Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal

constitutionThe last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today.

In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was ineligible conceding that point was now moot. Instead, Mrs. Fair raised the question of the eligibility of declared Presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and Governor Bobby Jindal. In particular, Mrs. Fair argued that unresolved is whether or not these three are in fact “natural born Citizens”.

Mrs. Fair said: “Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to parents who were not United States citizens at the time of their respective births. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents only one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen. Under the law existing at the time of their birth, each became a ‘citizen’ of the United States at birth. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal by the 14th Amendment, Ted Cruz by statute.”

As most all know, under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution: “No person except a natural born Citizen . . ., shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Mrs. Fair continued: “That phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has yet to be defined by the Supreme Court. So are they “natural born Citizens” eligible to be President? I think the People deserve to know the answer to that question before the next Presidential Campaign starts in earnest.”

Mrs. Fair, who has shepherded her case through the complexities of the legal system by herself to the Supreme Court concluded: “My efforts were never about Mr. Obama as a person or a politician. Instead, my efforts were about insuring that the Constitution was respected and enforced by those charged with those duties. Where a phrase in the Constitution – such as ‘natural born Citizen’ – is undefined, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret such a phrase. As the Supreme Court itself said in the 1922 case of Fairchild v. Hughes, I have: ‘the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law.’ By repeatedly refusing to ‘say what the law is’ regarding ‘natural born Citizen’, the Supreme Court would abolish the rule of law and replace it with the rule of their whim and caprice to whatever political ends that super-legislature may possess.”

Both a copy of the Petition and the Supreme Court Docket for Case No,: 14-933 are online.

uva basketball team of destiny
Team of Destiny: Inside Virginia Basketball’s Run to the 2019 National Championship, by Jerry Ratcliffe and Chris Graham, is now available at a special pre-sale discounted price of $20. The book is expected to ship by June 10, 2019, and will retail for $25.
Pre-order for $20: click here.


The book, with additional reporting by Zach Pereles, Scott Ratcliffe and Scott German, will take you from the aftermath of the stunning first-round loss to UMBC in 2018, and how coach Tony Bennett and his team used that loss as the source of strength, through to the ACC regular-season championship, the run to the Final Four, and the thrilling overtime win over Texas Tech to win the 2019 national title, the first in school history.
 
augusta free press

Related Content

Shop Google


Comments

Comments

  1. Dave B. says:

    “My efforts were never about Mr. Obama as a person or a politician.” Yes, Tracy Fair has always been one of Obama’s BIGGEST fans. One need only look at her website to see how much this has NEVER been about Obama as a person or politician.

  2. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    There was never any Constitutional issue about President Obama. Over 100 years ago this question was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark. A brief summary of that case, which determined that a child born in the United States to Chinese nationals was a citizen argued:

    1) The Constitution doesn’t define citizenship but it clearly shows that there are “natural born citizens” (because the President has to be one) and there are “naturalized citizens” (because the Congress is given the power to create a system of naturalization).
    2) The term “Natural born Citizen: derives from English Common Law term “natural born subject”. The lawyers and statesmen who wrote the Constitution used terms based on the English Common Law.
    3) The English Common Law definition of “natural born subject” includes all born in the King’s dominion including those with alien parents.
    4) Wong Kim Ark was born under the jurisdiction of the United States, therefore he was a citizen.

    That argument is all part of the holding. So while the Supreme Court didn’t come out and say “Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen,” that is the inescapable conclusion based on the reasoning used by the Court, and since 2008, no fewer than 11 courts have looked at this question vis-a-vis Obama and come to the same conclusion I outlined above. That fact has not deterred a group of folks trolling the Internet offering a crank argument about who is a natural born citizen on every forum where the topic comes up.

    Because Ted Cruz was not born in the United States, the holding in US v. Wong doesn’t settle the issue as to him, and there is legitimate debate on that question, and perhaps the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to rule on it; however, Tracy Fair does not have standing to bring suit in the first place and nothing she does will settle anything.

    • Wong was pronounced a citizen, NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, because his parents were domiciled here. Very different than Obama. Obama’s father was NOT domiciled here, he 100% never planned to stay!

      • Dr. Conspiracy says:

        Apparently you didn’t understand the comment you responded to.

      • smrstrauss1 says:

        EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen regardless of whether the parents are permanent residents or just passing through. In fact, the Wong Kim Ark ruling has an actual quotation on the passing through side of the matter.

        It said: “The English common law rule recognized no exception in he instance of birth during the mere temporary or accidental sojourn of the parents. As allegiance sprang from the place of birth regardless of parentage and supervened at the moment of birth,
        the inquiry whether the parents were permanently or only temporarily within the realm was wholly immaterial.”

        WHOLLY IMMATERIAL. (Get it???)

        • hahaha, we don’t follow English Common Law. Show me in the Constitution where it says we follow English Coommon Law!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            It is the Supreme Court that says that we follow Common Law. Moreover, in all of the original 13 states (Particularly New York, where the first Constitution was mainly written by John Jay, the first US Supreme Court Chief Justice),. the common law wa made the law of those states until changed by the state legislature passing new laws.

            Here’s the example of the New York Constitution:

            “XXXIII. That the power of impeaching all officers of the State, for
            mal and corrupt conduct in their respective offices, be vested in the
            representatives of the people in assembly; but that it shall always be
            necessary that two third parts of the members present shall consent to
            and agree in such impeachment. That previous to the trial of every
            impeachment, the members of the said court shall respectively be sworn
            truly and impartially to try and determine the charge in question,
            according to evidence; and that no judgment of the said court shall be
            valid unless it be assented to by two third parts of the members then
            present; nor shall it extend farther than to removal from office, and
            disqualification to hold or enjoy any place of honor, trust, or profit
            under this State. But the party so convicted shall be, nevertheless,
            liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment,
            according to the laws of the land.”

            NOTICE that it says “…the common law of ENGLAND.” (One reason being that the common law of Scotland was different in some ways.) In any case, that is some evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed THE COMMON LAW. More evidence comes from the use of common law terms—like “ex post facto” a and “habeas corpus.”

            The legal evidence is that THAT is what the US Supreme Court says that the interpretation of laws is based on.

            ” And so has been the uniform doctrine in America ever since the settlement of the colonies. 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.” (Joseph Story, from his book, “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; with a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States, before the Adoption of the Constitution.” (http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_common_law_origins_of_constitution.htm).

            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.” (The Wong Kim Ark ruling.) Notice: “by the law of ENGLAND for the last three centuries….”)

            So the Heritage Foundation book is right:

            “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.]

            ….and you are wrong.

          • “It is the Supreme Court that says that we follow Common Law”

            DIVERT DIVERT DIVERT

            Show me where the courts say that we follow “ENGLISH Common Law”

            Of course we follow American Common Law, which is made up of federal statutes and SCOTUS precedent!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            American common law is based on ENGLISH common law, which is why John Jay wrote ENGLISH COMMON LAW into the first Constitution of the State of New York.

            Re: “Divert.”

            What a silly comment. BOTH the US Supreme Court and the Heritage Foundation book say that the term comes from THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW.

            “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.]

          • YouAreJoking says:

            But before there was SCOTUS and federal statues, there were courts and court decisions. American common law started with the English common law, then evolved to what we have today.

            England had already invented the wheel — there was no need to start from scratch. Early American lawyers either studied law in England or studied law by reading English case law. The first US law school was either William and Mary in 1780 or Litchfield Law school in 1784 (depending on the definition of law school), and both schools taught English common law primarily with Blackstone. Early courts didn’t cite “English common law” because the distinction wasn’t meaningful to them.

            Here’s a law review article that examined 3 of the original colonies/states. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2851&context=wmlr

            “Although in their separate or dissenting opinions the various judges might reach contrary results and might disagree as to the state of the common law, there seems to have been underlying agreement that the English Common law as they saw it, was usually binding.”

            Chief Justice James Kent :
            “But whatever may be our opinions on the point, as an abstract question, or whatever may be the decisions of the civil law, or the feudal and municipal law of other countries, we must decide this question by the common law of England.” 115. Frost v. Raymond (N.Y.) (1804).

          • Sorry again, try reading:

            Wheaton v. Peters 33 U.S. 591 (1834)
            It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. READ IT AGAIN!

            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 system by legislative adoption.

            When a common law right is asserted, we look to the state in which the controversy originated.

            When the ancestors of the citizens of the United States emigrated to this country, they brought with them, to a limited extent, the English common law as part of their heritage. No one will contend that the common law, as it existed in England, has ever been in force in all its provisions in any state in this Union. It was adopted only so far as its principles were suited to the condition of the colonies, and from this circumstance we see what is the common law in one state is not so considered in another. The judicial decisions, the usages and customs of the respective states, must determine how far the common law has been introduced and sanctioned in each.

            If the common law in all its provisions has not been introduced into Pennsylvania, to what extent has it been adopted? Must not this Court have some evidence on the subject? If no copyright of an author, in his wont, has been heretofore asserted there, no custom or usage established, no judicial decisions been given, can the conclusion be justified that by the common law of Pennsylvania, an author has a perpetual property in the copyright of his works.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            The early courts looked to the common law and adapted it. Most states incorporated it into their jurisprudence. Not 100%, as we don’t have a king or nobility, for instance, but substantially. Like your reference says.

          • I am well aware that before the Declaration and Constitution that the Colonies were ruled by English Common Law. However, the Declaration dissolved our political bands with England and we assumed Natural Law, as paragraph 1 states:

            “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,”

            Laws of Nature aka Natural Law!

            From the Declaration up until the Constitution, some states wrote certain laws into their laws, the ones that were not specifically adopted, WERE NOT ADOPTED. When the Constitution came along, the only things that are from the English Common Law, were those laws specifically mentioned in the Constitution. If it’s not there, it’s NOT OUR LAW!

            Wheaton v. Peters proves this:
            “It is clear there can be no common law of the United States.”…”The common law could be made a part of our system by legislative adoption.”

            Sorry, no common law listed in our Constitution, then NO COMMON LAW!

      • roadburner says:

        but you seem to be missing a very salient point, which is to say, your president´s mother was an american NBC domiciled in the united states!
        i recall leaving a question on your blog which you, dumbo ike and out of breath dave all ignored as hard as you could…
        at a college graduation party where many foreign students were present, a girl who is an NBC of the united states has sexual relations with several students. after they all have returned to their respective countries, the girl discovers she is pregnant and does not know who the father is, and later gives birth on united states soil.
        is her child an NBC of the united states?
        i would be most interested to see how you spin this one!

        • RamboIke says:

          Roadbummer, you might be on to something . You’re hinting that Stanley Ann, Obama’s mama, was giving it away on prom night for free to all the guys that wanted it. That could very well explain why the original records haven’t been released. For father it would say “unknown”.

  3. Billy Rawle says:

    “Mrs. Fair raised the question of the eligibility of declared Presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and Governor Bobby Jindal.”

    All three will be surprised to find out they are “declared Presidential candidates”. Tracy Fair’s case was dismissed for filing too late and this one will be dismissed for filing prematurely

  4. Mario Apuzzo:

    “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

    If resort is outside the Constitution to define NBC, then it is by legal precedent OUTSIDE of statutory law, which under the Constitution, Congress only has the power of naturalization.

    Also, it’s important to understand that Minor was affirmed and cited as precedent on presidential eligibility in 1913 in Luria v. United States. What’s conspicuously absent is ANY citation of Wong Kim Ark in that decision, with Ark’s lesser definition of 14th amendment citizenship.

    Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the natural born citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.”

    While we may not know precisely what is meant by a natural born citizen via natural law; we do know what it isn’t. It isn’t statutory citizenship authorized by Congress.

    • Dr. Conspiracy says:

      The 14th Amendment is just as much the Constitution as any other part. It is not a statute.

      • The 14th Amendment is just as much the Constitution as any other part. “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

        The 14th Amendment also does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

        The 14th Amendment is not natural law. Unless or until the 14th Amendment is changed to reflect natural law, it, too, does not, and cannot, create a natural born US citizen.

        • Dr. Conspiracy says:

          “Natural born Citizen” is not a reference to natural law, but to the English Common Law term “natural born subject.” (See Supreme Court decision in US v. Wong) “Natural born” in the English language simply means “by birth” and natural born citizens, like natural born subjects need not have citizen parents.

          And you know that 11 courts have rejected your crank interpretation.

          • You are as welcome to your own delusions as I am to mine, but common laws are local municipal laws needed to run local governments. Apart from some broad, general public laws, English common law was never the common law in the American colonies, either before or after the American Revolution. In fact, this was one of the rallying cry’s of the American Revolution; “No Taxation, without Representation!”

            I prefer to stand by George Mason’s view on the subject of the US Const. being based on English common law, when he stated on June 19, 1788:

            “The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire.”

          • Dave B. says:

            Yeah, but David– we’ve got a court’s decision that you, David Farrar, are PERSONALLY mistaken in this matter, and that those with whom you disagree are RIGHT. How does that work out to us being as deluded as you are?
            Do you have any idea what George Mason was talking about when he said that?

          • There are no “yeah, buts” involved here. US citizenship, from its very beginning, has always relied on volitional citizenship based on the concepts of Lockean consent-based citizenship rather than ascriptive allegiance based on English common law as articulated by Blackstonian orthodoxy.

          • Dave B. says:

            Look, David, fix that lie you told up there about Luria before you say anything else.

          • As I told you above: in Luria v. U.S., we have a citation that Minor and NOT Wong Kim Ark is the precedent on Article II presidential eligibility.

          • Dave B. says:

            Fix the lie.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            And what is that citation? It’s a specific part of the case, not the whole case.

            “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett…”

          • He’s correct about Luria which is backed up by Ludlum v. Ludlum which states:

            At common law, the duty of allegiance and the rights of citizenship passed by descent, the child following the condition of the father; so that if a father out of the realm was within the allegiance of the king, his child by an alien wife was
            born a subject to the British crown.

            The statute (25 Edw. III., ch. 2) upon this point, is a declaratory, and not an enabling act.

            Whether a citizen is capable of renouncing his allegiance without the consent of his government, or may when his government has not prohibited it, qucere.

            But if he may, he cannot divest himself of his citizenship until he becomes the citizen of another government, and this he cannot do until he arrives at full age.

          • Dr. Conspiracy says:

            OK, so now you’ve proven that Ted Cruz is eligible.Good job. That takes of all of them now.

          • Dave B. says:

            He’s LYING about what Justice Van Devanter said in Luria. Ludlum v. Ludlum is another one of those cases you mangle because you don’t read the whole case and you don’t have a clue about what you actually read.

          • Thanks numbnuts, but I read the full cases, EVEN WONG KIM ARK, and I know exactly what I read! DOH

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Really?

            Here is what the Wong Kim Ark ruling really said:

            “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.”

          • hahaha, “the law of England” you must have never read about the American Revolution or the Declaration of Independence…

            You should try researching the two and become educated!

          • Dave B. says:

            Obviously not, or else you wouldn’t be claiming Ludlam supports your position.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Luria was not a presidential eligibility case—despite his saying that it was.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            You have the name of the case wrong. It’s not Ludlum, it’s Ludlam. Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863). The case is actually cited in Wong Kim Ark. Plus your quotes aren’t there, they are paraphrased, sort of. https://casetext.com/case/ludlam-v-ludlam-5

            The cases DOES say that:
            “…in the absence of any statute, or any decisions of our own courts, State or National, on the subject, the question of citizenship can only be determined by reference to the English common law, which, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, was, to *361361 a greater or less extent, recognized as the law of all the States by which that Constitution was adopted.”

            and:

            “This conclusion does not involve the question very earnestly debated soon after the organization of the government, whether the common law of England became the law of the Federal Government, on the adoption of the Constitution. (citations omitted) It only assumes, what has always been conceded, that the common law may properly be resorted to in determining the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution, where that instrument itself does not define them.”

            Also, the cite in Luria is:

            “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett…”

            So Luria says that a native citizen, i.e. a non-naturalized citizen, is eligible to the presidency. That’s a native citizen, a citizen born in the US, parents don’t matter.

          • Dave B. says:

            More from Ludlam v. Ludlam

            “It does not militate against this position, that by the law of England the children of alien parents, born within the kingdom, are held to be citizens. There are many instances of double allegiance; as for instance, one may owe a natural and permanent allegiance to the country of his birth, and a local and temporary allegiance to the country in which he resides.”

            “If we assume that the laws of Peru are similar to ours on the subject of citizenship, there is no doubt that Maximo Ludlam (Maximo was born in Peru to a US citizen father –db) would be, in that country, regarded as a citizen of Peru.”

            “Do not British subjects become citizens of the United States? Some persons are born to such double character; children and grandchildren, born of British parents in foreign countries, are British born subjects; yet these, no doubt, by the laws of the respective foreign countries, are also deemed natural born subjects there.”

            David Farrar insists that a native citizen is not the same thing as a natural born citizen; that’s why I find his substitution of terms in the Luria citation particularly low down.

          • Quite the contrary, Minor stated “a native, or natural born citizen,” was written precisely as it appears in de Vattle: §. 212. “…les Naturels, ou Indigènes”, both phrases are nonreflective, using the word “indigent” or “natural born citizen” to better define the writer’s intended meaning of the word “native”. In order to write the phrases as you are suggesting, i.e., as a reflective phrase, the comma would not have been used.

            So, yes, a “native” is a natural born citizen, an indigent, living in the land of its birth and that of its ancestors, and can quite correctly be used in the place of the word, “native”.

          • Dave B. says:

            Quite the contrary? You’re a LIAR, David. Fix your LIE up there before you say anything else. And then the NEXT thing you ought to do is look up “indigent,” for crying out loud. How many times do I have to point that one out, too?

          • Yes, okay fine: “indigenous”. “..the naturals, or indigenous peoples”.

          • Dave B. says:

            So why didn’t you fix the lie?

          • Dr. Conspiracy says:

            And what authority can you site for that notion?

          • Only volitional citizenship allows for the withdrawal of consent of citizenship. The right of expatriation has always been recognized as a fundamental aspect of US citizenship by consent,which, by the way, cannot be found in English common law.

          • Dave B. says:

            Oh– and how the heck are you going to connect “No taxation, without Representation” with an aversion to the common law?

          • I have no aversion to common law. English common law was never American colonial common law. The English Parliament did not make common law for the American colonies. It was this lack of representation in Parliament that, indeed, lead to the American Revolution.

          • Dave B. says:

            Fix that lie, David.

          • Sure, in Luria v. U.S., we have a citation that Minor and NOT Wong Kim Ark is the precedent on Article II presidential eligibility.

          • Dave B. says:

            Fix your lie.

          • How bout fixing YOUR lies!

          • Dr. Conspiracy says:

            OMG, you don’t even know what the English Common law is!!!! I really didn’t expect that.

          • Dave B. says:

            Just about every time I ask a birther what the common law is, I get an answer that has nothing to do with the common law. Mike Martisko told me the other day that “It is that which is common across all spectrum’s of humanity, and treat each and every individual equally without regard to the esoteric differences of race, creed, or color, or gender.”
            I don’t know why they don’t just look it up.

          • English common law consisted of THE LAW OF NATIONS! Which we were bound by:

            Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino 376 U.S. 398 (1964)
            As early as 1793, Chief Justice Jay stated in Chisholm v. Georgia that, “Prior . . . to that period [the date of the Constitution], the United States had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the law of nations.” 2 U. S. 2 Dall. 419 at 2 U. S. 474. And, in 1796, Justice Wilson stated in Ware v. Hylton:
            “When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.” 3 U. S. 3 Dall. 199 at 3 U. S. 281.
            Chief Justice Marshall was even more explicit in The Nereide when he said:
            “If it be the will of the Government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the Government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations, which is a part of the law of the land.” 13 U. S. 9 Cranch 388 at 13 U. S. 423.
            As to the effect such an Act of Congress would have on international law, the Court has ruled that an Act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. MacLeod v. US, 229 U. S. 416, 229 U. S. 434 (1913)

          • Dr. Conspiracy says:

            That’s two without a clue what the English Common Law is. (I had no idea that this problem was endemic.) The Law of Nations in this sense refers to international law.

            Ware v. Hylton was not a case about citizenship, but about whether a state law could override a treaty between the United States and another country. And when he says “the law of nations” (lower case), he is not talking of the work of political philosophy, The Law of Nations by Vattel. In that same case, Justice Marshall wrote:

            “But the conventional, or customary, law of nations is only obligatory on those nations by whom it is adopted.”

          • Dave B. says:

            Sounds like an incipient article. One guy– or maybe several, they do tend to run together– goes on about Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and how it proves “The Law of Nations” IS the common law. Then there are those who say the Constitution’s reference to “Offences against the Law of Nations” is a direct reference to Vattel. I suppose they think they were talking about Cecil B. DeMille’s film in the Book of Exodus.

          • That;s where you are wrong. The law of nations is not international law, it is Natural Law, just as the title states:

            “LAW OF NATIONS. OR. PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS”

            Search the founders and the immutable laws of natural and you will find Vattel!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Vattel is not even mentioned ONCE in the Federalist Papers—while the common law is mentioned about twenty times.

          • Who wrote the Federalists? Alexander Hamilton, James
            Madison and John Jay.

            What 2 Founders participated in the The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794? Alexander Hamilton, James Madison.

            Even though Hamilton and Madison did not mention Vattel by name in the Federalists essays, they did however mention him in the Pacificus-Helvidius debates regarding the SAME ISSUES as the Federalists essays.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            “Even though Hamilton and Madison did not mention Vattel by name in the Federalists essays, they did however mention him in the Pacificus-Helvidius debates regarding the SAME ISSUES as the Federalists essays.”

            Right. And those issues were treaties and national neutrality, NOT citizenship and allegiance.

            Vattel was ONE of the authors studied at William and Mary, King’s College, etc. Not the only one.

            In Rutgers v Waddington, Vattel is cited for treaties, not for citizenship or allegiance. In addition, he is cited as ONE of the philosophers who wrote on the law of nations, not the single source of the law of nations. http://google.com/books?id=FGOkndKSs6UC&lpg=PA315&pg=PA400#v=snippet&q=vattel&f=false

            KBO — no one denies that Vattel was an important author, an important source that early lawyers and politicians used for writing about international law. But he has never been considered the only one, nor is he the definer of international law or the law of nations. He also isn’t cited ONLY on citizenship — which has never been considered international law.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            “Even though Hamilton and Madison did not mention Vattel by name in the Federalists essays, they did however mention him in the Pacificus-Helvidius debates regarding the SAME ISSUES as the Federalists essays.”

            Right. And those issues were treaties and national neutrality, NOT citizenship and allegiance.

            Vattel was ONE of the authors studied at William and Mary, King’s College, etc. Not the only one.

            In Rutgers v Waddington, Vattel is cited for treaties, not for citizenship or allegiance. In addition, he is cited as ONE of the philosophers who wrote on the law of nations, not the single source of the law of nations. http://google.com/books?id=FGOkndKSs6UC&lpg=PA315&pg=PA400#v=snippet&q=vattel&f=false

            KBO — no one denies that Vattel was an important author, an important source that early lawyers and politicians used for writing about international law. But he has never been considered the only one, nor is he the definer of international law or the law of nations. He also isn’t cited ONLY on citizenship — which has never been considered international law.

          • Well at least you you obots admit that Vattel WAS IMPORTANT! It took ya a while, but how could you not admit it, HE’S ALL OVER! When someone’s name is EVERYWHERE related to our Founding, it’s hard to dismiss him anymore!

            LOLOL, natural born citizenship derives itself from NATURAL LAW and international law is natural law between nations…LOLOL

            You’ve got a lot to learn!

            So find me some natural law that says the child does not follow the father! LET’S SEE IT!

          • smrstrauss says:

            Sure he was important—for INTERNATIONAL issues. But the eligibility for being a president is a domestic issue. Surely, IF the writers of the Constitution were using his two-parent definition and not the born-on-the-soil definition of the common law, they would have said so, but instead they did not mention Vattel (or the alleged need for two citizen parents) in the Federalist Papers at all.

          • It is Natural Law between nations and states.

            And YES, Citizenship is an INTERNATIONAL ISSUE!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Every country gets to decide who it considers to be its citizens, what their rights and responsibilities are, and how they lose or renounce that citizenship. That makes citizenship municipal law.

            How each country treats the citizens of other countries is international law, through treaties, etc.

          • However, every country does not decide who is natural born, NATURE DECIDES THAT!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Dream on. The US Supreme Court and the Heritage Foundation are right, and you are wrong.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Re: Citizenship being an International issue.

            Dream on, it is a domestic issue, and every country has the right to decide for itself what the rules will be to make a citizen at birth and by naturalization. In the USA the US Supreme Court has RULED that every child born on US Soil is a Natural Born US Citizen.

            And, once again, there is NO mention of Vattel in the Federalist Papers, and the two legal scholars who knew the writers of the Constitution—–Tucker and Rawle—-both used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that it was used in the common law.

            IF, BTW, it were “Natural Law,” the writers of the Constitution would have said tha they were relying on Natural Law and told us which branch of “Natural Law” they were using (in Jewish law citizenship is inherited from the mother) and why. But they didn’t, and they were mainly lawyers and justices who were steeped in the common law. So the evidence is overwhelming that they got the term Natural Born from the common law, and so the US Supreme Court ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case is not merely THE LAW, it is right.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Dream on.

            Citizenship is a domestic issue. Every country has the right to decide who will be citizens at birth and naturalized citizens according to its own laws.

            And if the writers of the US Constitution had adopted “Natural Law,” they would have told us what branch of the “natural law: they were adopting (In Jewish law, for example, citizenship passes through the mother). Instead, they were using the common law, which by far most of the members of the Constitutional Convention were familiar with since they were mainly lawyers and justices, steeped in the common law. And John Jay, who was apparently the first American to use the term Natural Born Citizen, was an expert in THE COMMON LAW. And Tucker and Rawle—legal scholars who knew some of the members of the Constitutional Convention (Rawle was a friend of both Franklin and Washington) used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that it was used in the common law.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Dream on. Citizenship is a domestic issue. Every country has the right to decide who will be citizens at birth and naturalized citizens according to its own laws.

            And IF the writers of the US Constitution had adopted “Natural Law,” they would have told us what branch of the “natural law: they were adopting (In Jewish law, for example, citizenship passes through the mother).

            Instead, they were using the common law, which by far most of the members of the Constitutional Convention were familiar with since they were mainly lawyers and justices, steeped in the common law. And John Jay, who was apparently the first American to use the term Natural Born Citizen, was an expert in THE COMMON LAW. And Tucker and Rawle—legal scholars who knew some of the members of the Constitutional Convention (Rawle was a friend of both Franklin and Washington) used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that it was used in the common law.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            KBOA — if citizenship is natural law, then the writers on natural law would have written on it. Natural law says that reason can be used to deduce universal moral rules. So go find someone who isn’t Vattel who says citizenship is natural law, and what are the rules. (Vattel, of course, says that each country’s citizenship laws must be respected.)

          • So important that the Founders used his book, THE LAW OF NATIONS while writing the Founding documents!

            http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Franklin-to-Dumas.png

          • YouAreJoking says:

            But he wasn’t the only writer, or the most important. It’s number 29 on this list of sources mentioned by the founding generation. Vattel was great for the philosophy of the law of nations, but not so good on the nitty gritty, like Blackstone was.

            http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/founding-father-s-library

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            No question about it. The writers of the Constitution read A LOT OF BOOKS.

            But they did not mention that they got the definition of Natural Born Citizen from Vattel. A great many OTHER books that they read were about the common law—they were mainly lawyers and justices after all—-and the term Natural Born was commonly used in the common law. BOTH Tucker and Rawle, two friends of many of the writers of the US Constitution, used the phrase Natural Born Citizen exactly the same as Natural Born Subject was used in the common law.

            So, once again, some of them did read Vattel’s book—but then they read a LOT of other books too.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            NO question about it. The writers of the US Constitution read A LOT of books.

