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.
How many presidents would be "illegitimate" using this definition? A pretty big number, I'm sure. Clearly Kennedy would be illegitimate. Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover both had a parent who was an immigrant.
There are a number of presidential candidates who would have been disqualified also, for ex. Hubert Humphrey, whose mother was born in Norway. Spiro Agnew's parents were born in Greece. He could not have become president if Nixon had resigned while he was still the VP, by this reasoning. Yet, these people were approved to run for P/VPOTUS.
Wrong. The sources are Minor v Happersett, Wong Kim Ark v United States and other SC cases. Vattel's Law of Nations, the Congressional record, various books in the possession of the Founders.
Stating the only actual source is WND an attempt to discredit and smear American citizens who only seek the truth regarding Obama's citizenship and Constitutional eligibility to be President.
You are the one in the wrong, 'Canoe.
The law in the United States, as is upheld by Wong Kim Ark, is that any person born on US soil whose parents are not foreign diplomats or members of an invading army, are natural-born US citizens. That's the law.
The State of Hawaii has declared that Obama was born in Honolulu.
Vattel was not an American, nor was he an expert on American law.
You claim to be seeking the truth regarding Obama's citizenship, but nothing you do is about "seeking the truth", it's only about obscuring it. You offer up weird, off-the-wall interpretations of court opinions, when it's quite clear that it's not the common interpretation. You twist and writhe and circle back on your arguments. You do realize that if you had an argument, there would be no need to circle back.
It's clear that the courts reject your interpretation, and so do the vast majority of Americans. It may be possible that many Americans would like the definition of natural-born citizenship to be more narrowly defined, and that may happen in the future, but it will not affect President Obama.
.... an attempt to discredit and smear American citizens who only seek the truth regarding Obama's citizenship.....
if this were true then why haven't you questioned why nobody spoke out against obama's eligibility during the 2008 campaign ( till leo denofrio introduced the de vettal theory a few days before the election ).
if you were sincerely interested in seeking the truth this would be a critical question to be answered. at the very least it would be worth paying for an hours worth of time from a constitutional lawyer to have the details of presidential eligibility explained.
why is it you refuse to do these basic things when you claim to only be seeking the truth?
The law in the United States, as is upheld by Wong Kim Ark, is that any person born on US soil whose parents are not foreign diplomats or members of an invading army, are natural-born US citizens. That's the law.
The State of Hawaii has declared that Obama was born in Honolulu.
Vattel was not an American, nor was he an expert on American law.
You claim to be seeking the truth regarding Obama's citizenship, but nothing you do is about "seeking the truth", it's only about obscuring it. You offer up weird, off-the-wall interpretations of court opinions, when it's quite clear that it's not the common interpretation. You twist and writhe and circle back on your arguments. You do realize that if you had an argument, there would be no need to circle back.
It's clear that the courts reject your interpretation, and so do the vast majority of Americans. It may be possible that many Americans would like the definition of natural-born citizenship to be more narrowly defined, and that may happen in the future, but it will not affect President Obama.
Please post in the Wong Kim Ark v United States WKA was affirmed a natural born Citizen because one of his parents was an alien transient student.
It is not there. If you think it is...then post it. He was affirmed a citizen because his parents were permanent residents at his birth.
Please post in the Wong Kim Ark v United States WKA was affirmed a natural born Citizen because one of his parents was an alien transient student.
It is not there. If you think it is...then post it. He was affirmed a citizen because his parents were permanent residents at his birth.
But he didn't say that WKA would Not have been a citizen if only one was a permanent resident, that's the point. Its not an exclusionary statement. In WKA's case there were two permanent residents, this was shown to be evidence to citizenship, so through that we know that any person with that situation is Definitely a citizen.
" I know that liberty has its proper bounds — that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion."
you, draggingcanoe, are publishing scandalous productions attacking the government. you are in violation of the law according to de vattel.
( just seems weird if the founding fathers were using de vattel as a base that we'd have the first amendment. )
We can snip right there. After all, this is the dissenting opinion... i.e. the side that lost.
The reason for posting Fuller is to show..Vattel was being quoted saying natural born citizens are born to citizen parents..
Guess...you will come up with an excuse to snip this one...because it does not fit your agenda....distorting the SC to protect Obama.
This is from the majority in Dred Scott...again quoting Vattel
"By this same writer(Vattel) it is also said: "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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights."
Again: "I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person 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. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country." (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)"
At least two Supreme Court Justices have quoted Vattel "natural born citizens are born to citizen parents.."
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
again, your interpretation of the plural.
if the statement read "The native, or natural-born citizen, is one born in the country, of parents who are citizens." you'd have a good point. but...... it doesn't and you don't. at least according to every congressman, judge, law professor and constitutional scholar.
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.
