aliens remain aliens, but you continue to insist they were really subjects. You have parsed Calvin’s Case beyond all reasonable interpretation.

You’re embarrasing yourself, Michael. Your three-paragraph interpretation of Calvin’s Case doesn’t even survive the rest of the case, much less the way the Founders interpreted the case.
Greg says:

June 21, 2010 at 11:37 am Greg(Quote)

The Frenchman was indicted for treason, something an alien’ in England could not be charged with.

Where do you get this notion from? Not from Calvin’s Case. It is clear from the paragraph about the Frenchman, that it is the fact that he is an alien in amity, as opposed to an alien enemy, that allows the charge of treason. What ligeance does an alien in amity owe the king?

The third 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, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other.

The alien in amity owes a local allegiance.

Note the use of obedience as synonymous with ligeance. Why? For that the one draweth the other!

Now, let’s take a look at your favorite paragraph (of the three you’ve read):

Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum; for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject; for localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta. And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum, neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, 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, nor under the protection of the King. And concerning this local obedience, a president was cited in Hill. 36. Eliz. when Stephano Ferrara de Gama, and Emanuel Lewes Tinoco, two Portugals born, coming into England under Queen Elizabeth’s safe-conduct, and living here under her protection, joyned with Doctor Lopez in treason within |[6 b] this Realm against her Majesty: and in this case two points were resolved by the Judges. First, that their indictment ought to begin, that they intended treason contra dominam Reginam, &c. omitting these words (naturalem domin’ suam) and ought to conclude contra ligeant’ suae debitum. But if an alien enemy come to invade this realm, and be taken in warr, he cannot be indicted of treason: for the indictment cannot conclude contra ligeant’ suae debitum, for he never was in the protection of the King, nor ever owed any manner of ligeance unto him, but malice and enmity, and therefore he shall be put to death by martial law.

Again, why is the alien friend triable? Because he acted contra ligeant’ suae debitum. Why can’t the alien enemy be tried? Because he cannot be said to have acted contra ligeant’ suae debitum because he was never in the King’s protection. Again, ligeance and obedience are synonymous concepts!
JoZeppy says:

June 21, 2010 at 12:53 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

MichaelN: These judges have a way with screwing around with native’ & natural’ as do many others in the various dicta that has been espoused.
Why don’t these judges err in favor of the other common sense alternative to what natural born citizen’ was intended to mean by founders of a republic, who at the time of composing Article II, saw no precedent in English Common Law for eligibility for a president of a republic?
They avoid it like the plague, which is strong evidence of an agenda outside of their sworn duty as unbiased and impartial adjudicators.

So let’s see…you know better than all the judges that have been interpreting this case for centuries, and better than all the legal scholars that have written on the subject….

So please tell us, what law school are you teaching at, and why haven’t you published these great insights of yours? Clearly, if you’ve you know better than everyone else, I’m guessing your credentials should be steller. Otherwise, that would mean you’re just another birther, that doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about, and thinks that his 5 minutes of reading birther blogs makes him better qualified to read and interpret the law, than the people who have actually spent to time to educate themselves, get the degree, and devote their lives to the law….and that would never happen, would it?
misha says:

June 21, 2010 at 2:04 pm misha(Quote)

JoZeppy: So please tell us, what law school are you teaching at, and why haven’t you published these great insights of yours? Clearly, if you’ve you know better than everyone else, I’m guessing your credentials should be steller. Otherwise, that would mean you’re just another birther, that doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about, and thinks that his 5 minutes of reading birther blogs makes him better qualified to read and interpret the law, than the people who have actually spent to time to educate themselves, get the degree, and devote their lives to the law….and that would never happen, would it?

Yeah, look at the lawyers:
Leo Donofrio: makes his living at poker.
Mario Apuzzo: a DUI practice.
Orly: what more could I add?
Paul Jensen: personal injury, mostly dog bites.

They’re all the next Darrow, I tells ya.
SFJeff says:

June 21, 2010 at 2:17 pm SFJeff(Quote)

Michael,

Your true colors are starting to shine- you finally will admit that you think the courts are wrong. That the courts are biased.

No finish it off by telling us that the voters too, misunderstand the correct definition of NBC, and of course Congress also.

