Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Donald Trump Getting Nasty With Jeb Bush's Wife

It's all explained in a rather nasty tweet that has since been deleted but you can still see it here...






(IJ Review) Coincidentally, Trump’s wife Melania is also an immigrant, being born in the now-dissolved Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Kristy Campbell, a spokesperson for the Bush campaign, told IJ:

"It's not surprising Donald Trump deleted his offensive tweet. As Governor Bush has said, Trump's comments on immigrants were wholly inappropriate and not reflective of the Republican Party's views."

While both candidates have been sparring lately in the press, this has been among the first attacks involving family members and personal lives...

Read The Full Story

77 comments:

  1. Jeb you are WRONG, and the Donald is right !!

    ReplyDelete
  2. My money is on the Donald. We don't need another Bush. Besides Jeb's ideas about Illegals is as bad as Obama's. Remember he said it's an act of love, that is equal to hate for us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just what are the views of the Republican Party Mr. Bush? It's not about parties it's about Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bush is Obama light.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The difference between a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen is that the broad category citizen includes ALL citizens including Naturalized citizens. The category Natural Born Citizen excludes naturalized citizens and includes ONLY citizens at birth---of which all citizens born on US soil are members"

    Okay you are WRONG..Let's simplify your statement... Run your finger over this while you read your statement.

    Citizen= all citizens =naturalized citizen

    Natural Born Citizen = born on US soil

    Now read the 14th Amendment. The fact that afterbirthers are missing is that the citizen is born on US soil as well due to "born" in the United States in the 14th means to be born on US soil.

    14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,

    Here we see: Citizen=born or naturalized on US soil.

    This is the same as you have for the "natural born citizen" in that they only have to be born on US soil....

    Now try again, what is the difference between the two now that we see they are both born on US soil....Could it be all this time it has escaped you that the Natural Born Citizen would have to have citizen parents to make him different than the citizen due to both are born on US soil....You failed to explain the difference and have made them the same....all afterbirthers make the same mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One thing's for sure, mr. "Act of illegality "...you can't out spend Trump with your crony chamber of corruption cash.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demand of
    expressed allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or
    altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance”
    due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England
    over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.

    Because Britain
    considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States,
    led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of
    British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we
    went to war....Afterbirthers are trying to re-write history.

    ReplyDelete
  8. “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in
    favor of a citizen of the United
    States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born
    citizen of the United States
    there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States,
    and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by ...Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution
    had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)
    Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.
    John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an Abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:
    “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.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)
    Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
    “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st
    Sess., 1291 (1866))
    No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the US) was never
    challenged on the floor of the House.
    Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s holding in Wong Kim Ark did not address Presidential eligibility, nor did it define “natural born citizen”. It simply clarified who was a “citizen”. Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to
    define nbc, they would have used the words “natural born” in the Amendment. But they didn’t.
    It is proper to say, with regard to US Constitutional law, that this was
    the House definition as stated on the floor by Representative Bingham. And this definition was never opposed on the floor. And that is exactly where it should
    have been opposed if it were not the truth

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am sorry but Donald is right, Jeb only feels the way he does about the Mexicans because of his wife and what SHE wants to see for them. We have no need for these filthy wet back illegals anymore, they have taken millions of our jobs away and will work for pennies on the dollar just to get work and they get free medical care, something you and I have to pay for. No they have got to go, that is what is partially what is wrong with this country today.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Being naturalized in the USA refers to people who were outside the USA and came to the USA and got naturalized. It does not refer to people who are born in the USA. People who are born in the USA are not naturalized.

    Therefore there is a difference between people born citizens, Natural Born, and people who were not born citizens, naturalized.

    "Citizens" include naturalized citizens. "Natural born citizens" do not include naturalized citizens.

    The Heritage Foundation book puts it well:


    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli,
    persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children
    of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus,
    those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens"
    and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether
    children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born
    citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al,
    THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald
    Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known
    Conservative organization.]

    ReplyDelete
  11. The fact that we did not like "perpetual allegiance" does not mean that we changed the meaning of Natural Born from the common law meaning WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE. (And none of the writers of the Constitution or the Federalist Papers ever said anything about two citizen parents being required or that they had switched from the common law to Vattel---who is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers AT ALL.)

    The Heritage Foundation book (see quotation above) is right, and you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bingham ALSO said:

    “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the
    Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born
    citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg.
    2212 (1869)”

    You are right that the 14th Amendment does not define Natural Born status. The common law does, and as quotations from legal scholars at the time of the writing of the Constitution (Tucker and Rawle and Kent and Storey and the Lynch v. Clarke case) all show, the meaning of Natural Born in the common law refers to citizenship at birth and that every child born on the soil is Natural Born except for the children of foreign diplomats.

    So, once again, the Heritage Foundation book is right, and you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Again, What is the difference between the "Natural Born Citizen" and the "Citizen" as found in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 .

    You have failed again in only describing the difference between the citizen and the naturalized citizen...And then when referring to Bingham we must take the definition that most defines a natural born citizen being born on soil to citizen parents....Anyone who interprets law correctly knows you don't take the lesser of the two.

    Here is the only logical difference using the 14th Amendment definition of citizen and the only doctrine to define the natural born citizen, The Law of Nations.

    Natural Born Citizen= born on soil + born of citizen parents

    Citizen= born on soil or naturalized

    Do you realize that being born on soil only would make anchor babies eligible to be our President,,,,Do you actually believe that was the reason for the natural born citizen clause....They could have just said citizen and never used natural born citizen....I know how much you must love Obama but you are trying to say our founders were illiterate fools.

    Wang Kim Ark is the best example of what the SCOTUS found to be a "citizen" born on soil to parents whom were not citizens...They did not make him eligible to be President when at the time the Chinese were being exported out of the country. They made him a CITIZEN.

    WANG KIM ARK v U.S.
    Clause 3 clearly supports my analogy that there
    are two classes when referring to A2S1: "CITIZEN" and "NATURAL
    BORN CITIZEN"

    3. The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the
    emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time
    of his birth a "citizen" of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
    the United States and of the state wherein they reside.'

    He was not found a Natural Born Citizen....was he? You can not add or take away from the law or what is written in the court's final decision....Show me where Wang Kim Ark was ever referred to as a NBC.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What Republican Party? The GOP of late has been weak very weak. Makes me ashamed that I supported them all these years. We have no one watching our backs in DC. Reference the latest sodomite marriage law. Trump is correct in his assessment of Jeb and his wife. Get over it Jeb you married her for better or worse didn't you?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Re: " Again, What is the difference between the "Natural Born Citizen" and the "Citizen" as found in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 ."

    Answer: AGAIN, citizen includes NATURALIZED citizens and Natural Born Citizen excludes Naturalized citizens.

    Bingham said this:

    “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born
    citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”

    And, no, the rule is to take the BROADER of the two interpretations so as not to take rights or privileges away from anyone.

    Bingham and the Heritage Foundation and the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ruling and this:

    https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=864&q=obama+inauguration&oq=obama+ina&gs_l=img.1.0.0l10.2858.4814.0.7989.9.8.0.1.1.0.83.554.8.8.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..0.9.558.OarULa7gC44#tbm=isch&q=obama+swearing+in+inauguration




    ....are right. And you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Re: "Wang Kim Ark is the best example of what the SCOTUS found to be a "citizen" born on soil to parents whom were not citizens...They did not make him eligible to be President when at the time the Chinese were being exported out of the country. They made him a CITIZEN."

    Answer: It was not a presidential eligibility case, so the bottom line was that he was a citizen.

    However, in addition to finding that Wong (not Wang) was a US citizen, the case ALSO defined Natural Born Citizen, in these words:

    "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore 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."


    THAT is the constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen, not your nutty theory that two citizen parent (or even one) is required.


    And, BTW, the fact that the above words are really a RULING and that they are the key ruling that applies to presidential eligibility has been accepted by ten or 11 (I've lost count) appeals courts and birther appeals of those rulings have been turned down by the current US Supreme Court---leaving the rulings of the lower courts that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of an invading army) STANDING.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Answer: AGAIN, citizen includes NATURALIZED citizens and Natural Born Citizen excludes Naturalized citizens"

    You have failed again and here is why...Both the NBC and the CITIZEN are born on soil so there is no difference unless we consider that the NBC has citizen parents...To eliminate the naturalized citizen does not change that fact.

    You are saying that anyone born on soil is a citizen or a natural born citizen........NO DIFFERENCE!!!

    Example, If I said I was born on soil then what am I as described in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5....Your answer given makes me a citizen and a natural born citizen so therefore it can not be properly determined that I am eligible to be President based on being born on soil alone....It does not get any easier than this...You have entered Troll status so there is no amount of logical reasoning that will change your mind, even giving you a example of how your definition will not work will most likely get another flawed response.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So WKA could have been the KING OF ENGLAND if he were merely born on the land there..lol...No, it only equated the the Natural Born Subject was equal to a CITIZEN of the United States and could never become President.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Re: "The CITIZEN was only eligible during the time of the adoption of the
    Constitution, so those citizens have all long passed away....."

    The Grandfather Clause has nothing whatever to do with it. The meaning of Natural Born in the common law is what counts, and the US Supreme Court ruled that Natural Born in the common law referred to citizenship at birth and that EVERY child born on US soil was a Natural Born US Citizen.

    So, once again, the Heritage Foundation book on the Constitution is right...




    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus
    soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than
    children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth.
    Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is
    whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born
    citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al,
    THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald
    Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known
    Conservative organization.]


    .....and you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "ALL Natural Born Citizens are citizens at birth. Only SOME citizens are citizens at birth, and some are not."

    WOW, you just keep throwing crap into the fan...lol.....Some citizens are citizens at birth....HUH, yeah those born on soil are, those naturalized are not....You failed again

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sure, I did.

    https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=833&q=Obama+being+sworn+in&oq=Obama+being+sworn+in&gs_l=img.12..0.5063.11605.0.14921.26.8.4.13.17.0.84.330.5.5.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..8.18.347.KazXcmJjfig

    ReplyDelete
  22. You are done here,...go try someone that is less informed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth
    Edition


    "Therefore every person born within the United States,its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
    STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”---The Wall Street Journal.

    Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”

    Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

    Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

    Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

    Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

    And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens,regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

    ReplyDelete
  24. UNANSWERED QUESTION: I was born on soil. Which am I in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5? CITIZEN or NBC

    CITIZEN=Born on soil (14th)

    NBC= Born on soil + citizen parents (Law of Nations)

    A2S1...
    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

    ReplyDelete
  25. HHAHAHHA!!! GO TO THE BOTTOM AND ANSWER MY QUESTION

    ReplyDelete
  26. Re: "Answer my question."


    I have answered your question. The fact that one jerk remains a jerk does not change the RULINGS shown above.

    ReplyDelete
  27. If you were born on US soil you are both a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen (assuming your parents were not foreign diplomats). You are eligible to run for president. But you would not get my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  28. .

    YOU ARE FLAWED AGAIN

    The 14th Amendment is the defining author of the definition of CITIZEN...It does not state who the parents have to be to become a CITIZEN..It only states that those born in the US are CITIZENS....So if the citizen in the 14th is equal to the NBC in A2S1, then it does not matter who the parents are and is flawed the reason for the eligibility clause.

    If we were to accept that the 14th Amendment CITIZEN is equal to the NBC in A2S1, than the courts would have to accept children born of diplomats and even anchor babies to be eligible for POTUS...It's ridiculous to even consider this and I am sure Jon Jay as well as others are rolling in their graves right now.

    The 14th Amendment citizen born of foreigners was only initially grandfathered due to at that time we were a young nation with many of our leaders not being born from citizen parents...After the passing of the these non-natural born citizens, no person other than a NBC is now currently eligible....So we can scrap the idea that the Citizen of the 14th should even be considered, much less that they would be equal to the NBC, which makes nonsense out of the eligibility clause in separating them if they were the same.

    “The Constitution does not in
    words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, (not British 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. “ (Emphasis added.)

    Read that passage very carefully,
    and you will see that the US Supreme Court clearly defined “natural-born citizen”
    by two independent remarks:

    1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon
    their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class-

    2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
    This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born
    citizens”. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.

    14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,(CITIZEN HAS NO RELATION TO PARENTS)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Re: "So if the citizen in the 14th is equal to the NBC in A2S1, then it does not matter who the parents are and is flawed the reason for the eligibility clause."

    Answer: The 14th Amendment defines CITIZEN. It does not define Natural Born.

    What does define Natural Born? Answer: The common law does, and in the common law every child born on the soil of the country regardless of the citizenship of the parents at the time of birth is NATURAL BORN.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    More reading on the subject:

    http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

    http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

    ReplyDelete
  30. Given the profound differences between the citizenship rules associated with the English common law and those connected with American national citizenship, it is evident that the Founders did not use English common law to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is but rather used the law of nations for that purpose which became incorporated into and became federal common law. George Mason, the "Father of the Bill of Rights" and one of the "Founding Fathers" of the United States, proclaimed: “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.” ( Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788). To the extent that the English common law was relied upon in the colonies and States, that law was at the time that the Constitution was adopted “to a greater or less extent, recognized as the law of the States by which the Constitution was adopted.” The English common law would, however, be applied to determine questions of citizenship only if the written law was silent, i.e., there was no statute or federal or state court decision on the subject. Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863). But the Founders did not rely upon the English common law to define the new national United States citizenship that they created for the new Constitutional Republic. Rather, the Founders replaced the English common law with the law of nations which became the new U.S. federal common law and the law of the federal government.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Re: "Given the profound differences between the citizenship rules associated
    with the English common law and those connected with American national
    citizenship, it is evident that the Founders did not use English common
    law to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is but rather
    used the law of nations for that purpose which became incorporated into
    and became federal common law..."

    Answer: They used the common law, not 'the law of nations" (Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers), And John Jay,. one of the first to use the term Natural Born Citizen WAS AN EXPERT IN THE COMMON LAW.

    And we have quotations from legal scholars at the time----Tucker (2), Rawle, Kent, Storey and the Lynch v. Clarke ruling-----and they ALL use the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that Natural Born Subject was used in the common law.

    And so, once again the Wong Kim Ark case (which said that it came from the common law) and the Heritage Foundation book (ditto) and the articles cited and the Wall Street Journal and Chief Justice Roberts who swore in Obama, and the Republican Party----that did not object to the swearing in----are all right, and you are WRONG.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You can quote all the rubbish you want but none of it makes sense to why the framers would use British Common Law when it only makes a natural born subject equal to a citizen of the United States...It makes no sense why the eligibility clause would then separate the citizen and the natural born citizen, when you made the claim that they are the same, why bother and to even coin the term natural born citizens...when you claim the citizen is already naturally born..duh....You can not separate them and could only say they are the same...That is not logical and is why now you have gone ape with posting British Common Law..it doesn't fit into a new Republic when it was written for a monarchy ....The Law of Nations fits the description perfectly of what a citizen is and the difference between a citizen and the natural born citizen....think for change instead of posting stuff without reasoning.


    https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/the-law-of-nations-as-u-s-federal-common-law-and-not-english-common-law-defines-what-an-article-ii-natural-born-citizen-is/

    ReplyDelete
  33. Re: "You can quote all the rubbish you want but none of it makes sense to why the framers would use British Common La..."

