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

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155067 May 9, 2013
Excuse me but according to Wiki, there is 23.8 times as much argon as there is CO2!!!! I had said ten times, so I stand corrected.

Atmosphere of Earth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The common name given to the atmospheric gases used in breathing and photosynthesis is air. Dry air contains roughly (by volume)
78.09% nitrogen,
20.95% oxygen,
0.93% argon,
0.039% carbon dioxide,
and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#155068 May 9, 2013
Question

Can the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment be any clearer than this?

comments by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, author of the Citizenship Clause

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...

Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2890

"...every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is...a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, incude persons born in the Untied States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...

"...Indians born within the limits of the united States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not...born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded...as being quasi foreign nations."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...

Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2895

"...the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States,...the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction.... They have always been regarded...as being independent nations..."

On p. 2890, Howard declares that every persons born in the USA and SUBJECT TO THEIR JURISDICTION is a citizen, other than persons who belong to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers. This means that persons who belong to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers are NOT INCLUDED in the set of persons who ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the USA.

He then goes on to say that persons who ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the USA are ALSO EXCLUDED from citizenship. He provides the specific example of the Indians who belong to a tribe, who are considered members of independent nations.

This establishes the principle that members of independent nations ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the USA, therefore their children are not given citizenship even if they are born within the limits of the United States.

This exclusion applies to ALL independent nations, including Mexico. Later court rulings gave citizenship to Indians and Eskimos, but this applied to ONLY these groups. These rulings DID NOT open citizenship to children born to foreigners from all the foreign nations in the world.

Children born to parents who are citizens of foreign countries are NOT citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment. So, Congress is permitted to refuse citizenship to them under the Fourteenth Amendment as it stands today.

The entire discussion recorded here IMPLICITLY treats children as having the same citizenship status as the parents, with no dispute or debate. It is taken as being understood that ALL CHILDREN HAVE THE SAME CITIZENSHIP AS THEIR PARENTS.

This was entirely the intent and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause. It was intended to give citizenship to all freed slaves and their children, while NOT giving citizenship to the children born to foreigners from independent nations.

Can it be any clearer that ANCHOR BABIES ARE NOT CITIZENS?
Learn to Read

Greenwood, IN

#155069 May 9, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
Question

Can the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment be any clearer than this?

comments by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, author of the Citizenship Clause

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage... Â…

Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2890

"...every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is...a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, incude persons born in the Untied States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...

"...Indians born within the limits of the united States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not...born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded...as being quasi foreign nations."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage... Â…

Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2895

"...the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States,...the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction.... They have always been regarded...as being independent nations..."

On p. 2890, Howard declares that every persons born in the USA and SUBJECT TO THEIR JURISDICTION is a citizen, other than persons who belong to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers. This means that persons who belong to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers are NOT INCLUDED in the set of persons who ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the USA.

He then goes on to say that persons who ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the USA are ALSO EXCLUDED from citizenship. He provides the specific example of the Indians who belong to a tribe, who are considered members of independent nations.

This establishes the principle that members of independent nations ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the USA, therefore their children are not given citizenship even if they are born within the limits of the United States.

This exclusion applies to ALL independent nations, including Mexico. Later court rulings gave citizenship to Indians and Eskimos, but this applied to ONLY these groups. These rulings DID NOT open citizenship to children born to foreigners from all the foreign nations in the world.

Children born to parents who are citizens of foreign countries are NOT citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment. So, Congress is permitted to refuse citizenship to them under the Fourteenth Amendment as it stands today.

The entire discussion recorded here IMPLICITLY treats children as having the same citizenship status as the parents, with no dispute or debate. It is taken as being understood that ALL CHILDREN HAVE THE SAME CITIZENSHIP AS THEIR PARENTS.

This was entirely the intent and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause. It was intended to give citizenship to all freed slaves and their children, while NOT giving citizenship to the children born to foreigners from independent nations.