Everybody but you and 5 other people you have met only on the internet.

You can argue about Calvin as much as you want. But the voters clearly understand the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, and what you are advocating- a judicial re-write of the commonly understood definition of NBC would be judicial activism of the highest order.

But you won’t reply to this because your only real argument is “Everyone but me is reading Calvin wrong” and that can’t deal with pesky details like voters.
G says:

June 21, 2010 at 3:18 pm G(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: No i is because I can’t stand the assertion of rumor over evidence and the misrepresentation of history. I can’t stand cheaters and propagandists. I can’t stand smears.

Agreed. Same here.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

June 21, 2010 at 4:26 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

MichaelN: Do you suppose then, that they must have missed the part where the Frenchman as mentioned in Calvin’s case, was indicted for treason, sufficient to conclude he was considered an English subject’ & that a natural born subject’ was a product of BOTH parents being subjects’?

I’d really hate to see how you put together furniture from IKEA after only reading the first 3 steps.
misha says:

June 21, 2010 at 4:35 pm misha(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I’d really hate to see how you put together furniture from IKEA after only reading the first 3 steps.

My entire loft is furnished from IKEA. Good night, if I did not assemble everything properly.
Greg says:

June 22, 2010 at 10:46 am Greg(Quote)

MichaelN: The English automatically naturalized’ people who were in the dominion of the king, by ‘Law of Nature’ with ligience and actual obedience as paramount essentials to be considered an English subject’.

You know, if the English automatically “naturalized” people, they would have realized it. Some British judge in the 402 years since Calvin’s Case would have said, “aliens became subjects for the purposes of determining whether their children are natural born subjects.”

They didn’t.

Hargrave’s Law Tracts, 1787 – “If an alien come into England, and have issue here, he is a natural born subject.”

The English statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700) was called:

An act to enable His Majesty’s natural-born subjects to inherit the estate of their ancestors, either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens

Throughout the statute, the children were “natural born subjects” and the parents “aliens.” Nowhere did the statute refer to them as “natural subjects.”

And, of course, WKA dealt with this. It showed that English cases and scholars were unanimous in this interpretation of Calvin’s Case. “The English authorities ever since are to the like effect.” That interpretation is the one that our country received when we declared our independence – natural born = born here, regardless of parental citizenship:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Indeed, WKA points out that American judges interpreted British law this way, too, in The Charming Betsy, Chief Justice Marshall asked whether “a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country” could divest himself of citizenship. Note, it doesn’t ask if a person born in the United States to citizen parents. In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, Justice Thompson wrote for the majority:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.

MichaelN: If the USC mentions two types of born citizens’, it’s the duty of the judiciary to uphold the USC.

This is a very strange, time-warping, explanation of the types of citizen in the Constitution. Apparently, the 14th Amendment, is used to show how the Constitution had two types of born citizen.

The Constitution was written in 1787. When it was written, it had no definition of citizen, or natural born citizen. It used “citizen” in the following ways:

– Representatives had to be “seven years a citizen of the United States,”
– Senators had to be “nine years a citizen of the United States.”
– Presidents had to be “a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”

Because of these uses, we know that “citizen of the United States” cannot exclude natural born citizens – Representatives and Senators are allowed to be natural born citizens.

No one has ever, in the history of the United States, argued that naturalized citizens cannot be Senators or Representatives, so “citizen of the United States” must also include naturalized citizens.

Therefore, the two uses of citizen in the United States Constitution, when it was written in 1787 are:

– natural born citizen
– citizen of the united states – which includes natural born and naturalized citizens.

Therefore, it made perfect sense, in 1866 for the writers of the 14th Amendment to say that those born here and those naturalized here were citizens of the United States – which includes both natural born and naturalized citizens.

The 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” are not a new type of “born” citizen, they cannot be since the 14th Amendment makes all those naturalized here into the same type of citizen!

The 15th Amendment also makes clear that the phrase “citizen of the United States” is not meant to be something new:

the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

You simply cannot look at the 14th Amendment’s use of the phrase “citizen of the United States,” the same phrase used to qualify Senators and Representatives, and find a new type of born citizen!
MichaelN says:

June 24, 2010 at 3:18 am MichaelN(Quote)

Prior to the 14th Amendment, at the time of the composition & adoption of USC Article II, their was no naturalization process …. right?

