obama birth certificate: separation of issues

[Skylar]

The whole question of The Leftist Messiah's place of birth exists merely to twist the knickers of His acolytes.

But don't tell 'em.

I hate it when they cry.

Oh, you've been so misled. The Birther issue exists to demonstrate just how batshit crazy the fringe right actually is. That's what you're here for. That's what you're good for.

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

The whole question of The Leftist Messiah's place of birth exists merely to twist the knickers of His acolytes.

But don't tell 'em.

I hate it when they cry.

Oh, you've been so misled. The Birther issue exists to demonstrate just how batshit crazy the fringe right actually is. That's what you're here for. That's what you're good for.

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

it's my thread.

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

then we'll get to the other half of the original ponderance, which is the documentation provenance, and is there anything we should know, has anything been intentionally obfuscated.

I doubt it. You've rabbited from it before. You'll run screaming from it again. Birthers don't do well with a sustained conversation. They usually try to run from a topic and come back much later when they think no one who is informed is watching.

And then spew again the same debunked nonsense they were sent running from before.

 

[Skylar]

The whole question of The Leftist Messiah's place of birth exists merely to twist the knickers of His acolytes.

But don't tell 'em.

I hate it when they cry.

Oh, you've been so misled. The Birther issue exists to demonstrate just how batshit crazy the fringe right actually is. That's what you're here for. That's what you're good for.

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

All of Scott's posts are non-sequitor.

Its why I rarely respond to his posts. LIke I don't respond to the crazy guy on the street mumbling about the government shooting sky lasers into his brain.

this one got to you then huh ?

hey which one are you at doc holiday's goldbucket ?? surranis (too easy) dr. ken ? you don't write like a lawyer, so that rules out about half of kevin's disciples...

ostensibly you know me though. typical obot subterranean tactical disadvantage.
you guys finally get that this isn't going away still after all these years of your unsuccessful attempts to wish it away into the cornfield or something.

jeff?, no, rahlwong ???...

not historiandude eppy....

Um, wow. 'Subterranean Tactical Disadvantage'? That's gibberish.

Can I take it from your rout into 'street mumbling' that the topic of the thread wasn't working out so well for you?

 

[washamericom]

NBC Under Fire Investigative Journo Interviews Zullo No Raised Seal On Obama Birth Certificate - Birther Report

hmmmm

Wow. That's quite the elaborate hypothetical that you guys imagined, isn't it?

Here's my favorite part:

"Reed Hayes has a distinguished background as a document examiner. He has done work in document examination for Perkins Coie. Mr. Reed has concluded that the image presented by the White House is “entirely fabricated”.
Read more at NBC Under Fire Investigative Journo Interviews Zullo No Raised Seal On Obama Birth Certificate - Birther Report

And yet the State of Hawaii confirmed that they issued its completely accurate. So a 100% accurate 'fabrication'?

Sigh.....birthers aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree, are they?

hoax

 

[washamericom]

Oh, you've been so misled. The Birther issue exists to demonstrate just how batshit crazy the fringe right actually is. That's what you're here for. That's what you're good for.

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

All of Scott's posts are non-sequitor.

Its why I rarely respond to his posts. LIke I don't respond to the crazy guy on the street mumbling about the government shooting sky lasers into his brain.

this one got to you then huh ?

hey which one are you at doc holiday's goldbucket ?? surranis (too easy) dr. ken ? you don't write like a lawyer, so that rules out about half of kevin's disciples...

ostensibly you know me though. typical obot subterranean tactical disadvantage.
you guys finally get that this isn't going away still after all these years of your unsuccessful attempts to wish it away into the cornfield or something.

jeff?, no, rahlwong ???...

not historiandude eppy....

Um, wow. 'Subterranean Tactical Disadvantage'? That's gibberish.

Can I take it from your rout into 'street mumbling' that the topic of the thread wasn't working out so well for you?

you're gibberish obot.... we'd be done with this is it wasn't for people like you.

heh heh. i could flip the table on you... why are you still vehemently defying this.. for years..
... even cool hand luke obamalinsky is more relaxed than U...
your job is to kill the press, mine is to keep it running.

