BC is NOT "proof" of "natural born" citizenship (too bad!)

In the last thread there were several troughers who claimed that obama is eligible to be the the president under the 14th amendment. Well that has never been the case and never will be unless a new amendment is passed.

Herb Titus tried to explain this but troughers disagree. They are wrong and again have the opportunity to show they have superior law. I believe they do not.


There is that ongoing fight between troughers and birthers about obamas qualifications.

Do Harvard law degrees count for anything?

explained here:



Dr. Herb Titus: Born In Hawaii Does Not Make...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8"]Natural Born Citizen? - YouTube[/ame]


That said his mommy and daddy would both have to be sworn citizens of the united states and yes there is a paper trail for that.

Seems to me daddy was a brit and mommy was not in the states for 5 full years prior to his birth!

so whats the problem with our courts?????????????

Too tough for them to figger out or to political?

What the excuse for the american people party to this crime?

 

That goes back to the 1802 statutes at large which has never been repealed.

The most Mr Obama has is "suffrage" and is eligible to be governor or congress but not president.



Page 1


1 of 1 DOCUMENT


Analysis
As of: Apr 08, 2010
ELLEN R. VAN VALKENBURG v. ALBERT BROWN
No. 3,091
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
43 Cal. 43; 1872 Cal. LEXIS 32
January 1872

PRIOR-HISTORY: Appeal from the District Court
of the Third Judicial District, County of Santa Cruz.

COUNSEL: Albert Hagan, for Appellant.

The office of the Fourteenth Amendment is not to simply
secure to all persons equal capacities before the law, but
it grants to all persons who are citizens the broadest rights
which attach themselves to every citizen of the Republic.
(Live Stock Association v. Crescent City, 1 Abbott, 396.)

Suffrage is a fundamental right--one of the privileges of
the citizen by virtue of citizenship in a free government.
As soon as one is raised to the dignity of a citizen he can
claim the right of suffrage as one inherent in a Republic
and fundamental in its nature. (Abbott v. Bailey, 2 Kent,
Sec. 72; Corfield v. Correll, 6 Pick. 42.)

California yet retains the word "white" in her organic law
prescribing the qualifications of electors, yet the negro
votes here by virtue of the Constitution of the United
States. If the right of suffrage belongs to every citizen, by
virtue of the organic law of the Union, then no State can
prohibit any citizen from voting. It needs no prohibition
in the Constitutionof the United States to prevent States
from disfranchising any citizen, for, if once invested with
the fundamental right to vote, no State can destroy, no
Legislature can abolish it.

To say that the Fifteenth Amendment goes far to interpret
the Fourteenth Amendment and to thereby grant or imply
that the States may restrict the right of suffrage as to
other than male citizens, is an admission that the
Fourteenth Amendment by its terms does away with the
right of the several States to any restriction over the right
to vote. States may regulate the manner of voting, but
cannot take away the right to vote, if the latter is
conceded to be a fundamental right guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States.

Albert Heath, for Respondent.

The respondent admits that the appellant is a citizen of
the United States, over the age of twenty-one years, but
denies that under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
California, the Clerk of Santa Cruz County is authorized
to place upon the Great Register of said county the name
of a female, and refers the Court to the following
authorities, viz: Sec. 1, Art. II, of the Constitution of the
State of California; Sec. 2 of theRegistry Act, and the
amendments thereto, approved March 30th, 1868.


Page 2

JUDGES: Wallace, C. J.

OPINION BY: WALLACE

OPINION

The plaintiff applied to the Court below for a writ of
mandamus against the defendant, who is the County
Clerk of the County of Santa Cruz, to compel him to
inscribe her name in the Great Register, and enroll her as
a legal voter of said county. Judgment having been
rendered refusing the writ, she brings this appeal.

It appears that she is "a white female resident and
citizen of the United States and of the State of California,
over the age of twenty-one years, and for more than one
year last past a resident of Santa Cruz County," and was
born within the limits and subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States.

