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.
1. The phrase "natural born citizen" never once crossed Vattel's lips or pen.
2. Not a single Framer or Founder ever once quoted Vattel favorably on any issue regarding citizenship.
3. In the list of "authorities" most quoted by the Framers and Founders, Vattel comes in 30th. He wasn't even their most quoted authority on the law of nations. Grotius & Pufendorf were.
4. Blackstone comes in 3rd, and his definition of natural born citizen is the one that has been accepted by every American court of law.
5. Vattel is contradicted four times in the first two amendments to the Constitution alone. He was opposed to freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms.
Think global, act local!
"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). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters a persons allegiance to their country of origin except by acting in accordance to written law in throwing off their previous allegiance and consenting to a new one."
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,830,626 times
Reputation: 6438
I find this thread on English common law fascinating. There. I said that with a straight face.
Now, onto things that really matter. Birthers. They crack me up. Because, hey, let's all just find out that the president was never really vetted, and The USA is just a bunch of morons who can't even elect someone who's even eligible. Let's show the world we are a nation of idiots, who can't even do a background check on one of the most powerful men in the WORLD. Let's show them how some dude living in his mom's basement with a copy of Adobe can beat an entire battalion of people who only forge things. I bet the Illuminati made those 33 courts rule for Obama, too. Sure. Why not? He's probably a robot. A Kenyan robot. Made from mud and cassava leaves.
You brought up two examples and attributed them to 'Lord Coke'. And you flogged them on internet forums for over three years. Some of those forum threads ran to 500 posts or more.
These two examples turned out not to be Sir Edward Coke's commentaries upon the law but actual court cases in England. So 17th century English law DOES have something to say about native-birth and natural born subjects.
I've also shown that you've taken the quotes out of context. By excluding specific parts of the judicial records when citing said quotes, you've excluded the original justifications for those court decisions and inserted your own interpretations.
In other words, you (or the person from whom you lifted this line of argument) is simply Googling any piece of English common law that fits the presumption that there is always a parental requirement to the concept of 'native-born'. Fallacy of incomplete evidence.
And it stands that under English law a native-born subject is one who is born within the dominion and jurisdiction of the English crown. I'd one more time point out the particular passages, but as you didn't bother to read the actual court records ever, what would be the point now?
Your resort to fallacy of ad hominem amongst others is useless and not a valid argument.
The text I am quoting from is what Coke actually said.
You are paranoid, I have no need to nor desire to leave out anything.
"it is constructed largely from the writings as they were printed in his generation and the next
Nowhere in the 17th century English law was it held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject and if a native-born was born to a non-subject, then that native-born was an alien-born and no subject.
It's really that simple, only those who wish and want for it to mean otherwise are in denial of this PROVEN FACT.
Here's what Coke said in one instance about "dominion"...
Quote:
There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered;
As you can see, "born in the dominion" is only one of three incidents.
Parents.
Place.
Time.
Sir Edward Coke made it quite clear that in 17th century, the parents had to be in the same dominion as the child was born in, therefore the parents, if they were friendly aliens, were subjects by being in the dominion, and because they were subjects, then their children who were born in the dominion were "born under the ligeance of a subject" and thus were natural born subjects, if they were born to a non-subject, then they would be no subject because they would not be "born under the ligeance of a subject" nor "under the protection (aka dominion) of the king". i.e.TWO of the required "incidents" would not be met, all because of the parent's status as a non-subject.
It was the parents who put themselves in or out of the dominion, if they were in, then they were subjects, as a consequence, those parents put their children both in or out of the dominion and protection and within or without being born under the ligeance of a subject.
IF it were true that the Framers followed the English rule, then for a US native-born child to be a natural born citizen, that child would by necessity have to be "born under the ligeance of a subject"/US citizen father.
The US republic, unlike the English monarchical system did not and does not embrace friendly aliens as subjects/citizens.
With regard to Obama, this is what Sir Edward Coke (Coke) had to say about the allegiance of such a one....
Quote:
in case of an alien born, you must of necessity have two several ligeances
Was not Obama born an English subject?
Quote:
"Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States' right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.
The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:
"4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:
Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
(a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ...."
Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.
Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama's 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time."
in case of an alien born, you must of necessity have two several ligeances
It has ALWAYSbeen about the subject status of the father.
More from Coke where the distinction is made between place ("foreign birth") and parents ("foreign allegiance")....
Quote:
An alien born is of foreign birth or foreign allegiance
Ergo, Obama is an alien-born and therefore cannot be a "natural born".
.
Last edited by MichaelNo; 05-04-2013 at 04:34 PM..
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.