 

[washamericom]

The whole question of The Leftist Messiah's place of birth exists merely to twist the knickers of His acolytes.

But don't tell 'em.

I hate it when they cry.

Oh, you've been so misled. The Birther issue exists to demonstrate just how batshit crazy the fringe right actually is. That's what you're here for. That's what you're good for.

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

The whole question of The Leftist Messiah's place of birth exists merely to twist the knickers of His acolytes.

But don't tell 'em.

I hate it when they cry.

Oh, you've been so misled. The Birther issue exists to demonstrate just how batshit crazy the fringe right actually is. That's what you're here for. That's what you're good for.

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

it's my thread.

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

then we'll get to the other half of the original ponderance, which is the documentation provenance, and is there anything we should know, has anything been intentionally obfuscated.

I doubt it. You've rabbited from it before. You'll run screaming from it again. Birthers don't do well with a sustained conversation. They usually try to run from a topic and come back much later when they think no one who is informed is watching.

And then spew again the same debunked nonsense they were sent running from before.

don't start your sentences with "you need to"
apparently i can do whatever i want here. please don't forget that.
that said, you're the closest thing i have to an obot asset right now so.... i can at least try to be nice, no guarantees obot unknown.n

otherwise i have no link to the viperpit.

"Subterranean Tactical Disadvantage".... just words ? obot, i think not.

 

[washamericom]

The whole question of The Leftist Messiah's place of birth exists merely to twist the knickers of His acolytes.

But don't tell 'em.

I hate it when they cry.

Oh, you've been so misled. The Birther issue exists to demonstrate just how batshit crazy the fringe right actually is. That's what you're here for. That's what you're good for.

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

The whole question of The Leftist Messiah's place of birth exists merely to twist the knickers of His acolytes.

But don't tell 'em.

I hate it when they cry.

Oh, you've been so misled. The Birther issue exists to demonstrate just how batshit crazy the fringe right actually is. That's what you're here for. That's what you're good for.

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

it's my thread.

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

then we'll get to the other half of the original ponderance, which is the documentation provenance, and is there anything we should know, has anything been intentionally obfuscated.

I doubt it. You've rabbited from it before. You'll run screaming from it again. Birthers don't do well with a sustained conversation. They usually try to run from a topic and come back much later when they think no one who is informed is watching.

And then spew again the same debunked nonsense they were sent running from before.

i thought there were only 2 kinds ?
one daughter, not born yet.
so please clarify. can any child born on us soil be president ? or vice ?

i think this thread and the ones before it work extremely well, i'm having a great time !

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- why anyone attempts to carry on a dialogue with Scott is beyond me.

Might as well try to catch a piglet lubed down with KY jelly than get Scott to actually stay on point or respond to an actual post.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, you've been so misled. The Birther issue exists to demonstrate just how batshit crazy the fringe right actually is. That's what you're here for. That's what you're good for.

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

Oh, you've been so misled. The Birther issue exists to demonstrate just how batshit crazy the fringe right actually is. That's what you're here for. That's what you're good for.

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

it's my thread.

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

then we'll get to the other half of the original ponderance, which is the documentation provenance, and is there anything we should know, has anything been intentionally obfuscated.

I doubt it. You've rabbited from it before. You'll run screaming from it again. Birthers don't do well with a sustained conversation. They usually try to run from a topic and come back much later when they think no one who is informed is watching.

And then spew again the same debunked nonsense they were sent running from before.

don't start your sentences with "you need to"
apparently i can do whatever i want here. please don't forget that.

Not if you want to stay relevant. You've just abandoned your own batshit. Exactly as I told you you would.

See, you can take instruction.

 

[Syriusly]

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

it's my thread.

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

then we'll get to the other half of the original ponderance, which is the documentation provenance, and is there anything we should know, has anything been intentionally obfuscated.

I doubt it. You've rabbited from it before. You'll run screaming from it again. Birthers don't do well with a sustained conversation. They usually try to run from a topic and come back much later when they think no one who is informed is watching.

And then spew again the same debunked nonsense they were sent running from before.

don't start your sentences with "you need to"
apparently i can do whatever i want here. please don't forget that.

