I've been busy crocheting lately - started in on a tablecloth, and just going through a patch in life where I really haven't had much to say.
I've watched the debates, and think that they are coming to being less that worthless for the voting public. More of a dog & pony show if nothing else.
The case down in Georgia, Re: Obama's eligibility has turned the Constitution upon its head, making "natural born citizen" one that is just born here, could be a woman who has a baby here, leaves the next day, and they reside in another country for years.
This article HERE has a great section on what is a natural-born citizen.
"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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
Guess what. Obummer's daddy was Kenyan.
Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:
Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))
Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct).
I really don't give a flip *where* he was born, legally, consititutionally, he is NOT a natural-born citizen, and thereby, ineligible for President.
And voting for Romney is almost as bad as voting for "O".
Posts
2 years ago
Diane:
ReplyDeleteCrocheting a TABLE CLOTH???
(wow)
That sounds pretty ambitious...good luck with it.
As to the nat-borners...
Although the "father" has such precedent of "ownership to parentage"...smacks back to Victorian times, when women were viewed as more 2nd class citizens...I suppose that it makes sense, even in times like today.
I know that many times (in the ghettohood) claiming of an infant (read custody battles and crimes of passion) by the father (purely for convenience purposes, and IF they can figure out WHO the hell he really is) is often challenged...and frequently denied.
Courts tend to lean more towards females...but in some cases, that IS changing (like when "mom" is a crack-ho)
Have to say you nailed the explnation perfectly.
Nice homework you "done did"...lol.
Stay safe down there.
Since the meaning of Natural Born under the common law simply means a US citizen who was born in the country, not one who was naturalized, in fact any native born citizen is also a Natural Born Citizen.
ReplyDeleteThat is not turning the Constitution on its head. That has always been the 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...."---- 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.]
Here is an example of how Natural Born Citizen was used in 1803, shortly after the US Constitution was adopted:
"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)
As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth. There is no mention of parents, only of the place. Natural Born Citizens were "those born within a state."
And here is how it was used in 1829:
"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)
Re Bingham.
ReplyDeleteHe 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)
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/why-the-birthers-lost/
ReplyDeleteOk "anonymous" who can't be arsed to actually put a name to their posts, as they have no stomach for a rational discussion, You pick & choose - go read the whole thing at the Federalist Blog http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/
ReplyDeleteI really wish he would. He keeps citing material that is in no wise binding in the courts. Just one person's opinion.
Delete