            That means that they read a lot of other books besides Vattel—-and many of them dealt with THE COMMON LAW. They were mainly lawyers and justices, you know.

            And there is NO evidence whatever that they used Vattel. In fact, there were a lot of things that Vattel recommended that they did NOT use—such as a state religion. In any case, there is NO evidence that they used Vattel and not the common law (which was, after all, a lot more common). They did not even MENTION Vattel in the Federalist Papers—while they mentioned the common law about TWENTY TIMES.

            And the two legal scholars who knew the writers of the Constitution (Rawle was friends with both Franklin and Washington), used the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that Natural Born Subject was used in the common law.

            So the US Supreme Court and the Heritage Foundation are right. Natural Born Citizen really does come from the common law and really does not come from Vattel. And you are wrong.

          • Jan123456 says:

            Please note that Franklin said he deposited “one in own public library”. Do you think it was the French version that went into an American public library? Or do you think he was appreciative of the English TRANSLATION!?

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Law of nations = International law. “Law of Nations by Vattel is a book. Vattel is just ONE of the writers on the law of nations.

            Vettel himself defines the law of nations in the preliminaries of his book. http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_pre.htm#003

            “3. Definition of the law of nations.
            The Law of Nations is the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights.”

            Vattel also says:
            “…we are not to imagine that the law of nations is precisely and in every case the same as the law of nature…” At that same link, section 6.

            READ THE DAMN DOCUMENTS. Not even Vattel thinks he is the be-all and end-all authority on laws of nation.

          • First of all, you are ignoring the book title which clearly says:
            LAW OF NATIONS. OR. PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
            “The Law of Nature applied to nations”

            Maybe you will want to read the congressional records where it tells us to look to VATTEL for the definition of natural allegiance:
            http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=015/llcg015.db&recNum=841&itemLink=D?hlaw:20:./temp/~ammem_k8MR::%230150843&linkText=1

            Try researching the SCOTUS case of the Venus, where Chief Justice Marshall says:
            The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
            Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
            “The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

            Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
            “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

            Perhaps you can read Ben Franklin’s letter that states:
            “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
            http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lldc&fileName=002/lldc002.db&recNum=63&itemLink=D?hlaw:12:./temp/~ammem_g5sU::%230020065&linkText=1

            And that same Mr. Dumas, who sent Franklin Vattel’s Law of Nations, he became a secret agent of Congress that lasted throughout and long after the Revolution. When John Adams became the first Ambassador to Holland, Dumas was his secretary and translator. Dumas worked with the dutch govt to pass a peace treaty and who law would you suspect Dumas, the very book he published, VATTEL’S law of nations, in which he sent 3 to Franklin (as the letter above proves.

            We can look at the diplomatic code and see all the treaties we signed with out countries and what name do you see on the front page, VATTEL. All of our Treaties are based on Vattel’s Law of Nations.

            https://books.google.com/books?id=fTEPAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=vattel+%22a+concise+diplomatic+manual%22+abstract+1778&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vmzXVMGJHIvvgwTSloGoBQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=vattel%20%22a%20concise%20diplomatic%20manual%22%20abstract%201778&f=false

            Not to mention, the Congressional record where they are ACTUALLY ORDERING “Vattell’s LAW OF NATIONS”. Can be any more clear than that!

            http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=002/llsj002.db&recNum=42&itemLink=D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_g5sU::%230020043&linkText=1

            You want more?

            You have the WV Supreme Court of appeals that tells us to “look to vattel on citizenship”

            https://books.google.com/books?id=_OUKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA191&dq=%22vattell%22+%22Reports+of+Cases+Decided+in+%22+%22test+of+citizenship%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eHrXVJ6RMcefgwSe3oPICg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22vattell%22%20%22Reports%20of%20Cases%20Decided%20in%20%22%20%22test%20of%20citizenship%22&f=false

            William & Mary College was the earliest to teach Vattel’s Law of Nations, as shown at the link below. Do you know who started the Vattel course at W&M, Thomas Jefferson. Any clue who the President was at the time the course started? Some guy named James Madison, ever heard of him?:

            http://books.google.com/books?id=gCYjAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=%22vattel%27s+law+of+nations+were+taught+at+william+and+Mary+earlier+than%22&source=bl&ots=8GuUyq7ep5&sig=wufV7nlI2Ol3_39FYJ8CNI2kxLA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sYGhUNaqMMPA0QHN24DwBw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

            You do remember hearing that story of George Washington’s LOST library book, where he owed over $300,000? Any clue what book that was? LOLOL Vattel’s LAW OF NATIONS:
            http://www.nysoclib.org/collection/ledger/people/washington_george

            Coincidence? Why would the first President of the US need that book in hand in 1789, the same year our Constitution went into effect?

            I’ve just proven that Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Madison & Franklin were all closely connected to Vattel, so YOU ARE THE ONE who needs to wake up and do a little research. To says that the Founder’s did not mean Vattel, when they talked of the Law of Nations is a COMPLETE LIE!

            I rest my case!

            But if you want more, there is much much more!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Vattel didn’t invent the term “law of nations.” It has always meant international law, or the law between nations. There were writers on the law of nations before Vattel, contemporary with Vattel, and after Vattel. NONE of them, including Vattel, thought that Vattel was the definer. Vattel defines it as:

            “3. Definition of the law of nations.
            “The Law of Nations is the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights.” http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_pre.htm

            In the same sentence where Congress orders Vattel, they first order Blackstone. In 1769, Blackstone defines law of nations as:

            “THE law of nations is a fyftem of rules, deducible by natural reafon, and eftablifhed by univerfal confent among the civilized inhabitants of the world a ; in order to decide all difputes, to regulate all ceremonies and civilities, and to infure the obfervance frequently occur between two or more independent ftates, and the individuals belonging to each…” etc. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch5.asp

            In 1625, Grotius defined law of nations as:

            “But the law of nations is a more extensive right, deriving its authority from the consent of all, or at least of many nations.
            It was proper to add MANY, because scarce any right can be found common to all nations, except the law of nature, which itself too is generally called the law of nations. Nay, frequently in one part of the world, that is held for the law of nations, which is not so in another.” http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_101.htm

            William and Mary also taught Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations in the same lectures. Smith also wrote of laws of nations.

            Law of nations = international law. You are wrong that law of nations always and only means Vattel’s book. It ONLY mans Vattel when his name or the title of the book is used, and it doesn’t mean EVERYTHING in the book, only the specific quote cited.

            It CERTAINLY doesn’t appear in the Constitution.

          • Vattel combined many of the writers on the law of nations and divided it into 4 different book. He modernized it and that is why the Founders considered him an authority.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            So you are agreeing that law of nations does not automatically mean Vattel’s book? That he is just one of many writers on the topic? Yes, he was the most important writer on that topic, but the law of nations means international law.

          • I’ve researched the Law of Nations for YEARS. Do you really think I did not come across Grotius, Blackstone, Twiss, Martens, Wolf, Chitty, etc during that search? WRONG!

            However, during that research, I found out that Vattel was the most important to the Founders. Franklin received 3 copies which were in the hands of Congress during the writing of the founding documents. Vattel’s Law of Nations was the most sourced book when writing those documents.

            I found out the Congress had ordered Vattel’s Law of Nations MANY times over. I found out that Jefferson Madison, Wythe started a law course at William and Mary and Vattel’s Law of Nations was the book of choice.

            I found out that Adams used Dumas (who gave Franklin the copies of vattel) as his Secretary who helped write our treaties USING VATTEL’S Law of Nations.

            There is no doubting that Vattel was the Founders NATURAL LAW of choice!

            International Law is NATURAL LAW BETWEEN NATIONS!

            If you want to dispute that, then tell me what the Law of Nations is written on if it is not natural law…lolol

          • YouAreJoking says:

            What source says that treaties were written with help from Vattel? No, Vattel wasn’t the most sourced, he was #29. http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/founding-father-s-library

          • Try reading the case of The Venus:

            The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)

            Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
            “The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
            Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
            “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

            As you can see, the judge is citing Vattel, author of THE LAW OF NATIONS, OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE for his definition of natural born citizen, which is exactly where our Founder’s got their definition.

            OR

            The Nereide – 13 U.S. 388 (1815)

            “It is not for us to depart from the beaten track prescribed for us, and to tread the devious and intricate path of politics. Even in the case of salvage, a case peculiarly within the discretion of courts because no fixed rule is prescribed by the law of nations, Congress has not left it to this department to say whether the rule of foreign nations shall be applied to them, but has by law applied that rule. If it be the will of the government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations which is a part of the law of the land.”

          • Dr. Conspiracy says:

            Funny how the phrase “natural born citizen” is missing from that citation. It highlights your dirty little secret: the English language translation of Vattel available to the framers didn’t use the phrase. It wasn’t until 10 years after the Constitution was ratified that an English translation of Vattel used “natural born citizen.”.

            So much for the framers getting the term from Vattel.

          • You are basing your assumption on the premise that the Founders could not translate French.

            You are aware that many of the Founders spoke French and that French was the Universal/diplomatic language of the day, right?

            How about, did you know that Ben Franklin, John Adams Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Livingston (All Founding Fathers)
            were all French Ambassadors? Could you imagine being an Ambassador of a country and not speaking the language, REALLY?

            OMG What is THAT?

            http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=015/lljc015.db&recNum=267&itemLink=?%230150268&linkText=1

            http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=018/lljc018.db&recNum=23&itemLink=D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem_3gaL::%230180024&linkText=1

            http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=011/lljc011.db&recNum=5&itemLink=D?hlaw:8:./temp/~ammem_3gaL::%230110006&linkText=1

            There are hundreds more pages…

            French language translated into English IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS? Nooooooooo and 10 years BEFORE the Constitution

            The word “natural” in natural born citizen means “according to natural law” and the whole phrase means a citizen born according to natural law and when you look at natural law you get:

            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.

            When the book was translated, they got it right. You seem to think that people could not translate languages back in the old days…LOLOL

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Undoubtedly some of them COULD translate French. But the odds are overwhelming that IF they had translated Vattel’s word “Indignies” as “Natural Born Citizen”—-THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO.

            Instead, they did not mention Vattel AT ALL in the Federalist Papers.

            So, undoubtedly they could read the book—but they read a lot of other things too.

            So, not only do the actual words “Natural Born Citizen” not appear in any translation of Vattel before the Constitution was written, but the writers of the Constitution did not say that they got the term “Natural Born Citizen” from his writings, and the words “Natural Born” had been in THE COMMON LAW for three hundred years or so—-and they were mainly, wait for it, LAWYERS and Justices, who had been steeped in THE COMMON LAW.

            Moreover, there is the evidence of two legal scholars WHO KNEW the writers of the US Constitution, both of whom used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that Natural Born was used in the common law.

            “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)

            So, not only did the US Supreme Court RULE that the term comes from the common law and refers to citizenship at birth and that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies), but the historical evidence shows overwhelmingly that the Supreme Court was right—-the term really does come from the common law and really does include every child.

            When someone CAN translate French but they do not tell you that what they wrote comes from a translation and there is a term that was commonly used in the common law, YOU CAN BET that the term comes from the common law and not from them having translated the French word.

          • They DID say so, in all future editions of Vattel’s Law of Nations…LOLOL DOH

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Poor nutty KenyanBornObama thinks that because Vattel editions published AFTER the writing of the Constitution say “Natural Born Citizen” but those published before the writing of the Constitution say “indigines”—and do not use the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” at all—that the term comes from Vattel.

            No, the term comes from the common law, where it had been used for 300 or so years before the writing of the Constitution—and the writers of the Constitution were mainly lawyers and justices who were steeped in the common law.

            The Heritage Foundation book is right, and you are wrong. To quote you: “LOLOL DOH.”

          • Try reading the Declaration of Independence. It will explain a lot to you. Especially the first paragraph!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            We’ve all read it. What’s your point?

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Be more specific.

          • “to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,”

          • YouAreJoking says:

            But the whole middle section was common law and positive law. The rest was Enlightenment philosophy from a whole range of authors. The founding generation were very well-read men.

          • RamboIke says:

            Tracy, you and David aren’t going to get anywhere with Dr Con. He has constructed a barrier around his head with signs on it reading TRUTH KEEP OUT.

            He has to lie about the term natural born citizen. He knows the founders had a French edition that was copied from Vattel’s 1773 2nd edition that was sent to them by Dumas in 1775. He also knows that edition, according to Franklin who was there, said: “has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting”. He know from the Congressional Records the founders were using the term “naturel” found in Vattel’s work as being the “natural born”. He also knows that during that same period between the Declaration & Constitution the founders used the term “natural born citizen”.

            He also knows that according to reliable sources (e.g. Library of Liberty) the 1793 & 1797 English editions were translated from Vattel’s 1773 2nd edition, and the edition Dumas sent Franklin was also copied from that 1773 2nd edition. He is also aware the French writers of the 1916 international edition noted there was no doubt the copy Dumas sent Franklin was used during the Constitutional Convention.

            What does it all mean. Obviously if one was to apply some reasoning it would be a lie to claim the English translation wasn’t available to the framers till 10 years after the Constitution when the framers were using the whole term “natural born citizen” and “naturel” as “natural born” several years before the Constitutional Convention.

            It also means because the Obots are blind to reality due to long suffering from a highly contageous disease known as “Obama on The Brain” (OTB).

          • Oh I know, I’ve been fighting that CON man for many years. There’s no help for him…but if we don’t respond to his lies ans post the real facts, some of the stupid readers will think he’s telling the truth.

          • American colonial common law was certainly based on the nomenclature of English common law, but English common law simply has no jurisdictional basis under US Constitutional law.

          • Dave B. says:

            Why haven’t you fixed your Luria lie yet, David?

          • RamboIke says:

            Hi David,

            Here’s the reason why English common law was never American colonial common law. Excerpts from the book “Colonial Origins of the American Constitution”:

            (1)”Most of the early colonial charters allow the colonists to design their own political institutions and practice self-government, and most of those charters that did not so provide explicitly at least permitted the colonists to fill in the blanks themselves.”
            (2)”English colonists in America became used to writing their own documents to flesh out the particulars of their governments. This was partly the result of necessity—time and distance between England and America did not permit close control from England. It was also the result of choice. The religious dissenters who were prominent in the first waves of migration came to America to establish their own communities where they could practice their religion free from outside interference. This desire plus the structure of their churches led them to use self-written covenants as part of their political definition.”

          • smrstrauss says:

            Nevertheless, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes FROM THE COMMON LAW, and Tucker and Rawle, two friends of some of the writers of the Constitution, use the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same as Natural Born Subject was used in the common law.

          • Dr. Conspiracy says:

            Don’t be silly, the English Common Law was in effect in all of the new 13 states either through their constitution, statute or judicial precedent. Mason is correct that there was no common law of the United States, but there was a common law in each individual state.

            For example, the Delaware Constitution of 1776:

            ART. 25. The common law of England, as-well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention.

            South Carolina is similar.

            In fact, Vice-Chancellor Sandford, writing in Lynch v. Clarke in 1844, said:

            “The Constitution of the United States, as well as those of all the thirteen old states, pre-supposes the existence of the common law, and was founded upon its principles, and so far as they were applicable to our situation and form of government. And to a limited extent, the principles of the common law prevail in the United States, as a system of national jurisprudence.”

            And Chief Justice Taft writing for the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Grossman wrote:

            “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.”

          • LOL, you are such an idiot liar! A subject is subject to the King, Citizens are subject to themselves! NO COMPARISON! PLUS, nowhere in the Constitution does it claim that we follow ENGLISH COMMON LAW!

            To the Contrary, the Declaration of Independence clearly states that we assumed NATURAL LAW after dissolving the political bands. Although some states followed common law because it was all they knew, once the Constitution was adopted, that was our law!

            On top of that, the index of the Congressional Records clearly state that we are to follow Vattel on “allegiance” http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=015/llcg015.db&recNum=841&itemLink=D?hlaw:20:./temp/~ammem_k8MR::%230150843&linkText=1

            And when we look to Vattel, we see:

            Vattel’s Law of Nations §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.”

          • Dr. Conspiracy says:

            This has already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court over 100 years ago, and by 11 courts since 2008. You lost your own case in Maryland.

            You can say “WAH” 1000 more times, and it doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong.

          • Dred Scot was adjudicated, did that make it right? NOPE

            You are right, the Supreme Court has gone over it. Unfortunately, the case you cite only deals with citizenship, not natural born citizenship. The cases that do deal with natural born citizenship are:

            Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73
            ‘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 first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. 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.

            Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
            “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. 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.”

            Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
            “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. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

            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.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, 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.”

            The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
            Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
            “The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
            Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
            “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

            The Nereide – 13 U.S. 388 (1815)
            “It is not for us to depart from the beaten track prescribed for us, and to tread the devious and intricate path of politics. Even in the case of salvage, a case peculiarly within the discretion of courts because no fixed rule is prescribed by the law of nations, Congress has not left it to this department to say whether the rule of foreign nations shall be applied to them, but has by law applied that rule. If it be the will of the government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations which is a part of the law of the land.”

            Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino 376 U.S. 398 (1964)
            As early as 1793, Chief Justice Jay stated in Chisholm v. Georgia that, “Prior to that period [the date of the Constitution], the United States had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the law of nations.” 2 U. S. 2 Dall. 419 at 2 U. S. 474. And, in 1796, Justice Wilson stated in Ware v. Hylton:

            “When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.” 3 U. S. 3 Dall. 199 at 3 U. S. 281.

            Chief Justice Marshall was even more explicit in The Nereide when he said:
            “If it be the will of the Government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the Government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations, which is a part of the law of the land.” 13 U. S. 9 Cranch 388 at 13 U. S. 423.

            As to the effect such an Act of Congress would have on international law, the Court has ruled that an Act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. MacLeod v. US, 229 U. S. 416, 229 U. S. 434 (1913)

          • YouAreJoking says:

            The Nereide, Banco Nacional de Cuba, and the other law of nations references are NOT referring to Vattel’s “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns”. They were referring to international law. Thus they have nothing at all to do with US citizenship law.

            BTW — have you actually read the cases you cite? Because they are always chock full of things that contradict you. Example 1. From Banco National de Cuba:

            “The refusal of one country to enforce the penal laws of another (supra, pp. 413-414) is a typical example of an instance when a court will not entertain a cause of action arising in another jurisdiction.” That means that while you are in one country, you are under that country’s jurisdiction, not your own country’s.

            Example 2, Banco National de Cuba (citations omitted)

            “The doctrine that the law of nations is a part of the law of the land, originally formulated in England and brought to America as part of our legal heritage, is reflected in the debates during the Constitutional Convention and in the Constitution itself. This Court has time and again effectuated the clear understanding of the Framers, as embodied in the Constitution, by applying the law of nations to resolve cases and controversies. As stated in The Paquete Habana, “[i]nternational law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.” Principles of international law have been applied in our courts to resolve controversies not merely because they provide a convenient rule for decision but because they represent a consensus among civilized nations on the proper ordering of relations between nations and the citizens thereof.”

            The phrase “law of nations” appears 20 times in the case, is not capitalized or italicized in any of those times. Vattel is not cited. Law of nations = international law, “Law of Nations” by Vattel is a book by a philosopher.

          • “The Nereide, Banco Nacional de Cuba, and the other law of nations references are NOT referring to Vattel’s “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns”

            Well that’s funny, because when you read Justice Marshall’s opinion in The Venus, where he is talking about the law of nations he says:

            “The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
            Chief Justice Marshall
            “The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

            Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”

            “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

            IT SURE LOOKS TO ME LIKE HE QUOTED “VATTEL”

            You fail again and again. You might as well give up!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Read that first paragraph again. He says the subject rests on the law of nations [no caps]. Then he says that we need to look at some writers who talk about that law. Then he says that Vattel is one of the writers that he’s referring to, and quotes Vattel.

            That means that Vattel IS NOT THE ONLY PERSON WRITING ON THE SUBJECT.

            Law of nations = international law. It is NOT Vattel’s Law of Nations.

          • LOLOL, YET, he’s citing Vattel!

            Head in sand!

          • English common law is also “elsewhere” outside of the US Const. If resort is outside the Constitution to define NBC, then it is by legal precedent OUTSIDE of statutory law, which under the Constitution, Congress only has the power of naturalization.

          • Yo Pinhead, where do you think the “natural” comes from in “natural born Citizen”?

          • Sorry, but Wong Kim Ark clearly states, as it cites Minor v. Happersett:

            “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.”

            That is why Wong was pronounced a citizen and not a natural born citizen, which the case of Ankeny v. Governor makes sure to note in Footnote 14 shown here:
            http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled

      • That’s right and the 14th Amendment says that children that are born AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION.

        You problem is that you have no clue what subject to the jurisdiction thereof means!

        • Dr. Conspiracy says:

          That’s your problem. You think that foreign countries have jurisdiction within the United States, and that somehow any country in the world can by legal fiat control who can and cannot run for President in the United States. You are willing to give Great Britain and the British Nationality Act of 1948 a central role in deciding who may be president of the United States.

          Chief Justice Marshall said in the case of the Exchange:

          “The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source. This consent may be either express or implied. In the latter case, it is less determinate, exposed more to the uncertainties of construction; but, if understood, not less obligatory.”

          See also INTERNATIONAL LAW, Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied in the United States by Charles Cheney Hide (1922):

          Ҥ 344. The Laws of the United States.

          “It was not until 1866 that any law was enacted in the United States indicating what persons born within its territory of alien parentage were to be regarded as nationals. Up to that time the opinion was oftentimes expressed, judicially and otherwise, that the rule of the common law would be followed, in cases where the parents were temporarily residing in the United States at the time of the birth of the child,as well as in those where they were domiciled therein.”

          he goes on to comment on US. v Wong:

          “There appears to be no reason to anticipate a different conclusion in case the alien parents of a child born in the United States were temporary sojourners, and not domiciled therein. The Department of State is not, at the present time, in view of the decisions of the courts, disposed to raise a distinction based upon the domicile of the parents.”

          • You are brain dead. People are governed by the laws in which govt they are a part of and Obama Sr. was a subject of the King and therefore was subject to his laws. We have no right to tell some citizen or subject of another country that the laws that govern them DO NOT GOVERN THEM.

            Wake up child!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Obama SENIOR was a subject of the King because he was born in Kenya. Obama was born in Hawaii, which is part of the United States of America. Wake up yourself. The laws of Britain have no right to govern a child born on US soil.

          • Billy Rawle says:

            People are governed by the laws of their country when they are in their country. When they are in a foreign country they are governed by the laws of that country. Obama Sr. while he was in the United States was governed by the laws of the United States.

          • hahaha completely WRONG and you have no facts to back that up. People in a foreign have only a local allegiance and not complete allegiance.

            If I went to Jamaica to live for the summer, could I vote there? LOLOL, NOOOO

            AS IF!

          • Billy Rawle says:

            You could if Jamaican law allowed you too. Thai is what under the jurisdiction means. When you are in Jamaica you are bound by their laws.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Not all citizens can vote. In the US, under 18 can’t. But they still are under the complete jurisdiction of the country they are in.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            So if pot is legal in Amsterdam but illegal in the US, if I smoke pot in Amsterdam I am breaking US law?

            BTW — you were the one who mentioned voting. My point is that you have to follow the laws of the country you are in. That’s jurisdiction.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            “In Fletes-Mora v. Rogers, 160 F. Supp. 215 (D. Cal. 1958), the court observed that “the United States recognizes an alien’s obligation of “temporary allegiance” to a country while he is within its territory. The term “temporary allegiance” refers to the alien’s duty to obey all laws of a country not immediately relating to citizenship so long as he remains in that country”.”

          • YouAreJoking says:

            No. People are governed by the laws of the country or state they are IN. A Dutch citizen can’t smoke weed in the US, a U.S. citizen can smoke weed in Holland. A UK citizen is subject to laws in the UK while he’s in the UK, to US laws while in the US. The UK can’t arrest a UK citizen who is in the US. They have to avail themselves of extradition treaties to get their citizen back: even then, the UK police don’t arrest the UK citizen, the US police do.

            That’s why the ex-marine had such trouble in Mexico. Carrying guns was fine in the US, very illegal in Mexico. he was under their jurisdiction and had to follow their laws.

          • On a wing and a prayer, eh?

            So, when you go to Holland, can you smoke some weed and then go vote for Prime Minister?

          • YouAreJoking says:

            I thought you said we weren’t talking about voting. Be more consistent.

            Being under the complete jurisdiction of a country doesn’t make one a citizen. But if Dutch law allowed non-citizens to vote, they could.

          • LOLOL, you have no clue what you are talking about.

            You need to research Allegiance, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, natural law and the founding..start there

        • YouAreJoking says:

          Sigh. KBO, you need to actually read the stuff you cite.

          On the Congressional Globe page 2893, you have taken the quote out of context. The day’s debate is whether to add the phrase “Indians not taxed” to the first section. Trumbull’s quote uses the example of Indians not taxed to illustrate his definition of jurisdiction. If the Indian was subject to our taxes, then he would be under our jurisdiction. Treaties said that the Indians on Indian lands were not subject to the laws of the US. (These are the same Indians not taxed that appear in the US Constitution Enumeration Clause, and Section 2 of the 14th Amendment.) Trumbull then says of non-taxed Indians:

          “Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian by another? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in any sense? They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise jurisdiction over them. It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens;”

          Then follows pages and pages of discussion on the Indians. After an exhaustive discussion that never mentions anyone other than Indians and ambassadors as not being subject to the jurisdiction of the US, the vote on the amendment language left off “Indians not taxed” because it was unnecessary. As Senator Williams said on 2897, “any intelligent person” would know that jurisdiction doesn’t cover Indians not taxed.

          Trumbull and every other Senator knew that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant everyone except Indians, ambassadors, and invading armies. Everyone else in the US is subject to our laws.

          • Yes, Elk v. Wilkins dealt with that:

            FULL CONTEXT

            Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
            “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. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            The Wong Kim Ark ruling was in 1898—and that is after 1884—-and later rulings overturn earlier rulings. More importantly, the Elk ruling does not say that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen (nor, btw, does Minor v. Happersett.) So the Wong Kim Ark ruling is the one that counts and NO ruling by the US Supreme Court has ever said that two citizen parents are required in order to be a NBC. And the Wong Kim Ark ruling said that the term comes from the common law and that it includes every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies.

          • That should tell you something…ALL cases on the same issue followed the LAW, specifically the Civil Rights Act, which was later enacted into the Revised Statutes as Title XXV, Section 1992 and states:

            “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 is what the Founders followed, this is what Congress followed, this is what the courts followed. That should prove to you that Wong Kim Ark did not deal with the same issue Natural Born Citizenship and just citizenship!

            Ya learn something every day, eh?

          • Billy Rawle says:

            “ALL cases on the same issue followed the LAW”
            Except for “Look Tin Sing” decided in 1884 and is one of precedents used by Judge Morrow in ruling that “[f]rom the law as announced and the facts as stipulated …Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment.”

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Re: “This is what the Founders followed…”

            We know what the Founders followed from their two friends, Tucker and Rawle, both of whom used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that Natural Born Subject was used in the common law:

            “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)

            and:

            “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)

          • YouAreJoking says:

            It’s not subjects OF any foreign power, it’s subject TO any foreign power. While in the US, aliens are subject to our laws. We can punish them. They can break the laws of their own country while they are here, and unless they go back to their own country, they can’t be punished here for doing so. They are under our jurisdiction.

            Again, it’s the definitions of allegiance and jurisdiction in this context that you aren’t understanding. It’s like we think clowns are people in funny clothes and painted faces, while you think clowns are fish. You are arguing that clowns can’t possibly act in a circus ring because they need to be in water.

          • Dave B. says:

            From Elk v. Wilkins:

            “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana 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.”

