Wong Kim Ark citing Pothier on Natural Born August 31, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Citizenship, Common Law, Natural Born, Precedent Cases, US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).comments closed
On Obama Conspiracy, Greg explains
In Wong, Justice Gray cites Pothier’s Traite des Personnes for the law of France. (p. 666 of the decision) Here’s the reference he was citing, pages 17-18. And, here’s one of the quotes, in the original French:
“Les citoyens, les vrais et naturels Français, suivant la definition de Bacquat, sont ceux qui sont nes dans l’etendue de la domination francaise…”
Gray translates it as “citizens, true and native-born citizens…” I think as likely a translation is “The true and natural-born citizens of France…”
It continues, “are those born within the lands under French dominion.”
Paragraph 45 of that Treatise explains that except for those born in countries that later come under French control for everyone else, it doesn’t matter whether their parents were citizens or aliens, or whether they had established a domicile there:
Au reste, pour que ceux qui sont nés dans les pays de la domination française soient réputés Français, on ne considère pas s’ils sont nés de parents français, ou de parents étrangers; si les étrangers étaient domiciliés dans le royaume, ou s’ils n’y étaient que passagers. Toutes ces circonstances sont indifférentes dans nos usages : la seule naissance dans ce royaume donne les droits de naturalilé, indépendamment de l’origine des père et mère, el de leur demeure.
That was the law of France at the time of the founding, not Vattel’s conception of it. France did not change their definition of citizenship until the Code Napolean of 1807.
The Constitution and Common Law August 31, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Citizenship, Common Law, Natural Born.comments closed
In Wong Kim Ark we learn that:
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
Rhodes v Gates – Pro Hac Vice denied August 31, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Lawyers, Legal Cases, Orly Taitz, Rhodes v Gates.comments closed
08/31/2009 Text Order DENYING 2 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice entered by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. The Court denies the application as moot. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ajr) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
Maryland and Native Born Citizens August 31, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Native/Natural Born.comments closed
We have some other evidence from Maryland as to how they considered the concept of native/natural born to affect the election to the position of Governor, mirroring the same concerns about foreign influence where naturalized citizens could rule the state.
Mr. Abbott. I would like to know whether the committee intend that a foreigner shall become the governor of this State, after having been here five years?
Mr. Miller. After being five years a naturalized citizen, certainly. That has always been the provision of the constitution, and he must be here five years before he can be naturalized.
Mr. Thuston. The fifth section requires amendment, unless there is some part of the article which requires a person to be a citizen of this State in order to be eligible. He can be a resident without being a citizen. He may be a citizen of the United States, and for five years a resident of this Slate, and not be a citizen of this State. A great many people come here and reside and do not become citizens. It would relieve the section from all ambiguity to say that a person to be eligible I for governor shall be for five years a citizen of the United States and of this State, and a resident of this State for five years next preceding the election. However, I merely make the suggestion, and do not propose any amendment.
Vattel and Virginia Statutes? August 31, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in the USA, Citizenship, Common Law, Natural Born, Vattel.comments closed
Arguing that Vattel and not common law guided the Founders, the Birthers proclaim that
The answer to this lies with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s Citizenship statue in 1779,
“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.” As can be seen Jefferson is equating citizenship of the child to that of the parents, and not the land.
Strangely enough they omit the 1783 Virginia statute
SECT. 2. Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this Commonwealth ; all persons, not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the Act, intituled, ” An Act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth;” and also all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth,
However, in both statutes, the case is clearly not Vattel but rather Common Law, mimicking English Common Law which declares anyone born on its soil a citizen including children born to fathers abroad. The 1783 statute extends this right to fathers and/or mothers.
Natural Born – Native Born equivalent August 31, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Citizenship, Constitutional Terms, Native/Natural Born, Natural Born.comments closed
Donofrio argued
St. George Tucker, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virgina, wrote a version of the authoritative Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution… which became a recognized resource for determining the framers’ original intent. In his Volume 1 — Appendix; Note D, he explained that the Article 2 “natural born Citizen” requirement was purposed to avoid competing allegiances:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, whereever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.
And nothing about competing alliances either, but rather about allowing ‘foreigners’ through naturalization to become a US President.
