OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

The BC is irrelevant! SCOTUS has twice recognized in two seperate Court opinions what Natural Born Citizen Involves.

The first case to cite the definition of natural born citizen was Minor v Happersett in 1875 with the opinion rendered by Chief Justice Waite:

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.

This same opinion was cited by a seperate Court, that of Chief Justice Gray in United States v Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Never did either of these two Courts ever undermine, contradict or dismiss this definition in either majority or minority opinions. Never has any other Supreme Court ever contradicted these opinions in any way.

This definition of NBC held by these two Supreme Courts is a paraphrase of de Vattel's definition in "Law of Nations", which was a primary reference used by our founders in drafting the Constitution:

S 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.

Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya and never became a citizen of the United States.

As a result, Barack Obama was born a citizen of Britain. Natural born citizen only involves one's status upon birth.

Barack Obama is forever unqualified to be President, cannot be cleansed to be so by any popular vote, and is and can only be a usurper in an unlawful government.

"Barack Obama is forever unqualified to be President, cannot be cleansed to be so by any popular vote, and is and can only be a usurper in an unlawful government. "

OK, you wily SCOTUS jurist, you!! You need to send this analysis right off to Chief Justice Roberts so we can get this usurper out of our White House!!!

:IF: you have any other definition of NBC held by any other credible legal authority which demonstrates by what mystical means Barack Obama :MIGHT: possibly qualify as a natural born citizen, please do enlighten us.

TJ,

In case you didn't know, the two-parent definition of NBC was originated in Vatel's Laws of Nations, a French publication.

U.S. law is not based on that definition. U.S. law is based on British Common Law, what uses jus soli (born on our soil) to define natural born citizens.

In truth, the real definition of NBC has never been defined, only the principle. Which is why Obama's birthplace is critical. If he was born in Hawaii to two illegal aliens, he is NBC.

You can whine and kvetch about it all you want. But that's the law.

Blackmonriker,

So you imagine that our Founders managed to formulate the requirements for the highest office of the land and we managed ot endure more than 200 years while having no concrete definition of natural born citizen? That's just sophistry.

In case you didn't know, nowhere in national law, the Constitution, do we recognize British common law, despite sometimes giving it lip service as an obvious predecessor.

The fact is there is a distinct difference between "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject". While the British jurist Blackstone recognizes that the definition of natural born subject was expanded upon by the dictate of the crown, he always was aware that the definition of natural born subject had an inherent meaning of birth on British soil.

However there is a distinction between citizen and subject, and one upon which the foundation of our country is laid. A subject's obligations are projected upon him by the crown where as we have no such liege in this country. The Michigan Law review touches on this in a writing, "Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause":

So far we have assumed that the conventional meaning of “natural born citizen” for those learned in the law in the eighteenth century was equivalent to the meaning of “natural born subject” in nineteenth century English law. But is this assumption correct? Does the substitution of the term “citizen” for “subject” alter the meaning of the phrase? And if those learned in the law did recognize a difference, what implications does that have for the meaning of the natural born citizen clause?

The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789: “ [A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects . . . .” Justice James Wilson confirmed Jay’s articulation of the opposition between subjects and citizens. The term “citizen” reflects the notion that individual citizens are sovereign in a republic, whereas the term “subject” reflects feudal and monarchical conceptions of the lord or monarch as sovereign and the individual as the subject.

Given the above, the only "natural" or self evident citizenship in this country involves one where both parents are themselves citizens, thereby conveying no other citizenship at birth.

And regarding Vattel, Ben Franklin was gifted 3 copies of "Laws of Nations", one of which he himself donated to the library of the Pennsylvania State House. Today we know this building as Independence Hall. As I stated in my previous post Vattel's "Laws of Nations" was a primary reference during the drafting of the Constitution.

And even the Gray Court in Wong Kim Ark could not define Ark as a natural born citizen and never could indicate that NBC was mere birth on U.S. soil, despite clearly wanting to do so, also referencing British common law.

Sorry, illegal aliens are not natural born citizens and are only citizens due to misrepresentations of precedent and law by that same Gray Court. As I previously indicated, that same Gray Court defined NBC as "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens" and nowhere undermined this.

Illegal aliens are "born citizens" or even "native born citizens" but cannot possibly be natural born citizens. The 14th Amendment nowhere changed the requirements of the phrase "natural born citizen" nor did it even reference it.

Well, TJ, if your interpretation of NBC is correct, it ought to be fairly easy to get this in front of a judge, hey? It's an open and shut case, right? Settled case law and such?

