The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by George C. McMurtry on April 30, 2010 at 3:39pm

And what of Barry Soretoro? At the very least Obama committed fraud when he attended undergraduate school on a Fulbright scholarship (only open to non-US citizens) as Barry Soretoro. And what nation did his passport say he belonged to at that time? At the very best, he had dual citizenship, the US and ???, and this automatically exempts you from the Fulbright gift. And if he had a foreign passport, did he use it on his trip to the Middle East and Southeast Asia? Did he even have a US passport at that time? There are other law suits about to hit the federal higher courts that address these issues. They have yet to be blocked so there is still hope that at the very least we will have proof he is a fraud and a crook who stole a free pass through college.

Permalink Reply by Lucinda Sheth on April 30, 2010 at 5:00pm

and what about all those reported Social Security numbers he has used?

Permalink Reply by Pat Barrett on May 9, 2010 at 6:27pm

What is the evidence that Barry Soretoro and Barak Obama are the same person?

Permalink Reply by Melanie Peck on December 1, 2010 at 7:41pm

Very interesting points, but the Fulbright scholarship program is open to U.S. citizens. It's run by the U.S. State Department and is named after Senator Fulbright:

http://us.fulbrightonline.org/about.html

So, It would be OK for a U.S. student or a foreign student to get a Fulbright.

Permalink Reply by sandra levy on December 5, 2010 at 3:40am

These three sentencies do not a comprehensible paragraph make. “So“, I respond, “what IS the point?"

Permalink Reply by Janice Manz on December 11, 2010 at 3:50pm

Attached may be what you are looking for.  Just received today from Facebook friend.

Attachments:

• Barry_S.pdf, 263 KB

Permalink Reply by Charlene Bean on May 13, 2011 at 12:33pm

Janice, The school records have never beeen refuted, why this does not bother the sheep I have no clue.

BUT the rest of that post has been said to be BS( foi request) just like Barry h o Soetoro. I truley do not understand what it is going to take for the followers of his to realize what trouble we face.

I understand that by allowing this, whatever he is, to continue we are in a way agreeing that the Constitution is irrelevant. Is this so?

Permalink Reply by Mike D on April 30, 2010 at 6:02pm

Just proves even the SCOTUS has been bought off or simply doesn't want to touch the issue. I noticed the Arizona Bill Requiring Presidential Candidates to Show Birth Certif...

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on April 30, 2010 at 6:24pm

This article, written by Prof. Edward J. Erler, is so important you should outline it. Basically, he contrasts the English concept of "birthright subjectship" (which comes from feudalism where one, by birth, is a subject of the King) with the radically new American concept of "citizenship" which is based on the consent of the governed - not on the accident of birth.

Prof. Erler shows how being born within the US does not necessarily confer US citizenship! He is correct. The children of aliens - even if they are born within the US - are not US citizens. See:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&...

Permalink Reply by lori williams on February 6, 2012 at 10:51am

I know I keep asking about this issue but I want to understand it.  Obama is not elligible.  I understand that.  Why do I keep hearing about elligibility issues with Santorum?  It is said his father WAS NOT a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.  Yes, he was born in Virginia so that makes him a citizen.  The same issue has come up with Rubio.  His father did not get his citizenship untill Marco was 4.  He was born on American soil.  I am unable to find proof of anything differant.  Is Santorum or Rubio elligible or if Obama has been able to skirt the issue will that set a precedence?

 

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on February 6, 2012 at 1:00pm

Erler's article explains that location of birth is not what determined citizenship when the 14th Amendment was ratified.  e.g., When wives of foreign diplomats stationed here gave birth here, their babies did not become U.S. citizens - the babies took the citizenship of their parents.   American Indians born here did not become U.S. citizens. All those babies were born here, but they were not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (Sec. 1, 14th Amendment) b/c their parents weren't subject to that jurisdiction.  Under that principle, children of Mexican illegals born here wouldn't be U.S. citizens, either.

Citizenship here was to be determined by law - not by "mere location of birth".  Erler's article explains why that is important.  Yes, his article may require outlining - but with wordpress and color coding, it's easy and colorful.

This whole issue is confusing simply b/c we hear so much misinformation about it. 

I don't have the link handy for the U.S. Code  section which discusses who is a citizen. 

The Natural Born Citizen (NBC) issue is a different issue: We must go by the definition of the term used when Our Constitution was ratified. If we change the definition, we'd be amending the Constitution in violation of Article V.

I am convinced, by my research on this - which is consistent with what the "birther" attorneys have found - that a NBC is one whose parents - at the time he was born - were U.S. citizens.  Location of birth is irrelevant.  Thus, John McCain - who was born in the Panama Canal Zone - is a NBC b/c his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born.

I don't have any documented Facts on the citizenship status of Santorum's or Rubio's parents at the times they were born.

So! One can be a "citizen" w/o being a NBC.

Permalink Reply by lori williams on February 6, 2012 at 6:08pm

Thank you for the clarification.  I'm sorry I keep asking about this but I just didn't understand and I wanted to.  I understand it now.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page