English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

And as Calvin's case proves, all that is required to make the father a subject is for him to be , even temporarily, on English soil.

Game, set, match.

 

So now you admit that the parent father's 'subject' status IS relevant.

So you admit you were WRONG when you said the parent's 'subject' status was "irrelevant" ....... it was a LIE.

Yes, in England, but not so in US of A.

In US though, the parent father must either be US born or US naturalized by due process to be a US 'citizen'.

That is, that an alien visiting US even temporarily is NOT a 'citizen' by the same way as the English automatically make an alien visitor a 'subject'.

You are aware that there was state wide compulsory swearing of oath/pledge of allegiance in US states, for those who were suspected of not being 'with' the revolution for independence, where Torys and their children were banished from communities?

These 'Torys' were not considered as US 'citizens', nor were their children, even though they may have been born in US.

This 'right' to select who may be a US 'citizen' is an example of yet another departure by the new found US republic from the English system, where the US had provision in their Constitution for the Congress to enact naturalization rules.

You wish so much!


.

 

It has been game/set/match since the 2008 election, and the confirmation of the election by Congress, and President Obama's swearing in.

 

Michael, nobody agrees with you. the voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary say you're wrong. are you ever going to get around to adressing this?

 

Not really. That would be equivocation. We both know that a "temporary subject" as per Calvin's case is still an alien. It is the leigance that matters (the British equivalent of jurisdiction).

But if it would get you to acknowledge that Calvin's Case proves that the children of aliens born on national soil (as long as they are not the children of foreign diplomats or alien armies in hostile occupation) are natural born citizens, I'd be happy to throw you that bone.

So... are you now acknowledging that this is what Calvin's Case proves?

 

"Alien" in the context of Calvin's case means one born out of the ligeance of the particular sovereign to whom the person is an alien..... i.e. alien-born.

In that same context, a naturalized US citizen is still 'alien-born'.

It suits your agenda to play the 'alien' card, but it really is getting a bit tired..... don't you think?

Here's an example taken from the text of Coke's report of Calvin's case, that show that 'alien' denotes born out of the realm.

It is the ligeance that matters in determining whether the alien-born is a 'subject'.

Why or how the 'subject' is such, has no relevance in the determination of whether his child is a 'subject'.

It's really very basic stuff........... if the dad ain't a subject, then the kid can't be a subject.

The point stands and the fact remains, that if the parent father was not a 'subject', then his child even if born in England can not be a 'subject'.

You can play the same ole cherry-pick game all you like.

"alien father + child born in the land = natural born subject" is apparently deliberately and selectively only a part of the truth; it fails to fully and truthfully describe the principle as stated by Coke.

Calvin's case proves that the children of alien-born 17th century English 'subjects', if born in the realm, are 'natural born subjects'.

Calvin's case further holds that alien-born visitors to 17th century England & who are in enmity are not 'subjects' and because they are not 'subjects', there children, even if born in the realm can not be 'subjects'.

Here's something about the capacity of 17th century 'alien-born' per English common law. (Calvin's case)

Seems like that shoots a big hole in the 'jurisdiction' card when you try to relate it to US 'jurisdiction' duzzinit?

There are numerous differences between 'alien' visitors to England and alien visitors to US in issues such as allegiance, faith, duty, obedience, loyalty, treason penalties, land-ownership, jurisdiction, etc .. they simply don't compare.

Similarly the differences between a 'subject' and a 'citizen' are too numerous to even list here, so basically they are not interchangeable as 'some' would wish.

Why don't you drop the partisan bias that rules your senses and admit that it is the subject/citizen status of the parent father that is ESSENTIAL in determining the 'natural born' status of his child if born in the land?

Why sell-out your virtue for the sake of some political garbage?

.


.

 

nobody agrees withyou michael. not the voters. not the electoral college. not the ENTIRE CONGRESS. And not the ENTIRE judiciary.

 

No. It means one who is both alieniborn and currently not naturalized.

Alien-born yes, but no longer an alien.

It's been tired for years. And yet you persist.

You genuinely need a new hobby. Perhaps making life size sheep sculptures out of Vegemite.