Not if you want to stay relevant. You've just abandoned your own batshit. Exactly as I told you you would.

See, you can take instruction.

Talking with the Mad Hatter is only amusing in books.

 

[washamericom]

Why the non-sequitor?

Why the non-sequitor?

it's my thread.

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

then we'll get to the other half of the original ponderance, which is the documentation provenance, and is there anything we should know, has anything been intentionally obfuscated.

I doubt it. You've rabbited from it before. You'll run screaming from it again. Birthers don't do well with a sustained conversation. They usually try to run from a topic and come back much later when they think no one who is informed is watching.

And then spew again the same debunked nonsense they were sent running from before.

don't start your sentences with "you need to"
apparently i can do whatever i want here. please don't forget that.

Not if you want to stay relevant. You've just abandoned your own batshit. Exactly as I told you you would.

See, you can take instruction.

Talking with the Mad Hatter is only amusing in books.

that is because you are weak and pitiful... justlike soviet union, then... and now


you are the fogbowot creatures of the dark....

look... you guys are fun and very clever... very clever, but U R the B team. go find kevin and frankie and woodman,& the rooster...

you all know by now PF sold me out.....

 

[Skylar]

Oh, you've been so misled. The Birther issue exists to demonstrate just how batshit crazy the fringe right actually is. That's what you're here for. That's what you're good for.

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

Oh, you've been so misled. The Birther issue exists to demonstrate just how batshit crazy the fringe right actually is. That's what you're here for. That's what you're good for.

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

it's my thread.

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

then we'll get to the other half of the original ponderance, which is the documentation provenance, and is there anything we should know, has anything been intentionally obfuscated.

I doubt it. You've rabbited from it before. You'll run screaming from it again. Birthers don't do well with a sustained conversation. They usually try to run from a topic and come back much later when they think no one who is informed is watching.

And then spew again the same debunked nonsense they were sent running from before.

i thought there were only 2 kinds ?
one daughter, not born yet.
so please clarify. can any child born on us soil be president ? or vice ?

i think this thread and the ones before it work extremely well, i'm having a great time !

Any child born under our law can be a president. The child of an Ambassador or an invading army wouldn't be under our law. And thus, any child born in our territory wouldn't be a US citizen. And thus, not a natural born citizen.

 

[washamericom]

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

why the grandfather clause ?

Why the non-sequitor?

it's my thread.

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

then we'll get to the other half of the original ponderance, which is the documentation provenance, and is there anything we should know, has anything been intentionally obfuscated.

I doubt it. You've rabbited from it before. You'll run screaming from it again. Birthers don't do well with a sustained conversation. They usually try to run from a topic and come back much later when they think no one who is informed is watching.

And then spew again the same debunked nonsense they were sent running from before.

i thought there were only 2 kinds ?
one daughter, not born yet.
so please clarify. can any child born on us soil be president ? or vice ?

i think this thread and the ones before it work extremely well, i'm having a great time !

Any child born under our law can be a president. The child of an Ambassador or an invading army wouldn't be under our law. And thus, any child born in our territory wouldn't be a US citizen. And thus, not a natural born citizen.

i'd like to look a little closer here,

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

that is a damn fine question... let's ponder on that. and not just obamavich. there is a whole parade coming down the pike. fuddy the clown will like that
btw one sun won dautter, on the way

 

[Skylar]

Why the non-sequitor?

Why the non-sequitor?

it's my thread.

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

then we'll get to the other half of the original ponderance, which is the documentation provenance, and is there anything we should know, has anything been intentionally obfuscated.

I doubt it. You've rabbited from it before. You'll run screaming from it again. Birthers don't do well with a sustained conversation. They usually try to run from a topic and come back much later when they think no one who is informed is watching.

And then spew again the same debunked nonsense they were sent running from before.

i thought there were only 2 kinds ?
one daughter, not born yet.
so please clarify. can any child born on us soil be president ? or vice ?

i think this thread and the ones before it work extremely well, i'm having a great time !