Can it be any clearer that ANCHOR BABIES ARE NOT CITIZENS?
Can it be any clearer that Dufus Dale knows nothing about the Constitution or rule of law?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#155070 May 9, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
11 American rig workers killed and to you, it's a spin, it's boring, it's a fruit salad?
You dismiss it out of hand?
As you used it, it sure the fuch is!! Benghazi wasn't an oil well accident, you stupid POS.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155071 May 9, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Jacques, this is for you. You may notice that the aircraft's registration number begins with a "C" which means it is registered in..... Canada. I am sure the the Canadian CAB (like our FAA) has taken action against the pilot!
Video: Longest Takeoff Run ... Ever
By Robert Goyer / Published: May 02, 2013
Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-places/pilots ...
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what the "C" means. Do you know what "N" means? Now you know how I feel.
Considering the strip is rough grass, downhill instead of ideal uphill, and a tail dragger which in this case is no help for sure, pilot did pretty well, considering. Of course, his initial mistake was taking off from that strip in the 1st place, yes, he was STUPID,, displayed poor judgement, yet skillful but again mostly STUPID as it normally should've ended in tragedy.
Since you are not as up on aviation as I am, let me educate you some. One, his aircraft has an operator manual and he should be familiar with it's performance.
Next, a down slot take off is preferred as you get to your takeoff speed faster.
Then a tail-dragger is almost at the correct take off angle.
And considering the situation, his passengers are lucky to live to tell about it!!!
In Vietnam I did several overloaded take offs but that was under combat situations when the rule book gets tossed in the back and you put the Bible on the dash (Instrument panel).
Oh, I wrote this story and it is published on VHPA.org
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Jacques, this is for you. You may notice that the aircraft's registration number begins with a "C" which means it is registered in..... Canada. I am sure the the Canadian CAB (like our FAA) has taken action against the pilot!
Video: Longest Takeoff Run ... Ever
By Robert Goyer / Published: May 02, 2013
http://www.vhpa.org/stories/deuce.pdf
Oh, I sort of found the pilot after I wrote this story. His real name was "Mcfarland", not McFarlan. Unfortunately he had passed on before I had found him.
http://www.vhpa.org/DAT/datM/G19442.HTM

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#155072 May 9, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>As you used it, it sure the fuch is!! Benghazi wasn't an oil well accident, you stupid POS.
I did not use it lightly, just presented the fact, namely that the four Benghazi victims were killed by the enemy. Unfortunate, horrible. But much worse is the fact that the 11 rig workers were killed by fellow Americans and Brit allies. Courts found evidence of of gross negligence bordering on manslaughter and a hefty $4.2 billion gross negligence fine which BP and its buddy in crime Halliburton did not contest. Benghazi was not an oil well accident, but gulf was not an accident either, it was willful negligence that killed 11 innocent persons by their own people, not the enemy. You thoughtless hating birthers have never ever commented negatively on that. Instead, you protect the big corporate giants like you were one of them which, I assure you, you are NOT.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#155073 May 9, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Can it be any clearer that Dufus Dale knows nothing about the Constitution or rule of law?
LMAO!! The same old BS out of the same old POS!
Truth Detector

