Understanding the Law

Not being on my friends list doesn't keep you from knowing just when to show up at one of my discussions, does it? Anyway, the clause: all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.... is in the first civil rights law. http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/ Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”* When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father. Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.

American citizen - this only means that at least one of the birth parents was an American and that the individual was naturalized, if not born in the US. These alo include immigrants who have been naturalized citizens. You can be considered an American citizen if you have dual citizenship with another country. To scream that Obama is an American citizen, as many afterbirthers do, proves NOTHING avout his right to be president. Even Syrian-born Tony Rezko is an American citizen. Native Born Citizen - this means that an individual, in addition to having at least one parent who is an American citizen and you were born on US soil (including territories and American bases). Although this term is thrown around by afterbirthers, this still does not meet the definition of a Natural Born Citizen. Natural Born Citizen - this is an individual born of two American parents, whether the parents were native born or were foreign born and then naturalized. I believe that Bobby Jindal's parents were not native born, but he would be qualified for president because both parents were American citizens through the naturalization process.

I watch the politics discussion group. When you post to politics, I see it. The purpose of my post was to refute your claim that Civil Rights Act of 1866 defines who is a natural born citizen. It does not. Nor do Congressman Wilson's statements have any weight regarding what the law actually passed actually says, and even if it did it would have been superceded by subsequent law. Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member. This is not what the Civil Rights Act of 1866 says, nor is it what 18 USC 1401 says, nor is it what the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 says. A child born on American soil to an American citizen, regardless of whether it is the father or the mother, is a citizen from the moment of their birth. The Constitutional concept of a natural born citizen descends from the British legal concept of a natural born subject, which was any person who was a subject from the moment of their birth rather than the result of naturalization. Barack Obama, Sr.'s nationality notwithstanding, the fact that Barack Obama, Jr. is the son of American citizen Stanley Ann Dunham made him a citizen from the moment of his birth, which makes him a natural born citizen. The idea that only the father's citizenship counts is simply not a part of US law. The idea that both parents must be citizens to be a natural born citizen is simply not a part of US law. The idea that no other country must assert that one is their citizen to be a natural born citizen is simply not a part of US law.

http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/2011/02/who-may-be-president/ That is from someone who is pro Obama. Now, after you read that entire piece please go view the link I posted (I'll even post it again for you) and listen to explanation that it is not where he was born, it is who his parents are. The law is that you must be born to TWO American citizens to qualify as 'natural born citizen'. I have asked myself the same questions you ask annie. Why are there no high level persons looking into this? No, no conspiracy going back to his birth. None needed to explain that a ambitious young man who wanted to be president and was helped to do so by some powerful people who helped him cover up his ineligibility. Why would it have to go as far back as his birth? Do I think anything will ever be done about it? No, but that shouldn't stop anyone from seeking the truth. Which my friend, is all I am doing. Posted below is a 20 min. video on what the law on natural born citizen actually is. If you don't want to view all of it, you can skip to the relevant parts. Thanks. http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/2011/02/who-may-be-president/

Deb, I KNOW your claim is that it's the law that both parents have to be U.S. citizens for someone to be President but that's simply NOT THE CASE! http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111202082808AAToHbA http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2011/10/taking-down-minor-v-happersett.html Despite the claims in your video it is not necessary for both parents to be Americans. Regarding the Palins, I've spoken out more than once about that ridiculous "conspiracy theory". Obviously Bristol couldn't have had a baby in April and then be five months pregnant in August! As ridiculous and WRONG as these stories were, the fact remains that it was only a few more or less obscure (to the general public) "journalists" who reported them while the birthers have been front and center, especially with Donald Trump flapping his jaws 24/7. Out of curiosity, what's "ace-of-spades" supposed to mean? You have to admit it doesn't look or sound very good. Could it be one of those so-called "dog whistles"? Just sayin'... Annie

I would also like your input on this: http://twitchy.com/2012/05/29/ace-of-spades-should-obama-be-meeting-with-andrew-sullivan-if-hes-so-butthurt-about-conspiracy-theories/ If the right is so 'wrong' in pursuing this, why not speak out on Sullivan's 'theory' that Sarah Palin's child was really her daughter's child?

Thanks Peavey. That's all I am asking for here, open minds.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof There is a difference between 'natural born' and 'native born' as posted above. As you well know, laws are subject to interpretation. Read the link I've posted for the original interpretation of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

I believe in interpreting the Constitution as the original framers whould have interpreted it. How did THEY understand the words they chose to put down on that paper, risk their lives and fortunes to enact? Here is an article written to show what was the intention of their using 'natural born' rather than 'native born'. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22262 Native is a term relative to geography, where a person is at the time of birth. This issue came up as a challenge to John McCain during his 2008 bid for the White House, as he was born “off base” at a local hospital in Panama while his father was stationed on a Navy base in Panama. As a diversionary tactic to lead obvious questions away from Barack Hussein Obama, some challenged McCain’s “natural born” status as a presidential candidate on the basis that he was not “native born” on US soil, or on US territory, the US Naval Base in Panama. Congress, therefore, passed a resolution proclaiming McCain a “natural born citizen” on the basis that he was the “natural born” son of two US citizens, more specifically, the natural born son of a US Naval Commander. So the very words of those seeking to disqualify McCain, damn Obama. It is on record what they used to qualify McCain. However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama, and here’s why; The term “native” relates to the geographic location of birth. But the term “natural” relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage or the bloodline of the father. The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a treaty between nations which established certain universal standards, one of which being the term “natural born citizen.” Vattel's Law of Nations 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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”Why do I refer to Vattel's Law of Nations? Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775 “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”? Because THAT work was used as a source of wisdom when our Constitution was written. The subject of “natural law” found in the Law of Nations is entirely consistent with the Royal British purpose of the term “natural born citizen.” It keeps the family bloodline intact on the basis of the father’s blood, aka “natural law.” It is the source from which our nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution, under Article II—Section I—Clause V; “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;” Not “native” or “naturalized” or “citizen,” but only “natural born” citizens can hold the office of president