Any child born under our law can be a president. The child of an Ambassador or an invading army wouldn't be under our law. And thus, any child born in our territory wouldn't be a US citizen. And thus, not a natural born citizen.

i'd like to look a little closer here,

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

that is a damn fine question... let's ponder on that. and not just obamavich. there is a whole parade coming down the pike. fuddy the clown will like that
btw one sun won dautter, on the way

When you actually have a question, fire away. My only caveat be your question be in English.

 

[washamericom]

it's my thread.

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

then we'll get to the other half of the original ponderance, which is the documentation provenance, and is there anything we should know, has anything been intentionally obfuscated.

I doubt it. You've rabbited from it before. You'll run screaming from it again. Birthers don't do well with a sustained conversation. They usually try to run from a topic and come back much later when they think no one who is informed is watching.

And then spew again the same debunked nonsense they were sent running from before.

i thought there were only 2 kinds ?
one daughter, not born yet.
so please clarify. can any child born on us soil be president ? or vice ?

i think this thread and the ones before it work extremely well, i'm having a great time !

Any child born under our law can be a president. The child of an Ambassador or an invading army wouldn't be under our law. And thus, any child born in our territory wouldn't be a US citizen. And thus, not a natural born citizen.

i'd like to look a little closer here,

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

that is a damn fine question... let's ponder on that. and not just obamavich. there is a whole parade coming down the pike. fuddy the clown will like that
btw one sun won dautter, on the way

When you actually have a question, fire away. My only caveat be your question be in English.

notwithstanding (again)
here, phrased in more form, as you like it ...

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

let's keep it simple: i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?


you answered:
Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president


so i'll ask again if prince william and his wife kate have their daughter here in America, could she be president or vice president of the United States of America. that's the question.
not whether or not "their daughters" (i don't know what rock you're under) were born here. there is a subtle distinction. for U

"you need" to slow down and comprehend. other than that, you seem delightful.

 

[washamericom]

Radio Broadcaster I Felt The Heat For Questioning Obama s Forged Identity Documents - Birther Report

 

[Skylar]

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?
I doubt it. You've rabbited from it before. You'll run screaming from it again. Birthers don't do well with a sustained conversation. They usually try to run from a topic and come back much later when they think no one who is informed is watching.

And then spew again the same debunked nonsense they were sent running from before.

i thought there were only 2 kinds ?
one daughter, not born yet.
so please clarify. can any child born on us soil be president ? or vice ?

i think this thread and the ones before it work extremely well, i'm having a great time !

Any child born under our law can be a president. The child of an Ambassador or an invading army wouldn't be under our law. And thus, any child born in our territory wouldn't be a US citizen. And thus, not a natural born citizen.

i'd like to look a little closer here,

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

that is a damn fine question... let's ponder on that. and not just obamavich. there is a whole parade coming down the pike. fuddy the clown will like that
btw one sun won dautter, on the way

When you actually have a question, fire away. My only caveat be your question be in English.

notwithstanding (again)
here, phrased in more form, as you like it ...

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

let's keep it simple: i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?


you answered:
Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president


so i'll ask again if prince william and his wife kate have their daughter here in America, could she be president or vice president of the United States of America. that's the question.
not whether or not "their daughters" (i don't know what rock you're under) were born here. there is a subtle distinction. for U

"you need" to slow down and comprehend. other than that, you seem delightful.

No. The Heads of State like Queen Elizabeth enjoy a special status known as 'Sovereign Immunity'. Which effectively places the outside the jurisdiction of US law. While Kate is not the head of state, its widly recognized among scholars in international law that the royal family would enjoy the same status. Thus, Kate's 'sovereign immunity' would place her outside the jurisdiction of US laws. And consequently, none of the children she bore here would be US citizens. And thus, couldn't be president.

The only conceivable standard of natural born citizenship the founders could have understood when the constitution was written was the English common law definition. Which clearly recognized natural born status as following place of birth, even if the child's parents were both aliens. As long as the parents were subject to the laws of the king, any child they bore was born under the 'allegiance' of the king. And thus, acquired natural born status.

However, if the parents were diplomats or foreign soldiers occupying the king's lands, then they would not be subject to his authority. And thus no child born to such parents would be born into the King's allegiance. And would not be natural born subjects of his realm.