Louisville, KY

#155074 May 9, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is YOUR opinion and nothing more and until the USSC makes a ruling on this issue, it will remain just your opinion.
The Truth about Vattel, Presidents, Citizens & Subjects
May 5, 2013
“As to this class there have been doubts,
but never as to the first…”
The ignorant and highly biased defenders of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional reign as America’s President, base their entire defense on the notion that only three kinds of persons inhabit a country; natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and foreigners. That is one of the greatest absurdities of all time, and that is because there are ten identifiable types of citizens in the United States, and only two of them are natural.
In addition to them, there are 6 types of non-citizens, which are,-excluding any possible enemy combatants:
1. foreign diplomats (whose U.S. born children are not citizens) 2. foreign government employees of lower rank, including Consular Officers (their U.S. born children are considered to be citizens) 3. Legal immigrants (Green Card recipients) 4. Illegal immigrants 5. Visa Card recipients,(Foreign visitors, tourists, temp. workers, etc.) 6. non-citizen American Nationals from American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and Swains Island.
Those who are Americans are so in these 10 ways:
1. Children born of citizens in the United States
2. Children born of citizens outside the United State
3. Immigrants naturalized by the naturalization process.
4. Children born of legal immigrants (Green Card holders),
automatically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment
5. Children born of illegal immigrants (citizens by policy, not law),
presumedly automatically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment
6. Children naturalized by their parents’ naturalization though born abroad
7. Children born in America to non-immigrant aliens,(-citizens by policy also)
8. Foreigners made citizens by Congressional proclamation (Puerto Rico, Guam)
9. Children born abroad to only one American parent. American citizens via statute
10.Children born to American women who lost their citizenship by being married to and
living with a foreign husband in a foreign nation between 1907 and 1922 who along with
their mother (re)acquired American citizenship after the 1907 Naturalization Act was amended
The idea that all citizens who are not naturalized by process are “natural born citizen” is asinine. But everyone thinks that all citizens except naturalized citizens can be President, yet the Constitution mandates something else. They think it requires that the President be born in America, connecting only domestic birth with eligibility. They could just as easily connect eligibility to only parentage since what one is when born is determined by parentage,-being as parents determine one’s inherited nature,-one’s social and national position and membership.
Why is it that both would seem equally plausible determinants of presidential eligibility? It’s because of the words the Constitution used to describe the citizenship of the President. For all other offices it used the descriptor of “a citizen of the United States”. As one can see from the list, that is very inclusive.
But when it came to the position that wields the power of the Commander of the American military they used very exclusive language. They put it like this:
“No person, except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”.
In order to bind that description to the borders within which one was born is quite a feat, but they accomplish it by resorting to elevating, and then twisting the meaning of an old English term that lost its true meaning over the centuries due to sliding down a slippery slope of language bastardization, namely the term:“natural born subject”. That term originally meant a son born into subjection to the King by inheriting his father’s relationship to the crown.

?????
Truth Detector

Louisville, KY

#155075 May 9, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is YOUR opinion and nothing more and until the USSC makes a ruling on this issue, it will remain just your opinion.
The Truth about Vattel, Presidents, Citizens & Subjects
May 5, 2013
“As to this class there have been doubts,
but never as to the first…”
The ignorant and highly biased defenders of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional reign as America’s President, base their entire defense on the notion that only three kinds of persons inhabit a country; natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and foreigners. That is one of the greatest absurdities of all time, and that is because there are ten identifiable types of citizens in the United States, and only two of them are natural.
In addition to them, there are 6 types of non-citizens, which are,-excluding any possible enemy combatants:
1. foreign diplomats (whose U.S. born children are not citizens) 2. foreign government employees of lower rank, including Consular Officers (their U.S. born children are considered to be citizens) 3. Legal immigrants (Green Card recipients) 4. Illegal immigrants 5. Visa Card recipients,(Foreign visitors, tourists, temp. workers, etc.) 6. non-citizen American Nationals from American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and Swains Island.
Those who are Americans are so in these 10 ways:
1. Children born of citizens in the United States
2. Children born of citizens outside the United State
3. Immigrants naturalized by the naturalization process.
4. Children born of legal immigrants (Green Card holders),
automatically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment
5. Children born of illegal immigrants (citizens by policy, not law),
presumedly automatically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment
6. Children naturalized by their parents’ naturalization though born abroad
7. Children born in America to non-immigrant aliens,(-citizens by policy also)
8. Foreigners made citizens by Congressional proclamation (Puerto Rico, Guam)
9. Children born abroad to only one American parent. American citizens via statute
10.Children born to American women who lost their citizenship by being married to and
living with a foreign husband in a foreign nation between 1907 and 1922 who along with
their mother (re)acquired American citizenship after the 1907 Naturalization Act was amended
The idea that all citizens who are not naturalized by process are “natural born citizen” is asinine. But everyone thinks that all citizens except naturalized citizens can be President, yet the Constitution mandates something else. They think it requires that the President be born in America, connecting only domestic birth with eligibility. They could just as easily connect eligibility to only parentage since what one is when born is determined by parentage,-being as parents determine one’s inherited nature,-one’s social and national position and membership.
Why is it that both would seem equally plausible determinants of presidential eligibility? It’s because of the words the Constitution used to describe the citizenship of the President. For all other offices it used the descriptor of “a citizen of the United States”. As one can see from the list, that is very inclusive.
But when it came to the position that wields the power of the Commander of the American military they used very exclusive language. They put it like this:
“No person, except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”.
In order to bind that description to the borders within which one was born is quite a feat, but they accomplish it by resorting to elevating, and then twisting the meaning of an old English term that lost its true meaning over the centuries due to sliding down a slippery slope of language bastardization, namely the term:“natural born subject”. That term originally meant a son born into subjection to the King by inheriting his father’s relationship to the crown.