The Court below held that by reason of her sex she
was disqualified to exercise the elective franchise; and it
is admitted that if her claim in that respect is to be
determined alone by the Constitution and laws of this
State, excluding, as they do, persons of her sex from the
exercise of the elective franchise, the judgment below is
correct, and should be affirmed here.

But it is claimed that she is entitled to registration as
a voter by reason of the first section of the recent
amendment to the Federal Constitution of July 20th,
1868, known as the Fourteenth Amendment. That section
is in the following words:

"Article 14, Section 1. All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law, nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

1. It is claimed that the plaintiff is a citizen of the
United States and of this State. Undoubtedly she is. It is
argued that she became such by force of the first section
of the Fourteenth Amendment, already recited. This,
however, is a mistake. It could as well be claimed that
she became free by the effect of the Thirteenth
Amendment, by which slavery was abolished; for she
was no less a citizen than she was free before the
adoption of either of these amendments. No white person
born within the limits of the United States, and subject to
their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and
subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status
of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal
Constitution. The history and aim of the Fourteenth
Amendment is well known, and the purpose had in view
in its adoption well understood. That purpose was to
confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of
persons domiciled within the limits of the United States,
who could not be brought within the operation of the
naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth,
though native, had at the same time left them without the
status of citizenship. These persons were not white
persons, but were, in the main, persons of African
descent, who had been held in slavery in this country, or,
if having themselves never been held in slavery, were the
native-born descendants of slaves. Prior to the adoption
of the Fourteenth Amendment it was settled that neither
slaves, nor those who had been such, nor the descendants
of these, though native and free born, were capable of
becoming citizens of the United States. ( Dred Scott v.
Sanford, 19 How. 393.) The Thirteenth Amendment,
though conferring the boon of freedom upon native-born
persons of African blood, had yet left them under an
insuperable bar as to citizenship; and it was mainly to
remedy this condition that the Fourteenth Amendment
was adopted.

This is recent history--familiar to all.

2. It is next claimed that, by whatever means the
plaintiff became a citizen of the United States, her
privileges and immunities as such citizen cannot be
abridged by State laws; and this is true. The purpose and
the effect of the amendment, in this respect, is to place
the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United
States beyond the operation of State legislation. Those
immunities and privileges, whatever they may be, are
guaranteed and protected in every State by this clause in
the Federal Constitution.

3. It is urged that, among these privileges and
immunities, is included the privilege of the plaintiff to
exercise the elective franchise within the limits of this
State, even in disregard of the Constitution and laws of
the State, which unquestionably exclude persons of her
sex. And this brings us to inquire what is meant by the
phrase "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United

Page 3

States," as used in this amendment.

This phraseology was known in our history anterior
to the formation of the present Federal Union. In the
articles of confederation between the American States it
was provided "that the free inhabitants of each of these
States (paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice
excepted) shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of free citizens of the several States, and the
people of each State shall, in every other, enjoy all the
privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same
duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants
thereof respectively," etc. (Art. IV.) The term "privileges
and immunities" was therefore not a new one when, in
the second section of the fourth article of the Federal
Constitution, as originally ratified, it was declared that
"the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several
States." The words "privileges and immunities" had at
that time acquired a distinctive meaning and a
well-known signification. They comprehended the
enjoyment of life and liberty, and the right to acquire and
possess property, and to demand and receive the
protection of the Government in aid of these. They
included the right to sue and defend in the Courts, to have
the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, and an
exemption from higher taxes or heavier impositions than
were to be borne by other persons under like conditions
and circumstances.