            Note how Justice Gray refers to “the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government” and to “the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.” And note Justice Gray’s observation in US v. Wong Kim Ark, that

            “Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”

            But while we’re talking about Elk v. Wilkins, we should note the dissent of Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Woods:

            “Our brethren, it seems to us, construe the Fourteenth Amendment as if it read:
            “All persons born subject to the jurisdiction of, or naturalized in, the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside,”
            whereas the amendment, as it is, implies in respect of persons born in this country that they may claim the rights of national citizenship from and after the moment they become subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. This would not include the children born in this country of a foreign minister, for the reason that, under the fiction of extraterritoriality as recognized by international law, such minister, “though actually in a foreign country, is considered still to remain within the territory of his own state,” and, consequently, he continues
            “subject to the laws of his own country, both with respect to his personal status and his rights of property, and his children, though born in a foreign country, are considered as natives.””

            Again, Justice Harlan makes an exception for “the children born in this country of a foreign minister.”
            One should also note President Andrew Johnson’s veto of the civil rights bill, referenced by Justice Harlan:

            “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.”

            Your notion that children of alien parents would be excluded under the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment just doesn’t hold water.

          • Read the first line of the Civil Rights Act, “not subject to any foreign power” if your parents are citizens of two different countries, then there is a divided allegiance and the child is subject to a foreign power by virtue of his Father being a British Subject!

          • Dave B. says:

            The United States doesn’t go by your interpretation.

          • Yes, actually it does. The Civil Rights Act passed in the Senate after adding a citizenship clause. When it went to the House, Rep John Bingham (Author of SAID 14th Amendment) that you TRY to cite as proof.

            Mr. Bingham says on Record in the House (Image 1):
            ““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” (1866 Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 1291) http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

            http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/I-find-no-fault.png

            We’ve also got Bingham 4 years earlier (image 2) saying this on the House floor. Remember, HE wrote the 14th Amendment that you are claiming backs you:

            “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)
            http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680

            http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/1862-Bingham.png

            The 14th Amendment mirrored the Civil Rights act and made it Constitutional as you can see by the man who introduced the citizenship clause addition to the amendment when he states (image 3):

            “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. ‘ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. ‘What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893). http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

            http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/not-owing-allegiance-trumbull1.png

            5 years AFTER the 14th Amendment, Congress enacts Title XXV, Section 1992 (image 4) which defines a citizen by the same text AND CITES the Civil Rights Act, NOT the 14th Amendment.

            ALL these cases followed that law:
            The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
            IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)
            Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
            Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
            Ludlam, Executrix, vs. Ludlam et al. (August 1, 1864)
            The Nereide – 13 U.S. 388 (1815)
            Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino 376 U.S. 398 (1964)

            NOW…

            You got nuttin but a crappy lyin Usurper appointed judge with a completely flawed case on MANY points and you have NOTHING ELSE.

          • Dave B. says:

            I repeat, the United States doesn’t go by your interpretation.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            You are still missing the definitions of allegiance and jurisdiction. But here’s more quotes by Bingham:

            “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)

            “Who, sir, are citizens of the United States? First, all free persons born and domiciled within the United States – not all free withe persons, but all free persons….The fact is notorious that, at the formation of the Constitution, but few of the states made color the basis of sufferage; and all of them, by the words or construction of their constitutions, affirmed the fact that all native free persons were citizens.” John Bingham, 35th Congress, Congressional Globe, 2nd Session 1859, pp 984-85

            “That article of Amendment is substantially that all persons born in this land, within the jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to complexion or previous condition are citizens of the Republic.” John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 39th Congress, pg. 500 (1867)

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Subject OF any foreign power and subject TO any foreign power aren’t the same thing.

          • lolol, how bout you explain the difference…

          • YouAreJoking says:

            A subject of a foreign power is a citizen of that country wherever in the world he goes. Subject to a foreign nation is someone who is an ambassador or invading army, who is not under the jurisdiction of the country he is in but is under the jurisdiction of his original country.

            If you commit murder in the UK, you will be tried for murder and serve time in the UK. You are still a US citizen but you are in the jurisdiction and allegiance of the UK. If you are a US ambassador in the UK, you can murder someone and the UK can’t try you and you won’t serve time in the UK. You are not under the jurisdiction and allegiance of the UK. However, you will be recalled to the US, Expelled by the UK, and tried in the US. You are not subject to the UK laws.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            As I said above:
            KBO — as usual, you are arguing a circular reference. Elk says that “subject to the jurisdiction of” means “owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” No one disputes that. You aren’t using the same definitions of allegiance and jurisdictions that everyone else, including the court, is using.

            Elk was an Indian. As such, he was different than other non-citizens that happened to be in the US. He was more similar to an ambassador or an invading army. None of those three classes owe direct and immediate allegiance to the U.S. Indians because they were in a special category of dependent nation within a nation subject to treaties (congress couldn’t make laws covering Indians), ambassadors because they were representatives of a foreign nation, and invading armies because they were subject to rules of war. If someone one of the three classes murders someone, they cant be tried in US courts as the courts don’t have jurisdiction. Thats discussed in Elk. That’s what Trumbull’s discussion of jurisdiction you linked to was all about — the jurisdiction of Indians.

            Elk has nothing to do with the allegiance or jurisdiction of non-Indian aliens. Read the case.

            Elk also says that there are only 2 kinds of citizens — natural born and naturalized. As someone born in the US and not in those three classes is not an alien and can’t be naturalized, they are by default natural born.

        • YouAreJoking says:

          Trumbull also said:

          “I have already said that in my opinion, birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every free-born person in this land is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States.” Congressional Globe 39th Congress, 1st session. page 600.

    • Dave B. says:

      WHAT did Justice Van Devanter say about presidential eligibility in Luria? Don’t LIE about it, David. You want to fix that, like NOW?

    • smrstrauss1 says:

      The Heritage Foundation book, quoted above, is correct on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, and you are wrong.

      BTW, Lauria v. United States was not a presidential eligibility case. However, these were:

      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…”

      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.”

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

      Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

      Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

      Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

      Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

      And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

      Notice that the “two-US-parents-are-required” theory was rejected in every single case, and notice that all the rulings said that the US Supreme Court had already ruled on the matter in the Wong Kim Ark case and its ruling was that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies).

    • YouAreJoking says:

      Mario gets the citation from Luria incorrect, in a way that screams deception. The actual case says:

      “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett…”

      Mario has replaced “native” with “natural born.” I looked at 6 different online versions of the case. ALL say “native.”

      In addition, when a court cites another case in an opinion, ONLY the statement preceding the cite applies. Nothing else from the case. So Luria didn’t accept any definition that included parents. It merely said that a native citizen is eligible to be president.

      • Dave B. says:

        David– and Mario– presume Van Devanter is citing to Minor in regard to the purported definition of “natural born citizen.” In fact, the relevant reference is

        “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.”

        The relevant reference from Elk v. Wilkins:

        “”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.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8.”

        And from Osborn v. Bank:

        “A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”

        In Osborn v. Bank, Chief Justice Marshall conflates native and natural born, just as Justice Van Devanter did in Luria. Mario and David refuse to do so, but have no problem substituting one term for the other when it suits their purposes.

        • smrstrauss1 says:

          Re: “Conflates.” That word often means “mixes the words up”–or confuses the terms.

          I certainly do not think that that is true with the justices cited. They did not mix up the terms. They used the terms as synonyms because in the situation that they were referring to they ARE synonyms.

          Mario and David mix up a lot of things.

          In the current discussion, they refuse to see that all native born citizens are Natural Born Citizens.

          Most (by far) Natural Born Citizens are native born citizens—and the question of whether a child born to US parents outside of the country are also Natural Born (without being native born) is moot to some (not to Cruz of course)—but that is not what we were discussing.

          • Dave B. says:

            Well, when conflation is intentional (and HONEST), it’s not a product of confusion (or deception)– it’s a shortcut to clarity. But I see your point. Perhaps I should say “equate.”

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Or “used the terms as synonyms.”

  5. This is a FACT from Wong Kim Ark that the Obots can’t get passed…

    “His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth DOMICILED residents of the United States,”

    That is why Obama differs from Kim Ark. Obama’s father was NOT domiciled here!

    Luria is clear on domicile:

    There being no dispute as to the facts upon which the domicile of these claimants is asserted, the questions of law alone remain to be considered. They are two — first, by what means and to what extent a national character may be impressed upon a person different from that which permanent allegiance gives him, and secondly, what are the legal consequences to which this acquired character may expose him in the event of a war taking place between the country of his residence and that of his birth or in which he had been naturalized?

    1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel “domicile,” which he defines to be, “a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there.” Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word “domicile,” but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates “strangers” and the latter “subjects,” and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them.

    • smrstrauss1 says:

      EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen regardless of whether the parents were US citizens or “domiciled” aliens. Here is what the US Supreme Court said about that in the Wong Kim Ark case: ”
      The English common law rule recognized no
      exception in he instance of birth during the mere temporary or
      accidental sojourn of the parents. As allegiance sprang from the place
      of birth regardless of parentage and supervened at the moment of birth,
      the inquiry whether the parents were permanently or only temporarily
      within the realm was wholly immaterial.”

      “WHOLLY IMMATERIAL.”

      • Sorry, but Wong Kim Ark does not deal with natural born citizenship.

        Justice Gray from Wong knew exactly what Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant and we know this by his earlier opinion in Elk v. Wilkins, where he says:

        “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. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

        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.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, 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.”

        • smrstrauss1 says:

          Re: “Sorry, but Wong Kim Ark does not deal with natural born citizenship.”

          Actually, it does. It deals with two things—citizenship, since that was what the case was about—-and Natural Born status because defining that was necessary in order to establish the definition of citizenship at birth. That kind of precedent is known as “Ratio decidendi.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_decidendi

          But, I’m sure you are not likely to believe ME. So, you (or someone rational who visits this site, not necessarily you, of course) can turn to some of the 10 or 11 appeals court cases, all of which ruled that the US Supreme Court DID define Natural Born Citizen status in the Wong Kim Ark case. They are, BTW, the legal experts—not you.

          Here are SOME of the rulings:

          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…”

          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.”

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

          Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

          Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

          Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

          Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

          And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

          • And Wong Kim Ark clearly defined a natural born citizen when it cited Minor v. Happersett which said:

            “…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.

            Since Wong was not natural born, they made him a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment, WHICH THE CASE CLEARLY STATES!

          • smrstrauss says:

            Dream on. The ten or 11 appeals court rulings and the Heritage Foundation book and Senators Hatch and Graham and former Senator Fred Thompson are right—and you are wrong.

        • Dave B. says:

          And Wong Kim Ark, who was ineligible for naturalization, was held to be a citizen of the United States. Ergo…?

          • Justice Gray claimed Wong was a citizen according to the 14th Amendment which is a LAW/STATUTE, proving he was not natural born, because a natural born citizen is naturally born a citizen (according to natural law), not by any statute!

            However Gray was wrong. Mainly because we do not follow English Common Law (the Founders would hang you for saying that) and also because the 14th Amendment was only declaratory and not forward leaning. The 14th Amendment was ONLY written to deal with the children who were born to slaves…Obama was not born to slaves, his family are the ones who SOLD the slaves out of Africa.

            Maybe you should read Volume 2 of The American Law Journal. YES, the “American” law journal, not the British or Kenyan Law Journal, THE AMERICAN LAW JOURNAL which says:

            “CITIZENSHIP.
            Are‘persons born within the United States ipso facto citizens thereof ?* This interesting question was recently discussed in the Internal Revenue Record, in a scholarly and thoughtful essay, to which we give place. He says that prior to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution there was no full and complete definition of citizens of the United States in any of the laws thereof. ‘

            It is evident, however, that all those who constituted the people of the several states at the time the constitution went into operation were citizens of the United States, and were so termed by it; and all persons born within the United States, whose fathers were at the time of such birth citizens thereof, are likewise citizens of the United States.

            But the question presents itself, are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of such birth were aliens, citizens thereof‘?

            In Lynch v. Clark‘ the vice-chancellor held that the common law doctrine—that the place of birth and not the nationality of the father determined the political status of the child–was applicable to the United States, constituted a part of the jurisprudence thereof, and that accordingly aperson born within the United States, whose father at the time of such birth was an alien, was a citizen of the United States. This case, aside from its fallacious and unsound reasoning, cannot be upheld upon principle. It is well set tied that the common law is not part of the jurisprudence of the United States.2

            In Wheaten v. Peters, the supreme court say: “ It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The federal government is composed of twenty-four sov ereign 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.” There is no principle of the common law in force in the United States as such; whatever principle it may be, it derives its full force and efficacy from the constitution or the acts of congress passed in pursuance thereof. There is nothing in the constitution to indicate that the term “ citizen” was used in reference to the common law definition of “ subject,” nor is there any act of congress declaratory of the common law doctrine, and the subject of citizenship being national, questions relating to it are to be deter mined by the general principles of the law of nations.3

            What the principle of international law is in respect to this particular question, we will now inquire. Vattell‘ thus defines natural born citizens: “The native or natural citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens ;” and he continues: “asthe society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of 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 a matter of course that each citizen on entering into society reserves to his children the right to become members of it. The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. ‘ * * 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 be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth and not his country;’”5

            Then scroll down to page 316 where it says:

            The first clause of the civil rights act is as follows: All persons born in the United States and not sub ject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.“

            Thus, international law, the common law, the articles of confederacy, the constitution, and the laws of the United States, all make some mention of and in some way define the word citizens. The policy of the United States has followed Vattel, when he said: “The state ought to multiply the number of the citizens as much as possible by drawing new ones to the state!”-“

          • Dave B. says:

            Funny you should bring that up. That article is an opinion piece by George D. Collins, who helped instigate the appeal of the district court’s ruling in re Wong Kim Ark. He also wrote an amicus brief for the government in the Supreme Court case. And his argument FAILED. So I guess you and Collins have that in common, eh Tracy? Once again, your truly remarkable incompetence is on display.

          • You seem to forget that it was the US v. Wong Kim Ark, EVEN the friggin GOVT knew he was not a citizen, yet USURPER ARTHUR appoints GRAY and Gray completely ignores all previous precedent on the issue, stating we follow English Common Law. So if we follow English Common Law, why did ALL this over dozens of cases get it wrong?

            It’s so funny that you have ONLY 1 case and you hang on it. We have dozens and not one is good enough for you, because it doesn’t say the same as your FLAWED Wong case, that didn’t even pronounce Wong a natural born citizen!

            It must be sad to be you! Especially once our evidence is proven true and Gray is made NULL & VOID, thereby sending Wong into oblivion!

          • Dave B. says:

            Remind me again– how’s all that working out for you?
            I’m not forgetting anything. The government and private parties like Collins wanted to deny native citizenship on a racial basis; even after Wong Kim Ark that kind of discrimination persisted in native citizenship in regard to Native Americans and in naturalized citizenship in regard to Asians and other non-white persons of non-African descent. Most of us have accepted the fact that the United States has abandoned such official racial discrimination. What are these “dozens of cases” you’re talking about?

          • YouAreJoking says:

            The 14th Amendment is not a statute, it’s part of the Constitution. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was a statute.

            As Article V in the US Constitution says:

            “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;”

            So we can add Constitutional amendment to the things that KBO doesn’t understand. The list is getting pretty long.

          • It is LAW, MAN MADE LAW and not NATURAL

        • Billy Rawle says:

          “Sorry, but Wong Kim Ark does not deal with natural born citizenship.”

          But in fact it does. Here is the lower courts holding, “From the law as announced and the facts as stipulated …Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment.”

          And her is from the appellant brief filed with the SCOTUS,

          “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”

          and

          “For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship
          that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage.
          Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”

          The United States government considered Judge Morrow’s ruling to having made Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen.

          • hahaha, considering Congress ONLY has the power to make uniform rules of “naturalization”, that clearly proves that the 14th Amendment was a RULE OF NATURALIZATION thereby making the 14th amendment a mass naturalization act, just as the Declaration of Independence was! DOH!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Again, the 14th Amendment CHANGED the constitution. It’s PART of the Constitution. Under the original Constitution, Congress could only make uniform rules of naturalization, but the 14th changed that. Section 1 defined citizenship, and Section 5 gave Congress the “…power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

            Don’t say DOH when you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

          • OMG, you really believe yourself, don’t you? LOLOL (I think I get it now, your name YouAreJokin, is real…you go around and troll boards and say off the wall crap like that) I GOT IT NOW!

            Just to make sure, you do know that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 is STILL in the Constitution, right?

            Article 1, Section. 8.
            The Congress shall have Power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

            GOVT WEBSITE: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

            IT’S STILL THERE….

          • YouAreJoking says:

            No, you are the one joking, not me. An amendment is part of the Constitution, as much as the articles are. And Congress has the power to enforce the 14th Amendment with legislation.

        • YouAreJoking says:

          KBO — as usual, you are arguing a circular reference. Elk says that “subject to the jurisdiction of” means “owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” No one disputes that. You aren’t using the same definitions of allegiance and jurisdictions that everyone else, including the court, is using.

          Elk was an Indian. As such, he was different than other non-citizens that happened to be in the US. He was more similar to an ambassador or an invading army. None of those three classes owe direct and immediate allegiance to the U.S. Indians because they were in a special category of dependent nation within a nation subject to treaties (congress couldn’t make laws covering Indians), ambassadors because they were representatives of a foreign nation, and invading armies because they were subject to rules of war. If someone one of the three classes murders someone, they cant be tried in US courts as the courts don’t have jurisdiction. Thats discussed in Elk. That’s what Trumbull’s discussion of jurisdiction you linked to was all about — the jurisdiction of Indians.

          Elk has nothing to do with the allegiance or jurisdiction of non-Indian aliens. Read the case.

          Elk also says that there are only 2 kinds of citizens — natural born and naturalized. As someone born in the US and not in those three classes is not an alien and can’t be naturalized, they are by default natural born.

          • I read the case, many times. Indians were from tribes and considered foreign nations, just as Obama’s Luo Tribe that he was born into:

            https://web.archive.org/web/20090125213946/http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2009/01/19/the-pride-of-a-people-barack-obama-the-luo/

            You also have the Slaughterhouse cases that states:

            IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)
            To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

            ‘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 first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. 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.

            “to exclude from its operation children of…subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Big deal. We have always known that Obama’s father was a Luo. So what? Obama was born in Hawaii, and that fact alone is critical in determining his Natural Born Citizen status.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            You said: “I read the case, many times. Indians were from tribes and considered foreign nations, just as Obama’s Luo Tribe that he was born into:”

            I had to read that one a couple of times as it is so absurd. As I know you have no sense of humor, you are serious about that. Elk was talking about Indians from tribes INSIDE the US, which have a special relationship in US law. Tribes OUTSIDE the US are not the same thing at all.

            Clutching at straws? Like what you left out of the ellipses there?

          • Dave B. says:

            I’d love to see THAT one presented in a legal filing.

          • The Luo on Obama:

            “His is a Luo, Kenyan, Sudanese, Egyptian, Nilotic. Hear it from Philip Ochieng’, aLuo Linguist. According to Ochieng,’ to the strictly exogamus Luo, any person whose father is a Luo is 200% Luo. According to his historical analysis, President Obama is the blood of Obama Sr a blood of Ogelo, a branch of Alego, a branch of Owiny (brother of Adhola, now Padhola of Uganda), son of Ramogi the Great (of Lira Uganda).”

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Big deal, we know that his father was a Luo. We also know that he was born in Hawaii—THAT fact is critical for Natural Born Citizen status. Don’t like it? Tough.

          • Forget about his father, the article clearly says that any child of a Luo is 200% LUO!

            You have no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, there is much more proof to the contrary!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            The Luo have nothing to do with Elk or Indian tribes in the US. There are thousands of non-US tribes around the world, and none of them have anything to do with US citizenship laws. They are citizens of the country the tribe is in.

          • smrstrauss says:

            Re: “There is no proof….”

            There is a great deal of proof. Here is some of it:

            Here is the Kenyan Embassy statement that Obama WAS NOT BORN IN KENYA:

            http://washingtonindependent.com/53654/forged

            Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):
            http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-

            Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a friend of Sarah Palin’s), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:
            http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/0

            Here is the statement of the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after being told of birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, of a child to a woman named Stanley:
            http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://

            Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961:
            http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabi

            (And as you can see the section of the paper is called “Health Bureau Statistics”. Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)

            Here is the Index Data file:
            http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04

    • Billy Rawle says:

      “A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but “an intention of always staying there.” Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than “simple habitation.””

      Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to China in 1890.

      • smrstrauss1 says:

        There is absolutely no evidence that the term “Natural Born Citizen” comes from Vattel—who was not even mentioned ONCE in the Federalist Papers while the common law was mentioned about twenty times.

        • Yes, try looking at the Congressional Records that clearly state in the Index to look to VATTEL for the definition of “ALLEGIANCE”

          http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=015/llcg015.db&recNum=841&itemLink=D?hlaw:20:./temp/~ammem_k8MR::%230150843&linkText=1

          Double DOH

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            A definition of “allegiance” is NOT a definition of Natural Born Citizen, triple DOH.

            Vattel not being mentioned in the Federalist Papers is a FACT. The term Natural Born having been used in the common law for 300 years is a FACT. Most of the writers of the US Constitution being lawyers and justices steeped in the common law is a FACT. The use of the term Natural Born Citizen by Tucker and Rawle, two scholars who knew the writers of the Constitution, exactly the same way that Natural Born Subject is used in the common law are facts.

            The Heritage Foundation book and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case and the ten or 11 appeals courts are right, and you are wrong.

          • No, the definition of allegiance is not the definition of natural born citizen. The definition of natural born citizen comes from Natural Law, hence the “natural”.

            When they tell you to look to vattel for allegiance this is what we get:

            Vattel’s Law of Nations §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.”

            When you are born to 2 citizen parents of a certain country, you have SOLE allegiance and no divided allegiance therefore you are a citizen under natural law aka a natural born citizen! Obama is NOT one!

          • Dave B. says:

            In the Congressional Globe index to the appendix, they tell you “(See Webster. See Vattel.)” That means you look up those entries in the index. Under Webster, we find:
            “Webster on the perpetuity of natural allegiance, 100.” I’ve already quoted the passage here. Under Vattel, we find among several entries,
            “on the perpetuity of natural allegiance…100.” And I’ve already quoted that passage here, too.
            Regarding Mears v. Sinclair, the reference you use is not part of Judge Harrison’s opinion– as you’ve been told time after time. You really are beyond incompetent.

          • “That means you look up those entries in the index. Under Webster, we find:”

            Wrong, the index tells you where to look in the book for the reference to that word/phrase. If there is NO page listed and it is telling to see another source for it’s interpretation, then that is where you go. There is no 100 next to Vattel, instead it is telling you for the definition of natural allegiance, you are to look to Vattel. DOH…wake up!

          • Dave B. says:

            You have no idea how an index works, do you?

          • I am the one who found the text, am I not? You can’t even find it. You need to read on how to figure out an index…

          • Dave B. says:

            You’ve got the wrong text. Duh.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            No, if the index says Allegiance. (See Webster. See Vattel.) then you look up Webster in the index, and Vattel in the index. The index only contains things in that publication. The index never tells you to go outside the publication. The book might, with a complete citation including author, title, publisher, page number etc., or a table of notes might, but the index is for finding things in the book itself.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Re: “No, the definition of allegiance is not the definition of natural born
            citizen. The definition of natural born citizen comes from Natural Law,
            hence the “natural”.

            The definition of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law. You are right that in the common law citizenship at birth due to birth in a country was considered natural. The term comes from the common law, not from Vattel (who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers while the common law is mentioned about twenty times, and always with praise).

            “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction
            of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born
            of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary,
            Sixth Edition

            “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.]

            “Some birthers imagine that there
            is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen”
            on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric”
            is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest.
            All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal
            (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

            “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)

            Re Allegiance. The writers of the US Constitution did not believe that allegiance could be divided, and they believed that the best criterion of allegiance was the PLACE of birth. As James Madison put it:

            “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.”

            So both allegiance and Natural Born Citizen status are determined by the place of birth. Obama was born in Hawaii (and it is truly nutty to think that he was born anywhere else. Rubio and Jindal were also born on US soil. Cruz was born in Canada, so there is a question about him—but there is no question at all about Rubio. Jindal and, yes, Obama because they all were born on US soil.

            Obama’s birth on US soil—-in Hawaii—-has been proven by: (1) his Hawaii birth certificate; (2) the repeated confirmation of their sending it to Obama and all the facts on it being the same as what they sent by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii; (3) the public Index Data file; (4) the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the papers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii); (5) the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth of a child to a woman NAMED STANLEY from the head of obstetrics at Kapiolani Hospital; (6) the INS inspector who checked on Obama’s father’s residence status and wrote: “They have one child, born in HONOLULU.”

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times and always with praise. So the notion that the writers of the Constitution, who were mainly lawyers and justices steeped in the common law (John Jay, who was the first American to write “Natural Born Citizen,” was an expert in the common law) got the definition of of Natural Born Citizen from Vattel and not the common law is truly nutty.

          • Show me where English Common Law defines “natural born citizen”

          • YouAreJoking says:

            English common law used the term “natural born subjects”. In the early US, subject and citizen were both used to refer to citizens of the states and of the United States. Jefferson’s rough draft of the Declaration of Independence shows that he scratched out “subjects” and wrote in citizens.

            From Kent’s Commentaries, as cited in Wong Kim Ark:

            “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.”

            So Calvin’s Case (part of the English Common Law) defines natural born subject, and American common law says subject = citizen.

          • hahaha The English Law of Nationality and Naturalization

            Sorry, but your English Common Law proves that Obama is a Natural Born British Subject!

            Natural-born Subjects by Statute
            The Statutes which have conferred the status of a natural-born subject upon persons born out of the territory can be briefly mentioned. 25 Edw. III., St. 1, made all children born beyond the sea whose fathers and mothers were at the time of their birth ” at the faith and legiance ” of the king capable of inheriting. This Statute was construed to confer this right on the children of English fathers and foreign mothers. By 7 Anne, c. 5, the children of natural-born subjects born out of the allegiance of the Crown are made natural-born subjects for all purposes whatever. This Statute was explained by 4 Geo. II., c. 21, to relate to children whose fathers are, at the time of the children’s birth, natural-born subjects of the Crown.

            You lose again!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            The US doesn’t care who other countries consider to be citizens. We allow dual citizenship because we can’t dictate the laws of other nations. While in the US, our Constitution and the laws passed under it are the Supreme Law of the land.

            Under the laws of Great Britain, Obama ceased to be a citizen of the UK when Kenya gained independence. He lost his Kenya citizenship later. But Obama was also born a natural born citizen of the United States according to our laws.

            KBO, why do you think that none of the Republican lawyers support your crazy theories?

          • Jan123456 says:

            KBO, According to the Kenyan Constitution, he is also a Kenyan citizen at birth. So what? Under which circumstances does the United States allow another nation’s laws to dictate to us who we may have as President? It doesn’t matter if every nation on earth claims him as an NBC. What matters is what nation’s laws he chooses to follow. He has claimed American citizenship and no other.

          • Although we do not follow English common law, except what has been precisely written into our Constitution, you are aware that English common law includes Natural law/the law of nations, right?

            When we signed the Peace of Paris (treaties with Britain, France, Spain & Holland) they were all written on Natural Law/The Law of Nations, specifically VATTEL!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            No, the treaties were written according to the law of nations, of which Vattel was one of the many writers and philosophers who discueesed it. Like Blackstone and Grotius.

            And of course English common law contained the law of nations — which predated Vattel’s book.

          • However, Vattel’s Law of Nations was the book that was used when writing the founding documents. We have proof from Franklin himself.

            YOU LOSE:

            http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Franklin-to-Dumas.png

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Here’s some homework for you. The Federal Common Law of Nations, http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=faculty_publications

            Please cite a scholarly source that says the Peace of Paris treaties were based on Vattel’s Law of Nations. They weren’t — they were based on the law of nations.

            But treaties existed and were negotiated and signed before Vattel’s book was published in 1758. What did countries base treaties on before 1758? Answer — the law of nations, I.e. International law.

          • The Obot said: “Here’s some homework for you. Please cite a scholarly source that says the Peace of Paris treaties were based on Vattel’s Law of Nations. They weren’t — they were based on the law of nations.”