?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#155076 May 9, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you tell us what percentage of DRY atmospheric gases does our Earth contain?
For Instance about;
78% is nitrogen,
21% Oxygen,
1% Argon, and
1% all other gases!!!
Now, depending on temperature and humidity our lower tropospheric gases can contain up to 5% water vapor, typically 1-3% water vapor while CO2 is less than 0.1% and I have not seen statistic for methane yet.
You could find it if you knew how to look.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#155077 May 9, 2013
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
The same way you lose say a tennis ball in the woods. After a few years you have no idea what’s grown on it and even that little deed would give you no clue to the vastness of outer space. But who ever accused you of being logical?
Logic dictates since none of the so called prophets or writers of the bible seemed aware of this or anything else outside their habitat nothing was ever revealed to them, but you are free to believe what you wish as am I.
Don’t believe me? Take a look! I think even Moses would be impressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =octRYMsiLX0XX&lc=m-Z7PLGv L7dyHZ-45sInDGWrMC4VbKO8dCUHqg f5yjM
LMAO! "Don't believe me"? Well, just look at this YOUTUBE clip! LMAO! Groidboy actually thinks he knows how God's mind works! Sure you do. Better go get another rock. fishlips
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#155078 May 9, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
LRS discovers (delusional) belatedly that anything I post must be "on cue" to Jacques, even though I posted to this forum over a year before Jacques. What a sad little twerp.
<quoted text>
And you've been bytchin' and moanin' the whole time! Just like the scalded azz ape that you are! squidiot

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155079 May 9, 2013
And the Libtards lie again. The Libtards who hate Israel changed the story to fit their anti-Israel agenda. Dr. Hawking bowed out of the conference because of health reasons, and nothing more.

Stephen Hawking’s Media Mess
MAY 9, 2013: BY SIMON PLOSKER
This opinion piece by HR Managing Editor, Simon Plosker, is reproduced from The Times of Israel.

Professor Stephen Hawking’s decision to boycott Israel’s President’s Conference left a nasty taste in the mouth. It wasn’t only the fact that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was able to claim a significant victory in their campaign to delegitimize Israel. It was also the way in which the story developed throughout the day in such a way as to snatch what looked like a slam dunk exposé of both the BDS movement and The Guardian.

more at: http://honestreporting.com/stephen-hawkings-m...
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#155080 May 9, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not use it lightly, just presented the fact, namely that the four Benghazi victims were killed by the enemy. Unfortunate, horrible. But much worse is the fact that the 11 rig workers were killed by fellow Americans and Brit allies. Courts found evidence of of gross negligence bordering on manslaughter and a hefty $4.2 billion gross negligence fine which BP and its buddy in crime Halliburton did not contest. Benghazi was not an oil well accident, but gulf was not an accident either, it was willful negligence that killed 11 innocent persons by their own people, not the enemy. You thoughtless hating birthers have never ever commented negatively on that. Instead, you protect the big corporate giants like you were one of them which, I assure you, you are NOT.
LMAO!!! Just STFU you aren't proficient in the spin category, you come-off as a boring fool!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#155081 May 9, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
11 American rig workers killed and to you, it's a spin, it's boring, it's a fruit salad?
You dismiss it out of hand?
All you want is a big (evil) company to point the finger at. You're weak!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#155082 May 9, 2013
Truth Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
The Truth about Vattel, Presidents, Citizens & Subjects
May 5, 2013
“As to this class there have been doubts,
but never as to the first…”
The ignorant and highly biased defenders of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional reign as America’s President, base their entire defense on the notion that only three kinds of persons inhabit a country; natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and foreigners. That is one of the greatest absurdities of all time, and that is because there are ten identifiable types of citizens in the United States, and only two of them are natural.... twisting the meaning of an old English term that lost its true meaning over the centuries due to sliding down a slippery slope of language bastardization, namely the term:“natural born subject”. That term originally meant a son born into subjection to the King by inheriting his father’s relationship to the crown.
?????
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. Here is how AMERICANS (not Swiss) who knew the writers of the Constitution used the term:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)

