100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Natural- born citizen defined | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
FACT: The US Constitution requires the president to be a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN FACT: John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington suggesting the requirement be made FACT: The description of natural-born citizen was derived from Vattel's work, Law of Nations § 212 FACT: In the SCOTUS decision, The Venus, 1814, Justice Marshall defines 'natural-born citizen' using Vattel's work, but in his own words saying, (#123) 'Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, 'the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.' http://openjurist.org/12/us/253/the-venus-rae-master FACT: During the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, Mr Bingham defined 'natural-born citizen' on the House floor and NONE disputed his definition. To the nest of my knowledge, NO ONE has ever disputed this definition on either the House or Senate floor since, so the definition of 'natural-born citizens' remains as such (as per last sentence of this paragraph): "The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words "natural-born citizen of the United States" occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth - natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion say more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions becomes naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens." To read for yourself, click on link below, click pp 961-1920, type in 1639 in box next to 'Turn to image', click on 'Turn to image'. The above quote is in column 1, paragraph 3. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Wed 08/21/13 03:54 PM
|
|
This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated: The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) And Obozo doesn't say in so many words he has a kill list and kills Americans, women and children, or that the NSA can spy on us, or the IRS can persecute us.... but they say they have that right under secret law... As for Justice Marshall defining 'natural born citizen' in that SCOTUS decision, there are a few minor issues worth mentioning. First, it's not from the SC decision. It's from the dissenting opinion, i.e., it's quoting from someone explaining why they disagree with the SC decision. If he did define 'natural born citizen' it might still carry some weight, but he doesn't define 'natural born citizen' or use the phrase 'natural born citizen' even once. Third, if you read beyond the quoted section of the dissenting opinion it's clear that he's referring to Vattel to make a point about the definition of 'domicile,' not about citizenship much less about natural born citizenship. But actually reading of that section from Vattel is exactly in line with what Vattel goes on to say in the next few paragraphs of that book that the birthers seem to always forget to quote. Vattel argues explicitly that if a child is born in a foreign country, the citizenship *given by nature* (i.e., not a matter of naturalization by law) depends only on the father's citizenship and loyalty, and the place of birth doesn't change that fact. Obozos father was not an American, nor is Ted Cruz's father. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the SCOTUS case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, the Court ruled that any person born within U.S. territory is a natural-born citizen of the USA no matter who that person's parents are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FACT: The US Constitution requires the president to be a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN FACT: John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington suggesting the requirement be made FACT: The description of natural-born citizen was derived from Vattel's work, Law of Nations § 212 FACT: In the SCOTUS decision, The Venus, 1814, Justice Marshall defines 'natural-born citizen' using Vattel's work, but in his own words saying, (#123) 'Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, 'the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.' No wonder the indigenous native Indians were left out for so long as these so called 'citizens tried out their various means of genocide against them; no wonder they tried to resist your version of civilization for as long as they did with many confined to 'reservations' unlike the once freed slaves whose descendants are running amok in most of your cities in a never ending carnage of murders, rapes and assaults on both whites and themselves, basically leaving the native Indian and Asians alone... http://openjurist.org/12/us/253/the-venus-rae-master FACT: During the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, Mr Bingham defined 'natural-born citizen' on the House floor and NONE disputed his definition. To the nest of my knowledge, NO ONE has ever disputed this definition on either the House or Senate floor since, so the definition of 'natural-born citizens' remains as such (as per last sentence of this paragraph): "The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words "natural-born citizen of the United States" occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth - natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion say more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions becomes naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens." To read for yourself, click on link below, click pp 961-1920, type in 1639 in box next to 'Turn to image', click on 'Turn to image'. The above quote is in column 1, paragraph 3. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
two types of citizens,, natural born, or naturalized
if he wasn't required to be naturalized,, he is natural born,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
two types of citizens,, natural born, or naturalized if he wasn't required to be naturalized,, he is natural born,,,, Exactly! 
|
|
|
|
|