Vattel on Citizenship – Rambling comments August 31, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Citizenship, Natural Born, Vattel.comments closed
Source: The authority of Vattel by Charles Fenwick in , The American political science review, Volume 8, American Political Science Association, 1914 (Editors: Westel Woodbury Willoughby, John Archibald Fairlie, American Political Science Association, Frederic Austin Ogg)
Coming to the broad question of the jurisdiction of a state over the persons within its borders and over the territory subject to it we find that Vattel is, except in a few instances, fairly in accord with the modern principles of international law. After a rambling a priori argument which suggests the influence of Rousseau, Vattel adopts the jus sanguinis and expressly rejects the jus soli as the test of citizenship, but he practically admits Great Britain’s adoption of the jus soli when he says that “there are countries, such as England, in which the mere fact of birth within the country naturalizes the children of an alien.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 – Dissenting Opinion August 31, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Precedent Cases, US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).comments closed
FULLER, C.J., Dissenting Opinion
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
169 U.S. 649
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 18 Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 — Decided: March 28, 1898
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 – Ruling August 31, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Precedent Cases, US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).comments closed
Loss of birth right citizenship – US Law August 31, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Citizenship, Dual Citizenship, Loss of Citizenship.comments closed
Note: Obama returned to the United States well before reaching the age of eighteen and thus the only possible ways for him to have lost his birthright citizenship is through 1481(a)(3), serving in the foreign armed forces, 1481(a)(5), formally renouncing his citizenship to a consular representative, 1481(a)(6), making a formal written statement while in the United States in time of war or 1481(a)(7), treason. Per 1481(b), it’s up to the party asserting that a loss of nationality occurred to present the necessary evidence.
In other words, lacking any evidence that Obama renounced his citizenship, he continued his US birthright citizenship when reaching the age of majority.
The current nationality laws of the United States do not specifically refer to dual nationality. The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality does not affect U.S. citizenship; however, under limited circumstances, the acquisition of a foreign nationality upon one’s own application or the application of a duly authorized agent may cause loss of U.S. citizenship under Section 349 (a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481 (a)(1)].
In order for loss of nationality to occur under Section 349 (a)(1), it must be established that the naturalization was obtained voluntarily by a person eighteen years of age or older with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. Such an intention may be shown by the person’s statements or conduct (Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 1980), but as discussed below in most cases it is assumed that Americans who are naturalized in other countries intend to keep their U.S. citizenship. As a result, they have both nationalities.
United States law does not contain any provisions requiring U.S. citizens who are born with dual nationality to choose one nationality or the other when they become adults (Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133, 1952). While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government does not endorse dual nationality as a matter of policy because of the problems that it may cause. Claims of other countries upon dual-national U.S. citizens often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts to provide diplomatic and consular protections to them when they are abroad.
WND: YouTube Birth Certificate a forgery August 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Kenyan Birth Certificate, Media Update, Myths, News.comments closed
WND Reports
The alleged Kenyan birth certificate offered by Lucas Smith and displayed last weekend on YouTube.com is not a valid document, a WND investigation has revealed.
Administrators at Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, the hospital named as President Obama supposed birth hospital in the document, have refused to authenticate the record when contacted by WND sources in Kenya.
The document appears to have the following defects:
Rhodes v Gates – Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act August 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Rhodes v Gates.comments closed
Rickey on Obama Conspiracy responds to the argument that
The Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act prevents the case from moving forward if Capt. Barnett is deployed. Thus, the urgency of the TRO.
Not necessarily. A stay of a civil proceeding is not automatic. The service member has to apply for the stay, and the court does not have to grant the stay if it is determined that the plaintiff’s miltary obligations do not materially affect her ability to prosecute the action.
Section 201
(50 U.S.C. App. § 521)
At any stage thereof any action or proceeding in any court in which a person in military service is involved, either as plaintiff or defendant, during the period of such service or within sixty days thereafter may, in the discretion of the court in which it is pending, on its own motion, and shall, on application to it by such person or some person on his behalf, be stayed as provided in this Act unless, in the opinion of the court, the ability of plaintiff to prosecute the action or the defendant to conduct his defense is not materially affected by reason of his military service.
Naturalization by Treaty August 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Blackstone, Citizenship, Common Law, Dual Citizenship, Loss of Citizenship, Natural Born.comments closed
Note: Under international law and the law of nature, inhabitants of a nation, which title is transferred to another nation, become citizens of the new nation, with the opportunity of election to maintain the original citizenship. This fact is important when discussing Obama’s British citizenship which was lost when, under the Kenya Independence Act, was transferred to Kenya. Under Kenyan Constitution, Obama’s failure to elect Kenyan citizenship when reaching the age of majority, caused Obama to lose his Kenyan citizenship, while continuing his US birthright citizenship. Similar treaties between the United States and Great Britain, allowed the inhabitants of ceded territory to elect and/or abandon British or United States citizenship.
Chapter VI.—Naturalization By Treaty.
The question of naturalization by treaty may be passed over without any considerable comment. The general principles controlling such cases are entirely clear and have been understood and acted upon by the Government from the first.
Election of Citizenship – Children w. dual nationality August 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Blackstone, Citizenship, Common Law, Dual Citizenship, Loss of Citizenship, Natural Born, Uncategorized.comments closed
Note: The general principle is that a child born on US soil cannot lose his birthright citizenship through the actions of the parents, and, once reaching the age of majority, can make the decision as to which birthright citizenship to continue.
Source: United States. Dept. of State, James Brown Scott, David Jayne Hill, Gaillard Hunt, Citizenship of the United States, expatriation, and protection abroad, Issue 326 of House document, GPO 1906.
Inasmuch as our Government declares that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, and also recognizes as well as adopts, on its own part, the rule that children of citizens resident abroad are citizens of the country to which the parents owe allegiance, there arises, as will be seen, a conflict of citizenship spoken of usually as dual allegiance. The matter was up for consideration and decision in Trimbles v Harrison, 1840, 1 B Monk 140 ,where the matter to be determined was as to the citizenship of a woman who born in Boston in 1773 of British parents, was taken by her father to England prior to 1798, where she was married. In discussing this question, the court said:
Status of Children of Alien inhabitants August 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Blackstone, Citizenship, Common Law, Natural Born.comments closed
Source: United States. Dept. of State, James Brown Scott, David Jayne Hill, Gaillard Hunt “Citizenship of the United States, expatriation, and protection abroad”, Issue 326 of House document, GPO 1906.
SECTION 2 Of alien inhabitants
A OF PARENTS WHO MAY BECOME CITIZENS
Where the residence was temporary – This question as to the citizenship of children born in the United States of alien parents who were in this country merely temporarily arose and was elaborately examined in the case of Lynch v Clark 1844 1 Sandf Ch 583. It appeared in that case that not only were the parents here temporarily but that within a year from the time of the child’s birth they had taken her with them on their return to their native country Great Britain. The court showed no hesitancy in declaring that the child so born was a citizen of the United States. In a later New York case Munro v Merchant 1858 26 Barb 383 400, when the question came again before the court under circumstances that were almost identical, the court followed but questioned the Clark case.
Where the residence was permanent – Of course if the above cases are sound as they would seem to be on the question of birth it follows that where the residence is permanent the child born here of such residents should be considered a citizen of the United States and such has been the uniform doctrine as announced by both Federal and State courts. See McCreery v Somerville 1824 9 Wheat 354 (children of Irish parents) McClean Swanton 1856 13 NY 535 Benny v OfBrien 1895 58 N TL 36 (children of Scotch parentage). In re Giovanna 1899 93 Fed 659 (children of Italian parentag)e and see Hartford v Canaan 1886 55 Conn 39 An interesting application perhaps an exception of the doctrine is found in McKay v Campbell 1871 2 Sawy 118 in which it was held that a child born in Oregon of British parents during the joint occupation of that territory by the United States and Great Britain was a British subject.
Munro v Merchant 1858 August 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Blackstone, Citizenship, Common Law, Lynch v. Clarke (1844), Munro vs. Merchant (N.Y. 1858), Natural Born, Precedent Cases.comments closed
Munro v Merchant 1858 quotes Lynch v Clarke
It is further contended on the part of the defendant that the plaintiff himself is an alien. He was born in Ballston Spa in this state while his father was a resident of Canada and returned to his father’s domicil with his mother within a year after his birth. His mother was temporarily there without any actual change of residence either on her part or that of his father. It is argued that at common law a natural born subject was one whose birth was within the allegiance of the king (Bac Ab tit Alien A Com Dig A and B 7 to 18, Bl Com 336 74). The cases of children of ambassadors born abroad and of children born on English seas were considered exceptions. Chancellor Kent in his commentaries defines a native born citizen to be a person born within and an alien one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States (2 Kent’s Com 37 50). In Lynch v Clarke 1 Sand Ch R 583 the question was precisely as here whether a child born in the city of New York of alien parents during their temporary sojourn there was a native born citizen or an alien and the conclusion was that being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States he was a native born citizen whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth. That case, if law, would seem to be decisive of the present question. But admitting the plaintiff to be an alien the cases already cited show that the terms heirs or assigns in the 9th article of the treaty is not to be confined to the immediate descendants but is to be extended indefinitely till the title comes to a citizen.
Lynch v Clarke 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 1884- MacKay for the Complainant August 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Lynch v. Clarke (1844), Precedent Cases.comments closed
Lynch v Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch, NY 583, 1844
The cause was argued by HS Mackay, Jacob Radcliff and Samuel Sherwood for the complainant GM Speir, Charles F Grim and Murray Hoffman for the defendant Clarke and AL Robertson for Julia Lynch. The report of their arguments is limited to the point as to the right of Julia L to inherit.
Hay S. Mackay, for the complainant.
