BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ... Full Story
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151659 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Constitution does make citizens, and it says in the 14th Amendment that everyone born in the USA and subject to the jurisdiction of the USA is a citizen at birth.
The meaning of jurisdiction means subject to the LAW of the USA, and everyone who is in the USA except for foreign diplomats is subject to the law of the USA. Therefore every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a US citizen at birth.
This court ruling is right, and you are wrong:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
And this court ruling is right, and you are wrong:
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
And ditto for this ruling:
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
And the same for this:
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling:“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.”
And ditto for this:
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling :“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
And this:
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling:“Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."
And here are the words of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case:
"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.
III. 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."
They are right, and you are wrong.
"and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" means the Constitution.
We are a Constitutional Republic, meaning the Constitution has jurisdiction over the US Government. No Constitution, no United States of America.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151660 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>"Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."
Looks like foreign citizenship does have an effect on US law. The US Government can not strip a citizenship from anyone unless requested by that person.
It does not have any effect whatever. All that that says is that the USA has the right to determine for itself what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship. And that does NOT say that the law of a foreign country can affect the right of the USA to determine who can be citizens. It does not say that at all.

It does not say that dual citizenship affects US citizenship. And, it doesn't.

This court ruling is right, and you are wrong:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

And this court ruling is right, and you are wrong:

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

And ditto for this ruling:

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

And the same for this:

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling:“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.”

And ditto for this:

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling :“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

You are wrong.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151661 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>"and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" means the Constitution.
We are a Constitutional Republic, meaning the Constitution has jurisdiction over the US Government. No Constitution, no United States of America.
You keep on saying the same thing. But it is not true. The meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to USA law.

This court ruling is right, and you are wrong:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

And this court ruling is right, and you are wrong:

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

And ditto for this ruling:

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

The courts and the US Supreme Court have ruled that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen at birth except for the children of foreign diplomats. You are simply wrong.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151662 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not have any effect whatever. All that that says is that the USA has the right to determine for itself what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship. And that does NOT say that the law of a foreign country can affect the right of the USA to determine who can be citizens. It does not say that at all.
It does not say that dual citizenship affects US citizenship. And, it doesn't.
This court ruling is right, and you are wrong:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
And this court ruling is right, and you are wrong:
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
And ditto for this ruling:
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
And the same for this:
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling:“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.”
And ditto for this:
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling :“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
You are wrong.
It is plainly stated that anyone who is subject to a foreign power will not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution, unless they are naturalized, not that is your Constitution speaking.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151663 Apr 18, 2013
"w" not "t"
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#151664 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>There, I gave you the last word!!! Are you happy now?
LMAO!!!
Birfoonese for "I can't even pretend to defend my fable"

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#151665 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote :

The courts and the US Supreme Court have ruled that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen at birth except for the children of foreign diplomats. You are simply wrong.

The above is beyond argument an contestation. Justice ha ha Dale pits himself against the entire complete US constitution and judiciary.

As to children of diplomats not being natural-born citizens, I believe this to be correct as concerns teh United States, as every country is free to create and formulate its own laws. However, and FYI, many other countries will nonetheless confer the title of 'natural born" and citizen to any diplomats' children.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#151666 Apr 18, 2013
Not long after Eric Williams was arrested in Texas the Huffington Post came out and implied he was NOT a Democrat. Meanwhile NBC News plays down his party affiliation saying it does not matter whether he is a Democrat or a Republican

But there are others who say he is not only a registered Democrat but also donated $200,000 to the Democrat Party.
Why is it that almost always that criminals are Liberal Democrats?!?

Eric Williams Charged With Making Terroristic Threat In Slain DA Investigation - 04/13/13
He must be a democrat NOT!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/13/eric...

Wife of ex-official charged in slain Texas DA case
By Matthew DeLuca, Staff Writer, NBC News
...It doesn't matter if she is a republican or democrat, she is an idiot. If she did it,...
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/17/17...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151667 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>It is plainly stated that anyone who is subject to a foreign power will not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution, unless they are naturalized, not that is your Constitution speaking.
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]
Answer: Bingham ALSO said this:

Bingham also said:

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”

It seems that by 1869 he had changed his mind from what he said in 1866.

More importantly, Bingham was NOT the author of the 14th Amendment. He was the author it the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment. He was not the author if the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

Who was the author of the citizenship clause? Senator Lyman Trumball.