 

The Federal Constitution went into operation in
March, 1789, and within a few years thereafter--in
1797--a question came before the General Court in
Maryland in respect to the meaning of the words
"privileges and immunities" as thus employed in that
instrument. The question was argued by the most eminent
counsel in the State, and among them was the celebrated
Luther Martin, then Attorney General. Upon this point
the Court said: "Privilege and immunity are synonymous,
or nearly so. Privilege signifies a peculiar advantage,
exemption, immunity; immunity signifies exemption,
privilege. The peculiar advantages and exemptions
contemplated under this part of the Constitution may be
ascertained, if not with precision and accuracy, yet
satisfactorily. By taking a retrospective view of our
situation antecedent to the formation of the first General
Government, or the Confederation, in which the same
clause is used verbatim, one of the great objects must
occur to every person, which was the enabling of the
citizens of the several States to acquire and hold real

property in any of the States, and deemed necessary, as
each State was a sovereign and independent State, and the
States had confederated only for the purposes of general
defense and security, and to promote the general welfare.
It seems agreed from the manner of expounding or
defining the words 'immunities and privileges' by the
counsel on both sides, that a particular and limited
operation is to be given to those words, and not a full and
comprehensive one. It is agreed it does not mean the right
of election, the right of holding office, the right of being
elected. The Court are of opinion it means that the
citizens of all the States shall have the peculiar advantage
of acquiring and holding real as well as personal
property, and that such property shall be protected and
secured by the laws of the State in the same manner as
the property of the citizens of the State is protected," etc.
( Campbell v. Morris, 3 Harr. & McH. 554.)

The expression, "privileges and immunities," had
been found in the Constitution for a period of near eighty
years prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment,
and had never been supposed to include the right to the
exercise of the elective franchise. Notwithstanding the
citizens of each State were, during all that time, entitled
to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the
several States, it was never supposed that the citizen of
any State might, upon his removal into any other State,
lawfully claim to vote there because he had exercised that
privilege in the State from which he had just emigrated.

In point of fact the States have generally conferred
the privilege of the elective franchise upon such of their
male inhabitants as had become citizens of the United
States, if of the requisite age, etc. This circumstance has
given rise to a notion in some quarters that the privilege
of voting and the status of citizenship are necessarily
connected in some way--so that the existence of the one
argues that of the other. But the history of the country
shows that there was never any foundation for such a
view. Thus citizens of the United States, resident in the
State of Virginia, were prevented by State law from
voting there, unless seized of a freehold estate; and
citizens of the United States, resident in Massachusetts,
were by the laws of that State denied the privileges of the
elective franchise, unless owners of personal property to
a designated amount. While the privilege of voting was
thus, by State laws, withheld in those States from persons
who were citizens of the United States, the elective
franchise was in other States of the Union conferred by
State laws upon persons who were not citizens. In New


Page 4

York and North Carolina, for instance, at an early day the
privilege of voting was conferred upon negroes, persons
of African descent, under certain conditions. These were
not citizens of the United States, nor then even capable
of becoming such. In Wisconsin and Michigan, though
negroes were excluded, persons of the Indian blood were
admitted; and in Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, and other
States, unnaturalized foreigners were by State laws
allowed to vote--following in this respect the early policy
of the Federal Government, who, in the ordinance of
1787, for the government of the Northwestern Territory,
had permitted the elective franchise to the unnaturalized
French and Canadians, of whom the population of that
Territory was then largely composed. It will be found that
from the earliest periods of our history the State laws
regulated the privilege of the elective franchise within
their respective limits, and that these laws were exactly
such as local interests, peculiar conditions, or supposed
policy dictated, and that it was never asserted that the
exclusion of any class of inhabitants from the privilege of
voting amounted to an interference with the privileges of
the excluded class as citizens. As was well said by Judge
Mills, of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky: "The mistake
on the subject arises from not attending to a sensible
distinction between political and civil rights. The latter
constitute the citizen, while the former are not necessary
ingredients. A State may deny all her political rights to an
individual, and yet he may be a citizen. The rights of
office and suffrage are political purely, and are denied by
some or all the States to part of their population, who are
still citizens. A citizen, then, is one who owes the
Government allegiance, service, and money by way of
taxation, and to whom the Government, in turn, grants
and guarantees liberty of person and of conscience, the
right of acquiring and possessing property, of marriage
and the social relations, of suit and defense, and security
of person, estate, and reputation. These, with some others
which might be enumerated, being guaranteed and
secured by Government, constitute a citizen. To aliens we
extend these privileges by courtesy; to others we secure
them--to male as well as female--to the infant as well as
the person of hoary hairs." (1 Litt. R. 342.)

