obama birth certificate: yes or no

[KenyanBornObama]

Ted Cruz is INELIGIBLE along with Jindal and Rubio. My evidence here Obama Eligibility proves them INELIGIBLE TOO! TRY AGAIN OBOT!

LOL- all eligible- Cruz being born in Canada is the only one not covered by the ruling below

Ankeny v. Daniels.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Ankeny is notwithstanding under the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 of the Constitution. Sorry bout that!

Now all you have to do is point us to a decision which says otherwise. Which you can't.

Ankeny v. Daniels- like virtually every other constitutional authority- such as the Congressional Research Service relied upon Wong Kim Ark- and Wong Kim Ark was the Supreme Court case which affirmed a lower courts ruling that Wong was a natural born citizen due to his birth in the United States.

OF COURSE I CAN, you think I'd come to a gun fight with NOTHING? LOLOL

here ya go!

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”.

Minor itself says that

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. citizenship of their parents

Birthers always want to ignore the part of Minor which specifically says it was not addressing the issue of parents citizenship.

The court here is saying specifically that any child born in the United States AND born of two citizen parents is a natural born citizen.

The court not only does not say that a Natural Born citizen MUST have two citizen parents- Minor points out that a Natural Born Citizen may not require citizen parents.

And of course the Courts disagree with you also

Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon in Arizona wrote in his order in the case of Allen v. Obama:

…this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 99 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.

No one is ignoring anything. They specifically define what a natural born citizen is, BORN TO CITIZEN PARENTS, but then says some authorities GO FURTHER to include those as "CITIZENS", NOT natural born citizen, without reference to the parents. HE said there are doubts about that though, BUT NEVER AS TO THE FIRST (natural born citizen). They didn't have to go further, because Virginia Minor was Natural and he goes on further to say:
"It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

ALL CHILDREN BORN OF CITIZEN PARENTS ARE CITIZENS! Period!

 

[Syriusly]

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
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.”

As you can see, the judge is citing Vattel, author of THE LAW OF NATIONS, OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE for his definition of natural born citizen, which is exactly where our Founder’s got their definition.

How could that be where the Founder's got their definition?

The edition of Law of Nations in print at the time the Constitution was written never mentions "Natural Born Citizens"

Note Marshall does not say "natural born citizen' he says 'native'

 

[washamericom]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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 congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

the supreme court has not defined, as of today, the expression "natural born"... which happens to come with it's own grandfather clause.

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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 congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!

We've also got the one who introduced the citizenship clause amendment into the 14th Amendment bill and he clearly states on RECORD:

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. ‘ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. ‘What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893).

Not to mention we have John Bingham, the Author of the 14th Amendment MINUS the citizenship clause who defined a natural born citizen for us in 1862, ON RECORD AGAIN

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become 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. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)

 

[Syriusly]

No requirement at all for two citizen parents- just a fake theory made up by idiot Birthers trying to argue that President Obama was ineligible.

Anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen- except the children of diplomats.

Your 'argument' has been shot down by every court that looked at it- like this one

Ankeny v. Daniels
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Just more BS from Birthers.

Thats a flawed state appeals decision that didn't address natural born citizenship. It doesnt trump federal law.

That is the educated and legal opinion of 3 actual judges- as opposed to the half assed opinion of a racist like you.

Backed up by the Congressional Research Service and by everyone who took a civics class in the United States.

The congressional research memo was cover for Obama. It's highly deceptive.

Requested by Congress and the only ones who think it is 'deceptive' are Birthers who created the whole new 'two citizen parent theory' just to attack Barack Obama.

We all grew up learning- me from my very Conservative civics teacher- that anyone born in the United States could aspire to grow up and be elected President. There was never any mention of the Birthers BS two citizen parent definition, and in all of these years- you idiots have yet to find a single civics book that agrees with your definition.

rarely do you post anything of content or new, but this time you did. but you forgot to mention jj that the supreme court hasn't defined natural born. or that you obots invented the one parent or no parent fiat...

you can aspire to what ever you want... that doesn't make it law..

The Supreme Court has not defined 'natural born citizen'- the closest it has come is Wong Kim Ark- where it affirmed a lower courts decision that he was a natural born citizen.

Meanwhile- I have invented nothing- I learned by civics in the 1960's- and when we learned about who was eligible to be President- and who was a Natural Born Citizen there was no mention of 'two citizen parents'

But if you want some definitions- I suggest you refer to the very fine Congressional Research Service article that was written on Natural Born Citizen.

 

[Syriusly]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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 congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!)

Obama was born a United States citizen.

He was also born a British subject- but was not subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain nor did he have any allegiance to Great Britain.

 

[washamericom]

Thats a flawed state appeals decision that didn't address natural born citizenship. It doesnt trump federal law.

That is the educated and legal opinion of 3 actual judges- as opposed to the half assed opinion of a racist like you.

Backed up by the Congressional Research Service and by everyone who took a civics class in the United States.

The congressional research memo was cover for Obama. It's highly deceptive.

Requested by Congress and the only ones who think it is 'deceptive' are Birthers who created the whole new 'two citizen parent theory' just to attack Barack Obama.

We all grew up learning- me from my very Conservative civics teacher- that anyone born in the United States could aspire to grow up and be elected President. There was never any mention of the Birthers BS two citizen parent definition, and in all of these years- you idiots have yet to find a single civics book that agrees with your definition.

rarely do you post anything of content or new, but this time you did. but you forgot to mention jj that the supreme court hasn't defined natural born. or that you obots invented the one parent or no parent fiat...

you can aspire to what ever you want... that doesn't make it law..

The Supreme Court has not defined 'natural born citizen'- the closest it has come is Wong Kim Ark- where it affirmed a lower courts decision that he was a natural born citizen.

Meanwhile- I have invented nothing- I learned by civics in the 1960's- and when we learned about who was eligible to be President- and who was a Natural Born Citizen there was no mention of 'two citizen parents'

But if you want some definitions- I suggest you refer to the very fine Congressional Research Service article that was written on Natural Born Citizen.

"the closest it has come"...... thank you.

 

[KenyanBornObama]

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
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.”

As you can see, the judge is citing Vattel, author of THE LAW OF NATIONS, OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE for his definition of natural born citizen, which is exactly where our Founder’s got their definition.

How could that be where the Founder's got their definition?

The edition of Law of Nations in print at the time the Constitution was written never mentions "Natural Born Citizens"

Note Marshall does not say "natural born citizen' he says 'native'

Are you not aware that many of the Founders were fluent in French? Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence learned to speak French at the age of 9. Franklin & Adams were Ambassadors to France and were fluent in French. Not to mention, French was the universal diplomatic language at the time!

We also know that Franklin ordered copies of Vattel's Law of Nations, which were sent to him by Charles Dumas (who printed the copies) and we have the letter to prove it, which also proves that they used the book when writing the Founding Documents. The letter states:

"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 sending 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."

and can be found here A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 - 1875

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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 congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!)

Obama was born a United States citizen.

He was also born a British subject- but was not subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain nor did he have any allegiance to Great Britain.

When you are born a subject that means you have allegiance to the crown! Obama's father was a British Subject and governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 which clearly states:

British Nationality Act, 1948
Part II Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Citizenship by birth or descent.
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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 congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!)

Obama was born a United States citizen.

He was also born a British subject- but was not subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain nor did he have any allegiance to Great Britain.

Ahhh, there in lies your problem. You have no clue of the difference between a natural born citizen and a "citizen"

Yes, Article 2 Section 8, Clause 5, DOES mention citizen, as well as natural born citizen, however to be a citizen and be qualified for President, you must have been alive at the signing of the Constitution as it says below:

“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;”

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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 congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!)

Obama was born a United States citizen.

He was also born a British subject- but was not subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain nor did he have any allegiance to Great Britain.

This is the definition of natural born citizen:

Vattel’s Law of Nations §212. Citizens and natives:
“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.”

Now let's see your source for natural born

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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 congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!)

Obama was born a United States citizen.

He was also born a British subject- but was not subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain nor did he have any allegiance to Great Britain.

You admitting that he was born a British subject should prove to you that he cannot be natural born. A natural born citizen is a citizen by nature or according to natural law. The author of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause clearly states that the definition comes from NATURAL LAW when he says on RECORD:

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2890)

 

[KenyanBornObama]

I hope the Birther movement gets appropriate treatment in textbooks 30 years from now.

It will get appropriate treatment in 2016, as MANY obots now have the evidence that proves Cruz, Rubio & Jindal ineligible (we gave it to them) and they WILL be going after him. In the process, the nation will come to see what a natural born citizen is and realize that Obama is NOT one and anything with his name on it, including SCOTUS precedent, will all be null & void and won't even need to be repealed! CAN'T WAIT!

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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 congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

the supreme court has not defined, as of today, the expression "natural born"... which happens to come with it's own grandfather clause.