As you can see, BOTH of them used it to refer to the PLACE of birth. Neither used it to refer to parents. And neither did any of the writers of the Constitution in any article or letter. None of them ever said that Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen refers to the citizenship of the parents.

"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

As you can see, both the men who knew the writers of the US Constitution and conservative legal experts today say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth and includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#155083 May 9, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not use it lightly, just presented the fact, namely that the four Benghazi victims were killed by the enemy. Unfortunate, horrible. But much worse is the fact that the 11 rig workers were killed by fellow Americans and Brit allies. Courts found evidence of of gross negligence bordering on manslaughter and a hefty $4.2 billion gross negligence fine which BP and its buddy in crime Halliburton did not contest. Benghazi was not an oil well accident, but gulf was not an accident either, it was willful negligence that killed 11 innocent persons by their own people, not the enemy. You thoughtless hating birthers have never ever commented negatively on that. Instead, you protect the big corporate giants like you were one of them which, I assure you, you are NOT.
Just how can you equate an oil well accident with the murders of four US citizens by terrorist?
Let us look into that head full of mush you have sitting on your shoulders!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155084 May 9, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you tell us what percentage of DRY atmospheric gases does our Earth contain?
For Instance about;
78% is nitrogen,
21% Oxygen,
1% Argon, and
1% all other gases!!!
Now, depending on temperature and humidity our lower tropospheric gases can contain up to 5% water vapor, typically 1-3% water vapor while CO2 is less than 0.1% and I have not seen statistic for methane yet.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>You could find it if you knew how to look.
So it is about 1,745 nmol/mol. What PERCENTAGE of our air is this? Do you know what "ppb" is? It is 1/1000 of a ppm (parts per million) so it is 0.0000017% which is next to NOTHING!!!!
Beam me up Scotty. There is no intelligent life in Libtardia!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155085 May 9, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. Here is how AMERICANS (not Swiss) who knew the writers of the Constitution used the term:
"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)
As you can see, BOTH of them used it to refer to the PLACE of birth. Neither used it to refer to parents. And neither did any of the writers of the Constitution in any article or letter. None of them ever said that Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen refers to the citizenship of the parents.
"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
As you can see, both the men who knew the writers of the US Constitution and conservative legal experts today say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth and includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.
And all of those opinions were written after our Constitution was written and are, again, nothing more than an opinion.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#155086 May 9, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. Here is how AMERICANS (not Swiss) who knew the writers of the Constitution used the term:
"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)
As you can see, BOTH of them used it to refer to the PLACE of birth. Neither used it to refer to parents. And neither did any of the writers of the Constitution in any article or letter. None of them ever said that Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen refers to the citizenship of the parents.
"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
As you can see, both the men who knew the writers of the US Constitution and conservative legal experts today say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth and includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.
LMAO!!! Looks like you and your references don't know the rules changed with the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868.

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 10 min Mandela 70,075
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 32 min Tony Rome 1,126,143
durban women lets explore your fantasies bbm pins 1 hr slum ou 3
ISIS Plans to Blow Up an Entire American City a... 1 hr obomba 102
'We Charge Genocide' Presents Report on Chicago... 2 hr hands on AR 2
GOP Votes go 2 dem. votes. 2 hr hands on AR 2
A young black kid asks his mother, "Mama what's... 7 hr Funny But True 10
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

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 ]