Harrolds.Blogspot.com
With regard to 'natural born citizen': From the "Law of Nations" (New Edition, 1883)
LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF
NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
FROM THE FRENCH OF
MONSIEUR DE VATTEL. (1883)
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
as it applies to The US Constitution, Art. 2 par. 5:
5: 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.
So, there you have it, 1) if both parents are Citizens of the US the offspring are said to be 'natural born' Citizen. 2) If the 'father' is a Citizen of the US the offspring will become a 'true' Citizen. Place of birth, apparently has no bearing in this regard. That is how McCain was legal by birth-right, though born on foreign soil, past the eligibility test. No way in hell could Obama have past a similar vetting. His oath was his vetting and he lied! The problem lies in that the issue of 'natural born' citizen ship has never been challenged before. So, Obama's lie is not fraud it's just his misinterpretation of the Constitution. Sucks big time, he's a lying skunk, he knows it and he knows we know it. Like any shyster lawyer who has no case, stall, stall, stall becomes the order of the day. G B (doin' my home work)
Sure Vattel said two parents are necessary. But he was the only one. Vattel was not a writer of the US Constitution. He wasn't even an American. He was a Swiss philosopher, who recommended such things as a country establishing a religion and forcing residents to adopt it.
ReplyDeleteSo, though Vattel said "two parents," what is the evidence that the framers followed his advice? There is nothing in the Constitution itself or in the Federalist Papers saying "two parents."
And, at the time, there was a legal term called a Natural Born Subject, used in British law and the law of the colonies as meaning someone born in the country or the colony. The term "Natural Born" in the constitution comes from the "Natural Born" subject and not from Vattel. This is especially true because the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" was not even used by a translation of Vattel that appeared before the adoption of the Constitution. It appeared in a translation about 100 years after the Constitution.
Your points are well taken; however, I don't think that either Indonesia or Kenya are colonies in any sense.
ReplyDeletesmrstrauss - you forgot the word "Period" after this statement: "The term "Natural Born" in the constitution comes from the "Natural Born" subject and not from Vattel."
ReplyDeleteI thought all Obamabots knew that in order to assert their opinion as fact that their comment MUST be followed by the word "Period".
The problem is Obama's own actions - well after his 21st birthday when he 'supposedly' had given up any dual-citizenship/allegiences.
When he travelled to Kenya (on US Taxpayer dollars) to campaign for a PATERNAL relative who believes in Sharia Law - I think he sorta made it quite obvious that he still continues to have dual-loyalties and therfore dual-citizenship; making him ineligible to be POTUS. Period. :)
Re: Odinga, whom you say "believes in Sharia law"
ReplyDeleteOdinga is a born-again Christian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raila_Odinga
Re: 'When he travelled to Kenya (on US Taxpayer dollars) to campaign for a PATERNAL relative who believes in Sharia Law - I think he sorta made it quite obvious that he still continues to have dual-loyalties and therfore dual-citizenship; making him ineligible to be POTUS. Period. :)"
IF there were something in the Constitution that barred someone with dual citizenship from being president, you would be right. But there is nothing in it. It simply says that to be eligible one has to be 35 years old, lived 14 years in the USA, and be a Natural Born Citizen.
If Natural Born Citizen had been defined in the Constitution or some laws or in the Federalist Papers as barring either dual nationality or having one or more parents who were not citizens, then you would be right. But there is nothing. And clearly, the term "Natural Born" refers to a common legal term that was in use at the time of the Constitution. The term was "Natural Born Subject," and that meant "born in the country."
Re: "he sorta made it quite obvious that he still continues to have dual-loyalties."
As you say, Obama helped a relative run for office. There is nothing in the constitution that bars people who have foreign relatives from being president or bars people from helping their foreign relatives run for office.
All this was covered in the election campaign. We knew before the vote in November that Obama had campaigned with Odinga (in 2006, not actually during the presidential election in 2007), and a very large majority of US voters decided that this was not an issue, and so Obama won by a very large majority.
Re: "The problem is Obama's own actions - well after his 21st birthday when he 'supposedly' had given up any dual-citizenship/allegiences."
There is absolutely nothing in US law that requires you to give up dual-citizenship at 21 or at any time. In fact, I know US citizens who are in their 30s and who recently heard that they can apply for dual-citizenship with Italy because Italy allows that if you have a grandparent who was born in Italy, and they are going to apply.
The issue is whether someone who has dual citizenship has less allegiance to the USA. I say Perhaps, IF they seek citizenship in the other country willingly and as an adult. That act would show that they are willing to give respect, and to some extent loyalty to the other country.
But in what way can a dual-citizenship created while you are an infant really affect allegiance? That is like saying that if my father was a Baptist at the time I was born, I have to remain a Baptist all my life.
Regards:)
Re: "however, I don't think that either Indonesia or Kenya are colonies in any sense."
ReplyDeleteObama was not born in either Indonesia or Kenya. He was born in Hawaii.
1) Odinga, the guy Obama campaigned for in 2006, is a born-again Christian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raila_Odinga
ReplyDelete2) There is nothing in the US law or the Constitution that requires one to give up dual-citizenship at 21 or to take any actions if you are a dual citizen. Obama's dual citizenship lapsed.
3) While Obama did campaign for Odinga, that was because Odinga was a relative, not because of dual-citizenship. There is nothing in the Constitution or the law that prevents one campaigning for a foreign relative.
4) There is nothing in the Constitution that bars someone who is a dual citizen from being president. Dual citizenship does not affect the Natural Born side of Natural Born Citizen.