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.
Alexander Porter Morse is dismissed as an authority by Obots when he references Vattel. But a baby name website..is an official authority.
wow, do you have cement in your brain?
1) you asked if Barack Hussein Obama is a christian name (thereby alluding to the 1860 Unconstitutional law in Hawaii that required HAWAIIANS - not immigrants - to have Christian names)
2) I replied that Barack is actually a name that originated in Hebrew.
The baby name website was to show that the origin was in Hebrew, not to be used to support any Constitutional claims.
Morse argues that if the framers had meant to include only native-born citizens, they would have said so
Despite its apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution has never been completely understood. It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not.
Morse apparently argues in the gray area regarding those born to citizens overseas.
You should consider what the Honorable Pinckney McElwee said about Morse’s contribution:
Quote:
Three articles have appeared in Journals on the same general subject as this article. The first was in the Albany, New York Bar Journal (66 Albany Law Journal 99) in 1904, both of which concluded that a foreign-born child of American parentage came within the term natural-born and was eligible to become President. The second in 1950 was 35 Cornell Law Quarterly 357. The first was so inadequately considered and lacking in citation as not to deserve mention. The only reference was to the inadvertent use of the term natural born in the Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103). He did not seem to know that it was Mr. Madison who had participated in the drafting of the Constitution who had discovered the error and authorized the bill to correct it by deleting the term from the act of 1795 (1 Stat. 445).
Cong. Rec. June 14, 1967 p. 15879.
McElwee concluded, on extensive research, that natural born includes those born here, even to aliens, but not those born abroad to citizens, like George Romney.
The expression, “natural-born citizen,” recognizes and reaffirms the univeral principle common to all nations, and as old as political society, — that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
Every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen.
A natural-born citizen is one not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority, in fact, the mass of our citizens; all others are eceptions specially provided for by law.
Pat Boone's statement regarding the citizenship of peregrine Obama is correct.
my favorite part of boone's statement was when he confidently proclaims that the "head of documents for hawaii" has stated "under oath" that there was no record of obama's birth.
first up, there is no "head of documents" for the state of hawaii. next there hasn't been any statement remotely close to what boone said that was given under oath.
boone seems to be incorrectly mixing together statements from dr fukino, former director of the hawaiian DoH, a birther mis-quote of gov ambercrombie and the accusation from tim adams that some unnamed person heard from some unnamed person that there was no birth certificate.
do you still believe boone's statement is correct?
According to Obots Professor Gilmore has no credibility.
when you mispresent Gilmore, no one is going to take you seriously. Why don't you link to his ENTIRE lecutre notes? Because YOU know that it doesn't say what you want us to believe it says:
So far as Mr. Vattel states, the doctrine on the subject of citizenship in this section he states it correctly, but there are other questions on this subject, not noticed by him, which it would be well to state. These have reference to the following:
1. Children born of subjects of one power in the territory of another
2. Illegitimate children born of a foreign mother.
3. Foreign women who have married the subject of a State.
Upon these points the doctrine in the United State is, 1. That children born of foreigners born here are American citizens if they elect to declare themselves so, whilst the children of American citizens born abroad are themselves citizens of the United States, unless the 14th Amendment has changed that doctrine, upon which there is a different of opinion; 2. Illegitimate children belong to the state of which the mother was the subject; and 3. Except in the United States, the nationality of the wife is merged in that of her husband, so that in those countries when a woman marries a foreigner, she loses her own nationality and acquires his.; but here a native woman marrying a foreigner remains a subject of the State, though an alien woman marrying a citizen o the United States becomes herself naturalized, unless she continue throughout her husband's lifetime, a non-resident.
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.