            I did that homework years ago…here ya go…

            https://books.google.com/books?id=fTEPAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22american+diplomatic+code%22+vattel+%22front+cover%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TE7ZVObTLNPfsASoroKYBA&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22american%20diplomatic%20code%22%20vattel%20%22front%20cover%22&f=false

            Moreover, those treaties were signed with the help of Congress’s first secret agent, Charles Dumas. Dumas was the one who send Benjamin Franklin the 3 copies of Vattel, 8 years before the Peace Treaty. I am sure he would use no other authority on the Law of Nations than Vattel’s as he had high esteem for him and believed that the States were a perfect fit to be governed by natural law!

            And if you read Vattel’s Law of Nations, you will see exactly where our Constitution and Amendments come from…most are from Natural Law!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Your link says, in total,

            … Judicial Decisions, on Points Connected with Our Foreign Relations. Also, A
            Concise Diplomatic Manual, Containing a Summary of the Law of Nations, from
            the Works of Wicquefort, Martens, Kent, Vattel, Ward, Story, &c. &c. … Front Cover.

            How does that answer my question?

            Also, where in our Constutution is a state religion? The 2nd amendment, for one, wouldn’t be approved by Vattel. Vattel influenced the Framers and Founders, but other writers were more influential — like Blackstone.

          • Jan123456 says:

            From the Congressional Research Service:

            “At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states,from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of thesoil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

          • hahaha Maskell, from the CRS…are you kidding. That loser is an Obama lackey and doesn’t know his head from a hole in the ground.

            http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/mask.png

          • YouAreJoking says:

            So Maskell who has been at the CRS since 1973 is an Obama lackey? Any evidence besides that he doesn’t agree with you?

          • It’s a bunch of mumbo jumbo about stuff that has no relation to the issue to throw you off, JUST LIKE WONG KIM ARK.
            Nothing is backed up with facts and it’s mostly English crap, that has nothing to do with us! That thing was put of by him because Obama wanted it out there and I’m sure Obama had help or had a friend involved in the writing of it!

          • smrstrauss says:

            Re: “That loser is an Obama lackey and doesn’t know his head from a hole in the ground.”

            Are you saying that the Heritage Foundation is an Obama lackey?

            “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.]

          • Jan123456 says:

            KBO, Please note you are reading a translation of Vattel. “Law of Nations” was written in French in 1758 and the first translation to English was in 1760, a 2nd in 1787.. The 1790 translation was the first to use the English “natural born citizen”. That was three years after the Constitution.

            In French the sentence to which you guys hang onto reads, “Les naturels
            ou indigenes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens.”
            Unlike the 1760 and 1787 translations, the third took “naturels ou
            indigenes” (and you can throw that into Google translator if you want)
            from “native or naturals” and removed the “or” to become “natural born”
            as that was a well known phrase at the time.

            (Information from the Congressional Research Service.)

          • The Founders read and spoke French, it was the Universal language at the time! They did not need to WAIT for a translation! LOLOL

          • Jan123456 says:

            You’re sure of that…ALL of them spoke French? Where did you get that?

            http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/324202?sid=21105816528343&uid=2&uid=3739808&uid=3739256&uid=4

            Let’s say you’re right. So they understand French. Vattel still did not use the English phrase “natural born citizen”. Like i said, throw the French sentence into Google Translator.

          • LOLOL, that’s exactly why words are different when translated…

            If someone from France wrote to Franklin talking about a Pomme, Franklin would know that he was talking about an APPLE, although you will not see the word apple in French language text because the word for apple is pomme…DOH!

            Whatever the words used in the French version of Vattel, translated to natural born Citizen to the Founders and that is that!

          • Jan123456 says:

            No, that is not that.

            If that were so, the first two English translations would have used “natural born.”. They did not. I gave you the original French. Put it into google translator and see if the term “natural born” comes out. (Hint: It won’t.)

            You have probably never studied a foreign language. Nouns almost always have a direct correlation in translation. Phases, especially those with specific meaning don’t have that type of specific ability to translate.

            Keep hoping there sweetheart.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Since the 1797 translation was the first to use “natural born citizen”, and the US Constitution was written in 1787, one might be correct to say that the Constitution influenced the translation of Vattel.

          • Jan123456 says:

            I have read that some Constitutionalists believe that too.

          • Dave B. says:

            Absolutely.

          • French was the universal language at the time, most of the founders hand no problem translating it!

            Not sure why that is so hard for you to understand! If you knew french, you’d be able to translate the book too..DOH

          • Jan123456 says:

            If there was only one way of translating it, why are there at least three DIFFERENT translations of “Law of Nations”? (Two of which do NOT contain the phrase “natural born citizen”.

            My point hasn’t changed. Here is the sentence in the original French:

            “Les naturels ou indigenes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens.”

            Here’s what Google translator comes up with: “”Natural or those who are native born in the country of Parents Citizens.”

            That literal translations does not contain the phrase “natural born citizen.” Also note that the output is not grammatically correct in English. Translators not only take “Pomme” and make it “Apple”, they adjust grammar and syntax so that it is correct in the “to” language. If you ever studied a foreign language, that would not be lost on you.

          • Actually, even this title contains a misinterpretation: It should be titled §212. Citizens and naturals.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            And WHERE in that quote is allegiance mentioned?

          • Perhaps Vattel’s “name” was not mentioned in the Federalist Papers, but his ideas were. Nonetheless, Vattel was mentioned MANY times in the The
            Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794, which was between the 2 same men, Madison & Hamilton.

            http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1910

          • YouAreJoking says:

            As I always check sources and was not familiar with those debates, I turned to your link. Vattel is mentioned 4 times in the body, and 5 in the footnotes. None are on allegiance or citizenship. They all are on treaties. The first quote:

            “It will be found however, I believe, that all of them, particularly Wolfius, Burlamaqui and Vattel, speak of the powers to declare war, to conclude peace, and to form alliances, as among the highest acts of the sovereignty; of which the legislative power must at least be an integral and preeminent part.”

            Law of nations is also mentioned, but separate from Vattel except in the footnotes where they are directly citing the his book Law of Nations. They clearly are referring to international law.

            Also, from Washington’s Washington’s Neutrality Proclamation, which was the topic of the debates:
            “And I hereby also make known, that whosoever of the citizens of the United States shall render himself liable to punishment or forfeiture under the law of nations, by committing, aiding, or abetting hostilities against any of the said Powers, or by carrying to any of them those articles which are deemed contraband by the modern usage of nations, will not receive the protection of the United States, against such punishment or forfeiture; and further, that I have given instructions to those officers, to whom it belongs, to cause prosecutions to be instituted against all persons, who shall, within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the law of nations, with respect to the Powers at war, or any of them.”

          • Nope, you have to go back to Webster’s edition at the time.

            Webster’s 1834 edition has natural as:

            NATURAL, a. [to be born or produced]
            1. Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power. Thus we speak of the natural growth of animals or plants; the natural motion of a gravitating body; natural strength or disposition; the natural heat of the body; natural color; natural beauty. In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired.
            2. According to the stated course of things. Poverty and shame are the natural consequences of certain vices.
            3. Not forced; not far fetched; such as is dictated by nature. The gestures of the orator are natural.

            ALLE’GIANCE, n. [L. alligo, of ad and ligo, to bind. See Liege and League.]
            The tie or obligation of a subject to his Prince or government; the duty of fidelity to a king, government or state. Every native or citizen owes allegiance to the government under which he is born. This is called natural or implied allegiance, which arises from the connection of a person with the society in which he is born, and his duty to be a faithful subject, independent of any express promise. Express allegiance, is that obligation which proceeds from an express promise, or oath of fidelity.

            Local or temporary allegiance is due from an alien to the government or state in which he resides.

            OBAMA’S NATURAL ALLEGIANCE, which comes by virtue of his father being a British Subject, is to the CROWN! Obama and his father only had local or temporary allegiance!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            KBO — the index says that the discussion of Vattel appears on page 100. Can you find where on page 100 that entry is? I couldn’t find it.

            But the index doesn’t “clearly state… to look to Vattel for the definition of allegiance”. As all indexes do, it says to look at page 100 to see a discussion of Vattel on perpetual allegiance. That’s how indexes work.

          • Dave B. says:

            That’s “109.” And it’s not there, either…
            It’s in the speech of Mr. Owens, which begins on page 109. All this is in the context of the debate over the annexation of Texas, and the particular question of whether the conflict between Texas and Mexico had been a mere rebellion or an actual revolution.
            The actual reference begins at the bottom right of page 110, with Secretary of State Daniel Webster’s response to Bocanegra on “the doctrine of perpetuity of natural allegiance.” The reference to Vattel immediately follows:
            Mr. Owens:

            “But there lacks not authority higher than Webster’s in the case. Vattel has treated it at large. Here is the substance of his doctrine:
            “Some writers confine this term (civil war) to a just insurrection of the subjects against their sovereign, to distinguish that lawful resistance from rebellion, which is an open and unjust resistance. But what appellation will they give to a war which arises in a republic torn by two factions; or in a monarchy between two competitors to the crown?”
            A little farther he proceeds to give his own answer to the question:
            “The sovereign, indeed, never fails to bestow the appellation of rebels on all such of his subjects who openly resist him; but when the latter have acquired sufficient strength to give him effectual opposition, and to oblige him to carry on the war according to the established rules, he must necessarily submit to the use of the term, ‘CIVIL WAR.'”
            And, as to such a war, Vattel declares:
            “It is evident that the common laws of war– those maxims of humanity, moderation and honor, which we have already detailed in the course of this work– ought to be observed by both parties in every civil war.””

            So that’s it. When it says, “Allegiance, natural. (See Webster. See Vattel.)” it is in the context of perpetual, indissoluble allegiance to a sovereign; and whether as a result of the Texas-Mexico conflict there was an actual Republic of Texas or merely a “petty revolted province” of Mexico.
            Sorry, Tracy.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            I see it now, thanks. I had looked at both 100 and 109 and didn’t see it. 110 also mentions Vattel in the middle column, but in the context of a subject’s right to legally resist a tyrant. The meat of the reference is on page 111.

            In any case, this is Vattel on the concept of PERPETUAL allegiance, not allegiance.

            So far KBO doesn’t understand the definitions of Common law, jurisdiction, allegiance, natural born citizen, and index. Nice batting average.

          • Read up, I’ve posted the images!

          • Dave B. says:

            Which just proves how pitiful your point was in the first place. Sad.

          • Dave B. says:

            Okay, I’ve figured out the page number discrepancy– going from the page to which Tracy provided a link, you can “Turn to image” of each page in the “Globe” itself. The index page we’re looking at is for the APPENDIX. Here’s page 100 of the appendix:

            http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=015/llcg015.db&recNum=523

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Bingo. I see it now. Thanks!

          • Dave B. says:

            And once again, a birther reference goes up in smoke. Tracy pulls another one with Mears v. Sinclair, an old West Virginia Supreme Court case she says instructs us to look to Vattel. She can’t tell the arguments from the opinion.

          • WRONG, I just posted the image above…DOH

            Again, here is the image where it says to look to Vattel on Citizenship:

            http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/WV-look-to-vattel.png

          • Dave B. says:

            That’s the one where you can’t tell the opinion from the arguments of the parties to the case. That’s not in the judge’s decision. Duh again, Tracy.

          • Dave B. says:

            You look it up. Duh.

          • It CLEARLY says:

            “Alleniance, natural. (See Webster. See Vattel) There is no “100” page number listed. See for yourself:
            http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/allegiance-vattel.png

          • Dave B. says:

            And when you “See Webster” and “See Vattel” where does the index direct you? Do you not have any idea how an index works?

          • It directs you to Vattel, DOH! There is no 100, SORRY!

          • Dave B. says:

            All right, two entries below that one we see:
            “Annexation. (See Texas. See Canada.)”
            Immediately following, we see:
            “Appropriation bills. (See naval. See civil and diplomatic. See harbors and rivers. See army. See Indian.)”
            Moving along, we find:
            “Election. (See presidential election.)”
            “Franking privilege. (See postage.)”
            “Indians. (See statistics.)”
            “Iowa. (See Florida.)”
            “Iron. (See railroad iron.)”
            “Pay of the army. (See army.)”
            “Public lands. (See lands.)”
            “Treasury. (See independent treasury.)”
            To what, pray tell, were those references directing us?

          • You are such a DOLT! Talk about not knowing how to read an index. You can’t even find the right page…DOH

            The picture I have above is page 418 of the Index to the Appendix and shows the word “allegiance, natural”. This means that whenever that word “allegiance” is used throughout the records, we are to associate it to the words that it tells you to SEE.

            However, the picture below, which you are referring to, is page 420 of the Index to the appendix. Your referenced picture says:

            Vattel, on the nature of treaties 105, 216

            on the perpetuity of natural allegiance. .. 109

            on the duties of the parties to a civil war, according to the laws of nation 101

            http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/420.png

            Your pic is different as it has page numbers that you are to look up, to find the association. When you go to the page referenced regarding the perpetuity of natural allegiance it says:

            http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/109b.png

            Page 168, the 3rd pic below states that National Law is Natural Law. It then says that the first law of nature is self preservation. The first obligation due by a nation to itself is to perpetuate its existence…these are Vattel’s EXACT words in Section 212…look…

            “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.”

            I mean COME ON, WAKE THE HECK UP!

            http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/168.png

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Really. So what does the entry two below Allegiance mean? Annexation. (See Texas. See Canada.)

            It means that to see what appears in the Appendix concerning Annexation, go to the Index entry “Texas” or “Canada” and there will be page numbers. What would it mean otherwise?

            And in the Allegiance entry, what Webster are they referring to? Because there could be several people named Webster (like Noah or Daniel) and multiple books.

            Also, cut the insults please. It makes you look very silly when you are proved wrong.

          • Dave B. says:

            That’s a truly remarkable display of creative ignorance.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Oh, KBO. You are so entertaining.

            1. Note that this index is specifically for the Appendix to the 28th Congress 2nd session. It’s not for the main entries, only the Appendix. Does the allegiance entry appear in other sessions and Congresses? Hint: no.

            2. In every single entry of the form: [Word] (See x. See y.) if you look up the x or y, you see the word plus a longer description of the entry plus the pages where the words appear. In some cases, the x or y entry is 5 lines long. Using that format saves space. In particular, look up Iowa (See Florida.). Are you telling us that Congress defined Iowa as Florida?

            3. The Appendix has entries by multiple congress members. Are you sure that every member of Congress defines Allegiance the same way that Vattel did and thus the entry means Vattel defines allegiance? Hint — No, they didn’t.)

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Here’s what the University of Georgia Press says about indexing: http://www.ugapress.org/upload/indexing.pdf

            “The cross reference is a space saver and serves to prevent duplication. … *See* follows an entry with no locators—it simply refers the reader to another part of the index. ”

            Indexing is easy to understand, KBO. If you get this part completly wrong, no wonder get law of natons, allegiance, jurisdiction, Indians, etc. so wrong.

          • Take a snapshot and show me the 100

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Look a few pages ahead to page 420 for the entry Vattel”. The index is saying that to find the pages in this publication where Allegiance is discussed, look in the index for Vattel. It does it to save space. Under Vattel, there are two entries on that page and 3 more on 421. The index merely makes it easy to find the subject. Under Vattel, the index says that the discussion that includes perpetual allegiance starts on page 100. The entry under Webster says the same thing. Then you turn to page 100 in the Appendix, and you find the discussion.

            That’s how indexes work.

      • REALLY? At the time of the case, there was no intention to go back to China. Perhaps later they changed their mind, but at the time, they had a business here and were domiciled AS THE CASE FACTS STATE!

        • Dave B. says:

          The case was decided in 1898. As most of us experience the space-time continuum, 1898 is “later” than 1890. In the birtherverse, who knows?

        • Billy Rawle says:

          No. An agreed statement of facts was filed with the case in the District Court, Northern District of California. The timeline goes like this:

          1) Wong Kim Ark born in San Francisco in 1873.

          2) Wong Kim Ark and parents return to China in 1890

          3) Wong Kim Ark returns to the US in July, 1890 and is admitted “upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.”

          4) Wong Kim Ark returns to China in 1894.

          5) Wong Kim Ark returns to the United States in August, 1895 and is denied entry “upon the sole ground that said Wong Kim Ark was not a citizen of the United States.”

          6) “That said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.”

          • hahaha, the VERY FIRST line of Wong Kim Ark says:

            “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,”

            FIRST sentence has the FACT of DOMICIL, meaning his parents planned to stay here, no matter what happened in the future, that was their intention at the time!

            What is worse, it clearly states right there that he was a citizen at birth by virtue of the 14th amendment, that means BY STATUTE, lolol. Congress only have the power to make uniform rules of “naturalization” therefore Wong was NATURALIZED by LAW, not a natural born citizen by birth!

            YOU FAIL!

          • smrstrauss says:

            Re: “Congress only have the power to make uniform rules of “naturalization” therefore Wong was NATURALIZED by LAW, not a natural born citizen by birth!”

            My goodness, about 150 years out of date. The 14th Amendment gave the power of deciding federal citizenship to the US government. Therefore, the US Congress does have the right to define citizenship at birth, and in fact USC does it.

            Now, as to “domicile.”

            The Wong Kim Ark case clearly says that EVERY child born on US soil regardless of the citizenship of the parents, even if they were only passing through the USA when the child was born, is a Natural Born Citizen.

            THAT is why the ruling quotes this:

            “Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

            By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”

            In addition to that, you apparently believe that a person granted by the USA government a student visa to attend a four-year university is not legally domiciled here. Pray tell, on what basis?

          • RamboIke says:

            Re: “The Wong Kim Ark case clearly says that EVERY child born on US soil regardless of the citizenship of the parents, even if they were only passing through the USA when the child was born, is a Natural Born Citizen.”

            You’re quoting an opinion, not the ruling. Possibly during a dream about your dear leader Obama you had a delusional thought Kim Ark was ruled a natural born citizen.

            Re: English common law

            “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.”
            ~George Mason, June 19, 1788

            One would think Mason would know. Jefferson in his letter to Henry Lee, dated May 8, 1825, starts out:

            Dear Sir,
            That George Mason was author of the bill of rights, and of the constitution founded on it, the evidence of the day established fully in my mind.

          • bovril1a says:

            Poor old BimboLicks, throw out a quote without actually knowing what it means or what it pertains to. No really surprise, he’s a birther and as such inherently “challenged”.
            If one cares to look at the actual quote and it’s context, it’s form a discussion on the powers of the US government and the states to write and enforce TREATIES, which, for poor old Bimbo IS NOT PART OF COMMON LAW.
            Care to try again..?

          • RamboIke says:

            That’s a general statement from Mason that would apply, as he says, to all states, not any particular one or issue being discussed.
            Does it hurt? It would have to be painful being you, but I’m sure you’ve been told that before.

          • bovril1a says:

            And, come along Bimbo, you can do it, what was Mason’s little piece on…. was it a debate on the farmyard animals of which you are so fond, was it about military spending, or the price of cheese in Wisconsin..??
            Why no, he was talking about treaties, now I know in the remedial school you went to, book learning was never your strongpoint. Still, there is this thing called The Constitution, you may have heard of it, it’s split up into all sorts of Articles and Sections and Clauses. I know it has lots of big words but I’m sure you will be able to find Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, it talks about Treaties, which is about International Law which Mason was discussing.
            Guess what International is a very different and longer word than Common. So when Mason was talking je was talking about how Common Law was not part of Treaties.
            See, even yourself sadly muddled mind should be able to accept that you made a big old booboo. Sad to see such a simple mind as yours demonstrate again and again its limitations

          • RamboIke says:

            It’s obvious you’re not much of a free thinker and one of the mindless parrots that open & swallow the daily propaganda you’re fed from your Obot Overlords that you take and regurgitate on other sites.

            If Mason had been the only one saying that – there were many – then you MIGHT of had a point. It was a general statement and not meant for any particular issue/law being debated. What Jefferson is reffering to in his letter to Henry Lee is the State of Virginia Constitution. The Rights came before the Laws

            “When the ancestors of the citizens of the United States emigrated to this country, they brought with them, to a limited extent, the English common law as part of their heritage. No one will contend that the common law, as it existed in England, has ever been in force in all its provisions in any state in this Union.”
            ~ Justice McLean Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 591 591 (1834)

            That statement from Wheaton I would agree with. The “limited extent” evolved in the colonies over the roughly 150 years to the time of America’s founding period substantially different.

            “OUR American plantations are principally of this latter fort, being obtained in the laft century either by right of conqueft and driving out the natives (with what natural juftice I fhall not at prefent enquire) or by treaties. And therefore the common law of England, as fuch, has no allowance or authority there ; they being no part of the mother country, but diftinct (though dependent) dominions. They are fubject however to the control of the parliament ; though (like Ireland, Man, and the reft ) not bound by any acts of parliament, unlefs particularly named.”
            ~ (Original text) William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Introduction, Section the Fourth: Of the Countries Subject to the Laws of England

          • bovril1a says:

            Oh and Bimbo, with regard to WKA, the government and in the dissent stated categorically that the ruling meant that WKA would be constitutionally capable of running for President. So guess what, that means WKA was an NBC…. See, so simple, even a Birfoon should be able to grasp

          • RamboIke says:

            It’s so simple that a moron such as yourself with few active brain cells would never figure out the government & dissent had no authority in the ruling, but I digress.

            Though it was a bad ruling the court only found Kim Ark to be a citizen.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            That’s right—because, duh, it was a citizenship case and the bottom line was his being a US citizen. But the court ALSO (have you heard that word before??) defined Natural Born Citizen, and I have shown the quotation elsewhere on this page, and ten or 11 appeals courts have all ruled that indeed the Wong Kim Ark ruling (BTW, the guy’s family name was Wong) did indeed say that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen.

          • bovril1a says:

            Oh poor old Bimbo, still doesn’t grasp what a ruling means in the real world. Here’s a hint for the top of our pointy little head,. The SC stated that WKA was born in the US, was a citizen a birth and that means he was a natural bon citizen, NOT a naturalized citizen. And they agreed that , as per the dissent, it means WKA could, have the right to run for President.
            Don’t like it, tough titty, but not to worry, the vey same Constitution that you plainly loath and hate so deeply gives even the likes of you the mechanism to change what is the law and Constitution to one you feel it should be. Just convince enough Senators and Congressmen to raise a Constitutional Amendment to your liking then get enough of the states to ratify it and bingo, Bimbo’s racist heaven becomes the Constitution.. Off you trot little man, you show the horrid people who don’t agree with you… hop hop little bunny rabbit.

          • RamboIke says:

            The mind is a terrible thing to waste, but you turned it into a form of art. Too bad you never caught on to all those snickers that were coming from your classmates.

            You got the part right about Kim Ark being ruled a citizen, and just as much a citizen as a natural born citizen with the exception he wasn’t eligible to be president.

          • bovril1a says:

            REALLY…. oh my goodness, I must have missed that wording in the ruling and the cases unsupported…..(looks through case history, reads the documents, scratches head…realizes that Bimbo is lying again).
            Well what do you know, nowhere is that statement or even an allusion to said statement there. In point of fact the ONLY relevant piece is where the government and the dissent EXPLICITLY state that by ruling as such WKA could run for president.
            Hate to break it to you Bimbo-Babes the only snickers were from your caseworkers when they strapped the helmet on your pointy little head and popped you into the little yellow bus.
            Tell you what, why don’t you lurch out of your mothers basement, brush the Cheeto dust from the wife beater and read the case. If you can find a piece in the winning side where it says that WKA was a naturalized citizen then you get to declare a win.
            Should be simple enough even for the likes of you after all there are exactly 2 and only 2 categories of US citizen, naturalized, made a citizen from a non citizen and the rest. The naturalized one doesn’t get to be able to run for President, the others cam.
            Hop to little bunny, scamper and find that nugget of gold

          • RamboIke says:

            It was a bad ruling. According to the experts on law Gray had to distort all the prior cases he cited to get his ruling. Maybe it was as some are claiming, a payback for Arthur appointing him to SCOTUS.

            That Kim Ark was eligible for the presidency show how gullible & looney you really are.

          • bovril1a says:

            Ah so we have the ever traditional Birfoon mounting the goal posts on skates and moving them about ploy. Suddenly from “AGLE BARGLE NO SUCH THING” we move to “It was a ‘bad’ ruling”.
            Guess what, your opinion on the ruling has exactly zero relevance, it was and is the ruling and until such tome as the Supreme Court overturns it is THE ruling and therefore is inherently “good” from the perspective of law and the Constitution.
            Don’t like it, tough titty, guess what, get yourself a constitutional amendment to your satisfaction and then it would become a ‘bad’ ruling. Until them you remain as always impotent, incompetent and irrelevant.

          • RamboIke says:

            Foggy & Dr Con have to be delighted that their boytoy Bovril so willingly drops to his knees and swallows the whole load with no questions asked.

            The ruling on Wong Kim Ark was based on misrepresenting other court cases. That fact makes it bad.

            Lets create a make believe and see how much of a free thinker & a pro-liberty American you really are:

            The year is 1775, you’re 25 years old, and have lived that whole time in one of the North American colonies as a subject to the King of England. You well understand, like the American founders, the harsh slave like conditions forced on you due to being the King’s subject. You’ve been given a copy of Vattel’s Law of Nations to read and read Chapter XIX in Book I like Samuel Adams and the other founders did before the Revolution. Now the questions:

            Would you want to be a citizen as defined by Vattel or prefer staying a subject?

            What do you think the founders chose?

            Subject & Citizen are not synonymous.

          • AMEN!

            The case of Wheaton v. Peters proves there is no common law

            “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 system by legislative adoption.”

          • YouAreJoking says:

            The common law was adopted by the individual states, and adapted according to their individual conditions and customs — as Wheaton v. Peters makes clear. No state adopted the parts of common law that concerned the nobility, for example, and Parliament isn’t the same as Congress. There is no FEDERAL common law: but the LANGUAGE of the Constitution is the language of the common law. Subject and Citizen differ in the form of government.

            “It is insisted, that our ancestors, when they migrated to this 659*659 country, brought with them the English common law, as a part of their heritage.

            “That this was the case, to a limited extent, is admitted. No one will contend, that the common law, as it existed in England, has ever been in force in all its provisions, in any state in this union. It was adopted, so far only as its principles were suited to the condition of the colonies: and from this circumstance we see, what is common law in one state, is not so considered in another. The judicial decisions, the usages and customs of the respective states, must determine, how far the common law has been introduced and sanctioned in each.”

          • Funny that you cut off this part:
            “The common law could be made a part of our federal system, only by legislative adoption.”

            Sorry Mrs. Dorneman, but of course we brought the Common Law to the States, we were British Subjects…however, the only common law that was brought into Federal law was done so by express consent (the part you left out above)!

            Moreover, if any British Law as against the Constitution, it was NULL & VOID!”

            You obviously did not read the 3rd paragraph you posted because it contradicts you!

          • bovril1a says:

            Poor old Bimbo Licks, can’t even get the century right, never mind engage in a reality based conversation. Care to answer your pathetic attempt at diversion before making up irrelevant nonsense again..?
            You finally admitted to the thread at large that the ruling was’ bad’, I reminded you that that is just tough titty as you aren’t the Supreme Court and until overturned any ruling is actually ‘good’ from the perspective of the law and the Constitution.
            So, let’s get that one nailed down first then you get to make up imaginary stuff about nonsensical straw man hypotheticals. Hey, everyone needs a good laugh and your posts are comedy gold in their epic failure

          • RamboIke says:

            Wow, gone 9 days. That’s a long time to be spending in the basement. Had to be some powerful stuff you’re putting in the crack pipe.

            To bring ya up to speed: smrstrauss, representing the Obots took a challenge from good ol’ Ike representing the Birthers. The loser had to say ‘Uncle’. Guess who lost? Yep, you got it, it was smrstrauss who per the agreement said “I was wrong–UNCLE”, and per agreement meant Birthers win – Obots lose. So it’s over – Game, Set, Match for the Birthers

            Some clarification to help the challenged Bovril: The Wong case was 19th century, and finding him a citizen based on misrepresenting previous court cases makes it bad law, and we know Wong was never found to be a natural born because he lacked citizen parents. The Make Believe I presented was 18th century.