4. But the language of the second section of the
Fourteenth Amendment itself demonstrates that the
elective franchise is not one of the "privileges or
immunities" mentioned in the first section, and as such
not to be abridged or taken away by State laws.
The second section of the amendment (so far as
material upon this point) is in the following words:

"Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned
among the several States, according to their respective
numbers. But when the right to vote * * * is denied to
any of the male inhabitants of such State, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States
* * * the basis of representation therein shall be reduced"
* * * etc.

It will thus be seen that by this second section of the
Fourteenth Amendment it is expressly provided that if the
State law shall deny the elective franchise to the citizens
of the United States therein mentioned, the basis of
Federal representation to which such State would
otherwise be entitled shall be thereupon and in
consequence of such denial readjusted and reduced in a
designated ratio. If the power of the State to deny the
elective franchise to a citizen of the United States had
been absolutely taken away by the first section, then a
State law enacted for that purpose would necessarily be
absolutely void--as a bill of attainder passed or ex post
facto law enacted, would be void, as being in
contravention of the inhibitions of Article I, Section 10,
of the Federal Constitution. But by the second section of
the amendment under consideration it is provided that the
action of the State authority denying the right of citizens
of the United States to vote, so far from being null and
void, shall furnish a new basis of Federal numbers in the
State, upon which a new apportionment of representation
in Congress is to follow. It is inconceivable that such
constitutional consequences are to follow the doing of an
act which the Constitution had just forbidden to be done
at all.

5. The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution was
adopted nearly two years after the Fourteenth. It provides
that the right of a citizen of the United States to vote shall
not be denied on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude. If, under the Fourteenth
Amendment already adopted, the right of a citizen to vote
was not to be denied upon any ground whatsoever, what
necessity or propriety in subsequently providing that it
should not be denied upon either of three enumerated
grounds? It will be seen that the construction claimed for
the Fourteenth Amendment by the counsel for the
plaintiff would leave nothing for the Fifteenth to operate
upon.

Many other and hardly less cogent reasons might be
mentioned going to show that the elective franchise is not
one of the immunities or privileges secured by the first
section of the Fourteenth Amendment. The mere power
of the State to determine the class of inhabitants who may
vote within her limits was not curtailed in the Fourteenth
Amendment.

The Fifteenth Amendment took away her authority to
discriminate against citizens of the United States on
account of either race, color, or previous condition of
servitude; but the power of exclusion upon all other
grounds, including that of sex, remains intact.

Judgment affirmed.

 

Harvard degrees do count- but clearly one Harvard degree(President Obama) can disagree with another(Titus).

You and Titus can argue "Natural law" and whatever you want, but the actual real legal experts have already ruled and everyone is ignoring you and Titus. This is the reason that regardless of your rantings, Obama will once again be on every ballot in the country.

Examples of real relevant legal experts:

Congressional Research Service:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/...ral-Born”-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement

The constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars,and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that is, not children of diplomatic personnel representing aforeign nation or military troops in hostile occupation), is a native born U.S. citizen and thus a“natural born Citizen” eligible to be President under the qualifications clause of the Constitution,regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one’s parents. The legal issues regarding “natural born” citizenship and birth within the United States, without regard to lineage or ancestral bloodline, have been well settled in this country for more than a century, and such concepts date back to, and even pre-date, the founding of the nation.

The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject,also indicates that the term “natural born citizen” would most likely include, as well as native born citizens, those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previouslyresided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.


Then there is the Indiana Court of Appeals:

There is only one court decision which squarely interprets the "natural born citizen" clause as applied to a candidate for president, which is Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ). The Ankeny court ruled that the citizenship of President Obama's father is irrelevant:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.[/I]


And thats what two relevant sets of experts have said.

