Your contention now is that citizen and subject are equal terms, is that correct?
I said "In this context".
In the context of the writers of the constitution understanding what a natural born citizen is. So, the writers of the constitution understood a natural born citizen to be equal to a born subject in reference to how the condition occurred.
Correct?
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Looks like most Americans are getting bored with crazy birthers:
Quote:
Backing the "Birthers" may be a good way to gain notoriety and attract criticism, but it's proving to be ratings poison for Lou Dobbs. The New York Observer's Felix Gillette crunches the numbers, and the bottom line is Dobbs is bottoming out:
Looks like most Americans are getting bored with Obama.
Wait, no, they must all be conspiracy loons and racists!
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
In the context of defining the adjective "natural born" it is irrelevant whether the noun used is subject or citizen.
Obviously the framers would have been familiar with British common law and frequently adapted it to their own use. In fact our entire legal system is mostly based on British common law, except for Louisiana. This is fact, agreed?
Can you think of any reason they wouldn't know of Blackstone's Commentaries or it's definition of natural born? Can you think of any reason they would have eschewed that definition in favor of Vattel's? Did you find the original French words that were later translated to Natural Born? Can you provide evidence that those French words would have been understood to mean natural born at the time?
Looks like most Americans are getting bored with crazy birthers:
Quote:
Backing the "Birthers" may be a good way to gain notoriety and attract criticism, but it's proving to be ratings poison for Lou Dobbs. The New York Observer's Felix Gillette crunches the numbers, and the bottom line is Dobbs is bottoming out:
People are getting tired of humoring these loonies? In other words, they don't know nothin' about babyin' no birthers?
__________________
"Her eyes in certain light were violet, and all her teeth were even. That's a rare, fair feature: even teeth. She smiled to excess, but she chewed with real distinction." - Eleanor of Aquitaine
See The 1904 edition of Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases, by West Publishing Company, at page 4664, which cites several cases in support of the meaning that anyone born in the United States, its territories, or districts, is a "natural born citizen," regardless of the citizenship of his/her parents. True, the Supreme Court has not yet been compelled to speak on the issue, but I think it reasonable to conclude that if credible authority to the contrary had existed, the West Publishing Company would have alluded to that authority in compiling its book.
Good find SB. Though the Supreme Court has not taken it upon itself to define the term, it has been defined in enough cases to be considered legal precedent
Good find SB. Though the Supreme Court has not taken it upon itself to define the term, it has been defined in enough cases to be considered legal precedent
[crazybirther]
Hogwash
Until such time that the Supreme Court hears and rules on one of these cases, a ruling which will invalidate the presidency of the current Kenyan born crypto-Muslim Islamofascist Gun hating Commie office holder, any "precedent" has been set by Liberal baby killing ghey supporting activist judges legislating from the bench and thus, as any God-fearing Red-Blooded American knows, is unconstitutional. Can I get an amen?
Besides there is no way in hell we can standby and do nothing while there is a NEGRO in the Whitehouse.
[/crazybirther]
__________________
The best way to make America great is to lower the standards!
The Constitution imposes the additional requirement that such persons must be subject to US jurisdiction. Defining this would appear to be the purpose of 8USC1401, which until 1986 required the parent's residence in the US for ten years, five of those after age 14, to transmit citizenship to the child. Thus Obama's mother would have to have been at least 19 on his birth date, assuming she was a US citizen and his father was an alien.
The Constitution imposes the additional requirement that such persons must be subject to US jurisdiction. Defining this would appear to be the purpose of 8USC1401, which until 1986 required the parent's residence in the US for ten years, five of those after age 14, to transmit citizenship to the child. Thus Obama's mother would have to have been at least 19 on his birth date, assuming she was a US citizen and his father was an alien.
LOL wrong.
The actual text says:
Quote:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United
States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an
alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to
the birth of such person, was physically present in the United
States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling
not less than five years,* at least two of which were after attaining
the age of fourteen years:
The clause you are referring to only applies to people born of split parentage (citizen / non-citizen) *if* such a person is born outside the geographic limits of the USA.
Obama was born in Hawaii, so the entire clause falls apart. Your attempt to place an age requirement (or residency requirement) on Obama's mother fails.
Rather like your miserable, wasted life I should think....
* and yes, I'm aware of the change - 1986--Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99-653 substituted ``five years, at least
two'' for ``ten years, at least five'' --- however, the amount of time is irrelevant because the opening
clause (in red) invalidates the application of this paragraph to Obama's mother.
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
The Constitution imposes the additional requirement that such persons must be subject to US jurisdiction. Defining this would appear to be the purpose of 8USC1401, which until 1986 required the parent's residence in the US for ten years, five of those after age 14, to transmit citizenship to the child. Thus Obama's mother would have to have been at least 19 on his birth date, assuming she was a US citizen and his father was an alien.
I was under the impression those criteria only needed to be met if the child was/is born outside the US, see subsection g
So which is it Sauron, do I not know the definition or am I using a diffrent definition than the one you want to use?
False choice. You clearly do not know the definition, or else you would have posted it by now. You have no idea of what definition I would choose.