            You now can return to your normal knee position.

          • bovril1a says:

            Poor baby, still doesn’t get it when his ass have ben pounded, again, in the way he so enjoys. Alas, unlike you, my happy little taker, I both have a life as well as work for a living. Not compulsive, masturbatory keyboard commando, whilst sucking on the public teat as do you.
            So, you still desperately cling to this sad little idea that by declaring a majority ruling by the Supreme Court, which has stood for over a century as ‘bad’ that you somehow’ win’. Who do you think you are you Charlie Sheen, it would explain so much about you and your delusional rants.
            Not to mention, lest you forget, the reasoning was based on the existing legal interpretation going back to the founding and was bolstered by the 14th Amendment. Why not get a better than 5th grade education and actually read the case and reasoning, even you should be able to parse out the big words.
            And your and the rest of the Birfoons ‘winning’ consists of what precisely..?
            Over 220 lawsuits lost, reviewed by other 900 judges all saying in effect, you’re deluded and with the legal acumen of a retarded sloth….. is this ‘winning’
            For all the regular drivel we hear from Birfoon of how everyone who laughs at you is going to jail, the only ones who have, have been your ilk, Lakin, Huff, Fitzpatrick etc…. is that ‘winning’
            Obama is still in office, has won the popular and Electoral College vote twice has been sworn in twice, has been confirmed a President twice….. is that ‘winning’
            If this is ‘winning’ I would love to see losing, oh I have, it’s that silly little blog you haunt, Birther Report a howling wilderness where sanity goes to die and the censorship would make Joe Stalin swoon.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Gray was one of SIX justices who ALL agreed that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen. Only two justices were in the minority. One justice did not vote.

            And the quotations from Tucker and Rawle and the fact that John Jay was a specialist in THE COMMON LAW and the fact that most of the members of the Constitutional Convention were lawyers and justices all indicates very strongly that the term Natural Born comes from the common law and not from Vattel (who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is
            mentioned about twenty times). Here are the Tucker and Rawle quotations:

            “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)

            Notice how similar the above quotation is to what is in the Heritage Foundation book on the US Constitution:

            “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.]

          • RamboIke says:

            You’re basing that on Gray who in his Opinion had to distort the opinions of prior court case to arrive at his Decision.

            The Yale Law Review agreed with Fuller.

            Subject & Citizen are not synonymous. Given a choice between Vattel & Blackstone the founders would of (and did) chose Vattel’s definition of citizen.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            The opinion of the majority—and in this case the majority was six justices to two justices, one did not vote—is the ruling of the court. Wong Kim Ark was not ruled to be a Natural Born Citizen because, duh, it was a citizenship case, not a question of whether he was eligible to become president. But the quotation by the court is part of the logic of the case, and therefore it is A RULING. And, if you don’t believe it—well, tough, because every appeals court that birthers have tried says that it IS the ruling and that it said that EVERY child born on the soil of the United States IS a Natural Born Citizen.

            Here are SOME of the ten or eleven rulings:

            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…”

            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.”

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

            Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

            Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

            Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

            Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

            And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

            So, since the US Supreme Court has turned down an appeal of a ruling that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen, you can just hold your breath until it either changes its mind or there is a Constitutional Amendment that changes the definition of Natural Born Citizen. Go ahead, hold your breath.

          • RamboIke says:

            Based on what I’ve read by those analyzing the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling Justice Gray misrepresented all the prior Supreme Court court cases he cited in his opinion.

            How many of those cases you listed are based the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling?

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            You are entitled to your OPINION about the Wong Kim Ark ruling—but it is only an opinion, and not the law. When and if the US Supreme Court takes a case and reverses the Wong Kim Ark ruling, then you can say that you are right. But that is not very likely since in October 2012, the current US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the Farrar Case in Georgia, which had ruled that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies). So, by turning down the appeal, the current US Supreme Court allowed the ruling that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen to stand.

            BTW, not only did the US Supreme Court make that ruling—-and that ruling is the law regardless of whether it is right or wrong—-but the quotations from Tucker and Rawle, who knew the writers of the US Constitution—-shows that it was right.

            “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)

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Based on what you’ve read? What specific cases are misrepresented?

          • 100%. There were at least 4 precedent cases on the issue, not to mention Title XXV, Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes of 1873, which clearly was in line with those precedent cases.

            Then WKA comes around and Justice Gray says we follow English Common Law, which is a LIE. The case he cites that says we follow English Common Law, clearly states the contrary that there IS NO COMMON LAW in this country! He is a liar, JUST LIKE OBAMA!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            What 4 cases? Title XXV Section 192 says “subject to any foreign power.” That means that while in the US, the person must not be subject to the jurisdiction of US laws. That’s ONLY ambassadors and invading armies, and the Indian tribes at the time. Here’s a discussion of the difference between subject TO and subject OF. https://books.google.com/books?id=aFsuAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=%22not+subject+to+any+foreign+power%22&source=bl&ots=WXcE1Z2EHU&sig=J9pA-R_YsZLBKuM77skae2QxA0w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oa3bVJHBKeLIsQSd_YKQBA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22not%20subject%20to%20any%20foreign%20power%22&f=false

            Because they are different.

          • LOLOL, making it up as you go eh?

            WRONG AGAIN. Show me something to back up your claim…LOLOL

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Uh… The link in my reply is to an article in The American Law Register. BTW — did you figure out that you were wrong on how to read an index?

          • YouAreJoking says:

            How about Vattel’s take?

            “213. Inhabitants.

            The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens.”

          • Yes, that is temporary allegiance, which is what Obama’s father while in the country and what Obama had at birth. Obama’s natural allegiance was to the British Crown!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Under US law EVERY child born on US soil must have complete and total allegiance to the United States of America—excepting only the children of foreign diplomats. In fact, men born on US soil who had German parents and who went back to Germany and fought against the USA were tried and convicted of treason because they had broken their allegiance to the USA.

            As Madison said, there is only ONE criterion of allegiance used in the United States, the place of birth.

          • RamboIke says:

            Hi Tracy,

            I’m glad you confirmed that. I’m not well schooled on the cases and consider myself a greenhorn when it comes to interpreting them.

            What I’ve done is read what the experts (i.e., lawyers and law sites) from both sides say when they’re analysing them. Then try to logically reason out who has it right.

            Based on what I’ve researched Gray was wrong. I believe there was a Colonial Law that was influenced somewhat by English Laws, and an assortments of other external influences.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Gray was one of SIX justices who ALL agreed that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen. Only two justices were in the minority. One justice did not vote.

            And the quotations from Tucker and Rawle and the fact that John Jay was a specialist in THE COMMON LAW and the fact that most of the members of the Constitutional Convention were lawyers and justices all indicates very strongly that the term Natural Born comes from the common law and not from Vattel (who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times).

            “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)

            Notice how similar the above quotation is to what is in the Heritage Foundation book on the US Constitution:

            “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.]

          • Gray was wrong. If you follow the cases that he cites, they clearly state the contrary to what he says. HE IS A LIAR.

            To get the real truth, you only need to read the dissent, it explains everything that Gray got wrong: When you have the US Government bringing the case in the first place and then you have the Chief Justice (Fuller) and Justice Harlan dissenting, something sounds fishy.

            Not to mention Gray’s LONG LONG tirade to try and sway the people only turns them off and makes them not want to read it, therefore they never really get to the facts, which are actually LIES!

            Click the dissent link at the top and see the real facts on NBC:
            http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649#writing-USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Gray was right, as Tucker and Rawle’s writings show—-and they were legal scholars who knew the writers of the US Constitution:

            “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)

            And we know that the writers of the Constitution were mainly lawyers and justices who were steeped in THE COMMON LAW—so the notion that they got the definition of Natural Born from any place other than the common law without telling us (and Vattel was not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times)—-is farfetched, to say the least.

            BTW, the Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” THAT statement certainly does not indicate that the US-born children of US citizens are higher class citizens than the US-born children of foreigners. And the US-born children of foreigners have shown through their blood and deaths in two world wars that they are just as loyal as the US-born children of US citizens.

          • And is backed up by Wheaton v. Peters

            “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.”

          • smrstrauss says:

            Nevertheless the US Supreme Court has ruled that it can, and it does, use the Common Law for guidance in its rulings and to determine the legal meaning of terms that were taken from the common law. And the US Supreme Court–which has the final legal say, not you—has ruled that the term Natural Born Citizen comes from THE COMMON LAW, and that it includes EVERY child born on US soil. So, once again, the Heritage Foundation book on the Constitution is right, and you are wrong.

          • “The 14th Amendment gave the power of deciding federal citizenship to the US government.”

            TOTAL LIE!

            The 14th Amendment did NO SUCH THING as it was declaratory and not forward looking as its author clearly states when it was introduced (image 1)

            SEE THE WORDS NATURAL LAW?

            http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/declaratory2.png

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Here is USC (United States CODE), the US LAW on citizenship.

            http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

            According to your nutty notion, the US government would not be allowed to enact a law on citizenship since the 14th Amendment did “no such thing”—and (according to your nutty dream), the right to define a citizen remains with the states.

            Howard, was, BTW, just one of the hundreds of legislators who proposed and voted for the 14th Amendment. Another prominent one was Bingham, who 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)”

            Notice how similar that is to what the Heritage Foundation book wrote:

            “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.]

          • A natural born citizen is a citizen according to natural law, so you will not find the definition in our laws. Try looking at natural law here (Section 212): http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Re “natural law.” If natural law applied, the US constitution and the Federalist Papers would have said so—-and they would have said which branch of the vague concept Natural Law they were using (in Jewish law, for example, citizenship is inherited from the MOTHER). But the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Heritage Foundation book were right. The term does not come from “natural law.” It comes from the common law (John Jay was an expert in the common law, you know, and Tucker and Rawle both used Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that Natural Born Subject was used in the common law). So the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and the Heritage Foundation book are right—-and you are wrong.

          • The Constitution DOES say so, Article 1, Section 8

            And so does the Declaration of Independence, in the 1st paragraph!

            DOH DOH DOH!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Article I Section 8 is all common law. Where is the natural law in that?

          • Article 1 Section 8 clause 10

            Congress has the power…
            “To define and punish…Offences against the Law of Nations”

            The Law of Nations is the law of nature applied to states!

            Since you don’t understand anything about the Founding and natural law, perhaps you should read Founder & Supreme Court Justice James Wilson’s lecture on natural law and the Law of Nations. Then maybe you will understand a little better!
            http://teachingamericanhistory.org/static/convention/delegates/wilson.html

            Here are a few excerpts:

            “The law of nature, when applied to states or political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free one”

            “The law of nations, as well as the law of nature, is of obligation indispensable: the law of nations, as well as the law of nature, is of origin divine.”

            “The law of nations, properly so called, is the law of nature applied to states and sovereigns. The law of nations, properly so called, is the law of states and sovereigns, obligatory upon them in the same manner, and for the same reasons, as the law of nature is obligatory upon individuals. Universal, indispensable, and unchangeable is the obligation of both.”

            “The law of nations, properly so called, or, as it may be termed, the natural law of nations, is a part, and an important part, of the law of nature.”

            “Though the law of nations, properly so called, be a part of the law of nature; though it spring from the same source, and though it is attended with the same obligatory power; yet it must be remembered that its application is made to very different objects. The law of nature is applied to individuals: the law of nations is applied to states.”

            “The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people. Let us again beware of being misled by an ambiguity, sometimes, such is the structure of language, unavoidable. When I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean not that it is a law made by the people, or by virtue of their delegated authority; as, in free states, all municipal laws are. But when I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean that, as the law of nature, in other words, as the will of nature’s God, it is indispensably binding upon the people, in whom the sovereign power resides;”

          • YouAreJoking says:

            My, you’ve come a long way from insisting that law of nations meant Vattel and only Vattel. Congrats! Yes, the law of nature is a huge part of the Enlightenment.

            What on earth is that link supposed to be? It’s merely a bio on Wilson, not a link to the lectures.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution says:

            “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

            To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

            To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes….”

            (And neither the word Natural nor Natural Born nor Natural Law is in it at all.)

            (If you are thinking of the Natural Born Citizen reference in Article II (not Article I), that comes from the common law.

            Re Declaration of Independence. I am glad that you mentioned it. It says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal…”

            (And that for sure does not mean that the US-born children of US citizens are superior to the US-born children of foreigners. IF the writers of the US Constitution wanted to amend the strong statement of the Declaration of Independence, and make the US-born children of foreigners lower level citizens than the US-born children of US citizens, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO—but they didn’t.)

            BTW, millions of the US-born children of foreigners fought and died for their country in two world wars, and there has never been a shred of a hint of evidence that they were any less loyal than the US-born children of US citizens. And, equally important, there isn’t a shred of a hint that the writers of the US Constitution thought so either.

          • No, had you kept reading down to Article 1, Section 8, clause 10, you would have seen…
            “define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations”

            And once you read Chief Justice James WIlson’s lecture, perhaps you’ll catch on…

            http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_10s5.html
            “The law of nature, when applied to states or political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones.”

          • YouAreJoking says:

            The law of nations is incorporated into the common law. Blackstone had a chapter on Offenses against the Law of Nations. It’s not natural law, which is philosophy, it’s international law, which is law.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Some of the law of nations (the body of international law, not the book The Law of Nations) probably was incorporated into the common law. But the Vattel idea that two citizen parents and birth on the soil was incorporated into the common law is false.

            This is what Blackstone said:

            “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

            (And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

          • Yes, and John Jay is the one who wrote to George Washington, telling to make a strong check on foreigners into the administration and to make sure that the Pres & VP were natural born citizens!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            And John Jay, who would become the first chief justice in the United States, was AN EXPERT IN THE COMMON LAW. He was referring to the meaning of Natural Born in the common law, and if he wasn’t he would have said so.

          • Dave B. says:

            You like that site? They absolutely, utterly DISAGREE with you.

            http://constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm

          • RamboIke says:

            Still taking spin lessons from Dr Con? What’d I tell you last year about that?

            Correcting your Bingham quote to:
            “All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and in compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians.”

            Kim Ark’s parents owed allegiance to the emperor of China.

            You left out what Meese added in 2007. Clarify birthright citizenship:
            “According to the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, those who are born here must also be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The popular concept of “birthright citi­zenship”-that anyone born while in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen-is historically and legally inaccurate. Only a com­plete jurisdiction of the kind that brings with it an exclusive allegiance is sufficient to qualify for the grant of citizenship. Immigration reform legislation, especially if it includes a temporary worker program, must correct this misunderstanding. In order to do so, Congress should reassert its constitutional authority to clarify this question.[20]”

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            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.)

            Re quotation: the Hertiage Foundation book was right on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, and wrong on the meaning of Jurisdiction. Bingham and Trumbull, two of the main authors of the 14th Amendment made clear that the use of the term ‘jurisdiction” was only to exclude the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders (and, at the time, Amierican Indians—but that was changed by legislation in 1924 or 1925).

            So, anchor babies are both US citizens and Natural Born US citizens, and if you and the Heritage Foundation do not like it, you can hold your breath until the law is changed—-which isn’t at all likely.

            Everyone in the USA EXCEPT for foreign diplomats and their families (and if there are members of invading enemy armies, then them too) is subject to the complete and total jurisdiction of the United States, meaning that they must obey US and state laws. Their being visitors or illegal residents does not change the fact that they are subject to the complete and total jurisdiction of the USA since they must obey every single law.

          • Changed his mind? NOT

            The only thing IT SEEMS, is that you are an idiot!

            You obviously have NO CLUE what “within the limits of the Republic” means DOH

            You sure do embarrass yourself a LOT!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Within the limits of the republic means born on the soil of the United States.

            Here is how the Heritage Foundation book puts it:

            ““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.]”

            And it is right, and so was the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and so were the ten or eleven appeals court rulings, and so were senators Hatch and Graham and former Senator Fred Thompson—-and you are wrong.

          • hahaha there you go again with your English Common Law. It is obvious you know nothing about the American Revolution and that we broke away from England and their laws.

            In 1776 we dissolved the band with England and assumed the Laws of Nature. Try reading the Declaration of Independence, which will help you to understand!

            In 1787 we signed the Constitution and that became the law of the land, NOT ENGLISH COMMON LAW! You are a sad excuse for an American, do some research, would you!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            You are clearly wrong. Here’s
            The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress,
            IN CONGRESS IN PHILADELPHIA

            October 14, 1774

            Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England.

            Resolved, N.C.D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.

            Resolved, N.C.D. 6. That they are entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their colonization; and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several local and other circumstances.

            http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/decres.htm

            Plus look at the next 5-6 posts directly below. Many quotes on common law, natural born citizen, and the 14th Amendment.

          • The 14th amendment ONLY dealt with slaves and NOT white people! WAKE UP!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            IF it had dealt only with slaves and not with people of all the races, it would not say:

            “All persons…” But it does.

          • “All persons” born and not subject to any foreign power who were not black were ALREADY citizens before the 14th amendment. The only ones that weren’t already citizens were the blacks! DOH! The 14th amendment was declaratory and was to settle the problems with the Dred Scott case…

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Actually, the situation was that STATES had the right to decide who were citizens at birth and who were not citizens. the Supreme Court ruling in the Dred Scott decision made the situation worse by saying that according to federal law they were not citizens either. The 14th Amendment not only reversed the Dred Scott decision, making blacks who were born on the USA citizens at birth, but it set FEDERAL rules on who can decide who are citizens at birth—-and so states could no longer do it. That means that states can no longer rule (if they want to) that the children of gypsies or Mexicans or anyone cannot be a citizen. That was a change, meaning that what Howard said about “merely declaratory” was wrong—-but guess what, he was not the only author of the 14th amendment, and his view was only one of many. In any case, the US Supreme Court has the final decision, and it ruled that the 14th Amendment means that every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US citizen.

          • Sorry, but nothing trumps God’s Law, the Immutable Laws of Nature! Meaning that no one can change the definition of a natural born citizen as it is an act of nature!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Natural law is a philosophy, not a codified set of actual laws. The Age of Enlightenment said that we could discern what the laws of nature were through reason. Where are they written down? In philosophy books. No country governs via the law of nature, they govern though man-made law and judge-made law. Natural law is codified within those two areas when it matches what the country in question believes.

            Citizenship is defined by municipal law. (Municipal law is the national, domestic, or internal law of a sovereign state defined in opposition to international law. Wikipedia, as well as multiple other sources.) Citizenship doesn’t exist in nature as countries don’t exist in nature. Families, packs, tribes, societies do.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Re: “The 14th Amendment did NO SUCH THING as it was declaratory and not
            forward looking as its author clearly states when it was introduced….”

            Here is USC (US Code) on the subject of citizenship:

            http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

            According to your loony dream, the above law would be impossible because the 14th Amendment did not take away the states’ power to define citizenship at birth.

            But, the 14th Amendment did take away that power and give it to the FEDERAL government, which is why there are US laws on citizenship.

          • Dave B. says:

            Okay, so I suppose we add “amendment to the Constitution” to the long, long list of things you don’t understand.

          • Billy Rawle says:

            I realize you don’t understand how the court system works in this country but in the lower court both sides agreed to the statement of facts. That means the Supreme Court didn’t even consider them since both sides agreed they were accurate. Wong Kim Arks parents did not intend to stay in the United states and proved that by leaving. Who knows what their intentions were in 1873.

            Please prove what their intentions were in 1873.

            And the 14th amendment is NOT A STATUTE. It is the Constitution. Your ignorance of the Constitution must be why you’ve been a failure.

            Your petition is DOA.

          • Regardless of what you WANT to call it, the 14th Amendment ONLY deal with blacks born to slaves and NO ONE else, not even WONG!

            Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43
            No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the federal constitution.

            The purpose of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship. Such persons were not white persons, but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country, or, having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendants of slaves.

          • Billy Rawle says:

            Do you not understand that the Supreme Court of the United States overrules lower federal and all state courts? Any court ruling before 1898 is meaningless in regards to the 14th amendment and citizenship.

          • lolol, once again, the 14th amendment changed NOTHING with citizenship from the Civil Rights Act definition. That is why the Civil Rights Act definition of citizen was used and not the 14th Amendment definition in the 1873 Revised Statutes. (see image) That is the law that Gray was supposed to follow as Justice Harlan and Chief Justice Fuller explain in their dissent!

            Had the 14th Amendment (enacted in 1868) changed anything with the Civil Rights Act definition of citizen, it would have been noted in the Revised Statutes, IT WAS NOT!

            http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/1992.png

          • Billy Rawle says:

            What are you stuck on stupid? As Judge Stansfield told you the issue of the meaning of “natural born citizen” was resolved by the Wong Kim Ark decision. He gave you explicit instructions on how to proceed to get WKA overturned. What happened before 1898 is immaterial, the law as it stands today is the precedent from Wong Kim Ark.

          • pfff, Judge Stansfield….He didn’t even write the decision…moreover, the decision had this in it:

            Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

            “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. 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.”

            So he KNOWS what a natural born citizen is…THAT is why he had to go with laches, because he DID NOT want to get to the evidence! HE WOULD LOSE!

          • Billy Rawle says:

            Your case in Maryland will be cited if Senator Rubio or Governor Jindal should decide to run for president or vice-president and someone is foolish enough to challenge their eligibility. Way to go. You help solidify the precedent of Wong Kim Ark.

          • Wong Kim Ark doesn’t not deal with natural born citizenship, ONLY 14th Amendment citizenship. DOH

            So some research

          • YouAreJoking says:

            There’s no difference. You will never learn. What happens when SCOTUS denies cert on your petition?

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Ten or eleven appeals courts say that you are wrong.

            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…”

            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.”

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

            Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

            Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

            Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

            Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

            And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

            In addition to those rulings specifically on presidential eligibility, there are these:
            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.”

            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.”

            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.”

            That makes about 13 courts that I can cite easily that have ruled that the US born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens.

            In addition, there are articles like this:

            http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

            and this:

            http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

            and this:

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett

            And the Congressional Research Service and Black’s Law Dictionary, and the opinions of two legal scholars who knew the writers of the US constitution.

          • Billy Rawle says:

            They will be putting up small shrines in China and Mexico to honor birthers who have strengthened the precedent of Wing Kim Ark. Birth Tourism websites will be listing your case and others as reasons for women to have their babies in the US. They’ll tout the fact that birthers have paved the way for the first Chinese or first “anchor baby” President of the United States.

            You should be proud. Little Wu Rong Gang thanks you.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            But Congress KNEW that the 14th Amendment would mean the Chinese, gypsies, etc. would be citizens as they said so in the debates. The reason for the amendment was because naturalization only makes an alien into a citizen, and the slaves were not born aliens and yet were not citizens. For non-slaves, the amendment was just reflecting the existing conditions that had never been made into law. So they said in the debates.

          • Sorry, but the 14th Amendment was only declaratory and made no one citizens after the fact, that weren’t already citizens by the Civil Rights Act.

            The Author is on record and proves this:

            http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/declaratory2.png

            ohhh, looky there, BY VIRTUE OF NATURAL LAW!
            ********************************
            ********************************

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Van Valkenburg v. Brown was an 1872 California case. US v. Wong Kim Ark was a SCOTUS case from 1898. But note that Van walkenburg says “Such persons were not white persons, but in the main were of African blood…” That means there were other non-whites. The 14th was to enable people born within the US who weren’t entitles to citizenship at the time of birth and thus couldn’t be naturalized, to become citizens at birth. That included Chinese and Gypsies.

            As Senator Howard said in the Congressional debates:

            “The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

            That’s everyone except children of foreign ambassadors.

  6. ILookedItUp says:

    Happy to clear this up for everyone:

    First of all, Obama was born on U.S. soil (Hawaii). There’s no question about that one, even if both of his parents weren’t citizens. See 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a); see also Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583 (holding that a child born to two British citizens while visiting New York was a “natural born citizen”); see also Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Ind.App., Nov 12, 2009) 916 N.E.2d 678 at 688 (“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.”)

    With Cruz, it’s a bit more ambiguous, but most legal scholars agree that the term “natural born citizen” means “citizen from birth.” For a thorough discussion on the topic, you can read the Congressional Research Service report on the topic here:http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

    Cruz was a citizen at birth because he was born to one U.S. citizen who “was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years.” 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g). Similarly, under this statute, Obama would have been a citizen at birth even if born in Kenya. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

    • But there are questions about when and where Obama was born. Thus far, the ONLY evidence Obama has produced to “prove” he was born when and where he states is a jpg posted on his website.

      According to the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General Office, study entitled: BIRTH CERTIFICATE FRAUD OEI-07-99-00570,

      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINDINGS: A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded.

      What this means is for Obama to rely solely on this one document to prove identify, is an abuse of that document.

      Give me one independent, corroborative piece of evidence that supports Obama’s birth certificate, just one. The only reason birth certificates are useful in “Proving” a birth, is the information its contains will lead to other independent witnesses (evidence) to the birth. Birth certificates are only prima facie evidence.

      Once legal, prima facie impeachment evidence has been forthcoming, the next step in “proving” the birth event, is by a preponderance of the evidence: OB/GYN records, hospital registration, birth records, and discharge documents. Invoices create and invoice paid for services rendered, all can be used to “prove” by the preponderance of evidence Obama was born when and where he states.

      * Independent of Hawaiian Health Department records

      • smrstrauss1 says:

        Poor loony David Farrar said: “But there are questions about when and where Obama was born. Thus far, the ONLY evidence Obama has produced to “prove” he was born when and where he states is a jpg posted on his website.”

        Answer: David, the evidence is overwhelming. Here is some of it:

        Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):

        http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

        Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a friend of Sarah Palin’s), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:

        http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

        Here is the statement of the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after being told of birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, of a child to a woman named Stanley:

        http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

        Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961:

        http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

        (And as you can see the section of the paper is called “Health Bureau Statistics”. Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)

        Here is the Index Data file:

        http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

        The above is some of the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Moreover, for there really to be RATIONAL questions (as opposed to nutty ones) about Obama being born in a foreign country, such poor loony nuts as David Farrar would have to answer this:
        For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

        (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

        (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

        (3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).

        (Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )

        Yet, David Farrar says that there are “questions.”

        • Now go through your list again and wipe out all the “confirmations” that used the Hawaiian Health Department records as their predicate. And while you are at it, erase all your speculations. We are just focusing on independent, corroborative evidence here.

          • smrstrauss says:

            The legal birth certificate of a state is sufficient, and the other confirmations are only additional to it. Apparently poor loony David Farrar thinks (why, he does not explain) that the birth certificate of Michigan was sufficient to prove Mitt Romney’s place of birth (and only a short form birth certificate at that) and yet additional confirming evidence to the birth certificate is necessary for Obama—-now, I wonder what the motive could be for that.

            Well, David, there IS additional evidence. The statement of the teacher who wrote home—for one. And I have shown a link to that.

            More importantly, why should any rational person require additional proof to Obama’s birth certificate when neither you nor any other birther can answer this:

            For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

            (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

            (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

            (3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).

            (Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )

          • Hearsay and speculation is all you have, admit it…now get this, to prove the President of the United States is qualified! By this time there should be an overwhelming amount of independent, corroborative evidence …books even, filled with pages of independent, corroborative evidence. And yet all you can offer is hearsay and speculation.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            There’s as much evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii as there is for the birthplace of any of our other presidents. In fact there’s more than most, in that the State where he was born has certified that he was born there. There’s no evidence that the child on that birth certificate is anyone other than the person in the White House with the same name.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Poor loony David Farrar said:

            “By this time there should be an overwhelming amount of independent,
            corroborative evidence …books even, filled with pages of independent,
            corroborative evidence.”

            It has been 283 years since George Washington was born, and there has not been “overwhelming independent corroborative evidence…books even” proving that he was born on US soil.