But in the language of the USC, two distinct types of citizens were mentioned,

i.e.

1. ‘a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution’

2. ‘a natural born citizen’

At that time, what do you think constituted a ‘citizen’ & a ‘natural born citizen’?

It appears that a ‘citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution’ meant those who voluntarily ‘self naturalized’ via joining the revolution to break from British rule & possibly also those who went with the flow and sat on the fence.

‘Citizen’ possibly also included the children of those ‘citizens’, but if that were the case, then who were these mysterious ‘natural born citizens’?

Any ideas?
MichaelN says:

June 24, 2010 at 3:23 am MichaelN(Quote)

Greg: The 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” are not a new type of “born” citizen, they cannot be since the 14th Amendment makes all those naturalized here into the same type of citizen!

No it didn’t make them the same ‘type’ of citizens.

It made those born or naturalized as ‘citizens’, with no ‘type’ mentioned at all.

Just plain ‘citizens’…………… nothing to do with ‘type of’.

It merely described two types of methods to be a ‘citizen’.
misha says:

June 24, 2010 at 3:26 am misha(Quote)

MichaelN: Citizen’ possibly also included the children of those citizens’, but if that were the case, then who were these mysterious natural born citizens’?

Martians?
MichaelN says:

June 24, 2010 at 4:18 am MichaelN(Quote)

Greg: Therefore, the two uses of citizen in the United States Constitution, when it was written in 1787 are:

– natural born citizen
– citizen of the united states – which includes natural born and naturalized citizens.

Correction ……………. the USC was not ‘written in 1787’ ………… that’s when it was completed & then it was ratified over a duration of three years, first ratified by Delaware in 1787 and lastly by Rhode Island in 1790.

Another correction ……………….the two uses of citizen in the United States Constitution, when it was adopted & later ratified, were:

1. – ‘a natural born citizen’

2. – ‘a citizen of the United States’

There was no method for ‘naturalization’ at the time, the ONLY method of ‘naturalization’ possible was by voluntarily joining with the revolutionists, by passive (in amity) acceptance of the revolution and by being a wife and/or child of those activists and pacifists.

The ‘fourteen years a resident’ stipulated, happened to be almost the precise period of time that had elapsed from the commencement of the War of Independence, commencing in 1775, up to the the completion of the USC, when it was made ready for adoption in 1787 ……….. a duration of 13 years …………. add about a year prior to 1775 for the planning for break-away, and you have 14 years.

The additional 21 years was to have sufficient maturity for the office of POTUS.

At the time of adoption of the USC, (prior to 14th Amendment) there was only ONE type of born citizen, and that was, in the language of the USC, a ‘natural born citizen’.

The 14th Amendment is what broadened the scope of born citizens to include those born to non-citizen parents, which addressed the issue of negro children who had no citizenship birth-right ………….. it wasn’t designed to make all born citizens as ‘natural born’, that’s why 14th Amendment says ONLY ‘citizen’.

You must also bear in mind that eligibility for a president of a republic had NO PRECEDENT in English Common Law …………. the eligibility stipulation for POTUS was THE precedent and had NO relevance whatsoever to eligibility for ‘citizen’.

At the time of adoption & ratification of USC, the eligibility for ‘citizen’ had ALREADY been established to include the self naturalizing activist & pacifist revolutionary people AND their wives, these were the ‘citizens’ AND their CHILDREN, of jus sanguinis origin, who can only be the ‘natural born’ referred to in Article II.

It was the 14th Amendment that drew the parallel between the Common Law principle of jus soli birth-right, of those the English call ‘natural born subject’ but the 14th Amendment called ‘citizen’.
MichaelN says:

June 24, 2010 at 6:25 am MichaelN(Quote)

14th Amendment wasn’t about defining eligibility for POTUS, and it didn’t define what Article II meant by ‘natural born citizen’, it was about accepting the Common Law principle of establishing a ‘citizen’ by birth-right.