Here are the facts:
1. You have yet to present any such definition.
2. You have yet to show what the Framers intended by the phrase "natural born citizen."
3. Yet you try to claim that other definitions are wrong - an impossibility, unless you already had a definition in mind.
And every time you are reminded of your failure to do even the most basic support of your argument, we suddenly hear all kinds of distractions from you:
"Oh, my isn't it a lovely day."
"Hey! I smell bacon."
"Aardvark."
Quote:
Contradicting ones self in a single post is unseemly.
Talking to yourself on the internet again?
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
The Constitution imposes the additional requirement that such persons must be subject to US jurisdiction. Defining this would appear to be the purpose of 8USC1401,
Almost forgot this.
There is nothing in the text of this statute that would suggest that such is its purpose. You have once again created another blanket assertion to plug a hole in your argument. Apparently you hoped nobody would notice it, and the audience would just accept your premise as a given.
Fat chance.
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
The Constitution imposes the additional requirement that such persons must be subject to US jurisdiction. Defining this would appear to be the purpose of 8USC1401, which until 1986 required the parent's residence in the US for ten years, five of those after age 14, to transmit citizenship to the child. Thus Obama's mother would have to have been at least 19 on his birth date, assuming she was a US citizen and his father was an alien.
I was under the impression those criteria only needed to be met if the child was/is born outside the US, see subsection g
Subsec. g does. That's why his alleged birth in HI is an issue. And as I believe In noted upthread, HI currently issues birth certificates for people born outside the state; so it is by no means a truism that he was born in HI.
Quote:
Do you have the 1986 text?
From the same page:
Amendments
1994--Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 103-416 added subsec. (h). 1986--Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99-653 substituted ``five years, at least
two'' for ``ten years, at least five''.
Subsec. g does. That's why his alleged birth in HI is an issue.
1. It is alleged" in the same sense that it is "alleged" that Lincoln was born in Kentucky - in other words, it is accepted historical fact.
2. It is an "issue" only in the sense that alien abductions and creationism is an issue - in other words, a belief held by (deliberately) uneducated people and not founded on any factual basis.
Quote:
And as I believe In noted upthread, HI currently issues birth certificates for people born outside the state; so it is by no means a truism that he was born in HI.
Actually, what you claimed upthread was that Hawaii destroyed all paper birth certificates - a claim which has been rebutted already. This is the first time you have claimed that Hawaii issues birth certificates for people born outside the state.
Apparently this new claim is another attempt to introduce wishful thinking as accepted evidence, and hope nobody remembers the course of the discussion well enough to realize that you've never proven this (new) claim.
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
Were they issuing birth certificates and publishing birth announcements for those not born in Hawaii in 1961?
I have no idea, but without knowing what the relevant HI statutes were at the time, there is no way of knowing he was born in HI from the information that's publicly available.
Beyond that, this claim is of particular interest:
In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate”. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.” In this way “state policies and procedures” accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an “original birth certificate on record.”
Were they issuing birth certificates and publishing birth announcements for those not born in Hawaii in 1961?
I have no idea,
If you have no idea, then upon what basis do you form your argument?
Quote:
but without knowing what the relevant HI statutes were at the time, there is no way of knowing he was born in HI from the information that's publicly available.
Except that there is no publicly available information - none that you have provided, anyhow - that confirms your claim that Hawaii grants birth certificates to people born outside the state. Your entire specious trolling is based upon......a claim you made earlier but never supported (i.e., trolling).
Quote:
One who purportedly does have such knowledge
LOL a right-wing wacko website - how many times do you need to be told to use reliable sources? This is what happens when you don't:
Quote:
Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, state policies and procedures could accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an original birth certificate on record. But though Act 182 does provide children born out of state with a birth certificate it does not provide them with birth certificates that say that these children were born in Hawaii or at a specific location in Hawaii. Consequently these birth certificates cannot engender Certifications of Live Birth which state that the subject was born in Honolulu, as the purported Obama Certification of Live Birth does. So if the Obama Certification of Live Birth was not forged, it could not have been engendered by an Act 182-authorized birth certificate for “children born out of state”. And if it was forged, the false information on it was not based on anything that could be on an Act-182 authorized birth certificate. So Orly Taitz’ assertion that “Hawaii has statute 338 that allows foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificates” is irrelevant.
Quote:
Beyond that, this claim is of particular interest:
Not really, because the change described in your paragraph dates from 1982 - which means it post-dates Obama's birth and can't possibly have been in force at the time he was born.
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
It looks like Hawaii has a habit of giving out certificates like candy, really, they get candy from the Feds based upon citizen numbers.
Sun Yat-sen was born in 1866 in China and applied for a Hawaiian Certificate in 1904 with a price on his head from China.
Dr. Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866, to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan county , Guangzhou prefecture, Guangdong province (26 km or 16 miles north of Macau). Born in China, Dr. Sun Yat-Sen has a Certificate of Hawaiian/Live Birth aka; COLB. Dr. Sun Yat-Sen’s background is no less than the Father of ‘Modern’ China, a great hero.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
It goes to the long time history of BS certificates that Hawaii hands out.
They currently give out 5 different kinds.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Re: Best Birther Lunacy Evar
...........
Linear Mode