Some have argued that the Founders followed the book called The Law of Nation's in defining natural born citizenship. But this is clearly nonsense. The book was written in French 1758. It was translated into English in 1760. No English translation at the time of the writing of the constitution included the words 'Natural born citizen'. It didn't appear until the 1797 edition of Law of Nations....10 years after the constitution was written and ratified.

In both the 1760 and 1787 English Editions (the only two English editions that the founders could have had access to), Vattel's law of nations said as follows:

"The natives or indigenes, are those born in the country of the parents who are citizens. "

Vattel's Law of Nations, 1760 and 1787 Editions

And 'indigenes' as written in in the original french means 'indigenous' when translated. Not 'natural born citizen. Eliminating Vattel as the source of the Founder's understanding of the term.

Even logically, English common law makes sense. The legal tradition the founders were most familiar with was the English tradition. English common law would thus be the most logical source of their understanding of the meaning of terms. And given the fact that only English Common law was available at the time of the writing of the constitution as a plausible source for the term 'natural born', logic even more firmly falls on the side of English Common Law. And finally, it was English Common Law that the USSC cited as the lens through which constitutional terms can be understood in the case 'Wong Kim Ark v. US'.

So we have legal precedent, logic, history, and sequence all working in favor of natural born status being based on where you were born. Which is why most legal scholars recognize the place of birth as most closely linked to natural born status.

 

[Herodotus]

i thought there were only 2 kinds ?
one daughter, not born yet.
so please clarify. can any child born on us soil be president ? or vice ?

i think this thread and the ones before it work extremely well, i'm having a great time !

Any child born under our law can be a president. The child of an Ambassador or an invading army wouldn't be under our law. And thus, any child born in our territory wouldn't be a US citizen. And thus, not a natural born citizen.

i'd like to look a little closer here,

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

that is a damn fine question... let's ponder on that. and not just obamavich. there is a whole parade coming down the pike. fuddy the clown will like that
btw one sun won dautter, on the way

When you actually have a question, fire away. My only caveat be your question be in English.

notwithstanding (again)
here, phrased in more form, as you like it ...

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

let's keep it simple: i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?


you answered:
Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president


so i'll ask again if prince william and his wife kate have their daughter here in America, could she be president or vice president of the United States of America. that's the question.
not whether or not "their daughters" (i don't know what rock you're under) were born here. there is a subtle distinction. for U

"you need" to slow down and comprehend. other than that, you seem delightful.

No. The Heads of State like Queen Elizabeth enjoy a special status known as 'Sovereign Immunity'. Which effectively places the outside the jurisdiction of US law. While Kate is not the head of state, its widly recognized among scholars in international law that the royal family would enjoy the same status. Thus, Kate's 'sovereign immunity' would place her outside the jurisdiction of US laws. And consequently, none of the children she bore here would be US citizens. And thus, couldn't be president.

The only conceivable standard of natural born citizenship the founders could have understood when the constitution was written was the English common law definition. Which clearly recognized natural born status as following place of birth, even if the child's parents were both aliens. As long as the parents were subject to the laws of the king, any child they bore was born under the 'allegiance' of the king. And thus, acquired natural born status.

However, if the parents were diplomats or foreign soldiers occupying the king's lands, then they would not be subject to his authority. And thus no child born to such parents would be born into the King's allegiance. And would not be natural born subjects of his realm.

Some have argued that the Founders followed the book called The Law of Nation's in defining natural born citizenship. But this is clearly nonsense. The book was written in French 1758. It was translated into English in 1760. No English translation at the time of the writing of the constitution included the words 'Natural born citizen'. It didn't appear until the 1797 edition of Law of Nations....10 years after the constitution was written and ratified.

In both the 1760 and 1787 English Editions (the only two English editions that the founders could have had access to), Vattel's law of nations said as follows:

"The natives or indigenes, are those born in the country of the parents who are citizens. "

Vattel's Law of Nations, 1760 and 1787 Editions

And 'indigenes' as written in in the original french means 'indigenous' when translated. Not 'natural born citizen. Eliminating Vattel as the source of the Founder's understanding of the term.