The English call their birth-right subjects ‘natural born subjects’ and the US called theirs ‘citizen’, both in observance of the same principle, but just because 14th comes along to confirm that principle of birth-right nationality, it doesn’t change the framers’ meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’ in the context of eligibility for a president of a republic for which NO PRECEDENT existed in English Common Law.

The USC already, PRIOR to 14th had the terms ‘natural born citizen’ and ‘citizen’ and it meant people who by voluntary allegiance, CHOSE to be ‘citizen’s and their children.

This was BEFORE any ‘naturalization’ method had been adopted.
MichaelN says:

June 24, 2010 at 6:59 am MichaelN(Quote)

English ‘natural born subjects’ can NEVER be eligible for king, they are the equivalent to 14th Amendment US ‘citizens’ by virtue of the same Common Law principle, but US ‘natural born citizens’ are the ONLY ones that are eligible for the US equivalent of head of state.

Chalk & cheese.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 24, 2010 at 7:50 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: The USC already, PRIOR to 14th had the terms natural born citizen’ and citizen’ and it meant people who by voluntary allegiance, CHOSE to be citizen’s and their children.

This was BEFORE any naturalization’ method had been adopted.

While no “naturalization method” is spelled out in the US Constitution, the power of Congress to create a system of naturalization is enumerated. Courts and commentators have used this fact in observing that the Constitution envisions two kinds of citizen: natural born and naturalized.

You can say what you want, and you can ignore sound reason and legal precedent. It really doesn’t matter what you think, since you’re not qualified either by innate capacity, training or official position to decide the question for anyone else.

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which 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;’ and the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.

Elk v Wilkins (1884)
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 24, 2010 at 7:57 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: Correction ……………. the USC was not written in 1787′

Sheer nonsense. The Constitution was drafted between May and September of 1787. Look it up.

MichaelNAnother correction ……………….the two uses of citizen in the United States Constitution, when it was adopted & later ratified, were:

1. – a natural born citizen’

2. – a citizen of the United States

There was no method for naturalization’ at the time, the ONLY method of naturalization’ possible was by voluntarily joining with the revolutionists, by passive (in amity) acceptance of the revolution and by being a wife and/or child of those activists and pacifists.’

Wrong again. Article I Section 8: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, … throughout the United States;” This undeniably shows that naturalization was a concept in the Constitution from its inception.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 24, 2010 at 8:13 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

MichaelN: Prior to the 14th Amendment, at the time of the composition & adoption of USC Article II, their was no naturalization process …. right?

Uhhh, no. (If you are being facetious, you need to say so.) The Constitution itself (Article 1 Section 8 ) gives the Congress the power to set up a system of naturalization, and the first Congress did that in 1790. Since the Constitution talks about natural born citizens, and naturalization, the courts have always understood that these are the two types of citizen under the Constitution, natural born and naturalized.

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.

Minor v Happersett (1874)
Greg says:

June 24, 2010 at 8:25 am Greg(Quote)

MichaelN: There was no method for naturalization’ at the time

Do you want to, maybe, read the Constitution?

Article 1, Section 8, gives Congress the power:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States

Under the articles of Confederation, each state had a naturalization processs. It is simply not true that there was no method for naturalization.

War of Independence, commencing in 1775, up to the the completion of the USC, when it was made ready for adoption in 1787

Are you from the United States?

July 4, 1776 – Declaration of Independence.

That is the beginning of the Revolution.

the USC was not written in 1787′

It was written at the Constitutional Convention which met in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17, 1787. May 1787 is in 1787. September 1787 is in 1787. Therefore, the Constitution was written in 1787.

Honestly, your arguments more closely resemble word soup than anything making a coherent point. You clearly haven’t thought through any of what you’re saying.

You think Prince William is not a natural born subject of England?

Since only subjects can inherit, what does that mean for William?

in the context of eligibility for a president of a republic for which NO PRECEDENT existed in English Common Law.

And yet, they chose a phrase, natural born which had a specific meaning, which HAD A PRECEDENT that was known to the founders, who had all read all of Calvin’s Case (unlike you who’ve read 3 paragraphs). They had read Blackstone who explained that the children of aliens were natural born subjects.