            It has been 206 years since Abraham Lincon was born, and there has not been “overwhelming independent corroborative evidence…books even” proving that he was born on US soil.

            It has been 132 years since FDR was born, and there has not been “overwhelming independent corroborative evidence…books even” proving that he was born on US soil.

            It has been 74 years since George W. Bush was born, and there has not been “overwhelming independent corroborative evidence…books even” proving that he was born on US soil.

            YET, poor loony David Farrar thinks that because it was POSSIBLE for the officials in Hawaii to make a mistake in issuing a birth certificate (but that there is not evidence that they actually did make a mistake) that for some reason there has to be more evidence than a birth certificate of a state (which, BTW, is legal evidence unless and until there is evidence to the contrary—and there isn’t any).

            What could David Farrar’s motive be in suggesting that the birth certificate of Hawaii MIGHT be wrong and demanding overwhelming evidence to support that birth certificate? He did not demand overwhelming evidence from Bush or for that matter Romney. And yet he thinks that because the officials in Hawaii MIGHT have made a mistake (BTW, they were Republican officials in 1961), that there has to be additional confirmation.

            And, he does not accept the statement from a Hawaii teacher that she had been told a child had been born to a woman named Stanley as additional confirmation—-and he does not accept the overwhelming improbability that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961 or the even more improbable idea that she both had one and traveled abroad late in pregnancy ALONE (since WND has proven that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) as additional confirming evidence.

            Poor loony David Farrar accuses me of relying on “hearsay and speculation”, but he is relying on nothing more than a fantasy that (1) Obama’s mother took an extremely unlikely trip abroad late in her pregnancy; (2) the birth certificate issued for Obama in Hawaii in 1961 was wrong.

      • YouAreJoking says:

        So you are saying that while an infant named Barack Hussain Obama II was born in Hawaii on that specific date, we have no proof that the person currently in the White House is that infant?

        Because your report says that birth certificates shouldn’t be used by companies as identification of an individual. It doesn’t say that documents obtained directly from the Department of Health in Hawaii shouldn’t be believed.

        • Health Department records are simply not the predicate document, unless one is born in the presence of Health Department officials. The natal hospital record is the predicatory documents from which the state Health Department produces its record. Sadly, Obama has thus far refused to allow access to those records. Failing this, some other independent, corroborative evidence must be put forward in order to “prove” the Hawaiian Health Department records are accurate. If you will remember, this is the very reason why Obama’s long-form birth certificate was demanded. It was assumed, wrongly, as it turned out, his long-form birth certificate would provide a wealth of independent, corroborative evidence that would substantiate the truthfulness of the Hawaiian Health Department records, and put this issue to rest, once and for all.

          • Burma Shave says:

            Sadly, you don’t have a clue. The natal hospital would not be the source of any records. I doubt my birth hospital still has my records and I’m the same age as President Obama.

            If you truly supported the Constitution then you would not continue to ignore the Full Faith & Credit Clause.

            Article IV, Section 1: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

            The hospital reports births to the Health Department and they create the birth certificate. Hospitals would not violate HIPPA laws.

            In the end, it doesn’t really matter what you think. You can live in your ignorance for the remainder of your life and continue to post on subjects for which you have absolutely no credibility to comment on.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Moreover, Farrar said: “Failing this, some other independent, corroborative evidence must be
            put forward in order to “prove” the Hawaiian Health Department records
            are accurate.”

            But in fact it works the other way. The birth certificate is, and must be, the unquestioned legal proof of birth facts UNLESS there is evidence to show that it is false. But there is no evidence that proves that it is false—-and it is absurd to think that there is even a rational chance of it being false since the chance that Obama’s mother took a long, risky (the incidence of stillbirths was high) and highly expensive trip ALONE (since WND has proven that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii all of 1961) is so extremely low.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Not to mention that travel to Kenya required a visa, which in turn required a vaccination for yellow fever within a short period of travel. Pregnant women could not get a yellow fever vaccination. source: Africa A to Z, A Guide for Travelers-Armchair and Actual by Kane, Robert S. 1961.

          • smrstrauss says:

            Well said, and good research.

          • Dave B. says:

            I don’t think anybody EVER assumed that ANY evidence would “put this issue to rest, once and for all,” for crackpots like you.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            No independent evidence must “prove” that the Hawaiian DOH records are accurate. The DOH is specificately tasked by the Hawaiian legislature to collect, compile, and administer birth records and to ensure their accuracy. The State officially determined in 1961 that every detail in their birth record for a certain infant was correct. The information in such records comes from hospitals or physicians or midwives, but the certification comes from the Vital Records office in the DOH. The State also licenses doctors, midwives, and hospitals. This is so that 50 years later, no one has to remember details of a birth, or go looking in archived natal records (which may no longer exist), or check credentials of witnesses, etc.

        • There is no evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. The Newspaper announcements don’t even have a name, just “son”. How do we know that Obama didn’t have a twin and that announcement was for him? JUS SAYIN, there is NO NAME! Can you take a birth announcement to MVA and get a license?

          LOLOL, NOPE!

          The birth certificate is a forgery, so you can’t go by that. And IF Obama was born here, why would he need to forge a birth certificate…

          Cause he was born in KENYA! WAKE UP!

          • Dave B. says:

            Is this your evil twin speaking, o non-birther?

          • smrstrauss says:

            Re: “cause he was born in Kenya!”

            Only 21 people total came to the USA from Kenya in the year Obama was born. TWENTY-ONE. And of the 21, all but one came by SHIP—and there were no direct ships from Kenya to Hawaii—making such a trip extremely unlikely, to say the least—and yet nutty birthers think that Obama was born in Kenya. And the Kenyan government has said that Obama was NOT born in Kenya. And birther sites LIED repeatedly when they said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya (she really said that Obama was born IN HAWAII in three interviews–THREE—of which birther sites showed their readers only part of one, cutting off the tape recordings on their sites just before she said: “in Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.”

            Moreover, as pointed out below: “…travel to Kenya required a visa, which in turn required a vaccination for yellow fever within a short period of travel. Pregnant women could not get a yellow fever vaccination. source: Africa A to Z, A Guide for Travelers-Armchair and Actual by Kane, Robert S. 1961.”

            The officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent the short form and long form BIRTH CERTIFICATES to Obama, and yes, you can take either or both of them to MVA and get a license.

            Re: “No name.” That’s right. The DOH of Hawaii, which issued the birth announcements said either son or daughter (except in the unusual cases of twins and triplets). Did you think that the DOH had to put down the name of the kid in the announcement in the newspapers. If so why?

            And, guess what, YOU have still not answered this:

            For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

            (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

            (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

            (3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).

            (Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )

          • YouAreJoking says:

            So basically you claim Obama isn’t eligible because he doesn’t meet the definition of natural born citizen because his father wasn’t a US citizen, AND he wasn’t born in the US? Seems a bit like you are grabbing at any reason to disqualify the man.

            Of course, 99.9 % of all lawyers in the US know that birth in the US makes one a natural born citizen, and that the Department of Health in Hawaii says that Obama was born there.

            There’s no there there.

          • Dave B. says:

            But she’s “not a birther.”

      • They don’t care about where Obama was born. Obama could admit it tomorrow that he was born in Kenya and the left would not even care!

        It’s like they have no soul, like they are zombies!

        • smrstrauss1 says:

          Apparently YOU care where he was born—and you DREAM that he was not born in the USA. Well, if you sincerely believe that, then you could answer this:

          For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

          (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

          (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

          (3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).

          (Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )

        • smrstrauss1 says:

          Two days have passed, and KenyanBornObama has not answered the question asked below. KenyanBornObama claims to care about where Obama was born, and yet KenyanBornObama will not accept the facts that show that he was born in Hawaii.

      • Reality Check says:

        David Farrar said:

        “A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded.”

        Please tell me you are smoking weed and didn’t really say something that stupid.

  7. The term “US citizen at birth” can be applied to two examples: The first one is US citizenship acquired naturally, without the reliance or need of positive law. The second is “US citizen at birth” acquired by statute, 8 U.S.C. 1401(g). US citizenship acquired by statute isn’t naturally acquired. Citizenship is an agreement, really; between the applicant and the state. A contract, if you well; whereby the applicant agrees to support and abide by the law, and, in return, the state, offers the benefits of supporting and abiding by the law. US citizenship has always required “consent”, always. It is the very cornerstone of the sovereignty of the People, and not the sovereignty of We the People. Only by consent can a sovereign become a subject to the sovereignty of We the People.

    • Dave B. says:

      You haven’t fixed your LIE about Luria yet, David. Who’s going to pay any attention to somebody who doesn’t care if he’s lying or not?

      • But I have over and over again. An Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born US Citizen is exactly how Chief Justice Waite described it: “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.”

        Please carefully note, as I explain somewhere below; the sentence: “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” contains the non-reflective phrase: “natives, or natural-born citizens”, and the reflective phrase: “aliens or foreigners”. You will note, a comma is used in the first example, it being a nonreflective phrase. It is added there because the writer believed the word he used, “native”, required further clarification as to the precise meaning the writer wished to present. Whereas, in the second phrase, as you can see, the write simply assumes both words carry the same intent: “aliens or foreigners”.

        So it is quite correct for anyone to use “natural born citizen” when quoting Lura, without changing any of its meaning.

        • Dave B. says:

          That’s just an illustration of the depths of your dishonesty, David. You simply have no shame at all, do you?

          • Look, Dave B,

            You are going to have to clean up your act a little bit here before I can respond to more of your lying comments.

          • Dave B. says:

            Look, David Farrar– you substituted a word in a quotation for the purpose of deception. What “lying comments” have I made?

          • Why the lie that I was lying, and we both now have agreed that I was not, so that leaves only you.

          • Dave B. says:

            Who agreed that you weren’t lying? Justice Van Devanter didn’t use the term “natural born”– he said “native.” You quoted the passage, citations and all, substituting one word for the other. That’s flat-out DISHONEST; you want to twist his meaning into your own weird, half-baked and utterly insignificant “natural law” nonsense. I don’t have a problem with equating native and natural born as Van Devanter did; he clearly meant to do so just as did Marshall, Waite and Gray in the cases he cited. But YOU didn’t let his own words stand, because you want to change their meaning to suit your own purposes. You LIED, and got busted on it, and you’re trying to weasel your way out of it.

          • Absolutely not. I use the phrase “natural born” to accurately reflect the actual intent of the writer and not that of the Reader, as I have laid out my case.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            So you don’t see that changing words within a quote is dishonest? It’s completely wrong. You assume you know the actual intent of the writer so you change his words without telling anyone. But iyou are using the quote to prove a point so changing the words is lying.

            The writer intended the actual words he used. Period.

          • Dave B. says:

            David pulls this kind of crap all the time.

          • Dave B. says:

            Wouldn’t it be easier to just admit Mario made a complete sap out of you?

          • Reality Check says:

            I don’t agree. You changed the wording on something you presented as a verbatim quotation. Isn’t that lying any way you cut it? Or if you just copied the lie from Apuzzo’s misquotation just admit that you did.

        • Dave B. says:

          I will, however, agree with you that Van Devanter’s meaning is unchanged. But do YOU make a distinction between native citizens– those who acquire US citizenship by birth in the United States– and natural born citizens?

          • It all depends on their “transfer of allegiance (i.e. consent)”. After all, we are discussing US citizenship here, not de Vattel’s “natural born citizenship”, or state citizenship, but federal citizenship.

          • Dave B. says:

            Trying to weasel out of that one? Are persons who acquire US citizenship by birth in the United States natural born citizens for the purpose of presidential eligibility?

          • Certainly those who acquire US citizenship naturally are. Those who acquire their US citizenship at birth via statute, are not natural US citizens at birth, but statutory US citizens at birth.

          • Dave B. says:

            Are persons who acquire US citizenship by birth in the United States naturalized?

          • If they acquire US citizenship at birth via positive law, they are not natural born US citizens. They are naturalized US citizens at birth.

          • Dave B. says:

            What the heck do you think “naturalization” IS?

          • That’s the only kind of “US citizen” Congress is authorized to make. It stands to reason then, if you are not an Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born Citizen, you are a naturalized US citizen at birth, via positive law. As you know, there are only two kinds of US citizens; those born so and those naturalized.

          • Dave B. says:

            Geez, I guess weaseling just comes naturally to you, David. I’ll repeat: what the heck do you think “naturalization” IS?

          • Look at the word: naturalization, naturalize. These are attempts by positive law to make a non-natural citizen, like a natural citizen.

          • Dave B. says:

            Attempts? Non-natural citizen? Good grief, David, This “natural law” nonsense really has you tied up in knots, doesn’t it?

          • WOW, REALLY? Naturalization is an act made by a govt to make someone a citizen. HELLOOOO, if it takes an ACT to make you a citizen, you are not NATURALLY a citizen!

            Mannn, get the rocks out of your head!

            Pursuant to natural law, you are a natural born citizen if both parents are citizens. That is the ONLY way to be born a citizen NATURALLY!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            We ask you to define terms because your track record on definitions is abysmal. Like thinking an amendment to the Constitution is a statute.

          • Dave B. says:

            More “natural law” nonsense.

          • Reality Check says:

            “Natural law’ is the argument of losers like Fair, Farrar, Nash, Apuzzo, Kerchenr and others. They make it because they take a position that is completely unsupported in US law.

          • WOW, it is nice to hear what you think of God’s law. I am sure HE loves to hear that from you.

          • Reality Check says:

            So you heard a voice in your head tell you the scary back man could not be President? That would explain a lot.

          • Why do you think Natural Law is in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?

          • Reality Check says:

            See my reply to Farrar above. No “action” is necessary for a native born citizen to be a citizen. Your arguments are just as obtuse, moronic, and idiotic.

          • You can see it in the word: “Naturalization.” The act of turning an alien into a natural citizen, to naturalize the person.

          • Dave B. says:

            All right, what the heck do you think an “alien” is?

          • Reality Check says:

            Native-born citizens are natural born and not naturalized citizens. No paperwork is necessary to establish citizenship other than a normal birth certificate. No action of law is necessary. Your arguments to the contrary are obtuse, moronic and idiotic. You arguments have been rejected by multiple courts including the one you made personally in your own state.

            The losing case filed by Ms. Fair met the same fate for the same reasons.

          • “Native-born citizens are natural born and not naturalized citizens.”

            Normally, this is true. If we were all subjects to one sovereign king at birth, nobody’s consent would be needed, except the king’s. But we are not talking about allegiance to a sovereign king. We are talking about allegiance to a set of written rules and laws we all, individually, and collectively, must support and abide by, thus, creating the only boundaries one must be born within, to be a US citizen at birth, naturally.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Dream on. Infants cannot give “consent.” And your notion that Locke held that parents gave the consent for their children merely by being citizens has not been supported. (BTW, you have not shown that Locke said anything at all like it yet. My recollection is that he did not mention parents much if at all.)

            So, once again the Wong Kim Ark decision and the Heritage Foundation book, and Black’s Law Dictionary and Senators
            Hatch and Graham and former Senator Fred Thompson are right—-and you are wrong.

            http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

            http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

            http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/

            http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

          • A natural born citizen is one born to 2 citizen parents. A native citizen can be a natural born citizen or could be someone that was born here to non citizen parents who later became naturalized. You are first a native American and after naturalization, you are a native American. Native just means that you are born in a particular place.

            If I went to Jamaica and had a child, my child would be native to Jamaica, but not a citizen, because they would have been born to 2 US citizen parents, giving them no divided allegiance and making them a citizen at birth, NATURALLY or according to natural law!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Re: “A natural born citizen is one born to 2 citizen parents.”

            Answer: So YOU dream. But the Heritage Foundation book is right, and you are wrong.

            “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.]

          • Dave B. says:

            You might want to check with the government of Jamaica about that, because unless the child’s father or mother possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to Her Majesty in right of her government in Jamaica and neither parent is a citizen of Jamaica; or the child’s father or mother is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy, your native Jamaican is going to be a citizen of Jamaica. You just really NEVER know what the heck you’re talking about, do you?

          • YouAreJoking says:

            A native born citizen is a natural born citizen. But I also believe that a child born to a US citizen abroad under certain conditions is also a natural born citizen as they are citizens at birth.

            The latter category isn’t a 14th Amendment citizen, though.

          • Dave B. says:

            I wouldn’t disagree with anything in that first paragraph. David, of course, would exclude some native citizens from being natural born. And I can’t say the second one isn’t so; but I agree with Justice Brennan that the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to persons “born or naturalized in the United States” ought to include “those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time.”

          • A native born citizen is an Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born Citizen only if born subject to no foreign powers.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            All native born CITIZENS (not all native born people because the children of foreign diplomats are excluded) are Natural Born Citizens. The Heritage Foundation book, and Black’s Law Dictionary and Senators Hatch and Graham and former Senator Fred Thompson and the Wong Kim Ark ruling are right—-and you are wrong.

          • This is pure state citizenship, where real boundaries exists, not federal citizenship, where pledges to support and abide by the US Const were required, just as they are still required today.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Once again, the Wong Kim Ark decision, and the Heritage Foundation book, and Black’s Law Dictionary and Senators
            Hatch and Graham and former Senator Fred Thompson and the Wong Kim Ark
            ruling are right—-and you are wrong.

            BTW, no child born on US soil has to take a “pledge.”

          • Dave B. says:

            Yeah, and you have to have one hand on your pet unicorn’s horn when you make those pledges.

          • Dave B. says:

            According to half-baked crackpots like you. In regard to native citizens, the United States doesn’t take other nations’ leftovers.

        • YouAreJoking says:

          When quoting a case, you must use the exact language in the case. If you say natural born and the case says native, you aren’t quoting the case. You can REFER to the case and substitute, but that’s not a quote. Justics Van Devanter said native. That could be because he equated native and natural born. Substituting within quotes without using brackets [ ] is dishonest.

  8. Burma Shave says:

    What Tracy has done is assured that her cert petition will be denied. SCOTUS only reviews cases and decisions of lower courts. A person petitioning the court can’t ask them to decide something that has not first been decided by the lower courts. Tracy is the Queen of the Birfers.

  9. By the way, in reading some of Mr. Apuzzo’s material, I ran across a very good definition at Common Law, of a natural born fubject, listed in Timothy Cunningham, A New and Complete Law-Dictionary, or, General Abridgment of the Law (1783) Page “ALI”, wherein it states under “I.” Who are aliens by the Common Law, or by Statute; and who isn’t:

    “All thofe are natural born fubjects whofe parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience of our King, and whose place of birth was within his dominions.”

    • YouAreJoking says:

      That’s a distillation of Calvin’s case. A child born to alien parents under the actual obedience of the King are natural born subjects. It doesn’t mean that the parents were subjects of the King, it means the city or county legally belonged to the King.

      https://books.google.com/books?id=03kyAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA610&lpg=PA610&dq=within+the+%22obedience+of+the+king%22&source=bl&ots=pEBM3vuRH2&sig=9bJilJjV0uzz4sZ2bTXP-akKiT4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wt_YVPCkPOrjsATYjICQBw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22obedience%20of%20the%20king%22&f=false

        • Well; I don’t know about you but: “1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King,” pretty well wraps it up for me.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Everybody in the country (except for foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies) had to obey the king. So, if you were in the country, and weren’t one of those, you were in the actual obedience of the king.

          • But we are one of those…we are all sovereigns, without subjects!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            IF there was a difference in the Natural Born status between citizens and subjects, meaning that citizens required more citizen parents than subjects (or vice versa), the writers of the US Constitution would have told us—but they didn’t.

          • YES they did. Article 2 section 1 clause 5 states that the President must be natural born. Article 1 Section 8 clause 10 says “The Congress shall have Power To …define and punish…Offences against the Law of Nations”
            If the President is not a natural born citizen as according to the Law of Nations, then the Law of Nations s being violated!

            HE NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Are you claiming that the law of nations mentioned in the Constitution is the book by Vattel?

          • smrstrauss says:

            Maybe KBC is, but it is a silly notion because if any single book were mentioned in the Constitution, that fact surely would have been mentioned in the Federalist Papers, and neither the book nor Vattel is mentioned. And, besides, the book is called The Law of Nations, and the Constitution capitalizes Law and Nations, but it does not capitalize The.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            But if you go to the UK, you are under the Queen’s jurisdiction and must obey her laws.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            And that’s where you run into trouble, David. The entry in Cunningham’s dictionary that you cite ends with “7. Co. 18. a.” That’s Calvin’s Case, the 7th report of Lord Coke. In this instance, “under the actual obedience of the King” means being in the territory of the King, AKA under the King’s jurisdiction. Everyone in the territory of the King had to obey his laws, except for ambassadors and invading armies.

            http://www.constitution.org/coke/Calvins_Case-7_Coke_Report_1a_77_ER_377.html

          • But the 14th does not include “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
            These offices were not included as US citizens because they are subject to another sovereignty. In other words, the US recognizes their allegiance to another sovereign, as it must with the sovereigns of this republic, We the people.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Putting [or] in there is dishonest and changes the meaning of the sentence to be opposite of what was originally intended. It only applies to foreign ambassadors.

          • Dave B. says:

            That is, unfortunately, par for the course for Dishonest David Farrar.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Re: Allegedly does not include “persons born in the United States who are foreigners….”

            Answer: Nobody born in the USA is a foreigner except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies. Therefore the exclusion “does not include foreigners” means the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies.

            The Heritage Foundation book is right (as is the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case) and the ten or eleven appeals courts and Senators Hatch and Graham and former Senator Fred Thompson and the Congressional Research Service and Black’s Law Dictionary and the current US Supreme Court, which turned down the Farrar case in Georgia. And you ARE WRONG.

          • You are entitled to your own opinion, but there are NO facts to back up that assumption!

            Anyone born here who is NOT subject to a foreign power is a citizen, Obama was a British Subject at birth, therefore subject to a foreign power!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            According to US law, the only people who are born here—repeat the ONLY people who are born here—are the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies. Everyone else, according to US law, owes total allegiance to the United States of America—-and can, and HAVE, been prosecuted for treason, if a person born on US soil fails in that allegiance. Dual citizenship at birth, or even later in life, does not alter that LAW in the slightest.

            “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.” —James Madion.

          • Read it AGAIN…
            “sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage”

            When your father is subject to a foreign power, it goes to parentage. When both parents are US citizens, it goes by place.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Read it AGAIN. He says that what applies in the United States is PLACE. And he does not say that two things apply. He states that PLACE applies, and that is all that he says applies. So not only in the definition of Natural Born Citizen but in the criterion for allegiance PLACE is what counts in the United States of America. Madison was well aware that OTHER countries had other criteria and that there were two criteria. But only ONE of them applies in the United States.

            Similarly, the Heritage Foundation book and Senators Hatch and Graham and the ten or 11 appeals court rulings all say that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies), and dual citizenship at birth (or even dual citizenship later in life) has no effect on that whatever. That is because the criterion of PLACE has been fulfilled, and they are right, and you are wrong.

          • Madison was speaking of state citizenship, according to the South Carolina state constitution, of which Mr. Smith was born. During Madison’s time the United States consisted of nothing more than an agreement between several independent sovereign states, written down on a piece of parchment. . It had no borders of its own. It existed of only words, In order to become a citizen of this union of states, you had to also agree to support and abide by those same words.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Yes indeed he was speaking of state citizenship. But he said that the one criterion of allegiance in the UNITED STATES (see the quotation above) was the place of birth. In other words he was talking about all 13 states. But the 14th Amendment makes all persons born in the United States (except for the children of foreign diplomats) citizens of the United States at birth—so our allegiance is now to the total country and not to New Jersey or Idaho. At the time Robert E. Lee was probably not a traitor, since he was loyal to his state. But that has changed.

            This discussion, however, is straying from the issue of Natural Born status—which is unchanged from the time that the Constitution was written. The “citizen” portion of Natural Born Citizen changed with the 14th Amendment, which made it national citizenship and defined by the PLACE of birth (the whole country). But the Natural Born portion is unchanged, and as the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, and the examples of Tucker and Rawle (who knew the writers of the Constitution) shows, the term comes from the common law and includes every child born in the country except for the children of foreign diplomats—the whole country, all 50 states and probably the territories.

          • Hogwash! The 14th Amendment did not change anything, and it certainly did not suddenly change natural born state citizenship into federal citizenship, into natural born US citizenship. There is no dispute and no discussion by the author of the 14th Amendment to suggest the 14th Amendment was written for any other reason than to “constitutionalize” the 1866 Civil Rights Act, nothing more and nothing less.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Re: “The 14th Amendment did not change anything…”

            Hogwash yourself. Here is the US Code on citizenship. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

            If the 14th amendment “did not change anything,” the US code would not be possible, since citizenship at birth would be determined by the states. But the 14th Amendment took the regulation of citizenship at birth (it always had power over naturalization) away from the states and made it a federal power. And, as the 14th Amendment states: “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…”

            You may not like that the 14th Amendment says that—-but it does. And the US supreme court has held that that means that every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies is a citizen at birth. You may not like that EITHER—tough.

            I agree with you that the 14th Amendment did not change the Natural Born part of Natural Born Citizen—only the citizen part.

            But, duh, it did not have to change the Natural Born part because that part ALWAYS included every child born on the soil of the United States. That was the way that Tucker and Rawle, two legal scholars who knew the writers of the Constitution (Rawle was friends with both Franklin and Washington) used the term. In fact, they used it exactly the same as it was used in the common law.

            “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)

            There was, BTW, no one author of the 14th Amendment. There were a lot of authors. One of them, however, was Bingham, who 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)”

            Another (on the Senate side) was Senator Trumbull, who 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 Consitution, 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).”

            And that is what the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, and that is what the Heritage Foundation book says, and that is what ten or eleven appeals courts have all ruled. And they are right, and you are wrong.

          • You need to understand my point, we, the people, are sovereigns. We are the offspring of sovereigns born in this country, every bit as sovereign as the offspring of a foreign ambassador born in this country. Allegiance cannot be bestowed by the state. As born sovereigns, we need to actually give our consent to become a subject of the sovereignty of We the people.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Do “sovereigns” pull their pants on any differently than subjects?

            I ask because if they are similar in the ways that they pull their pants on, then maybe they are similar in the number of citizen parents who are required in order to be Natural Born.

            You are saying that because sovereigns are different from subjects they require more citizen parents than subjects—-but if that were true, surely the writers of the Constitution would have spelled that out in their writings, and they never did.

            And we have the evidence of Tucker and Rawle (both of whom were perfectly loyal, and George Washington made Rawle a district attorney), that the term Natural Born Citizen has exactly the same parent requirements as Natural Born Subject—none.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Turning now to allegiance.

            Let us say that there is a guy named George, who was born in New Jersey of two German citizens. And because of their citizenship he was a dual citizen, and he went to Germany and lived in Germany, and during WWII fought for the Germans and was arrested by the US occupation after the war and tried for treason because of his place of birth. Are you saying that he was not guilty of treason?

          • Dave B. says:

            Your point is half-baked crackpottery.

          • Again, only sovereigns can consent to become subjects to the sovereignty of We the People, and only sovereigns can withdraw their consent. On this basis, the Heritage Foundation book is wrong, (as is the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case) and the ten or eleven appeals courts and Senators Hatch and Graham and former Senator Fred Thompson and the Congressional Research Service and Black’s Law Dictionary and the current US Supreme Court, which turned down the Farrar case in Georgia.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            So go and stand in front of the US Supreme Court and SHOUT, and when and if they notice you then tell us.

            As I asked below:

            Do “sovereigns” pull their pants on any differently than subjects?

            I ask because if they are similar in the ways that they pull their pants on, then maybe they are similar in the number of citizen parents who are required in order to be Natural Born.

            You are saying that because sovereigns are different from subjects they require more citizen parents than subjects—-but if that were true, surely the writers of
            the Constitution would have spelled that out in their writings, and they never did.

            And we have the evidence of Tucker and Rawle (both of whom were perfectly loyal, and George Washington made Rawle a district attorney), that the term Natural Born Citizen has exactly the same parent requirements as Natural Born Subject—none.