 

What is proof of "natural born" citizenship, again? According to the OP, I mean.

 

why do you misquote the wong case so people take it out of context?

His daddy was an alien and a foreigner!!!

the reason both parents need to be citizens is to insure there is not question about allegiance.

why you continue to post that out of context is beyond me!

OR is it the judge that took it out of context to save his ass? If that is the case then we need a full investigation and to check his bank accounts.

 

The moonbat division of the Republican Party is at it again. The ********* club has never met a conspiracy they didn’t love. They boldly put on their tinfoil hats and head off into the woods to go catch Sasquatch, or whatever else is the absurdity of the day. Now they’re going after the presumptive front runner of their own party, Mitt Romney.

The birthers are demanding the Secretary of State in California produce “proof” that Romney isn’t an alien. Maybe he really is from Uranus, a left behind deposit from the mothership when it returns to their trailer parks every Saturday night to collect more DNA, or worse yet, maybe Romney is a Mexican!

Mitt Romney’s dad was born in a Mormon colony in Mexico. Mitt’s great-grandfather had to flee the United States so he could stay married to Mitt’s four great-grandmothers, and maybe that makes Mitt something. Maybe an alien, maybe a Mexican, maybe not eligible to run for president. But Mitt probably isn’t overly concerned about the moonbats in his own party. Like all good Mormons, Mitt undoubtedly wears magic Mormon underwear that makes him invisible, or possessive of x-ray vision, or able to leap over tall buildings in a single bound, or something else.

But it will be interesting to watch his Republican ********* pals chase him around the country demanding he prove he isn’t an alien. Of course once someone explains to this collection of Mensa rejects that Romney is a Mormon, not a "Mormoon" their interest will probably quickly fade.

http://now.msn.com/now/0322-romney-vs-birthers.aspx

 

The reason we call B. Hussein Obama "The Kenyan" is because he was likely born in Kenya. If so, he would be a naturalized citizen due to his mother not technically meeting the residency/age requirements. Naturalized citizens cannot legally be president. Obama is likely a fraud!

 

Do you sweat much underneath that tinfoil hat?

 

What are you trying to say?

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

What's your point? Are you learning disabled, and have difficulty in expressing yourself? I certainly hope you are not trying to talk down to your betters!

 

Gosh you're just a gift that keeps on giving. Comprehension isn't one of your mastered skills apparently.

 

I quoted the Indiana Court of Appeals- which consists of actual real legal experts.

I also quoted the Congressional Research Service- which again- consists of real legal experts.

And their opinions have been cited over and over by courts since then.

Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with you needs to be 'investigated'.....going to be real busy investigating every judge and justice who has ever ruled on this.

 

The reason you call Obama Hussein is because you oppose Obama politically and you support any moonbat theory that is anti-Obama.

The facts show that beyond any reasonable doubt, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

The only thing 'likely' in your your statement is that you are likely making it all up.

 

Birthers....when speculation, innuendo and lies fail....go straight to the personal attacks!

 

You deny Obama's middle name is Hussein? Your evidence of where he was born is sorely lacking, but some of us already know that.

Obama is the most incompetent, un-american president in the history of our country, and I don't happen to like that.

 

and obama is still president and the voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary say you're wrong.

/thread

 

I still want an answer to my question!

What is proof?

 

No, I was just curious partially, and partially being snide in return. Besides, personal attacks are trademarks of the loony left people like you.

 

except of course we know he was born in the US, not in kenya.

 

I'm sorry to talk over your head. I'll try to be more direct and simple in the future.

 

actually, his evidence he was born in hawaii is irrefutable.

 

I disagree, and so do many, many others. Just be comfortable in your little gullible, obama butt-kissing world. You loony leftys are a real hoot!

 

you can disagree all you want. the fact remains obama was born in the US, and is eligible for the presidency.