? asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 1 decade ago

Why do we have an installed usurper, and when is his unconstitutional butt going to be removed?

The Law of Nations is mentioned in the Constitution as its basis, and it defines a natural born citizen. When is the usurper going to be removed?

Signed Proud Birther (better than being a traitor/fraudster!)

JOHN ADAMS SAID THAT ALL GOOD LAWYERS SHOULD KEEP A COPY OF THE LAW OF NATIONS BY THEIR BEDSIDE...

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

"NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, ARE THOSE BORN IN THE COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS"

Minor v. Happersett

"It was never doubted (that)...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves... natural-born citizens"

John Bingham, father of the 14th amendment, in the United States House on March 9, 1866

(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

"...every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…." . .

Barack Obama

"Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizenS {plural} on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

Update:

Penny Lee, you listed STATUTORY CITIZENS in 14th amendment which are NEVER natural born citizens! Jeez, and if you don't believe me go and find the term natural born citizen therein (it's not there, as Minor says)

A natural born citizen needs no statute that's the entire point of it. You bots should stop lying, people know you're lying, 65% of Americans know Obama is ineligible!

Update 2:

PennyLee funny you should mention Civil Rights Act of 1866, which only solidifies the point made in the question:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States...

Update 3:

Penny Lee, your statement about SR511 is PREPOSTEROUS; you're saying that the definition of natural born citizen was made up for just McCain? NO! Vattel clearly says a natural born citizen is born of citizen parents in-country OR of citizen parents abroad IF parents are in service of country, as was McCain's.

Update 4:

Penny Lee, a "natural born subject" is different from a "natural born citizen" because America does not use English Common Law.

ALSO Wong Kim Ark holds that the native child of an ALIEN cannot be a natural born citizen.

Perkins v. Elg also holds that a child born of a citizen and alien on US soil is only a US citizen by statute.

Minor holds that no citizen by statute can be a natural born citizen, which is why the term and definition are absent from the 14th amendment.

3 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Before I can answer your question, please be more specific about the identify of the "installed usurper".

  • 1 decade ago

    You are very wrong in all your information, and need to do actual research and READ THE CASES instead of parroting birther websites.

    The Law of Nations has meant International Law since Roman times. It's not the title of a book, it's the title of many books. One of those (by de Vattel) was a book of philosophy that the Founders consulted for INTERNATIONAL LAW. Citizenship is municipal law. The phrase "natural born citizens" doesn't appear in any version until years after the Constitution was written. (De Vattel also said that monarchy was the best form of government, that women could be kidnapped if a colony didn't have sufficient women, and that only nobles and the military should be allowed to bear arms. How'd that work out for the US?)

    The doubts expressed by the court in Minor v. Happersett were answered and laid to rest in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Minor didn't have to address the case of alien parents because it wasn't a citizenship case, it was a voting rights case. John Bingham was the father of sections 2 and 3 of the 14th amendment, not the citizenship section. Your quote is also not from the debate about the 14th, but from an earlier debate about the 1866 Civil Rights Act. The language in the 14th doesn't talk about allegiance, it talks about jurisdiction. Very different concepts.

    Senate Resolution 511 is talking about the specific case of John McCain. Otherwise, a natural born citizen would not only have to have 2 citizen parents but be born on a military base in Panama.

    Natural Born Citizen means born in the US, parental status doesn't matter. (Or born outside the US with at least one citizen parent.)

    As the Supreme Court said in Wong Kim Ark: "…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."

  • 1 decade ago

    George W. was voted out. Done.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.