Even logically, English common law makes sense. The legal tradition the founders were most familiar with was the English tradition. English common law would thus be the most logical source of their understanding of the meaning of terms. And given the fact that only English Common law was available at the time of the writing of the constitution as a plausible source for the term 'natural born', logic even more firmly falls on the side of English Common Law. And finally, it was English Common Law that the USSC cited as the lens through which constitutional terms can be understood in the case 'Wong Kim Ark v. US'.

So we have legal precedent, logic, history, and sequence all working in favor of natural born status being based on where you were born. Which is why most legal scholars recognize the place of birth as most closely linked to natural born status.

And, in England in 1787, only natural born subjects were eligible to be elected to Parliament or to hold most offices in England. Does one not see the analogy. English trained lawyers who wrote the Constitution wouldn't possibly look to the only relevant eligibility analogy that existed at such time. Of course not.

 

[Skylar]

Any child born under our law can be a president. The child of an Ambassador or an invading army wouldn't be under our law. And thus, any child born in our territory wouldn't be a US citizen. And thus, not a natural born citizen.

i'd like to look a little closer here,

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

that is a damn fine question... let's ponder on that. and not just obamavich. there is a whole parade coming down the pike. fuddy the clown will like that
btw one sun won dautter, on the way

When you actually have a question, fire away. My only caveat be your question be in English.

notwithstanding (again)
here, phrased in more form, as you like it ...

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

let's keep it simple: i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?


you answered:
Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president


so i'll ask again if prince william and his wife kate have their daughter here in America, could she be president or vice president of the United States of America. that's the question.
not whether or not "their daughters" (i don't know what rock you're under) were born here. there is a subtle distinction. for U

"you need" to slow down and comprehend. other than that, you seem delightful.

No. The Heads of State like Queen Elizabeth enjoy a special status known as 'Sovereign Immunity'. Which effectively places the outside the jurisdiction of US law. While Kate is not the head of state, its widly recognized among scholars in international law that the royal family would enjoy the same status. Thus, Kate's 'sovereign immunity' would place her outside the jurisdiction of US laws. And consequently, none of the children she bore here would be US citizens. And thus, couldn't be president.

The only conceivable standard of natural born citizenship the founders could have understood when the constitution was written was the English common law definition. Which clearly recognized natural born status as following place of birth, even if the child's parents were both aliens. As long as the parents were subject to the laws of the king, any child they bore was born under the 'allegiance' of the king. And thus, acquired natural born status.

However, if the parents were diplomats or foreign soldiers occupying the king's lands, then they would not be subject to his authority. And thus no child born to such parents would be born into the King's allegiance. And would not be natural born subjects of his realm.

Some have argued that the Founders followed the book called The Law of Nation's in defining natural born citizenship. But this is clearly nonsense. The book was written in French 1758. It was translated into English in 1760. No English translation at the time of the writing of the constitution included the words 'Natural born citizen'. It didn't appear until the 1797 edition of Law of Nations....10 years after the constitution was written and ratified.

In both the 1760 and 1787 English Editions (the only two English editions that the founders could have had access to), Vattel's law of nations said as follows:

"The natives or indigenes, are those born in the country of the parents who are citizens. "

Vattel's Law of Nations, 1760 and 1787 Editions

And 'indigenes' as written in in the original french means 'indigenous' when translated. Not 'natural born citizen. Eliminating Vattel as the source of the Founder's understanding of the term.

Even logically, English common law makes sense. The legal tradition the founders were most familiar with was the English tradition. English common law would thus be the most logical source of their understanding of the meaning of terms. And given the fact that only English Common law was available at the time of the writing of the constitution as a plausible source for the term 'natural born', logic even more firmly falls on the side of English Common Law. And finally, it was English Common Law that the USSC cited as the lens through which constitutional terms can be understood in the case 'Wong Kim Ark v. US'.

So we have legal precedent, logic, history, and sequence all working in favor of natural born status being based on where you were born. Which is why most legal scholars recognize the place of birth as most closely linked to natural born status.

And, in England in 1787, only natural born subjects were eligible to be elected to Parliament or to hold most offices in England. Does one not see the analogy. English trained lawyers who wrote the Constitution wouldn't possibly look to the only relevant eligibility analogy that existed at such time. Of course not.