    Because, duh, they had been trained in the British common law. IF they had intended to switch from the British common law to some other law---THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO. But they didn't.

    Vattel's book The Law of Nations is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers AT ALL. Neither is Vattel. But the common law is mentioned about 15 times and Blackstone, the expert on the common law, five times.

    In short the Wong Kim Ark ruling (six justices to two justices, one not voting) is far more knowledgeable on the subject than you are when it says that IT CAME FROM THE COMMON LAW. And so is the Heritage Foundation book, which also said IT CAME FROM THE COMMON LAW.

    I never said that the citizen and the Natural Born Citizen are the same. ALL natural born citizens are citizens, of course. But only some of the citizens are Natural Born.

    The writers of the constitution thought it was wise to exclude naturalized citizens, but those are the only citizens that it excludes. It never says, nor does any of the writers of the Constitution, that two citizen parents (or even one) are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It befuddles me how these reports cannot discern the difference between legal immigrants and illegal aliens! Did Trumps wife come here illegally from Yugoslavia? Are millions of Yugoslavians crashing our borders and draining our country dry of our hard earned tax dollars? Is Trump's wife demanding hand outs and angry with America? Does she want us all to speak her native tongue?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Both are wrong. Both think like democrats. Don't consider either as conservative presidential material.

    ReplyDelete
  36. That is because Common Law is the Law of Nations...I guess you don't bother to read my post since you are so busy trying to cover your flawed assumption that the citizen and the natural born citizen are exactly the same as used in the eligibility clause....That along ruins your credibility here.

    And since you are so blindly using British Common Law and the natural born subject, answer me this...If a natural born subject is equal to a natural born citizen then what does a citizen as in the 14th amendment equate to under British Common Law....By what you are saying they both equate to a natural born subject and is more proof that there is no reasoning that the framers would have used British Common Law instead of The Law of Nations that coins the phrase Natural Born Citizen and separates them from the common citizen...duh, pull your head out.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The common law is not the law of nations. It is the common law.

    Re: "equate." National citizenship laws are DIFFERENT. But the two nation's common laws are the same on the meaning of Natural Born.

    Re: " there is no reasoning that the framers would have used British Common Law instead of The Law of Nations..."

    One small clue is that Vattel's book "The Law of Nations" did not use the word Natural Born Citizen until TEN years after the Constitution was written. (Before then it said that "indigines" were people who had citizen parents and were born in the country.) And the Constitution does not, duh, say that a person has to be an "indignes" to be eligible to be president.

    These two guys KNEW the writers of the US Constitution, and both of them used Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that Natural Born Subject was used in THE COMMON LAW---both referring to the place of birth, and neither referring to the citizenship of parents:


    "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting
    the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born
    citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were
    born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all
    the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such
    as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to
    their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH
    NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL
    GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    "Therefore
    every person born within the United States, its territories or
    districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born
    citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the
    rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A
    VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)


    And so, once again, the Wong Kim Ark decision is correct, and so were the ten or 11 appeals court decisions and so was the Heritage Foundation book------and you are WRONG.

    ReplyDelete
  38. A Republican abolished black slavery....Lincoln. The Establishment elite Republicans are in favor of the Demoncraps establishment of brown slavery.....and, many thanks in part to the US Chamber of Commerce who want cheap labor. Republicans, deport all illegals, close the border tight, enforce immigration law, and get rid of the brown slavery and make jobs, with decent wages, for Americans. Americans, take a stand for America.

    ReplyDelete
  39. LansingL@aol.comJuly 8, 2015 at 1:27 PM

    I will never vote for Jen Bush or any other Bush family that runs for an office I can vote in. His brother was a Moron and was woosie on issues with his Compassionate conservatism. His failed policies are what gave rise to a Left wing lunatic that is ruining our country. Jen is an insult to the party and wolf in Sheeps clothing. He supports open immigration and amnesty to people who break our laws by the meat fact the way they came here. They take benefits they did not pay into or for they commit crimes above the national average, they demand benefits like in state intuition that legal residence can't get. He supports common core. He lies about his drug use while wanting others to be jailed. He calls anyone in the party names who does not agree with him names and tries to marginalize them. He is another party elitist who the vast majority of the people don't want.He is the Republican white version of Barrack Insane oblowme. Go back to Florida Jeb. JEB = Just Enough Bull.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Why would the framers of the U.S. Constitution use a French word in Article II? It is only logical that they would use the correct English language translation of such....Thus Natural Born Citizen was coined by Jon Jay from the writings of Vattel.....The same could be claimed that the word was coined from British Common Law at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  41. We do NOT need another Bush in the White House. Trump is 100% right in his comments about ILLEGALS.

    ReplyDelete
  42. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/spiritofamericapartybook/2015/06/17/donald-trump-looks-better I JUST WENT ON WWW.PEOPLE.COM TO PLUG TRUMP. I GOT A NOTICE I AM UNDER REVIEW, I WENT BACK TO COPY MY BLOG. IT WAS GONE. THEY ONLY HAD 15 PEOPLE.

    IT IS GOING TO GET NASTY. COMMUNISTS KILL. JUST ASK THE ROMANOFFS AND 10 MILLION UKRANIANS. THE DEMOCOMMO PARTY HAS NO GOD, NO COUNTRY, NO FLAG AND NO KIDS.
    VAMOS AMIGOS VAYA TE FIESTA. VIVA EL TRUMPO VIVA SUPER GRINGO. THAT'S ME. WE LOVE YOU SUPER GRINGO.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The Donald should stay away from Jeb!'s wife; she's here legally. This was an unforced error.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I am so disgusted with the "party", I'm almost ready to abolish the R after my name.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I do not agree with Donald attacking Mrs. Bush. She ain't in this fight. I also will not vote for Jeb Bush as I think he is way too liberal. In fact most of the people running on a Republican ticket are too liberal. Might as well be voting for a democrat!

    ReplyDelete
  46. THAT would mean that they translated Vattel's word "indignes" themselves----but never told anyone that they did it. How many people do you know take a document, translate a French word in it, and use that translation----but they NEVER tell anyone that they did it?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Re Waddington case and other evidence that Vattel influenced the writers of the Constitution.


    Sure, on INTERNATIONAL LAW---but there is no evidence whatever that Vattel (who was a monarchist and whose own book does not recommend that ANY government official even be a citizen of the country that is involved---much less one with two citizen parents) was used for the meaning of Natural Born.


    IF he had been, if there had been a switch from the common law----which, duh, was COMMON---then they would have told us.


    Yet, as the "indignes" example shows above, for them to have used the Vattel definition, they would have had to have translated "indignes" as Natural Born Citizen (which, BTW, a lot of French scholars think is a wrong translation) AND they would have had to have used that translation---without telling anyone that they had translated "indigines" or that they had used Vattel----and without mentioning Vattel in the Federalist Papers AT ALL.


    Yes they did read Vattel. Yes he was an expert on International Law. No, that does not make him an expert on domestic politics, which is what the selection of a president is about. And, guess what, THEY READ A LOT OF OTHER BOOKS TOO.


    Oh, and Vattel recommended a lot of things that the Constitution did not adopt---like a nobility class and a state religion.


    The term really does come from THE COMMON LAW, as the quotations from Tucker and Rawle and Kent and Storey and the Lynch v. Clarke ruling all show. The US Supreme Court was right, and so is the Heritage Foundation book----and you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  48. There are immigrants, wishing to partake in the wonders of our republic, and then there are those who wish to take advantage of the liberally induced welfare schemes, which buy support and votes for these political con jobs. It is the latter group which used to be weeded out at the visa selection process. But now, all you have to do is sneak in, and voila, you are on the tit for life. There will eventually be civil disturbances between the righteous and the criminal, lay money on that one. Of course, what with the indoctrination process in full swing on TV, advertising, and films, eventually we rational folks will be so badly outnumbered, we won't have a chance. Time to start another "grand experiment."

    ReplyDelete
  49. A2S1 is not word for word from what Vattel wrote...How many times have you read something and then put it into your own words without giving credit to the author...Plus, how can you say they never told anyone when we are conversing about it now.

    The fact is Vattel separates the natural born citizen from the citizen in A2S1 by requiring the NBC to have citizen parents...The British Common Law makes everyone born on soil a natural born subject (only minus diplomats or enemies), without relation to parents....How many eligibilty court cases do you need me to post here where the parents are used to decide citizenship? British Common Law in that aspect could not possibly have been used in constructing the eligibility clause or better yet in distinguishing between the NBC and the CITIZEN as used in the 14th Amendment or in A2S1.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Maria-Erlinda MartinezJuly 8, 2015 at 6:12 PM

    Apparently, Jeb Bush's wife was an illegal alien at some time in the early 1970s, and so was her father, although for a different period. Trump's statement is absolutely NOT offensive at all. What happens is that his statement touches an open wound that hurts.

    Anyway, it's enough with Bushes.

    Bush 41 let the dismembered Soviet Union slip into an array of authoritarian fascist states, when he should have seized the moment and democratized the countries of the former USSR. See, if Germany, Italy and Japan had been left on their own after the end of WWII, they for sure would have gone back to their pattern of horridly bad behavior. Fortunately Truman and Einsenhower took them by the hand toward a future of effective-democracy (the Japanese emperor is a just a figurative character). Furthermore, 41 served the presidency to Clinton (whom he has now "adopted" as a son) on a silver platter.

    Bush 42 was a bumbling fool that served the presidency to the Democrats on a silver platter by letting Jimmy Carter's Community "Reinvestment" Act go unleashed, thus precipitating the apocalyptic economy meltdown of 2007/2008. He, besides, never ever defended himself from the ceaselessly continual brutal attacks by the Democrats,, let alone counter-attacked, much less attacked preemptively.

    After some relative respite from the Truman and Eisenhower presidencies, America has been continually under attack from the presidency since the term of Lyndon Johnson, followed by Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 42 and, now, Obama.

    This has to cease, starting with rejecting Jeb Bush massively.

    ReplyDelete
  51. The Republicans are so worried about offending the Hispanics they do not realize they are offending AMERICANS!!!

    ReplyDelete
  52. blah, blah, blah....nothing to convince me that my evidence as posted is not true and that you can prove that British Common Law was used to define a natural born citizen or a citizen as used separately in A2S1... eligibility clause for the POTUS.

    If British Common Law had been used to construct the eligibility clause for someone born on soil to be eligible for POTUS it will have read like this due to the NBC and the Citizen would both be the same.

    A2S1...
    No person except a "Person born soil, or a "Person born on soil of the
    United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" , shall be
    eligible to the Office of President


    The grandfather clause would make no sense either,,,,Why would you only want to limit the citizens that were only alive during the time the Constitution was adopted under British Common Law?...Now you are only down to the natural born citizen which is the same as the citizen under the British Common Law so we must eliminate both of them and not just the citizen,...You are wrong on so many different levels.....the Grandfather Clause was written this way so that citizens born without citizens parents would no longer be eligible after these passed....It does not work with the British Common Law.....This is getting long and drawn out so I am probably losing you.

    ReplyDelete
  53. she is if her husband's ez on illegals CUZ she was one too!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Trump is getting too much press coverage, when there are way better candidates in the ring - Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz for two.
    These men know their way around - Trump has no clue compared to what these guys know. I like Trump but not for a President. Bobby and Ted have boatloads more class.

    ReplyDelete
  55. It is really about the ELITE. The fools/voters don't count

    ReplyDelete
  56. Trump should attack the Democrats. Nothing is to be gained by attacking other Republicans, even if they deserve it. He will not gain votes by polarizing Bush supporters. Everything could be lost by demeaning Bush's wife and the wives of other candidates. If he wants to win, he will need their support (or at least he will not need their enmity) in the general.

    ReplyDelete
  57. You are so right, steamroller61 and prominent Latinos taking
    The side of the illegal immigrants only adds to the confusion. Nobody is against immigrants, but this forced entry is illegal It violates the laws of pur land as much as it violates the beliefs of those that think that laws matter. It is almost as though our government is conspiring with the Mexican government against us whom our government is supposed to protect.

    ReplyDelete
  58. BrightHeartCloudTail 【Freya】July 9, 2015 at 2:43 AM

    Both of them are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I think I understand what Trump meant - merely that Jeb Bush is more sympathetic to immigration issues- legal and illegal because of his love for his wife and her culture, etc. Just wasn't well stated.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Here is undeniable proof that the natural born citizen was originally decided by born of citizen parents...The location of birth was temporarily waveried to include those born beyond sea or out of limits of the United States...BUT in 1795 it was changed back to make those not born on soil to citizen parents be only CITIZENs....I can't believe I have missed this over the years..l can't believe that the courts have either.

    The Naturalization
    Act of 1790 stated
    that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born
    beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."[21] This act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the characterization of such children as "natural born," stating that "the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,
    shall be considered as citizens of the United States" while retaining the same residency restrictions as the 1790 act.[22

    ReplyDelete
  61. Re: ".nothing to convince me..."

    Answer: I post the facts for RATIONAL people, if any of them visit this site. There are always bound to be a few nuts.

    When the Heritage Foundation's book and ten or 11 appeals courts and hundreds of articles and books all say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen includes EVERY child born on US soil. And when the writings of men who knew the framers of the Constitution use the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same as Natural Born Subject in the common law.

    And when the writers of the Constitution would have had to have translated "indigines" as "Natural Born Citizen" and used it----without even saying that they did that (and generally people say when they translate a word and use it and do not use the common law).

    ...then the fact that a nut is not convinced is not likely to affect the thinking of rational people.

    Here, again, are the quotations from Tucker and Rawle----and remember both of them KNEW the writers of the Constitution, and Rawle was a good friend of both Washington and Franklin:


    "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting
    the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born
    citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were
    born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all
    the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such
    as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to
    their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH
    NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL
    GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    "Therefore
    every person born within the United States, its territories or
    districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born
    citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the
    rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A
    VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    BOTH of them (and Kent and Storey and the Lynch v. Clarke ruling) use Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that Natural Born Subject was used in the common law.

    In short, Rubio and Jindal and, yes, Obama, are all eligible because of being born on US soil. (Cruz, who was born in Canada, is more of a question.)

    ReplyDelete
  62. Re: "The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born
    beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as..."


    Answer: Naturalization Acts apply ONLY to people who were born on foreign soil. There is nothing in those acts or ANY naturalization act or any legislation or any of the writings of any of the framers or any of the writings of the leaders at the time that says that two citizen parents (or even one) were required for a child born on US soil to be a Natural Born Citizen.

    ADDING the abilities of children of American parents born outside of the USA to the abilities of children born inside of the USA to parents regardless of the citizenship of the parents, does not---duh---reduce the status of US-born children.

    In fact, the act had NOTHING to do with children born on US soil----and it is misleading (probably deliberately) to claim that it did.

    Once again, look at the quotations from Tucker and Rawle----who knew the writers of the Constitution. They said that every child born on US soil was a Natural Born Citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I love it when you afterbirthers starting calling names....a nut, well at least I am not a useful idiot.

    The United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship to all people, not just those born abroad....It was the "LAW", not just someone's opinion of the "LAW". And it is the only other place in the LAW that we have a clear use of the natural born citizen phrase other than in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5. ...The Law was later repealed and removed the natural born from the phrase and made them only citizens...So how did they make them natural born in the first place....Only by looking that they had citizen parents but that was not enough, they changed the LAW due to they had to be born on US soil as well.

    "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born
    beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens" DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

    Thus your born on soil idea was not even considered in giving citizenship, it was being born of citizens that solely made them a natural born citizen at that time and only three years after the eligibility clause was written....So yes, I would say they knew the framers of the Constitution.

    Quote all the usurpers you want of that time that were trying to pass off British Common Law but it is worthless in saying that all you have to do is be born on soil to be a natural born citizen when the LAW of 1790 clearly states that a person born of citizen parents that is born over seas is a natural born citizen....NOT BORN ON US SOIL

    ReplyDelete
  64. Once again, naturalization laws apply to people who were born in foreign countries. They do NOT apply to people born in the USA.

    The law you are referring to said that children born outside the USA to US citizens were Natural Born Citizens. But it did not say that children born in the USA to parents who were not citizens were not Natural Born Citizens.

    In fact, duh, it does not mention people born in the USA AT ALL.

    ReplyDelete
  65. That is why we refer to WKA for a person born on soil to non-citizen parents.....He was declared a "CITIZEN" by order of the 14th Amendment due they used it to determine his citizenship....It is stated right there in the final decision.

    Can you show me one case where a person born on soil to non-citizen parents (prior to Obama and after the passing of the Constitution) that was declared a natural born citizen?


    14th Amendment: “All persons born or
    naturalized in the United States,
    and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are "CITIZENS" of the United States,


    Is this not clear enough for you..."ALL PERSONs BORN" "in the United States" "are CITIZENS"....NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS!!!

    Now just add citizen parents to the 14th amendment citizen and you have a Natural Born Citizen.....duh.

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 included all residents in the United States and abroad...It denied citizenship to blacks slaves and asians that were born on soil so it was not just about those born abroad....duh, it was the law of the land for determining citizenship and only temporarily allowed for children of citizens born abroad to be natural born citizens...It was later repealed and determined that they were only citizens....Naturalization Law was used in determining if John McCain was eligible for POTUS ...duh, there is no use for the law to determine if someone born on soil is a citizen..duh..but there is to determine if they are eligible to be POTUS...duh.

    So you want me to believe that the children of citizens of this country that are born abroad are were not found worthy of being a natural born citizen but just anyone can drop a anchor baby and boom!!! they are a natural born citizen....hahahha!!!

    ReplyDelete
  66. Re: "That is why we refer to WKA for a person born on soil to non-citizen parents.....He was declared a "CITIZEN" by order of the 14th Amendment due they used it to determine his citizenship....It is stated right
    there in the final decision."

    Answer: Ever hear of the number TWO?

    The Wong Kim Ark decision did two things. It declared that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen----because that was the issue of the case. AND (2) it defined Natural Born Citizen, in these words:

    "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries [the common law, duh], beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore 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."

    YOU have not read the above. Or else you think that it is not a definition of Natural Born Citizen----but 11 appeals courts all say that it is and that in fact it is the KEY ruling on the subject (and notice how similar its words are to those the the Heritage Foundation book).

    Re: "Can you show me one case where a person born on soil to non-citizen parents (prior to Obama and after the passing of the Constitution) that was declared a natural born citizen?"

    Answer: Are you a CONSERVATIVE?

    Well, if so, you would remember strict construction and the need for strict construction in rulings.

    Under strict construction if there is NO ruling that says that X is barred, X is not barred.

    So, YOU have to show me a case where a person born on soil to non-citizen parents (prior to Obama and after the passing of the Constitution) that was declared NOT to be a natural born citizen. Can you?

    There is at least one state appeals court case where a woman born on US soil to foreign parents was declared to be a Natural Born US citizen---Lynch v. Clarke.

    "Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844).

    Summary of Case:

    "The defendant, Julia Lynch, was born in the City of New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city. She re-turned with them the same year, to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States." [NYLO at 238.]

    .......Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegience of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen."

    (For more details see: http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html#NBC_NBC_p1868_Munro)


    And I have already shown the quotations from the legal scholars Tucker and Rawle---who knew the members of the Constitutional Convention, that the term Natural Born Citizen is to be used as Natural Born Subject was in the common law, and that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen.


    BTW, that is what the Heritage Foundation book said too.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Why do you refer to English Common law instead of the 14th Amendment in the case of WKA...duh

    Forget English Common Law due to we now live under the Constitution and the 14th Amendment clearly states that those born on soil are CITIZENS!!!

    "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not 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 a 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."

    The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the
    Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States,first and foremost....They did not intend for anchor babies to become natural born citizens and take over our country,

    ReplyDelete
  68. So, YOU have to show me a case where a person born on soil to non-citizen parents (prior to Obama and after the passing of the Constitution) that was declared NOT to be a natural born citizen. Can you?

    Wang Kim Ark

    ReplyDelete
  69. Re: "Why do you refer to English ..."

    Common law instead of the 14th Amendment in the case of WKA...duh."

    Answer: Because it does. See the quotation above, and the part about" "by the law of England for the last three hundred years..."

    Re: ""The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens...."

    Answer: You are quoting the translation of Vattel that appeared TEN YEARS after the Constitution was written. The one that was available at the time said the "indigines: had two citizen parents----and Vattel is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers at all.

    Wikipedia puts it this way: "It's hard to see how Vattel could be a 'possible source' considering the
    fact he never used the phrase "Natural born citizen." He wrote in
    French and what he wrote was "Les Naturales ou indigenes" which literally translated would mean "the naturals or natives." That phrase was later translated as "natural born citizens" in an English translation that didn't come out until ten years after the Constitution was written. "


    The Framers (the Founders are the Puritans) wanted the president to be (1) a citizen, and (2) not naturalized. That's all that the term Natural Born Citizen means.


    Re Anchor Babies.



    Yes, they and 330 million others are eligible. If you don't like it, don't vote for her or him when and if one runs for president. (I have noted before that you did not seem surprised that Ted Bundy and the Unibomber are eligible to become president. Why do you suppose the writers of the Constitution allowed even convicted criminals to be president?


    Because they wanted US to be FREE TO CHOSE---a well-known conservative principle.


    Re: "the one person sitting at the top to have unquestionable, unwavering loyalty..."


    First, the US-born children of foreign citizens have fought and died for the United States of America in two world wars----and there is not a particle of a shred of a hint of a rumor that they were any less loyal than the US-born children of US citizens.


    Second, if the writers of the US Constution had thought that the US-born children of foreigners (like Scalia and Alito, BTW) would be any less loyal than the US-born children of US citizens THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO----but not one of them ever did.


    Moreover, the principle of allegiance that they subscribed to held that a person could not have divided allegiance, and that everyone born on the soil of a country had total allegiance to THAT country, regardless of the citizenship of his parents at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  70. The Wong Kim Ark decision ruled that Wong was a citizen, and it certainly DID NOT RULE that he was not a Natural Born Citizen.

    Try to find a decision that actually rules that someone is not a Natural Born Citizen. I have shown you the Lynch v. Clarke ruling that ruled that Julia Lynch was a Natural Born Citizen.

    Here is a far more recent ruling, not related to Obama (If you'd like the ten or 11 that are directly related to Obama, I can post them too):

    Musata v. U.S. Department of Justice, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (1999)

    "Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States."

    ReplyDelete
  71. He wrote in French and what he wrote was "Les Naturales ou indigenes" which literally translated would mean "the naturals or natives." That phrase was later translated as "natural born citizens"

    Whoopie...naturals or natives...those are people that are born a soil and then when he added born of citizen parents it has the same meaning as a natural born citizen

    ReplyDelete
  72. "Try to find a decision that actually rules that someone is not a Natural Born Citizen."

    That is the dumbest comeback I have ever read from a afterbirther..lol...It didn't rule that he wasn't found a nationalized citizen either...should I find that one for you too...I can see this is going no where...You are a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  73. IT (meaning the Wong Kim Ark decision) ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, not a naturalized citizen----a citizen at birth because he had been born on US soil. And then it ruled separately that ALL persons born on US soil who were not children of foreign diplomats or members of an invading army are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

    Remember Syllogisms?

    When EVERY child born on the soil is a Natural Born Citizen (with the exceptions noted) and when Wong Kim Ark was born on the soil and did not have either of those exceptions, then logically Wong Kim Ark is a Natural Born Citizen.

    And that, duh, is so obvious that the ruling did not have to say it.

    And, yes, it did say, as the appeals courts have all ruled, that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen-----which, BTW, the Heritage Foundation book said too.

    ReplyDelete
  74. General "Bull" KrapperJuly 12, 2015 at 9:49 AM

    Exactly!! - "We the People" have become the pawns in the chess game for power & greed. -- Stay Well, Safe & Free

    ReplyDelete
  75. Funny few pwople on here and who I talk to are in favor of Jeb Bush but yet they say he is running 1st or 2nd ( depending on the one it is written by) in the polls . That certainly sounds fishy . I hope we don't have another illegal election which doesn't go the way of the american citizens!!

    ReplyDelete
  76. Why do you bother to comment . It is always nothing but hate . Get some help.

    ReplyDelete
  77. like donald trump,i speak for the majority of america.not the few liberal lying scumbags trying to destroy america.get out of our country scumbag communist pig

    ReplyDelete

Posted By: Chris Carmouche