          • I think we both agree with John Jay’s observation that sovereignty resides with the People. As sovereigns then, consent, is the only possible way to become a member of the “Consent of the Governed”.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Since infants cannot give their consent, we do not agree. Moreover, if citizenship was based purely on consent, then a person born on the soil of the USA could never be tried for treason because she or he would simply say that they have given their “consent” to another country.

            GOVERNMENTS, not philosophers, make laws, and the final legal ruling on what the laws and the Constitution means is determined in the US Supreme Court. You say that it was wrong. Well, tough. (I say that it was right, and so did Tucker and Rawle and Bingham and Trumbull). But, regardless of what I say, or what you say, the US Supreme Court has the final decision, and its decision was and is that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen.

            BTW, sovereigns and subjects pull their pants on one leg at a time—no difference between them.

          • “Consent” is given for those below the age of majority by their US Citizen parents, as a natural right. This is why they are called natural born (US) citizens in the first place.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law, as the quotations of Tucker and Rawle (both of whom knew the writers of the US Constitution) show:

            “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)

            Moreover, under what nutty theory of “Natural Law” did you get the notion that parents give “consent” merely by being US citizens? Maybe some of them do not like being US citizens, yet you hold that they give their “consent” just because they ARE US citizens. And what makes the “consent” of a parent the same as the “consent” of the person herself or himself?

            In any case the US Supreme Court has ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen regardless of the citizenship of the parents at the time—-and it gets to make the final decision, not you. (And as the quotations from Tucker and Rawle show, not only did the Wong Kim Ark ruling make the legal ruling that is the current law in the United States, but it also made the right ruling.)

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Sovereignty resides in the people, but in the collective sense. Each person isn’t a sovereign individually.

          • Sovereignty resides in the people. As a sovereign collective, all must “consent” to become subjects to the sovereignty of We the People.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            The people did consent, when they ratified the Constitution.

          • Exactly, and as long as their “consent”, and only their “consent” to support and abide by the US Const., is inherited by their offspring, as is their natural right, and of which the word, “natural” represents, these are true Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born Citizens. Without such a transfer of “consent”, they cannot be birthright US citizens at birth

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Source??

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            He cannot give a source because he made it up. He is creating David Farrar’s “Natural Law” and not the Natural Law of Locke or Hume or Leibnitz or Hobbes, and not even that of Vattel. Moreover, IF the writers of the US Constitution were using that particular brand of “Natural Law”—they would have told us.

          • The political concept of Lockean consent-base citizenship was fully understood by the founders and framers of the US Const.. In fact, most viewed the liberalization brought about by the Glorious Revolution as the actual first revolution, forming the political foundation of the second revolution, the American Revolution.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Aaaaand the sources? For the contention end that it’s an individual consent and sovereinty.

          • It is contained in the promise made to us, and as adopted by the Second Continental Congress in their Declaration of Independence, that this government will be formed by none but the “Consent of the Governed”.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            But that’s not an individual consent, it’s a consent given by duly elected representatives to the Continental Congress and the legislatures of each state that ratified the Constitution. It’s a group consent.

            You asserted an individual consent, so that’s the sources I’m looking for. And by sources, I mean citations.

          • Of course it is. Only a free individual, a sovereign individual, an individual sovereign, acting as a free individual, can renounce any previous allegiances to any foreign powers they may have had on a singular basis.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            That’s only for a naturalized citizen.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            What does that have to do with infants born on US soil? (BTW, you have not shown where Locke said anything like parents passing on “consent” by merely being citizens or anything at all like it yet.)

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            The Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are create equal….” There is nothing in that (and guess what, there is nothing in the Constitution either), that holds that the US-born children of US citizens are of a higher ranking and able to become presidents because their parents somehow gave “consent” than the US-born children of foreigners. And that, BTW, is precisely how the two legal scholars who knew the writers of the Constitution wrote, that ALL who are born in the country are eligible to become president, not that only the children of citizens are able to become president.

            “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)

            And that is what the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case as well. And, guess what, it is right, and you are wrong.

          • 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) seems quite appropriate establishing state citizenship, but since, as you say: “Prior to the adoption of the constitution”…there were no US borders, or US land, or US jurisdictions… just words on a piece of parchment. This is why a public swearing was necessary; the taking of a public oath, to support and abide by the US Const. was done then and why it is still being done today, in fact, thousands of times each day.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            You are correct that prior to the 14th amendment, states had the power to set the rules on who would be citizens at birth, and some of them barred blacks from becoming citizens. However, that was the rule on citizenship. It was NOT the meaning of Natural Born.

            Both Tucker and Rawle used Natural Born exactly the same way that it was used in the common law. That is also what the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case—that the term came from the common law (not from Vattel or from your notion that Locke wanted parents to give their consent by being citizens [BTW, you have not shown that Locke really said anything like that at all].)

            And Tucker and Rawle and the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision are right, and you are wrong.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            David Farrar CLAIMS that John Locke allowed parents to make the consent for their children. And, worse, he claims that they did not have to give active consent but that the consent came simply because they were citizens. But HE HAS NOT SHOWN ANYTHING TO CONFIRM that Locke ever said anything like it, and my recollection is that Locke did not mention parents very much if at all.

            Come on Farrar, show where Locke went against the principles of the Declaration of Independence that “We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal…” and that Locke really held that the children born of citizens in a country are superior to the children born of foreigners in a country instead of them being EQUAL.

          • As reflected by l’Esprit de la Révolution, and articulated by the Declaration of Independence.
            Only sovereigns can “consent” to become subjects to the sovereignty of We the People.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            But where in the declaration is an individual sovereignty? And can individual modern citizens withhold consent?

          • The Expatriation Act of 1868 was an act of the 40th United States Congress regarding the right to renounce one’s citizenship. It states that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people” and “that any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government”*

            Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_Act_of_1868

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Expatriation allows one to opt-out and leave. But how does that answer the question?

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Do sovereigns pull their pants on any differently than subjects?

            I ask because if the sovereigns (citizens) pull their pants on one leg at the time just the same way that subjects do, there is no reason to believe that they are different in the number of citizen parents that citizens require in order to be Natural Born from the number of subject parents that subjects require in order to be Natural Born (which is NONE). .

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Here is the true ‘Esprit de la Révolution articulated in the Declaration of Independence:

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”

            And, obviously (to rational people, not perhaps to you), that spirit says that people are created equal, not that the US born children of US citizens are superior to the US born children of foreigners. IF the US-born children of US citizens were somehow superior at birth to the US-born children of foreigners in that the US-born children of US citizens were allowed to become president while the US-born children of foreigners were not allowed to become president, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—but they didn’t.

            Hence, since “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….” the US-born children of foreigners are just as able to become president as the US born children of US citizens. THAT is l’Esprit de la Révolution.

          • Dave B. says:

            Utter nonsense.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Two days have passed and so far there is no answer to the question whether sovereigns pull their pants on one leg at a time just like subjects do.

            IF they are the same in pulling their pants on one leg at a time, and you CLAIM that they are different in the number of citizen parents required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen, why did not the writers of the Constitution actually say that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen while NO subject parents were required in order to be a Natural Born Subject?

            Just maybe, there is neither a difference in the way that sovereigns and subjects pull their pants on AND there is no difference in the citizen parent requirements either.

  10. Reality Check says:

    You know Birthers like Farrar and Fair have no case when they primarily keep citing two of the handful of SCOTUS cases overturned by amendments to the Constitution.

    • No cases cited were overturned by the 14th Amendment! The 14th Amendment was only declaratory and was not forward looking. Moreover, it only dealt with slaves.

      hahaha WRONG AGAIN!

      http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/how.png

      • YouAreJoking says:

        So what will SCOTUS be saying when they deny cert on your case?

        • I really have no clue. What they should be saying is “We are as corrupt as the Obama administration and if we let your evidence be heard, you will prove most of the country WRONG”

          It’s the TRUTH, Sooooo

          • Reality Check says:

            Tracy if you are trying to outdo Farrar as the moron of the month you are leading right now but barely. You need to keep going and don’t look back.

          • Dave B. says:

            I don’t think you’re giving her enough credit there. After all, it’s her press release about her new “motion” that brought us here. But two examples of why I think she’s farther ahead, from comments to this article:
            That attempt to tie in Elk v. Wilkins with Obama’s descent from the Luo tribe.
            Her inability to interpret a simple index entry.
            And she’s just as confused on the common law as David. So I say while David has made a grandstand play or two, she’s been unflaggingly racking up the points.

          • Reality Check says:

            Good points Dave B. My nominee for most stupid Birther of all time though is Tracy’s hero convicted criminal Terry Lakin. Going to prison and pissing away a $2 million pension is going to be hard to top. Tracy would have to graduate beyond filing a frivolous lawsuit and trolling obscure comment streams like this one.

          • Dave B. says:

            That was just sad. Obviously Lakin wasn’t subject to the same limitations as most birthers, and he still fell for the same utter nonsense as the rest of them– and actually bet the farm on it. That does win the white carnation.

          • Reality Check says:

            I don’t think we repeat often enough how absurd it is to think that SCOTUS is going to act and base their opinion on probably the two worst decisions in US history. They were so bad and unjust that they both spawned constitutional amendments to overturn their holdings.

          • Dave B. says:

            It’s that doggone 20th century. Birthers just never did get the hang of that one. It cracks me up how they tout Alexander Porter Morse’s success in Plessy v. Ferguson to bolster his credentials when they use his papers on citizenship as references. They’ve got a real birther trifecta going there.

      • smrstrauss1 says:

        Re: “Moreover, it only dealt with slaves.”

        Dream on. It said “All persons…” ALL means all. It does not mean “only slaves. ” And, that, BTW, is the way that the US Supreme Court ruled what it meant and that is also what the Heritage Foundation book says that it means.

        Re: “It was not forward looking.”

        What a nutty idea. Do you think they would write an amendment to the Constitution that would not apply in the future? (Your lunacy is giving the right wing of the conservative movement a bad name for sanity.)

        BTW, the 14th Amendment did in fact overturn a Supreme Court case, the Dred Scott decision.

      • Reality Check says:

        Scott v Sandford was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments. Minor v Happersett was overturned by the 19th. I am not surprised a moron like Fair would be so ignorant of history.

        • Sorry, but Minor was never overturned! And Scot was not overturned because of the definition of a citizen but because blacks could not be citizens! DOH

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Well, Minor said women couldn’t vote. Yet they can today. What happened? The 19th Amendment overturned the holding in Minor.

          • Reality Check says:

            Exactly. What smrstrauss1 and YouAreJoking said is correct. It would take a moron not to comprehend that.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Re: “Scot was not overturned because of the definition of a citizen…”

            Actually, the Dred Scott decision was OVERTURNED by the 14th amendment because the definition of citizen used in the Dred Scott decision was replaced by the 14th amendment, which said: “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 Dred Scott decision had ruled that blacks were not citizens.

            From the Dred Scott ruling: “The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the “sovereign people,” and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described inthe plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and areconstituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not,and that they are not included…”

            THAT was reversed by the 14th amendment.

            The ruling that women could not vote was reversed by the 19th Amendment, as YouAreJoking notes below.

            Moreover, IF the Minor v. Happersett ruling had actually said that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen—-which it did not say; it only said that someone who had both citizen parents and birth in the country was a Natural Born Citizen for sure—-then the Wong Kim Ark ruling would have overturned it because it clearly says that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Maybe KBO is being tricky by saying the 14th didn’t overturn Dred Scott. The Civil Rights act of 1866 did.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            The reason for the 14th amendment—–as the movie Lincoln made clear with regard to the 13th Amendment—-is that an ordinary law or the Emancipation Proclamation cannot legally overturn a ruling of the Supreme Court, an amendment is required. So, it was the 14th that did the overturning.

          • Ok, so we got that is says BORN IN THE UNITED STATES and then it says “AND”, meaning something MORE than just born in the United States… now, tell me what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means, it obviously does not mean “born in the United States” as that would be redundant.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Re: “tell me what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means…”

            It means that the people who are not subject to the jurisdiction are not US citizen at birth. And who are the people who are not subject to the jurisdiction? Only the children of foreign diplomats, and members of invading enemy armies, and at one time some Indian tribes (which was changed by law in 1924 or 1925).

            That is all. Everyone else in the United State of America is subject to the compete, total and every way complete JURISDICTION of the United States of America.

            The Heritage Foundation book on the Constitution, and senators Hatch and Graham and Black’s Law Dictionary and the Wong Kim Ark decision and the ten or eleven appeals court rulings are right, and you are wrong.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            “Subject to the jurisdiction of” means born in the territory of the US and subject to its laws. That is everyone except ambassadors, invading armies, slaves, and Indians not taxed.

  11. YouAreJoking says:

    “§ 79. And so has been the uniform doctrine in America ever since the settlement of the colonies. 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 on Common Law and Constitutional Origins of the United States Constitution (1833) http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_common_law_origins_of_constitution.htm

    • YouAreJoking says:

      From Atticus Finch at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/02/the-english-common-law-and-the-american-revolution/#comment-349303

      And what is the language of the Constitution based on?

      Answer: English Common Law.

      You would have us disregard our common law heritage from the English in which Chief Justice Marshall observed “whose language is our language and whose laws form the substratum of our laws.” U.S. v. Burr 25 Fed. Cas. 55, no. 14,693 C.C.D.Va. 1807

      In fact, we are informed that “The framers of the Constitution were familiar with common-law concepts and the words and phrases employed by common-law lawyers.” In re Gannon, 27 F. 2d 362 , 363 (ED PA 1928)

      “In many cases, the language of the constitution and laws would be inexplicable without reference to the common law; and the existence of the common law is not only supposed by the constitution, but it is appealed to for the construction and interpretation of its powers. “ James Kent, Commentaries on American Law (1826) page 316

      And this is from your good buddy Chief Justice Moore of Alabama:
      “Our jurisprudence explains that old English statutes are a part of the common law. The statutes passed in England before the emigration of our ancestors, which amend the law and are applicable to our situation, constitute a part of our common law.” Ex parte HH, 830 So. 2d 21, 33 (Alabama 2002)( Moore, C.J., concurring)

      If the term in the Constitution “natural born” were to be construed other than its common law origin then in the words of Chief Justice Marshall “It is hardly conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our Constitution in the sense which has been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it. So far as the meaning of any terms, particularly terms of art, is completely ascertained, those by whom they are employed must be considered as employing them in that ascertained meaning, unless the contrary be proved by the context.” U.S. v. Burr 25 Fed. Cas. 55, no. 14,693 C.C.D.Va. 1807

      “Where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived” quoting Alexander Hamilton, Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429, 572 (1895)

    • As you will notice, your date of 1833 is before the Civil Rights Act definition was signed into law! Therefore the Civil Rights Act will override your “common law” assumption.

      • smrstrauss1 says:

        The Wong Kim Ark decision was made AFTER the Civil Rights Act definition was signed into law, and it says the same thing as Joseph Storey, that terms in the Constitution have to be interpreted in the light of the common law, and that in particular the term Natural Born Citizen come from the common law, and that it includes EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders.

        • Under English common law, there would be no right of expatriation, following the old Coken concept of perpetual allegiance at birth, without “consent”. Does this even remotely sounds like something that would propel American colonialist to stop plowing their fields and rush out and die on the battlefields of the American Revolution?

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Actually, what happened was the the colonists realized that they were NOT getting their rights under the common law. In short they liked the common law but hated the way that Britain was not obeying it. Moreover, we have the example of John Jay writing THE COMMON LAW into the first constitution of the state of New York, and I am told most if not all of the other colonies did the same thing—put the common law into their constitutions saying that it would be the law until changed by state legislation.

            And we have the examples of Tucker and Rawle, both of whom used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that Natural Born Subject was used in the common law. And that is what the Wong Kim Ark ruling says too—and it, and the Heritage Foundation book are right—-and you are wrong.

      • YouAreJoking says:

        Well, if the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights act of 1866 were merely declaratory of the existing law, that shouldn’t evidence of that existing law be relevant?

        This isn’t rocket science, KBO. The overwhelming evidence is that:

        1. The Colonies then the States used the English common law as the base for their own evolving common law.
        2. In the US, there have always only been 2 ways to be a citizen: natural born, and naturalized. That means born a citizen, or born an alien and later made a citizen.
        3. Practically no one except legal scholars and philosophers had heard of Vattel before 2008.
        4. For more than 200 years, every child has been taught that anyone born in the USA can grow up to be president.
        5. You have no idea what many words used in the debates and in history mean.
        6. SCOTUS will deny cert on your petition without recording their chuckles, eye-rolls, and guffaws.

        • While there are only two ways to become a US citizen; there are two ways to become a US citizen at birth, naturally or by man-made law.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            The only place that matters is for certain non-14th Amendment First Clause citizens, i.e. born outside the US to at least one citizen parent. SCOTUS is playing around with that these days, as in Miller v. Albright. Also there’s issues with donor embryos from non-citizens, etc. But born in the US, to anyone except the well-known exceptions, makes a natural born citizen.

          • If you are correct, the founders and framers of the US Const. would have said “Citizens at birth”, but they didn’t. They said: “natural born citizens”. The word “natural” means by natural law rather than by positive law. And there was, and is, a very good reason for insisting on only those who inherited their “consent” as a natural right rather than those who have acquired their US citizenship at birth by statute as a qualification for the Presidency of the United States.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            That is correct. They said “Natural Born Citizens”—just like “Natural Born Subjects” in the English common law.

            BTW, you have still not shown any quotation from Locke that says that parents give their “consent” for the children to become citizens or NB citizens or subjects or NB subjects or anything merely by their being subjects or citizens. I don’t think that Locke said anything like it at all.

            What he would have supported, and what was based on his ideas was: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal….” And, THAT certainly does NOT say that the US-born children of US citizens are able to become president while the US-born children of foreigners are NOT able to become president. IF the writers of the US Constitution had meant to go against the general principle that ALL men are created equal—the US born children of foreigners being equal to the US-born children of US citizens—they would have told us, but they didn’t.

            BTW, the US-born children of foreigners have fought and died for the USA in two world wars and there is not a particle of evidence that they were any less loyal than the US-born children of US citizens.

          • Nope, they said natural born Citizens as Citizens born according to natural law.

            You might want to research the declaration of Independence. We broke away from England and created our OWN laws, it’s called the Constitution! The Declaration states that we assumed Natural Law!

          • smrstrauss says:

            Nope, they said Natural Born Citizens as the American equivalent of Natural Born Subjects in the common law—the writers of the Constitution were mainly lawyers and justices who were steeped in the common law. And in the Declaration of Independence it says (perhaps you have forgotten): “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created EQUAL….”

            THAT statement, duh, does not mean that the US-born children of US citizens are superior to the US-born children of foreigners. They are not superior. They are equal, and the experience of two world wars have shown us that the US-born children of foreigners have been willing to fight and die for their country just as loyally as the US-born children of US citizens. And there is not a particle of evidence that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and the other writers of the US Constitution thought any differently.

            MOREOVER, the writings of Tucker and Rawle—two legal scholars who knew the writers of the US Constitution—shows that they used the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that Natural Born Subject was used in the common law. That meaning included EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats—so the US-born children of foreigners are indeed equal to the US-born children of US citizens and they are all eligible to become president at the age of 35—but, of course, you do not have to vote for the US-born child of a foreigner if you don’t want to. Other voters, however, have the right to vote for that person, and she or he has the right to become president if they win the election.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            In fact, there is only one way—according to the law. And the law, and the highest US law, the Constitution, is interpreted by the US Supreme Court, and it has ruled that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen—-and it is right, and you are wrong.

  12. YouAreJoking says:

    IN CONGRESS IN PHILADELPHIA

    October 14, 1774

    Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England.

    Resolved, N.C.D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.

    Resolved, N.C.D. 6. That they are entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their colonization; and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several local and other circumstances.

    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/decres.htm

    • These are Resolves…you don’t resolve for something you already have.

      • YouAreJoking says:

        No. In this case, the resolves were a formal laying out of principles. This document was the end product of the First Continental Congress. They passed this document on October 14, 1774, then sent it to King George, then disbanded. (Things didn’t turn out so well because of this document.)

        From the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp

        “Whereupon the deputies so appointed being now assembled, in a full and free representation of these colonies, taking into their most serious consideration, the best means of attaining the ends aforesaid, do, in the first place, as Englishmen, their ancestors in like cases have usually done, for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties, DECLARE,

        That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following RIGHTS:

        Resolved, N.C.D. 1.

        etc.

  13. YouAreJoking says:

    More from Sen/ Howard and Trumbull, etc.

    Senator Howard:

    “But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard.

    “A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws…..They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Senator Howard.

    Senator Trumbull:

    “And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father.” Senator Trumbull

    “the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens.” Senator Trumbull

    “I am afraid that we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”‘ Sen. Trumbull

    “Undoubably.” Sen. Trumbull (reply to Sen. Cowen’s question on whether native born children of Chinese aliens and Gypsies would be made citizens).

    “Every person born within the jurisdiction of a nation must be a citizen of that country. Such persons are called subjects of the Crown in Great Britain, in this country citizens of the United States. It is an entire mistake to suppose that there was no such thing as an American citizen until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. American citizenship existed from the moment that the Government of the United States was formed…. 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. That had been frequently decided in the United States. It has been acted upon by the executive department of the Government in protecting the rights of native-born persons of this country as citizens of the United States. It has been held in the judicial tribunals of the country that persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States. 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

    Senator Williams:

    “One Francois A. Heinreich, now resident in Austria, was born in the city of New York in 1850, of Austrian parents, who were then temporarily residing in that city, but who never became naturalized….As a general rule, a person born in this country, though of alien parents who have never been naturalized, is under our law deemed a citizen of the United States by reason of the place of his birth, (10 Opin., 321, 328, 329; and see also section 1 to the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.) But the article of the convention just quoted—the right of an American citizen to change his national character, and become a citizen of Austria—is clearly recognized; but it is required that he shall have had a residence of five years in that country, besides being naturalized there, before the United States are bound to consider and to treat the person so naturalized as an Austrian citizen. In the case under consideration, therefore, though the said Francois is a native of this country, and as such was originally clothed with American nationality, yet, he having resided in Austria uninterruptedly far beyond the period mentioned, the question submitted resolves itself practically into this inquiry, whether during that time he has acquired Austrian citizenship?” Senator Williams, as Attorney General

    • YouAreJoking says:

      And more:

      Some more quotes from the members of the 39th Congress that authored the 14th Amendment I would like Adrien to respond to. Does anyone doubt he will call the authors stupid and say what they wrote doesn’t count?

      “In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, “it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union” it was and is that “all children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” Rep. Lawrence.

      “This provision, I maintain, is merely declaratory of what the law is now…..The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” Rep. Wilson.

      “The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ‘subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.” Rep. Wilson.

      “On this question of citizenship, Mr. Marcy, while he was Secretary of State, in a note dated March 6, 1854, expressed himself as follows: ‘Although, in general, it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to express opinions of law, and doubts may be entertained of the expedience of making an answer to your inquiries an exception to this rule, yet, I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien, at the time of its birth.” Rep. Wilson.

      “This bill provides that all persons born within the United States, excepting those that do not owe allegiance to the United States government, as children of ambassadors of foreign powers, and such are not subject to our laws, and Indians not taxed who owe a tribal allegiance, are citizens of the United States.” Rep. Cook.

      “It is a principle of universal law that every person born in a country, and not a slave, is a citizen or subject of such country, and unless excluded by special laws is entitled to all privileges or citizens or subjects. ” Sen. Davis.

      “It is a rule of universal law, adopted and maintained among all nations, that they who are born upon the soil are the citizens of the State. They owe allegiance to the state, and are entitled to the protection of the State. Such is the law, whether you put it into this bill or not. So far as this declaration of the bill is concerned, it is but reiterating an existing and acknowledged principle of law.” Rep. Thayer.

      “Mr. Justice Curtis held that the Constitution of the United States assumes that citizenship can be acquired by nativity. That is the common law, that is the law of the civilized world, that he who is born in a country, and not made a slave at the moment of birth by any municipal law, becomes, by virtue of his birth, a citizen…” Senator Johnson.

      “The honorable Senator from Kentucky…forgets this general process of nations and or nature by which every man, by his birth, is entitled to citizenship, and upon the general principle that he owes allegiance to the country of his birth, and that country owes him protection. That is the foundation, in my understanding, of all citizenship…” Senator Morrill.

      “Why, all the world knows, the most unlettered of our people understand, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of any nation, or naturalized under its laws, is, by virtue of those facts alone, a citizen of that country in the fullest and amplest sense of the term.” Rep. Kerr.

      “Now where is the authority to except the native-born African from the application of the general rule of law that every native shall be a citizen of the country on whose soil he is born?” Rep. Raymond.

      “As a positive enactment this would hardly seem necessary….What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?” Congressman Broomall.

      “The freedmen of the United States are citizens of the United States; not citizens under the naturalization law, not citizens by virtue of any treaty, but citizens because they are born native to the soil.” Sen. Lane.

      “in other words to assert the axiom that every man born on American soil is an American citizen, and as such heir to all the rights, privileges and immunities or all other American citizen…Simply because the Constitution recognizes every man born in the United States as possessing the rights of sovereignty…Then, now, if the States have no power to elevate any man to citizenship, and Congress has no power to do so except exclusively in the case of aliens, does it not follow that citizenship is the natural, inherent right of every man born on the soil…” Rep. Newall

      “That article of Amendment is substantially that all persons born in this land, within the jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to complexion or previous condition are citizens of the Republic.” Rep. Bingham

      “I hold in my hand Paschal’s annotated edition of the Constitution, four pages and a half of which are filled with references to decisions of the courts, from .the beginning of the century until now, declaring in the plainest terms that all free persons, born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens thereof. A weak attempt was made in the Dred Scott case to exclude free colored persons from the rights of citizenship, but that feature of the opinion was in opposition to the main body of previous precedents and to all subsequent decisions. I will quote but one or two of the many declarations of our constitutional teachers. Chancellor Kent says: ” Citizens, under our Constitution and laws, mean free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress.” Rep. James Garfield.

      I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.” Sen. Johnson.

      “We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: “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.” Rep. Wilson.

    • You don’t seem to understand that a “citizen” is not the same thing as a “natural born citizen”!

      That is your problem!

      • YouAreJoking says:

        Clearly citizen and natural born citizen are different. A citizen can be natural born or naturalized. But born a citizen is the same as natural born citizen.

        • smrstrauss1 says:

          Well said. Here is how the Wall Street Journal put it:

          “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a
          “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural
          born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this
          notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical
          in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal
          (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

          • That post is exactly what we have been trying to tell you obots for years!

            A citizen at birth is a native citizen and also a natural born citizen, because a citizen at birth is one born to 2 citizen parents who have no prior allegiance.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            No a citizen at birth is simply one who was born in the USA OR born abroad to citizen parents. But both are not required.

            http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

            And ALL children born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

            “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction
            of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born
            of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary,
            Sixth Edition

            “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).

            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.”

            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.”

            The above quotations are right, and you are wrong.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            BUT YOUR DEFINITION OF NO PRIOR ALLEGIANCE IS WRONG.

        • Actually you are correct. Pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, a born citizen is one that is not subject to any foreign power, which IS the definition of a natural born citizen!

          The Founders only intended for natural born citizens (those born to citizen parents) and naturalized citizens (those made citizens by law) and nothing else. So anyone born here to parents who were NOT born to citizen fathers are not US citizens.

          John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment proves this by his 1862 speech on the House floor (image 1, last paragraph)

          http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/1862-Bingham.png

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Not by any stretch of the imagination can someone born here not be a citizen at all.

          • Of course they can. It is on the very same grounds as an foreign ambassador’s offspring being born here, when another nation also has recognized its claim of allegiance, and what the 1866 Civil Rights Act says, you cannot be a born US citizen subject to another foreign power’s claim of allegiance.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Those instances are 1. Ambassadors, and 2. Invading armies. Considering how numerous were the examples of aliens having children in the US compared to the first two instances, then where are the examples from the debates saying birth to aliens meant that the child would be alien?

