Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look at what it says, specifically: every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject
Yes it does. It then goes on to say, specifically that "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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
No one is disputing that every child born in England of alien parents is a natural-born subject of England.
No they're not. They are disputing that the same rule was in force in the United States under the Constitution as originally established.
And the Supreme Court says those disputing that are wrong.
And that has exactly what to do with John Jay's letter?
Obama was born owing allegiance to another contry, i.e. a foreigner specifically excluded by John Jay's adopted suggestion of the 'natural born citizen' restriction in the Constitution.
Quite the contrary. You seem to not comprehend the meaning of subsection 212.
"§ 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."
No. Obama did not have two U.S. citizen parents, and was born a British citizen by virtue of his father (British Nationality Act of 1948). Obama was born owing allegiance to another country, making him a foreigner, which clearly contradicts the intention of 'natural born citizen' that John Jay elucidated to Washington and which was adopted in the U.S. Constitution.
He was also born a US citizen by virute of his mother's citizenship. The state department historically has not recognized dual citizenship, and, as has already been posted, his British citizenship expired at age 21.
Yes it does. It then goes on to say, specifically that "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."
Again, that describes a natural born subject of ENGLAND.
Doesn't matter. There is no such requirement in any America statute, law, regulation, rule or Constitutional clause.
And Jay's letter never mentions parents at all, let alone their citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Obama was born owing allegiance to another country, making him a foreigner, which clearly contradicts the intention of 'natural born citizen' that John Jay elucidated to Washington and which was adopted in the U.S. Constitution.
1. Jay's letter is a letter. It's not the Constitution.
2. Jay's letter does not define natural-born citizen. English common law does, and the US Supreme Court verifies that definition.
2. Since Obama is a natural born citizen, he satisfies Jay's criterion.
He was also born a US citizen by virute of his mother's citizenship. The state department historically has not recognized dual citizenship, and, as has already been posted, his British citizenship expired at age 21.
Again, that describes a natural born subject of ENGLAND.
And again that also describes a citizen of the UNITED STATES, as the Supreme Court is being explicit in that same decision.
Quote:
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.
I gotta tell you, it's hilarious that you continue to be so hypocritical as to pretend subject/citizen mean completely different things at thes ame time you are furiously trying to convince us that "indigenes" and "natural born citizen" are identical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