Yes they did, In Minor v. Happersett, Vattel's definition was also enacted into the 1873 Revised Statutes under Title XXV, Section 1992, so even if a court didn't adjudicate the intent of the term, we still know what the law says about it. Section 1992 of the 1873 Revised Statutes can be seen right here: Revised Statutes of the United States Passed at the First Session of the ... - George Sewall Boutwell - Google Books
And you can clearly see that it cites the Civil Rights Act definition of citizen, which 100% follows Vattel's definition!

 

[Syriusly]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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 congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!
)

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

 

[Syriusly]

I hope the Birther movement gets appropriate treatment in textbooks 30 years from now.

It will get appropriate treatment in 2016, as MANY obots now have the evidence that proves Cruz, Rubio & Jindal ineligible (we gave it to them) and they WILL be going after him.

LOL......Cruz, Rubio and Jindal are all eligible.

I will enjoy the twisting of most Birthers on how they will claim Rubio is eligible- but Obama was not.

Cruz is the only one where there is any hint of a controversy- and that only because he was actually born outside the United States and has confirmed that- but as far as I am concerned he is a natural born citizen- and there is no rush to have him claimed otherwise.

 

[Syriusly]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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 congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

the supreme court has not defined, as of today, the expression "natural born"... which happens to come with it's own grandfather clause.

Yes they did, In Minor v. Happersett, Vattel's definition was also enacted into the 1873 Revised Statutes under Title XXV, Section 1992, so even if a court didn't adjudicate the intent of the term, we still know what the law says about it. Section 1992 of the 1873 Revised Statutes can be seen right here: Revised Statutes of the United States Passed at the First Session of the ... - George Sewall Boutwell - Google Books
And you can clearly see that it cites the Civil Rights Act definition of citizen, which 100% follows Vattel's definition!

The Supreme Court didn't define "Natural Born Citizen" in Minor- you just want to ignore how the court specifically stated that it was not.

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Actually it does matter IDIOT and everything he has signed is null & void. He's not eligible!

birfer alert!!! Statistikhengst We got ourselves a live one Look at the user name

So if you think you git all the answers, you ready to debate me on the issue? I KNOW I will prove you wrong! READY???

Step up to the plate- so far all you have demonstrated is a devotion to proving your mental deficiency.

Next, we have the Thomas Jefferson, a member of the Board of Visitors of the College of William & Mary (who later wrote that declaration above) was asked to redesign the curriculum and add a class on law. That class was titled "Class of National Law" shown here: Laws and Regulations of the College of William and Mary in Virginia ... - College of William and Mary - Google Books
d

Class of National Law?

You trying to bring Vattel in eh?

Vattel which prior to the writing of the Constitution- never mentioned 'natural born citizen'?

You don't seem to understand, it's not a TERM "natural born citizen", they are adjectives. A natural-born Citizen is a born citizen according to Natural Law, that is where the word natural comes from!

The founders could read French and could see the qualifications for being natural born as it is described as:

Vattel’s Law of Nations §212. Citizens and natives:
“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 you think Franklin would order 3 copies of Vattel's Law of Nations, if no one could read it? LOLOL
Try taking a stroll through the congressional records and see how much French Language you see, it's ALL OVER!

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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 congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

the supreme court has not defined, as of today, the expression "natural born"... which happens to come with it's own grandfather clause.

Yes they did, In Minor v. Happersett, Vattel's definition was also enacted into the 1873 Revised Statutes under Title XXV, Section 1992, so even if a court didn't adjudicate the intent of the term, we still know what the law says about it. Section 1992 of the 1873 Revised Statutes can be seen right here: Revised Statutes of the United States Passed at the First Session of the ... - George Sewall Boutwell - Google Books
And you can clearly see that it cites the Civil Rights Act definition of citizen, which 100% follows Vattel's definition!

The Supreme Court didn't define "Natural Born Citizen" in Minor- you just want to ignore how the court specifically stated that it was not.

Then what do you think this is?
"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"

 

[KenyanBornObama]

I hope the Birther movement gets appropriate treatment in textbooks 30 years from now.

It will get appropriate treatment in 2016, as MANY obots now have the evidence that proves Cruz, Rubio & Jindal ineligible (we gave it to them) and they WILL be going after him.

LOL......Cruz, Rubio and Jindal are all eligible.

I will enjoy the twisting of most Birthers on how they will claim Rubio is eligible- but Obama was not.

Cruz is the only one where there is any hint of a controversy- and that only because he was actually born outside the United States and has confirmed that- but as far as I am concerned he is a natural born citizen- and there is no rush to have him claimed otherwise.

You obviously haven't looked at the evidence, ALL ARE INELIGIBLE. The evidence here proves my claims, BEYOND DOUBT!:
Obama Eligibility