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Ok, I left out the usual exceptions.

            Not by any stretch of the imagination can someone born here not be a citizen at all unless they are the child of invading armies or foreign ambassadors.

            ,

          • Or sovereigns, themselves.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Do sovereigns pull their pants on any differently than subjects?

            I ask because if they both pull their pants on one leg at a time—then there is no indication that the number of citizen parents that sovereigns require is any different (higher or lower) than the number of subject parents that subjects require.

          • You may not liike it, but that IS the law. Although the left have perverted the facts and truth (including Justice Gray), THAT IS THE LAW!

          • YouAreJoking says:

            So let’s look at the mechanics of that. Are you saying that anyone born here to alien parents must be naturalized? And that’s always been the case? Then let’s see some examples of paperwork. Instructions on how to naturalize children, for example. Because there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of children born here to non-naturalized parents who aren’t aware that they aren’t citizens. And since they aren’t aware of it, their children aren’t citizens either.

            You are blinded by hate, you know. And completely wrong.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Re: “THAT IS THE LAW!”

            Answer: BALONEY it is the law. You are dreaming it is the law, but it isn’t the law.

            And, if it were the law (which fortunately it isn’t), it would be a stupid law because it would mean that the US-born children of foreigners were a lower level of citizens than the US-born children of US citizens. But the US-born children of foreigners have fought and died for the United States of America in two world wars, and there is not a particle of a hint of evidence that they were any less loyal than the US-born children of US citizens.

            IN any case, it is NOT the law. And, BTW, that situation is not just a new thing, it was the same situation at the time that the Constitution was written, as the quotations from Tucker and Rawle (see them elsewhere in this page) show.

      • Dave B. says:

        That has to be the dumbest of all dumb birther straw men.

  14. YouAreJoking says:

    More from Ballantine:

    “…Senator Edmunds, one of the top lawyers in the 39th Congress, who was still around in 1898 and wrote Justice Gray after Wong Kim Ark saying he “interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment exactly as we the members of the Senate understood it at its passage.” Stephen R. Mitchell, Mr. Justice Horace Gary, pg. 162 (1961).”

    • Obviously Mr. Edmunds wasn’t paying attention during its passage. So, since I have researched the actual records of the passage (14th Amendment debates) I will show you exactly how it was interpreted, BY ITS AUTHORS!

      One month before Congress passed the 14th Amendment, they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The first line of the Civil Rights Act (image 1) reads as:

      ”all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”.
      http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CRA.png

      Once the bill passed the Senate, it went to the House for a vote on the bill, along with the citizenship clause that was recently added. John Bingham, author of the future 14th Amendment responded to the addition on the House floor by saying (image 2):

      “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” (1866 Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 1291)
      http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

      http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/I-find-no-fault.png

      Because the Civil Rights Act was not amended to the Constitution, Congress passed the 14th Amendment, which mirrored the Civil Rights Act and amended that Act to the Constitution, so it could not be changed without amending the Constitution.

      When introducing the 14th Amendment, Jacob Howard (the author) is on record (image 3) stating that the bill is only “declaratory” of what is already the law, so the 14th Amendment changed nothing to the Civil Rights Act definition.

      “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2890)
      http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

      NOTICE ABOVE THE “BY VIRTUE OF NATURAL LAW”

      http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/declaratory2.png

      When Senators questioned what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant he replied by stating (Image 4)

      “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. ‘ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. ‘What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893).
      http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

      http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/not-owing-allegiance-trumbull1.png

      We even have Rep John Bingham (author of the 14th Amendment) 4 years earlier on record in the house (image 5) stating:

      “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)
      http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680

      http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/1862-Bingham.png

      NOW THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE 14th AMENDMENT AT THE TIME OF IT’S PASSAGE!

      • YouAreJoking says:

        We all agree with those quotes. But again, you are missing the definition of “not subject to any foreign power”, “owing allegiance to no other sovereignty”, and “subject to the jurisdiction of.” Your job is now to find definitions of those that don’t include any of the other terms. (Those would be circular references.)

        Because we (and pretty much every source, court ruling, and lawyer ever) say that those phrases include everyone born in the US except ambassadors, invading armies, and certain Indians.

        • Sorry Penny, but you are wrong wrong wrong!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            The Heritage Foundation book and Senators Hatch and Graham are right, and you are wrong.

            “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.]

            “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)

      • Dave B. says:

        That’s what you say. But you’re a nut.

      • smrstrauss1 says:

        Under US law NO person born in the USA is subject to any foreign power except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies. Every person born in the USA except for the two exceptions is legally subject to the USA and the USA only, and if she or he fights against the USA without renouncing their US citizenship, they can be tried for treason. So, the “not subject to a foreign power” line has no effect on citizenship or Natural Born Citizenship (except for the children of foreign diplomats and invading armies).

        • This is incorrect. The US isn’t alone on this planet; there are other sovereign nations. Of course the US recognizes the birthright of other nations as we seek recognition of our own in theirs. A person born of different allegiances would be subject to another foreign power by birth as a matter of international law, and remains until “consent” is given or taken away by the free, individual sovereign.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            But within our boundaries, we don’t care about who other nations consider to be citizens. While in our country, EVERYONE is within our jurisdiction (except for ambassadors, etc.) Brits can’t commit certain crimes and get away with them, Saudis aren’t subject to stricter laws while they are here. As for dual citizens, they are subject to US jurisdiction while they are here and the other country’s jurisdiction while they are there. In-between it depends on which passport they travel under.

            Try breaking drug laws in Thailand, or gun laws in Mexico. US citizenship makes no difference.

          • As our commander in chief is an elected office from among all natural born citizens, yes; we do care if another nationality claims allegiance. This was exactly the point of Jay’s letter to G. Washington.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            No. John Jay was not part of the Constitutional Convention, but Washington was. Jay had heard the rumors swirling around Philadelphia that we were going to invite a prince or noble from a European country to be our leader. To eliminate that possibility, Jay suggested a natural born citizen. Jay was an expert in the common law and knew what that meant, as did Washington. It meant born in the country (or in the colonies in this case).

          • US citizenship, from its very beginning, has always required free, individual, consent, always. You are quite incorrect in your little story of Jay’s letter to G. Washington. As you say, Jay was in New York at the time and at the time of this letter writing completely unaware of the fact that the office of the presidency would include the commander in chief of the nation’s armed forces. Jay underlined the word “born”, that is born a US citizen by consent, and not by an accident of birth, to be the commander in chief of this nation’s armed forces.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Lock on consent of the governed:

            Second Treatise
            of Government (1689)
            “§. 119. The difficulty is, what ought to be looked upon as a tacit consent, and how far it binds, i. e. how far any one shall be looked on to have consented, and thereby submitted to any government, where he has made no expressions of it at all. And to this I say, that every man, that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it; whether this his possession be of land, to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for a week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on the highway; and in effect, it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the territories of that government.”

          • So you now admit: “consent” by a free, sovereign, individual, is required for US citizenship; do you not?

          • YouAreJoking says:

            In that passage, Locke was talking about tacit consent, not affirmative consent. I don’t know enough about Locke’s beliefs to go further than that.

            But I don’t believe in an individual sovereignty or an individual consent of the governed. John Jay wrote of Joint Sovereignty. That makes much more sense.

          • Joint Sovereignty, between whom — just to be clear — in Jay’s letter?

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Chisholm v. Georgia, John Jay separate opinion.
            “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

            Chisholm v. Georgia is tricky to use as the holding was overturned by an amendment, but Jay’s opinion stands.

          • “… but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

            Jay’s opinion here pretty well sums it up for me as well. “Sovereign consent” must be affirmatively given to become joint tenants with the sovereignty of We the People.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            The quotation does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that citizens (or Natural Born Citizens) inherit their citizenship or Natural Born Citizen status from their parents, or that the fact that parents were citizens gives “consent” for the children to become citizens or Natural Born citizens.

            Infants are not capable of entering into a contract, and yet by US law they are Natural Born Citizens at birth because that was the rule under the common law as well. BTW, you still have not shown where Locke has said that citizen parents gave their consent for their children to become citizens or Natural Born Citizens merely because the parents were citizens.

          • Not as sovereigns though. You seem to forget this aspect of a free, sovereign individual and a subject, to which we have both already agreed would require no consent, but an accident of birth.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            All citizenship at birth relies on one of two kinds of accidents, the accident of being born in a country (jus soli, which is the rule in the United States), or the accident of being born of citizens or subjects that country (jus sanguinus, which is the law in many European countries and Japan). NO country requires both just soli AND jus sanguninus for anything. (There is no evidence whatever for the birther claim that both jus soli and jus sanguinus are required to be a Natural Born Citizen.)

            So, the definition of citizenship at birth always requires an accident of birth. Only naturalized citizens CHOSE the country that they become citizens of—and since “consent” is so important to you (BTW, you STILL haven;t shown where Locke said any such thing), then NATURALIZED citizens should be the ones who become president.

            But the writers of the US Constitution did not say that infants required consent in order to become either citizens or Natural Born Citizens, and Tucker and Rawle used the term Natural Born Citizen the same way that it was used IN THE COMMON LAW—-and that refers to citizenship at birth and includes ALL children born in the country (with the usual exceptions).

            Infants are NOT “free, sovereign individuals,” and yet every country has rules about them automatically becoming citizens at birth. Oh, and by the way, I see that John Jay said that citizens were EQUAL in the Chisholm v. Georgia ruling—-and that certainly does not mean that the US-born children of US citizens are superior to the US-born children of foreigners.

            BTW, do sovereigns pull their pants on any differently than subjects?

            I ask because if they both pull their pants on the same way—one leg at a time—then there is no evidence that the number of citizen parents that sovereigns require is any different from the number of subject parents that subjects require.

          • Hogwash! There are only two ways to acquire US citizenship at birth; naturally or by positive law.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Hogwash! EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen.

            “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.]

            “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)

            They are right, and you are wrong.

          • Each individual state is, and has always been, a sovereign entity within the union.

          • Locke was talking about natural law, and natural consent. We are talking about affirmative consent to support and abide by the US Const.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            And yet you have CLAIMED that John Locke said something about PARENTS giving their consent to their children to become citizens or Natural Born Citizens merely by the parents being citizens. THAT is what you claim—but you have not shown that he wrote anything like that at all.

            Locke, BTW, was a strong believer in the principle that we declared in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” And that, for sure, does not indicate that Locke, or the writers of the US Constitution (or John Jay, who said that citizens were EQUAL in the Chisholm v. Georgia ruling) believed that the US-born children of US citizens were superior in their presidential eligibility to the US-born children of foreigners.

          • Consent, Locke’s second treatise on civil government , consent-based citizenship.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            And just where did Locke say that “consent” was “inherited?” (YOU made it up, didn’t you???)

          • Locke established the case of citizenship by “Consent”. The actual content of the “consent”, in the case of US citizens, after the adoption of the US Const., was to support and abide by the US Const., and, in the case of juveniles, their “Consent” is given under the cloak of allegiance by the very sovereign creators of the citizen, the US citizen parents.

            It is either Locken consent, or Blackstonian subjectship without consent.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Link, chapter and paragraph please.

          • By l’Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence, US Const., de Vattel, George Mason, and my personal favorite: Dr. David Ramsey, to name a few.

            Again, there is no debate, equality before the law requires free “Consent” by a sovereign. So it’s either Locken consent or Blackstonian subjectship; would offer the stronger resistance to foreign intrigue, as implied in Jay’s “hint” to G. Washington, Chairman of the 1787 Constitutional Convention?

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Link, chapter and paragraph please.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            The spirit of the American Revolution is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….” And that statement is, for sure, not the slightest bit of evidence that the US-born children of foreigners are a lower class of citizen than the US-born children of US citizens.

            BTW, sovereign citizens and subjects pull their pants on one leg at a time, and—since there is no difference in that or a million other ordinary things in life—there is no evidence that sovereign citizens and subjects require a different number of citizen/subject parents in order to be Natural Born either.

          • Allowing the state to bestow US citizenship, as a birthright, without “Consent” isn’t equal, it isn’t government by the “Consent of the governed”, and represents one class of US citizen over another, when all US citizens must “Consent” to support and abide by the US Const.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”

            THAT for sure does not say that the US-born children of US citizens are superior to the US-born children of foreigners. Just as importantly, IF the writers of the US Constitution had wanted that the US-born children of US citizens to be eligible to become president and the US-born children of foreigners NOT to be eligible—-they would have said so in plain words.

            (And they would have written essays about “consent”—including the idea (which you claim but there is not evidence that Locke or the writers of the Constitution believed it) that parents give consent for their children to become citizens (or Natural Born Citizens) merely by the parents being citizens.

            Tucker and Rawle are right….

            “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)

            …and you are wrong.

            Senators Hatch and Graham and the Heritage Foundation book are right….

            “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.]

            “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)

            ….and you are wrong.

          • “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…””…that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the “consent of the governed”.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Infants cannot give “consent.” And your nutty notion that their parents give consent for the children to be citizens or Natural Born Citizens merely by the parents being citizens has no legal or philosophical support whatever (where is the evidence that Locke said anything like it?).

            In short, Tucker and Rawle were right:

            “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 ONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

            And so was the Heritage Foundation book:

            “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.]

            And so were the ten or eleven appeals court rulings and the US Supreme Court ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case. And you are wrong.

          • Oh there you are Penny, I was looking for you!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Poor David Farrar. He THINKS that Locke said something about parents giving “consent” for their children to become citizens (or Natural Born Citizens) and did so merely by their being citizens. But David Farrar has not been able to find a single quote to support that nutty dream.

            What we KNOW is that Locke believed that all men were EQUAL, not that some were superior to others because of class or noble birth.

            Yet David Farrar thinks that because of his notion that Locke held that parents gave “consent” for their children to become citizens (or Natural Born Citizens), that Locke must have believed that the US-born children of US citizens were superior simply because their parents had been naturalized or born in the country, to the ranks (which at one time numbered MILLIONS) of children born in the USA before their parents became citizens.

            In other words, Farrar thinks that some children are superior to other children—not that they are equal under the law.

            And, without any evidence whatever, he thinks that Locke thought so too (but of course, he cannot show a single quote to back that up), and—worse still—he thinks that George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and the other writers of the US Constitution thought so too—-although, once again, there is not any evidence to back this up. He would like to convince a few gullible souls that Adams and Jefferson and Franklin wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”—-but that the men who wrote the US Constitution did not think that the US-born children of foreighers were equal. They were, so David Farrar dreams, of a lower class of citizen at birth—-who can never become president because their parents did not give “consent.”

            Well, Locke never said anything like that, nor did Jefferson or Adams or Franklin or Washington. And MILLIONS of US-born citizens, whose parents were not naturalized before they were born, fought and died in two world wars, and there is not a particle of evidence that they were less loyal than the US-born children of US citizens.

          • smrstrauss says:

            Eleven days have passed since David Farrar was asked to show where Locke said that citizenship or Natural Born status or subject status or Natural Born Subject status was done by parents giving “consent” for their infants to be one or all of those things merely by their being subjects or citizens. And so far David Farrar has not shown anything. (Frankly, I think he made it up.)

          • smrstrauss says:

            Nine MONTHS have passed, and David Farrar still has not shown where Locke (or for that matter any philosopher) said that parents gave the consent for their children to be citizens or natural born or Natural Born Citizens or Natural Born Subjects—-or anything. Frankly, I think David Farrar made it all up.

          • So what are you saying: so are not familiar with Locke’s doctrine of government by consent?

            Locke insisted: “A Child is born a subject of no Country and Government. He is under his Father’s Tuition and Authority, till he come to Age of Discretion; and then he is a Free-man, at liberty what Government he will put himself under; what body politick he will unite himself to.”*

            * Source: http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0701/article_593.shtml

          • smrstrauss says:

            Locke’s doctrine was that PEOPLE consent, not their parents.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            There is certainly nothing in the above that says that PARENTS give the consent for their children to be citizens or Natural Born Citizens or subjects or Natural Born Subjects simply by the parents being citizens or subjects. You made it up.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            No, Jay was referring to the common law definition of natural born. No one doubted that the definition was born in the territory of the country, parental status didn’t matter. No one viewed it as an “accident of birth” — it was how citizenship worked.

            Jay also proposed an amendment saying that only natural born citizens who were freeholders, or who were citizens of the US since the Declaration of Independence, could be President, Vice President, or members of either house of Congress (plus some national offices). He never mentioned anything about parental status, or consent.

          • So which “common law” are you referring too: the one in Minor: “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.”

            Or Blackstone’s Coken concept of perpetual allegiance from birth, without consent?

          • YouAreJoking says:

            There’s no difference between the two. Both were referring to the English common law. Blackstone was commenting on the English common law. We diverged from the ECL as American case law evolved. Being able to renounce allegiance was an American innovation.

          • Expatriation, is a function of “consent”, neither of which were supported by English common law, and are, in fact, self-evident truths; are they not?.

          • Dave B. says:

            So being born in a particular location is an accident of birth, but being born to a particular set of parents…isn’t?

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Re: “what Jay is saying here…”

            John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States, was an expert in the common law, and what he was saying was that the president should be a Natural Born Citizen using the same definition as Natural Born Subject in the common law—-and there is not a particle of evidence to the contrary.

          • But Chief Judge Waite, using the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, had already told us that, without doubt, all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were * natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

            * I have taken the word “natives” out of the Minor decision since to Chief Justice Waite it means the very same as a natural born citizen.

            However, with the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “natives”, one that differs from a natural born citizen. They have since been trying to interject their present definition into the Minor decision to support their position that mere natives, those living in the land of their birth, irrespective of their parents’ citizenship, or birth, are natural born citizens.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Re: “without doubt, all children, born in a country of parents who were its
            citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were
            * natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

            And, without doubt, if you wear both suspenders and a belt you will hold your pants up. But, guess what, suspenders alone works, and a belt alone works.

            And, guess what, ChiefJustice Waite did not say that BOTH born in a country and citizen parents are REQUIRED. He just said that having them both made you a Natural Born Citizen without question.

            When you find a Supreme Court ruling that says that having both birth in the country AND citizen parents is REQUIRED, then let us know.

            BTW, you showed only part of what Justice Waite said:

            Right after you stopped quoting, he said: ” 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.”

            Well, the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER the Minor v. Happersett case, and it SOLVED THE DOUBTS.

            Re: “Do you consider yourself a citizen in a Republic or a subject to the sovereignty of We the People?”

            Answer: I consider that what the Supreme Court says is the law in this republic, and there is no question whatever that the key ruling on Natural Born Citizen status is the Wong Kim Ark ruling, and there is no question whatever that it said that the term Natural Born Citizen came from the common law and that it includes EVERY child born on US soil—–except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies.

            So much for what the law in this REPUBLIC is.

            In ADDITION, I also consider it to be right. That is because the Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal…..”

            And THAT statement, for sure, is not saying that the US-born children of US citizens are superior than the US-born children of foreigners in that the first group of children are eligible to become president and the second group of children (millions of whom fought and died for America in two world wars) are not as good as the first and not eligible to become president.

            IF the writers of the US Constitution wanted to tell us that some US-born citizens are able to become president while other US-born citizens are NOT able to become president, they would have told us—-but they didn’t.

            The Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Heritage Foundation book are right, and you are wrong. And, BTW, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal…” is far more significant than your dreams about parents giving “consent” for their children to become citizens or NB Citizens merely by the parents being citizens—-which, BTW, you claimed came from Locke, but have never supported with evidence.

          • Being an Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born Citizen without question is the only criteria John Jay had in mind when he first suggested that the office of the commander in chief of the nation’s armed forces should not devolve on anyone who wasn’t a natural born Citizen without question or doubt, as anything else would be a weakening or of more doubt.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Yes, and he was an EXPERT ON THE COMMON LAW, and he was referring to the common law definition of Natural Born Subject.

          • Listen to me this time and inwardly digest its meaning; John Jay’s “intent” was to protect the office of the commander in chief of the nation’s armed forces from falling into the hands of someone who was not “loyal” to the ideals of the American Revolution. Now you and I know there is no way to guard against this from happening all the time, every time. The best that can be done is to adopt the most stringent criteria proposed, and of the two, the one requiring the father to be the US Citizen, which, at that time, was the only one of importance, would have been the one generally understood by the delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention,. i.e., the offspring of American patriots, just as Dr. Ramsey had observed.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Re: “The best that can be done is to adopt the most stringent criteria proposed…”

            IF John Jay had wanted to adopt the most stringent criteria—birth on US soil AND two citizen parents—he would have said so. But he didn’t. He only said” Natural Born Citizen”—and since he was an expert in the common law, he did not adopt some new meaning of Natural Born OTHER than the one in the common law.

            “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.]

            “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)

            THEY are right, and you are wrong.

          • Dave B. says:

            Another example of Lyin’ David Farrar’s deep-seated dishonesty.

          • Dave B. says:

            Children of two US citizen parents can STILL have other nationalities, David.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            For the purposes of US law their having other nationalities has no effect whatever on their citizenship or their Natural Born Citizen status. BTW,. the first presidential candidate of the Republican Party, James C. Fremont, was a dual citizen of the USA and France (French father who was never nationalized and never wanted to be). And he proudly proclaimed those facts in his CAMPAIGN BIOGRAPHY—-and, duh, if he had a hint that dual nationality had any effect on his eligibility to be president, he would certainly not have put it in his campaign biography. More importantly, the US Supreme Court said “EVERY child”—not every child except for the children of foreign citizens.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            YouAreJoking is correct. Under US law any child born on US soil is considered to have allegiance only to the USA, and a child born on US soil who happens to be a dual citizen can be tried and convicted for TREASON if he fights against the USA. That is the law, so obviously dual citizenship does not count in the law, and it clearly did not count to the writers of the US Constitution either, since the Tucker and Rawle quotations show that they were referring only to the place of birth and said that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen—-which is what the US Supreme Court ruled too.

            Re “consent.” You still have not shown where Locke said that parents gave the consent for their children to be citizens or natural born or natural born citizens or subjects or anything. The Declaration of Independence is based on Locke’s ideas, and it says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….” And THAT certainly does not say that the US-born children of US citizens are superior to the US-born children of foreigners.

          • But the US also recognizes the allegiance of other nationalities, as we require other nations to recognize our own; this is the difference between state citizenship and US Citizenship, a point I am not at all sure you have inwardly understood.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            How? Give examples.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Specific examples, please. Just saying so doesn’t make it so.

          • By treaty agreements, amity clauses, etcetera, based on International law

          • YouAreJoking says:

            Citations, damnit. You are getting a failing grade in this class.

          • The record speaks for itself; do your own homework.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            YOU are the one asserting something. YOU are the one who is supposed to come up with citations supporting your position. Your actions say that you are wrong, that you can’t find anything.

          • Dave B. says:

            Gosh, David Farrar can’t back up something he said. Stop the presses.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            And, he still has not shown where Locke said that parents gave the
            consent for their children to be citizens or natural born or natural
            born citizens or subjects or anything—and that they gave consent by merely being citizens or subjects. Frankly, I do not believe that Locke ever said it.

          • YouAreJoking says:

            According to the US State Department:

            U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another nationality does not risk losing U.S. nationality. However, a person who acquires a foreign nationality by applying for it may lose U.S. nationality. In order to lose U.S. nationality, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. nationality.

            Intent can be shown by the person’s statements or conduct. The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.

            However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. nationals, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. nationality. Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose nationality.

            http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-and-dual-nationality/dual-nationality.html

          • Come back Penny, where did you go lolololol

          • YouAreJoking says:

            I prefer to go where people don’t put my real name online.

          • hahaha Yeah, payback is a bitch ain’t it?

            What comes around goes around!

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            Our law holds that any child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen REGARDLESS of other nations’ laws. No other nation can take away the right of a child born on US soil to be a Natural Born Citizen. That is the law, and it is not affected in the slightest by someone being a dual citizen.

            BTW, you STILL have not shown where Locke said that parents gave the consent for their children to be citizens or natural born or natural born citizens or subjects or anything. Frankly, I do not believe that he said it.

          • smrstrauss says:

            NINE days have passed, and David Farrar still has now shown where Locke (or for that matter any philosopher) said that parents gave the consent for their children to be citizens or natural born or Natural Born Citizens or Natural Born Subjects—-or anything. Frankly, I think David Farrar made it all up.

          • smrstrauss says:

            More than two weeks have passed have passed, and David Farrar still has now shown where Locke (or for that matter any philosopher) said that parents gave the consent for their children to be citizens or natural born or Natural Born Citizens or Natural Born Subjects—-or anything. Frankly, I think David Farrar made it all up.

          • WRONG, there is NO law that says that! LIAR!

          • smrstrauss says:

            A ruling by the US Supreme Court is the law.

        • RamboIke says:

          Mexico claims their illegal invaders in America and their offsprings as citizens of Mexico.

          • smrstrauss1 says:

            So?

            In the United States of America what counts is US law. Dual citizenship has no effect. So long as a child is born on US soil, and is not the child of a foreign diplomat or a member of an invading enemy army, under US LAW she or he is a Natural Born Citizen. The claims of other countries have no effect on that whatever.

            “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.]

  15. YouAreJoking says:

    From The Constitution of the United States : defined … . Paschal, George W. (George Washington), 1868

    The term citizen, as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law; and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been changed from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a subject of the king is now a citizen of the State. (The State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Batt. 26)

    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, the the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassador represents, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property and not persons. (2 Kent’s Com. 3d ed. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke; 1 Black. Com. 366; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. Rep. 139.)

  16. Reality Check says:

    On February 6th Maryland waived its right to respond to Fair’s application for Writ of Certiorari at the Supreme Court. For those who do not know this is the kiss of death for the case. It means that the cert pool of clerks has reviewed the case and that it will go on the dead list of cases when it is up for a conference in a few weeks. This procedure is in place to prevent government attorneys wasting time and money writing responses in cases that have no chance to be considered.

    This case was so defective in many ways the denial should not be a surprise to anyone.

    Sorry Tracy. You lose – again.

  17. cfkerchner says:

    Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961) and Similarities to Ted Cruz’s Foreign Birth Status: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2015/10/05/montana-v-kennedy-366-u-s-308-1961-and-similarities-to-ted-cruzs-foreign-birth-status/ CDR Kerchner (Ret) – http://www.ProtectOubLiberty.org

  1. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  2. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  3. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  4. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  5. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  6. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  7. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  8. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  9. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  10. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  11. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  12. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  13. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  14. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  15. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  16. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  17. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  18. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  19. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  20. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  21. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  22. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  23. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  24. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  25. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  26. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – Both a copy of the Petition and the Supreme Court Docket for Case No,: 14-933 are online. […]

  27. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – Both a copy of the Petition and the Supreme Court Docket for Case No,: 14-933 are online. […]

  28. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  29. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  30. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  31. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  32. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  33. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  34. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  35. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  36. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  37. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  38. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  39. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  40. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  41. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  42. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – Both a copy of the Petition and the Supreme Court Docket for Case No,: 14-933 are online. […]

  43. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  44. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  45. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  46. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  47. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  48. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  49. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  50. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  51. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  52. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  53. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  54. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  55. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  56. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  57. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  58. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  59. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  60. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  61. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was ineligible conceding that point was now moot. Instead, Mrs. Fair raised the question of the eligibility of declared Presidential … […]

  62. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  63. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  64. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  65. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  66. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  67. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  68. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  69. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  70. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  71. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  72. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  73. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  74. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  75. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal by the 14th Amendment, Ted Cruz by statute.” As most all know, under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution: “No person except a natural born Citizen . . ., shall be eligible to the Office of President.” […]

  76. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  77. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  78. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  79. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  80. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  81. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  82. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  83. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  84. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  85. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  86. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  87. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  88. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  89. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  90. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  91. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  92. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  93. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  94. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio … – Navigation. Front Page » Government/Politics » Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal Recent News. Potomac blows lead late, loses 14-10 to … […]

  95. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  96. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]

  97. […] Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was … […]