How incompetent were the Founders to have chosen a phrase with a meaning established by hundreds of years of precedent?

Consider: Pierre comes to Virginia in 1774 and never naturalizes. He has a child in 1774. That child is a natural born subject. Virginia law makes him a natural born subject. English law makes him a natural born subject. That’s a condition of value, since his child can buy real estate, he can write a will. Because he’s a natural born subject, he can serve in government positions his father wouldn’t be eligible for even if he naturalized.

And the Founders, in their infinite wisdom, tell Pierre that his child is a natural born subject, but NOT a natural born citizen. Except, wait, they FORGET TO ACTUALLY TELL HIM! No founder thinks to write down, ANYWHERE that natural born citizenship requires two citizen parents. Pierre’s child has to wait until he runs for the Presidency, in 2008, to find out that he’s not eligible for the Presidency!

If the Founders’ intention really was to make sure that only the children of citizens were eligible for the Presidency, they failed UTTERLY! By 1803, Tucker (who knew the Founders) was saying that natural born hadn’t changed meaning. By 1829, Rawle (who got his first government job from George Washington) was saying that those born to aliens were natural born citizens and by 1844, Judge Sandford said it was universally accepted that the child of aliens would be eligible for the Presidency.

And the Founders never objected to a single one of these interpretations, which you say are clearly erroneous. James Madison died in 1836. He never thought to correct Tucker or Rawle?

And in 200+ years, no one ever seriously proposed a citizen who could get his citizenship because of his birth here but was not eligible for the Presidency! For example, everyone in Wong Kim Ark knew that Wong was either an alien or he was eligible for the Presidency – no one thought he could become some ineligible citizen by birth!

And when Senators argued that they couldn’t vote for the 14th Amendment was that it would make the children of aliens eligible for the Presidency, no one corrected them!

Your argument suffers from the “argument from personal conviction” fallacy – you think it must be true because you really believe it, all evidence to the contrary be darned!.
Scientist says:

June 24, 2010 at 8:46 am Scientist(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.

No longer true. There is also cloning. I would like to hear MichaelN’s thoughts on the eligibility of a cloned human under the following circumstances:
1. Would they be eligible at birth, assuming the cell donor was at least 35?
2. Suppose the cell donor was a US citizen, but the cloning occurred overseas?
3. What if the cell donor were a foreigner but the cloning occurred in the US?

MichaelN, you have a sacred obligation not to duck these questions, but give them some serious thought. We know that the meaning of natural born citizen is the most important question in the history of the Universe and only you know the answer, so don’t shirk your duty.
Greg says:

June 24, 2010 at 9:04 am Greg(Quote)

Scientist: There is also cloning. I would like to hear MichaelN’s thoughts on the eligibility of a cloned human under the following circumstances

Are we talking about cloning as it exists now, where the clone is born and grows up, or the cloning vat variety, where we throw a few cells in and out pops a fully formed 35-year old?

Would the outcome be different if the artificial “egg” weren’t implanted into a woman, but grown in an artificial womb and is “born” entirely outside the natural process? So, we’ve got an infant, but one who was never really “born.”

I think we should also consider space. Is a child born or cloned in space natural born? What about if they are above the US?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

June 24, 2010 at 11:07 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Greg: I think we should also consider space. Is a child born or cloned in space natural born? What about if they are above the US?

My impression is that the child would be considered born in whatever country they landed in. I think that’s how it works for airplanes today. But this whole born in space thing makes jus soli sort of strange. Maybe future humans will be like the vampires of legend, taking some of their native soil with them as they travel.
Majority Will says:

June 24, 2010 at 11:32 am Majority Will(Quote)

Scientist:
MichaelN, you have a sacred obligation not to duck these questions, but give them some serious thought. We know that the meaning of natural born citizen is the most important question in the history of the Universe and only you know the answer, so don’t shirk your duty.

Yikes! You owe me a new sarcasm meter! Mine just melted! Well done!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Hawaii Department of Health Obama FAQ

About Dr. Conspiracy

481 Responses to Hawaii Department of Health Obama FAQ

Leave a Reply

Welcome

Conspiracies

Recent Comments

Donate

Recommended books

Quick Reference

Archives

Quick Reference