Wrong.

If that were true, birfer lawyers wouldn't be reduced to attempting Quo Warranto, Interpleaders and super-sekrit sealed Hail Mary's.

Looking at this IdeaScale site, I find that every other idea is asking to see BHO's birth certificate. It doesn't really make sense to hijack a site like this and make it all about one idea. Also, the votes might get divided among the several suggestions of this same topic.

Yawwn. And he knows a big word, too.

blackmonrikker Records in Mobasa, Kenya, researched after Obama's father's mother, in an interview, insisted that she was present at Obama's birth in Mobasa, Kenya, show that indeed Ann Dunham had delivered a son on the date that Obama claims as his birthdate. Even the Principal Registrar there confirmed that on that date Ann Dunham had given birth to Barack Hussein Obama III in Mombasa, Kenya on Aug 4, 1961 BUT the official explained that Obama's birth there was TOP SECRET! Another interesting FACT is that the address in Hawaii where Obama's were supposedly living at the time of his supposed birth there was found to be a vacant home, the occupants had both passed away, and the neighbors attested to the FACT that the Obama's had never lived there. Another FACT is that Obama claims he was born in Queens Hosp in Hawaii, and yet his half-sister claims he was born in Kapiolani Hosp in Hawaii. They can't even get their lies in sync. Aren't you Obamanites just a little curious as to why Obama's first executive order was to seal ALL his documents? He also doesn't want us to know what passport he used to travel to Pakistan to visit his druggie college buddies he met when attending high school in CA, since you could not travel there on a U.S. passport, but he could if he were a citizen of Indonesia, having been adopted by Soetoro, and used that passport, and his new name, Barry Soetoro, a muslim. BUT Obama won't let us see his passports, either. Tell me again about TRANSPARENCY. Who funded his spendy education? WHERE'S THE TRANSPARENCY? All I see is secrecy and lies. But what do I know. I am a 73 year old Patriot Birther, a wingnut. I just ask questions, like to find answers and be intelligently informed. I don't wear blinders. I want to know as much about Obama as democrats wanted to know about McCain. I want Obama investigated and ruled on just as McCain was. Is there BIAS by any chance? Let's be fair and now investigate Obama as he should have been investigated years ago when he first entered politics. He flew under the radar and has now usurped the highest office in our land. Action should be taken to clear up this matter once and for all. What do you have to hide, Obama????

You sir, are forgetting one thing. Who's your daddy? That's right, let me hear you say POTUS!

And about the Israel thing, too bad really, nice people but well, you know what they say about history repeating itself. It's a difficult decision, we have an entire region of faithful Muslims who just want to be left alone once they conquer the world and convert or kill every living soul, and on the other hand, a little tiny group of infidels.

Hey, it's not like Americans are going to do anything to stop it like write their Congressman, the Vaticn or anything, right?

Allah be praised.

fgstone: Your post is actually good. However, can it be proved? And even if it can, can you force your own interpretation on any court of law and also force them to ignore eligibility precedents in the past and US statutory law? That's my point.

beth-wade http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/

http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org/

And right now I don't have the links where you can see the sworn to affidavits of the people present when Obama's grandmother insisted she was at his birth in Mobassa, Kenya. And the sworn to affidavits of the interpreters who asked the questions in Swahili and gave back her answers in English. Based on her testimony, these same credible persons went to the hospital in Mobassa, and talking with the Principal Registrar, confirmed that Obama's mother Ann Dunham had given birth to Obama there, but that fact was supposed to be Top Secret. And when they tried to find a record of Obama being born in ANY hospital in Hawaii, on his birth date, none could be found. I think in my above post I covered all this. Feel free to hop a plane and check it out for yourself, but don't you think it would be less costly and more easily proven if Obama would just unseal his records? Why don't you ask him to let you see his passports, birth certificate with his footprints on the back and his mother's thumbprints (my son born in 1961 can show you his and it has the name of the hospital on the front along with the Administrator of the hospital's signature, as well as the signature of the family doctor who delivered him). That would sure shut all of us up, wouldn't it, if he showed the documents that prove he is not a citizen of Indonesia, and that his name is not Barry Soetoro, and that his expensive college funding was not from a group that funds only Indonesian citizens? He isn't showing his records because they would prove he is not eligible to be president. What other reason could there be for his sealing all his records from public view? Unless you can answer that question for me, you don't need to respond. I just want to see the PROOF.