Nope, they couldn't possibly have done so. And its just a grand coincidence that they created a bicameral legislature that just happened to follow the pattern of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Think of the odds.

 

[washamericom]

thank you gentlemen...

 

[washamericom]

i thought there were only 2 kinds ?
one daughter, not born yet.
so please clarify. can any child born on us soil be president ? or vice ?

i think this thread and the ones before it work extremely well, i'm having a great time !

Any child born under our law can be a president. The child of an Ambassador or an invading army wouldn't be under our law. And thus, any child born in our territory wouldn't be a US citizen. And thus, not a natural born citizen.

i'd like to look a little closer here,

Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

that is a damn fine question... let's ponder on that. and not just obamavich. there is a whole parade coming down the pike. fuddy the clown will like that
btw one sun won dautter, on the way

When you actually have a question, fire away. My only caveat be your question be in English.

notwithstanding (again)
here, phrased in more form, as you like it ...

And you'll still need to give some context to your statements and offer some relevance to your questions.

what is the distinction of natural born, and why did they grandfather themselves. seems an odd addendum, if just anyone could be president. or vice.
somewhere in this thread, i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?

.

And that has what relevance with Obama's eligibility?

let's keep it simple: i asked, could wiilsd and kate have their daughter here and have her eligible to be vice or president, once she's thirty five ?


you answered:
Were Will, Kate and their daughters born in the US and US citizens at birth?

No. So no, they couldn't be president


so i'll ask again if prince william and his wife kate have their daughter here in America, could she be president or vice president of the United States of America. that's the question.
not whether or not "their daughters" (i don't know what rock you're under) were born here. there is a subtle distinction. for U

"you need" to slow down and comprehend. other than that, you seem delightful.

No. The Heads of State like Queen Elizabeth enjoy a special status known as 'Sovereign Immunity'. Which effectively places the outside the jurisdiction of US law. While Kate is not the head of state, its widly recognized among scholars in international law that the royal family would enjoy the same status. Thus, Kate's 'sovereign immunity' would place her outside the jurisdiction of US laws. And consequently, none of the children she bore here would be US citizens. And thus, couldn't be president.

The only conceivable standard of natural born citizenship the founders could have understood when the constitution was written was the English common law definition. Which clearly recognized natural born status as following place of birth, even if the child's parents were both aliens. As long as the parents were subject to the laws of the king, any child they bore was born under the 'allegiance' of the king. And thus, acquired natural born status.

However, if the parents were diplomats or foreign soldiers occupying the king's lands, then they would not be subject to his authority. And thus no child born to such parents would be born into the King's allegiance. And would not be natural born subjects of his realm.

Some have argued that the Founders followed the book called The Law of Nation's in defining natural born citizenship. But this is clearly nonsense. The book was written in French 1758. It was translated into English in 1760. No English translation at the time of the writing of the constitution included the words 'Natural born citizen'. It didn't appear until the 1797 edition of Law of Nations....10 years after the constitution was written and ratified.

In both the 1760 and 1787 English Editions (the only two English editions that the founders could have had access to), Vattel's law of nations said as follows:

"The natives or indigenes, are those born in the country of the parents who are citizens. "

Vattel's Law of Nations, 1760 and 1787 Editions

And 'indigenes' as written in in the original french means 'indigenous' when translated. Not 'natural born citizen. Eliminating Vattel as the source of the Founder's understanding of the term.

Even logically, English common law makes sense. The legal tradition the founders were most familiar with was the English tradition. English common law would thus be the most logical source of their understanding of the meaning of terms. And given the fact that only English Common law was available at the time of the writing of the constitution as a plausible source for the term 'natural born', logic even more firmly falls on the side of English Common Law. And finally, it was English Common Law that the USSC cited as the lens through which constitutional terms can be understood in the case 'Wong Kim Ark v. US'.

So we have legal precedent, logic, history, and sequence all working in favor of natural born status being based on where you were born. Which is why most legal scholars recognize the place of birth as most closely linked to natural born status.

and the rubios ?