Here again is the definition of natural born citizen as proven by 500 plus years of Anglo-American common law, and as verified by Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and the Supreme Court of the United States:

Anyone born on national soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is a natural born citizen.​

Barack Obama perfectly meets that definition.

 

Since Bobo is now nearing his first (and hopefully last) term in the office, it makes perfect sense to concentrate on sending the shyster back to Chicago first, and untangling the mysteries of his past later. Right? Of course right

 

I am not sure who Bobo is but Barack's first term is indeed coming closer. I firmly believe that this election is the Republican's election to lose- and that they might succeed at losing yet, despite the economy.

And which Shyster you speak of- you want to send Michelle to Chicago? Perhaps Newt- certainly Newt fits the definition well- but he would only go to Chicago if there was a political advantage for him...

Not that I am really that interested in the mysteries of Newt's past....

 

Oh well... Orly has lost her appeal in front of the 9th Circuit Court, and another real court demonstrates that it understands SCOTUS precedent.

From the decision:

 

Oh come on JEFF - the term shyster may be a bit too generous for Bobo teh Clown (thanks, Chavez), but it is a holiday season after all

 

[quote="WongKimArk]Oh well... Orly has lost her appeal in front of the 9th Circuit Court, and another real court demonstrates that it understands SCOTUS precedent.

From the decision:

Quote:
"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1 states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment conferred citizenship on anyone born in the United States, regardless of his parents’ citizenship." 169 U.S. 649, 650 (1897.) [/quote]

I think some interpretations of Wong Kim Ark have been twisted.


From WKA text........

The decision in Wong Kim Ark was based in a large part on his and his parents domicile within the US, which was for some 17 years for the parents who were in business and meaningfully contributing to the community and the nation at large.

From WKA text.....

More from WKA case where the meaning of 'subject to the jurisdiction' is observed.

Ergo: 'subject to the jurisdiction' means 'not subject to any foreign power'.

The 14th Amendment makes no mention of 'natural born'.

Plenty of mention of 'natural born Citizen' in Wong Kim Ark, but WKA only got 'citizen' and not 'natural born', not even a qualifier like "and therefore eligible for the office of president".


.

 

how many differenty types of "citizen" do you think there are michael? please answer this question for me.

 

As many types as it takes to make Obama not President.

but you knew that.

 

Yep, and you keep doing it over and over.
.

Since Wong Kim Ark was not running for President, why on earth would the court have any reason to say either thing?

However, we all know that Wong Kim Ark was eligible to run for President, because every American was raised knowing that. Which is why real legal experts like the Court of Appeals of Indiana and the Congressional Research Service say that your interpretation is bunk.

 

Post something.......... then the clowns come rushing in.

rahl
This message is hidden because rahl is on your ignore list.


SFJEFF
This message is hidden because SFJEFF is on your ignore list.


SFJEFF
This message is hidden because SFJEFF is on your ignore list.

You had your chance to engage in reasonable debate and discussion, but you choose to harass and constantly resort to fallacy ............ you just ain't worth wasting time on.


.

 

Hahahaha. Birthers are pathetic

 

Too bad that real US judges in real US court rooms making real US decisions in real US cases continue to conclude otherwise.

Perhaps you should consider a new hobby. Planigale breeding perhaps. Or boomerang collecting.

 

Run away, run away! Must.......avoid......seeing.....the......truth.....

Must.....avoid......reading.....the......truth......

Run away, run away!

Good enough- I should have put you on ignore months ago. You have never engaged in discussion, it has always been about your prosetlyzing your rather singular and odd interpretation of the Constitution, that is rejected by everyone in America.

 

Yes anyone can be eligible to run but actually being eligible for the presidency itself is another matter.

 

right. and it's been proven that obama is eligible to be president.

 

Sigh....

As I have said- every American knows that anyone born in the United States can aspire to be elected President.

Thats why the voters knew Obama was eligible.
And the Electoral College.
And Congress
And Chief Justice Roberts.

Wong Kim Ark was eligible to be President, though the racism of the day ensured that could never happen. And Americans know that President Obama being born in Hawaii means that he is and was eligible.

 

The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...-of-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-revealed/

An excerpt from the article...................

.

 

And yet Chief Justice Roberts swore Obama in as President.

Guess he didn't get the memo.