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

Kokomojojo · Mar 20, 2012

rahl said: ↑

english common law is the basis for natural born citizenship, as cited in wong kim ark.

the decleration of independance says nothing about citizenship. you should read it some time. the constitution does in fact say what a natural born citizen is. english common law is the basis for the definition of natural born citizen.

I have been pounding you over the head with court precident. wong kim ark is the current legal precident on natural born citizenhip. they wong court, along with the voters, the elecotral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary say you are wrong. that's why obama is POTUS, and you're whining about it on the internet.

he's not my man. and the law is how he got in. the law spells out who is eligibile to be POTUS, and obama is eligibile.
Click to expand...

sure it does, it says who they are talking about in the founding documents!

wong only claims he becomes a citizen, titus explains this 500 posts ago.

bang yer dead!
Click to expand...

rahl · Mar 20, 2012

Kokomojojo said: ↑

sure it does, it says who they are talking about in the founding documents!

!
Click to expand...

no it doesn't.

wong only claims he becomes a citizen, titus explains this 500 posts ago.
Click to expand...

titus can explain anything he wants to. the actua decision of the wong court held he was a natural born citizen.

bang yer dead
Click to expand...

try to use yours. you are embarassing yourself with every post.

Kokomojojo · Mar 20, 2012

Kokomojojo said: ↑

rahl said: ↑

sure it does, it says who they are talking about in the founding documents!

wong only claims he becomes a citizen, titus explains this 500 posts ago.

bang yer dead!
Click to expand...

and then you look in wong and they go on and on and on QUOTING ENGLISH LAW AS PRECEDENCE!!!!!!

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "seven years a citizen of the United States," and every Senator to have been "nine years a citizen of the United States;" and "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."

And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude."

Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: "The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil." p. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying: "The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another, by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.

daym! It quotes ENGLAND AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He evidently used the word "citizen," not as equivalent to "subject," but rather to "inhabitant;" and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said: "By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality." Cockburn on Nationality, 7.

daym! It quotes ENGLAND AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

title should be made or derived, had been or should be "born out of the King's allegiance, and out of His Majesty's realms and dominions," as fully and effectually, as if such parents or ancestors "had been naturalized or natural-born subject or subjects within the King's dominions." 7 Statutes of the Realm, 590. It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called "natural-born subjects."

In United States v. Rhodes, (1866) Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England." "We find no warrant for the opinion 663*663 that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution." 1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows: "The children of citizens pluralof the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." 1 Stat. 104. In 1795, this was reënacted, in the same words, except in substituting, for the words "beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States." 1 Stat. 415.

"The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the Government of the United States, may have become citizens PLURAL of any one of the said States under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States; and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States." Act of April 14, 1802, c. 28, § 4; 2 Stat. 155.

Now I posted that 1802 act it is standing law and but apparently no one can read here?

"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of 680*680 parents who were its citizens PLURAL, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens PLURAL, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. <<<----obamas daddy!

The argument is, that although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words "citizens of the United States" and "natural-born citizen" as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule "was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;" and "that before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States."

Before the Revolution, the views of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: "The natives, or natural-born citizens PLURAL, are those born in the country, of parents PLURAL who are citizens PLURAL.

By the fifth clause of the first section of article two of the Constitution it is provided that: "No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, <- covered the founders butts

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China; and during all the time of their residence in the United States they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to wit, in California,

Obama had residence across the pond to go to school! LOL

you people are completely and incorrectly applying the law.

no where in that case is ANYTHING that states wong is a NATURALBORN CITIZEN, JUST A US CITIZEN AND A US CITIZEN IS THE SAME THING ARNOLD IS AND THEREFORE NOT QUALIFIED

all your red herrings over and over ad hominem
Click to expand...

Kokomojojo · Mar 20, 2012

you people continually and falsely quote wong.

rahl · Mar 20, 2012

Kokomojojo said: ↑

and then you look in wong and they go on and on and on QUOTING ENGLISH LAW AS PRECEDENCE!!!!!!
Click to expand...

yes, they used english common law.

in the meantime, obama is president, and, the voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary continue to say you're wrong. what does that tell you?

rahl · Mar 20, 2012

Kokomojojo said: ↑

you people continually and falsely quote wong.
Click to expand...

and you continue to get proven wrong.

Kokomojojo · Mar 21, 2012

rahl said: ↑

yes, they used english common law.

in the meantime, obama is president, and, the voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary continue to say you're wrong. what does that tell you?
Click to expand...

that we have a criminal guvermint and all troughers care about is agenda not the law

Kokomojojo · Mar 21, 2012

rahl said: ↑

and you continue to get proven wrong.
Click to expand...

your opinion is proof of NOTHING!

stop screwing around and make your case if you are going to make it because wong does more to bury you than support you.

Kokomojojo said: ↑

and then you look in wong and they go on and on and on QUOTING ENGLISH LAW AS PRECEDENCE!!!!!!

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "seven years a citizen of the United States," and every Senator to have been "nine years a citizen of the United States;" and "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."

And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude."

Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: "The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil." p. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying: "The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another, by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.