And here is what Lyman Trumball said:

“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274:‘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. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”—Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

More importantly, even if Bingham had believed what he said in the first quotation, there are hundreds of members of congress, and the opinion of one or two of them does not count. What counts is the decision by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that EVERY CHILD born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen.

And on October 1 of last year, the current US Supreme Court turned down a birther appeal of one of ten rulings, the Farrar case in Georgia, which held that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. By turning down the appeal of that ruling, the current US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court---and the nine other courts, all of which held that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen---to stand.

You are simply wrong.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#151668 Apr 18, 2013
Ah, just found this from 2011. See Jacques, I can be fair and balanced. Sooo, is he a Republican or is he a Democrat?

Voters select six new officeholders during election January 5, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 2:51 pm, Wed Sep 26, 2012.
Loyd Cook

In Precinct 1, Eric Williams added another Republican to the slate of county officials, defeating longtime justice of the peace Johnny Perry, a Democrat, in the November general election.
Williams defeated the incumbent Democrat by a 2,274-1,523 final total.
http://www.kaufmanherald.com/news/article_f14...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151669 Apr 18, 2013
Re: "The above is beyond argument an contestation. Justice ha ha Dale pits himself against the entire complete US constitution and judiciary. "

It is actually worse than that. He pits himself against this statement of principle by our founders: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

IF the writers of the US Constitution had meant the US-born children of foreigners to not be equal, or not to be US citizens at birth, or to be a lower category of citizens who are not eligible to become president------they would have told us. And, of course, they didn't.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151670 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep on saying the same thing. But it is not true. The meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to USA law.
This court ruling is right, and you are wrong:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
And this court ruling is right, and you are wrong:
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
And ditto for this ruling:
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
The courts and the US Supreme Court have ruled that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen at birth except for the children of foreign diplomats. You are simply wrong.
Wrong!!! Ever hear the word "Unconstitutional"?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#151671 Apr 18, 2013
Now, just because someone says he is something, does not mean he is. An example is Mayor Michael Bloomberg who was a Democrat, ran as a Republican for mayor, and then switched to Independent.
But whatever party he claims to be apart of, he is a blooming idiot!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151672 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong!!! Ever hear the word "Unconstitutional"?
None of those rulings were unconstitutional. What IS unconstitutional is your crazy theory.

On October 1 of last year, the current US Supreme Court turned down a birther appeal of one of ten rulings, the Farrar case in Georgia, which held that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. By turning down the appeal of that ruling, the current US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court---and the nine other courts, all of which held that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen---to stand. They are not unconstitutional.

You are simply wrong.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151673 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer: Bingham ALSO said this:
Bingham also said:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
It seems that by 1869 he had changed his mind from what he said in 1866.
More importantly, Bingham was NOT the author of the 14th Amendment. He was the author it the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment. He was not the author if the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
Who was the author of the citizenship clause? Senator Lyman Trumball.
And here is what Lyman Trumball said:
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274:‘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. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”—Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
More importantly, even if Bingham had believed what he said in the first quotation, there are hundreds of members of congress, and the opinion of one or two of them does not count. What counts is the decision by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that EVERY CHILD born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen.
And on October 1 of last year, the current US Supreme Court turned down a birther appeal of one of ten rulings, the Farrar case in Georgia, which held that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. By turning down the appeal of that ruling, the current US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court---and the nine other courts, all of which held that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen---to stand.
You are simply wrong.
That is right by 1869 the 14th was law and every person born in the US and not subject to a foreign power were Natural Born Citizens.
In 1868 the Constitution made citizens, not the English Common Law, you will not find one mention of English common law in Howards framing of the 14th Citizenship Clause, that is what counts.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#151675 Apr 18, 2013
Damn that G.W. Bush by taking care of his Saudi friends again. I am sure he will use the same SR-71 his dad used back in 1980 to spirit him out of the country were Obama won't be able to get him!!!

U.S.‘deporting Saudi person of interest’
Posted on April 18, 2013

What? How does this happen? This is not good. We can’t seem to deport anyone, yet a person of interest gets a pass?
Check it out:

An expert on terrorism says the Saudi national who was the original “person of interest” in connection with Monday’s Boston Marathon bombing is going to be deported from the U.S. next week.

The foreign student from Revere, Mass., is identified as 20-year-old Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi.

“I just learned from my own sources that he is now going to be deported on national security grounds next Tuesday, which is very unusual,” Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism told Sean Hannity of Fox News Wednesday night.

The Reuters news agency reported President Barack Obama met with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal on Wednesday, noting “the meeting was not on Obama’s public schedule.”

After that meeting was mentioned, Emerson told Hannity,“That’s very interesting because this is the way things are done with Saudi Arabia. You don’t arrest their citizens. You deport them, because they don’t want them to be embarrassed and that’s the way we appease them.”

Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/04/u-s-depor...
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151676 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
Re: "The above is beyond argument an contestation. Justice ha ha Dale pits himself against the entire complete US constitution and judiciary. "
It is actually worse than that. He pits himself against this statement of principle by our founders: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
IF the writers of the US Constitution had meant the US-born children of foreigners to not be equal, or not to be US citizens at birth, or to be a lower category of citizens who are not eligible to become president------they would have told us. And, of course, they didn't.
They sure did tell us, to be "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the US Constitution, one can not be subject to a foreign power.
To be a dual-citizen one must be subject to two foreign powers, self explanatory.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#151677 Apr 18, 2013
The Bridge

A man on his Harley was riding along a California beach when suddenly the sky clouded above his head and, in a booming voice, God said,
'because you have tried to be faithful to me in all ways, I will grant you one wish.'

The biker pulled over and said,
'Build a bridge to Hawaii so I can ride over anytime I want.'

God replied,'Your request is materialistic; think of the enormous challenges for that kind of undertaking;
the supports required reaching the bottom of the Pacific and the concrete and steel it would take!
I can do it, but it is hard for me to justify your desire for worldly things.
Take a little more time and think of something that could possibly help mankind.'

The biker thought about it for a long time. Finally, he said,
'God, I wish that I , and all men, could understand women;
I want to know how she feels inside, what she's thinking when she gives me the silent treatment,
why she cries, what she means when she says nothing's wrong,
why she snaps and complains when I try to help, and how I can make a woman truly happy.

God replied: "You want two lanes or four on that bridge?"
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151678 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>That is right by 1869 the 14th was law and every person born in the US and not subject to a foreign power were Natural Born Citizens.
In 1868 the Constitution made citizens, not the English Common Law, you will not find one mention of English common law in Howards framing of the 14th Citizenship Clause, that is what counts.
Howard was just one of the members of the US Congress, so was Senator Trumbull, and I have quoted his views above. The final decision on what the term mean was made by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and it ruled that EVERY CHILD born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. And that is that. That is what it means, it does not mean what you think, nor even what Howard thought. It means what the US Supreme Court RULED. And, you know what, the US Supreme Court was right. The term really does come from the common law---as the examples of Americans who wrote at the time of the writing of the US Constitution shows.

For those who would like to do their own research on the subject, here are some links:

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obama...

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/...

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obama...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_cit...

http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-lincoln-repu...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_c...

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151679 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>They sure did tell us, to be "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the US Constitution, one can not be subject to a foreign power.
To be a dual-citizen one must be subject to two foreign powers, self explanatory.
No one born in the USA other than the children of foreign diplomats is "subject to the jurisdiction" of a foreign country UNDER US LAW, which is what counts.

Dual citizenship does not affect US citizenship or Natural Born Citizen status.

This court ruling is right, and you are wrong:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

And this court ruling is right, and you are wrong:

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

And ditto for this ruling:

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

And this is right, and you are wrong:

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

You are wrong.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The truth regarding Ebola 3 min c Everett Coop 1
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 11 min Frijoles 71,006
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 15 min RealDave 1,153,493
Obama pardons 2 Illinoisans, including former M... 39 min giantnig 8
It's the Gangs and Not the Police as Chicago's ... 2 hr joey 2
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Earthling-1 49,176
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 4 hr Grau 68,881
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:25 pm PST

NBC Sports 3:25PM
Bears clearly looking to move in another direction
NBC Sports 3:44 PM
Lions preparing for the cold - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 3:47 PM
Cutler's Benching Too Little, Too Late for Bears
NBC Sports 6:32 PM
Week 16 skill-position injury report — Thursday
NBC Sports 7:47 PM
Golden Tate excited for Jimmy Clausen to get another starting opportunity