It is contended, that Julia Lynch was at the time of the death of Thomas Lynch, and still is, an alien of the United States, and is thereby debarred from inheriting from the ancestor. ‘The case is in effect this, that Julia was born in this country of alien parents, during their temporary stay or sojourn in it, without the intention on their part of making it the country of their adoption. The parents while here, retaining their allegiance to the land of their birth and the animus revertendi, and actually returning to it with the design of resuming it as the place of their continued and permanent abode, and where they died. Julia having been born on the eve of their going back went with them, and was then so young, as (legally considered, at least,) to be insensible of her very existence—an infant in the arms of her parent. She has not been naturalized.
Open letter to Dr. Orly Taitz – By David Crockett August 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Just Plain Weird, Orly Taitz.comments closed
At the Betrayal David Crockett has written an open letter to Orly:
As you well may know I have always been one of your staunchest supporters and believed in your dedication and patriotism. Still I believe that you have in yourself to be The Lady Liberty who can be instrumental in Taking America Back for our children and grandchildren for generations to come. One nation under God built on the foundations laid out in our Constitution inspired and bestowed on us by our Savior.
Unfortunately however it is my strong impression that certain things are not as they seemed and serious questions have arisen in regards to alliances and orientation which now are causing some serious cracks in our ranks that will be exploited by the conspirators of tyranny and usurpation in order to get away with establishing the rule of no other than Satan. Unity within the ranks of the patriots is essential as the battle we are waging for the survival of our Constitutional Republic is not only the hardest we ever had to fight, it is a battle which we can and may not loose as it is for our survival as a free and Christian nation. Without wanting to dramatize this battle is between the Sons and Daughters of Light and Darkness.
Read more at the Betrayal
The interesting part is the observation that the Rhodes lawsuit was a virtual copy of the Cook lawsuit including not only the wrong Court name but also an inconsistent use of he/she, him/her.
The fact that obviously the Connie Rhodes motion was a straight copy of the Maj. Cook motion without it even been proofread ( the he was a she) shows a very serious lack of preciseness that directly caused it to be denied.
The Rhodes suit however did offer some ‘new’ perspectives which show why the TRO was so summarily rejected:
She will be required to provide mandatory vaccinations of US soldiers, including flu vaccinations which might harm US soldiers, particularly in light of the fact that such vaccinations wer found to contain live lethal avian flu virus, when delivered by a US pharmaceutical company to a number of European countries, including Chech Republic, Germany and Slovenia and a criminal investigation of this matter has not been completed yet. She also believes that the legitimacy of the President needs to be established before the health care system, as we know it, is completely dismantled and is replaced with rationed health care, where decisions will be made by governmental bureaucrats instead of doctors, treating the patients.
Obama's British Citizenship explored August 29, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Citizenship, Mario Apuzzo.comments closed
Apuzzo argues
“Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.
Apuzzo cites the following Hansard discussion
Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child’s minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality.”
Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.
Rhodes v Gates – Orly not taking it well August 29, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Just Plain Weird, Lawyers, Legal Cases, Orly Taitz, Rhodes v Gates.comments closed
Someone with the name Brendon Forage sent the following e-mail to Orly
Great job, Orly! You are fantastic! Now that the TRO has been denied, are you going to represent her at the court martial? Where will the court martial be? Is Dr. Rhodes ready, willing and able to relinquish her medical license for the cause? What a patriot! Great job, Orly! You are fantastic! Now that the TRO has been denied, are you going to represent her at the court martial? Where will the court martial be? Is Dr. Rhodes ready, willing and able to relinquish her medical license for the cause?
What a patriot!
brendanforage@yahoo.comFriends of Orly
Orly is not amused although her reaction seems to be a bit extreme
Does anyone know who this jerk is? I traced his IP to Malibu CA and this bothers me. Until now Obama’s thugs were traced to WA state, VA, BC and TX. Now they are in Malibu, 1 hour drive or 5 minutes private plane flight from my house. This person also goes by the name Methuselah. Does it ring a bell? Methuselah, Brendan Forage or IP 66.214.85.20? I think that obot Mary Adams or Mary Adamson live in Malibu too. I think the street is Francisco rd. It can be a woman hiding behind the name Brendan Forage or a group of people or one of organizations set by the US hater George Soros or some radical Muslim group run by this nutcase Khalid Al Mansur of supported by prince al Whaleed. Mary Adams belonged to one of those groups. Please scan obot postings on other blogs, I need more info on these nutcases
Funny how her minions do not help her
I did a locate. It’s some sort of transmitter on a desolate hilltop on ADAMSON ROAD off of Malibu Canyon near Pepperdine.
Orly, apparently totally unfamiliar with how IP addresses work reports
Approximately 2275 Norwic Pl, Altadena, CA 91003. It is within three houses.
And it seems she wants the person arrested? For congratulating her on her ’success’?
Getting closer to the thugs. Can someone contact the Malibu police and FBI