He evidently used the word "citizen," not as equivalent to "subject," but rather to "inhabitant;" and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said: "By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality." Cockburn on Nationality, 7.

title should be made or derived, had been or should be "born out of the King's allegiance, and out of His Majesty's realms and dominions," as fully and effectually, as if such parents or ancestors "had been naturalized or natural-born subject or subjects within the King's dominions." 7 Statutes of the Realm, 590. It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called "natural-born subjects."

In United States v. Rhodes, (1866) Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England." "We find no warrant for the opinion 663*663 that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution." 1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows: "The children of citizens pluralof the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." 1 Stat. 104. In 1795, this was reënacted, in the same words, except in substituting, for the words "beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States." 1 Stat. 415.

"The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the Government of the United States, may have become citizens PLURAL of any one of the said States under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States; and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States." Act of April 14, 1802, c. 28, § 4; 2 Stat. 155.

Now I posted that 1802 act it is standing law and but apparently no one can read here?

"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of 680*680 parents who were its citizens PLURAL, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens PLURAL, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. <<<----obamas daddy!

The argument is, that although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words "citizens of the United States" and "natural-born citizen" as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule "was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;" and "that before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States."

Before the Revolution, the views of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: "The natives, or natural-born citizens PLURAL, are those born in the country, of parents PLURAL who are citizens PLURAL.

By the fifth clause of the first section of article two of the Constitution it is provided that: "No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, <- covered the founders butts

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China; and during all the time of their residence in the United States they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to wit, in California,

Obama had residence across the pond to go to school! LOL

you people are completely and incorrectly applying the law.

no where in that case is ANYTHING that states wong is a NATURALBORN CITIZEN, JUST A US CITIZEN AND A US CITIZEN IS THE SAME THING ARNOLD IS AND THEREFORE NOT QUALIFIED

all your red herrings over and over ad hominem
Click to expand...

as usual you do not show ANYTHING that he is a natural born citizen just stand on your soapbox and scream that he is.

wake me up if you come up with something worth reading

SFJEFF · Mar 21, 2012

Kokomojojo said: ↑

the constitution and declaration state exactly who can be president and none other.

If you do not like it then amend it
Click to expand...

And nowhere does the Constitution say that a black man can't be President- no matter how much you want it to say that.

And proof of that fact is the election of Barack Obama, and his confirmation by Congress.

SFJEFF · Mar 21, 2012

Kokomojojo said: ↑

judgment after fact?

No they do not say I am wrong, they do what they do best, sell the whole package on a narrow slice by construction which if you understood what I am saying you would realize that is judicial construction and that means legislation from the bench and you would know that is UNLAWFUL.

Its truly a trougher MO through and through.

It was their duty to prevent this sort of argument from EVER taking place in this country in the general public in the first place.

they DIDNT

That is a crime

Not one thing you are saying makes a whit of sense.

Rant away.

Meanwhile the rest of the U.S. will follow the Constitution, and President Obama will continue as President.
Click to expand...

SFJEFF · Mar 21, 2012

Kokomojojo said: ↑

your opinion is proof of NOTHING!

as usual you do not show ANYTHING that he is a natural born citizen just stand on your soapbox and scream that he is.

wake me up if you come up with something worth reading

Click to expand...

Really our opinion and your opinion are equally of little value.

The opinion of the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and virtually ever court and electoral commission....now those opinions are of value...and they all say you and Titus are wrong.

If I have to choose between your opinion, or the opinion of real Legal experts like the Indiana Court of Appeals ....I will go with real experts.

rahl · Mar 21, 2012

Kokomojojo said: ↑

that we have a criminal guvermint and all troughers care about is agenda not the law
Click to expand...

except it's already been prove to you it's a matter of law that obama is eligible.

are you saying the entire RNC, the entire DNC, every single member of congress, the entire electoral college, and every single member of the judiciary conspired to elect an ineligible man to the white house?

even you aren't crazy enough to believe that.

rahl · Mar 21, 2012

Kokomojojo said: ↑

your opinion is proof of NOTHING!
Click to expand...

I haven't offered my opinion. I've offered US law, Supreme court precident. and the fact that the voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary agree with me.

stop screwing around and make your case if you are going to make it because wong does more to bury you than support you.
Click to expand...

lol, quote where wong "burries" me.

as usual you do not show ANYTHING that he is a natural born citizen just stand on your soapbox and scream that he is.

wake me up if you come up with something worth reading

Click to expand...

it's already been provided. READ THE (*)(*)(*)(*)ING DECISION IN WONG KIM ARK.
Click to expand...

Falena · Mar 21, 2012

This thread exceeded the post limit. Feel free to create another thread.

Falena
Site Moderator

Log in or Sign up

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

Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

rahl Banned

Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

rahl Banned

rahl Banned

Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

SFJEFF New Member

SFJEFF New Member

SFJEFF New Member

rahl Banned

rahl Banned

Falena Cherry Bomb Staff Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

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

Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

rahl Banned

Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

rahl Banned

rahl Banned

Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

SFJEFF New Member

SFJEFF New Member

SFJEFF New Member

rahl Banned

rahl Banned

Falena Cherry Bomb Staff Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches