Fogbow

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 7:57 pm All of this goes over my head. I learned if you were born in the U.S., you are eligible to be president. (Okay, I'm vague on U.S. territories, kids born to parents stationed overseas while in the military, Foreign Service, etc.). But born in Oakland? No doubts.

bob wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 8:32 pm How it started:


How's it going:

CHECKMATE, LIBS.

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 8:49 pm He blocked me after I kept showing his claims about vattel had no basis. He also thinks law of nations in the constitution is a reference to vattel

Frater I*I wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 9:14 pm Holy hell, we're getting to see some real necromancy here in real time...how long until Taitz makes he triumphant return....

MikeDunford wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 12:26 am Agree on the good offense. I need to go back and re-read the decision on the Colorado ballot case from a few months ago - didn't consider the effect it might have on birther cases (and standing) because...well...*gestures vaguely*. Probably time to give that a bit of thought.

§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.

§213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state, while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society, without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

§214. Naturalisation.

A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalisation. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens,—for example, that of holding public offices,—and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalisation. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalise a single person, without the concurrence of the nation represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.

§215. Children of citizens, born in a foreign country.

It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana

In December 2008, Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse filed a "Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition" against Indiana governor Mitch Daniels to block "any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors [sic]." A hearing was held, and on March 16, 2009, Daniels' motion to dismiss was granted. The Plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which upheld it on November 12, 2009.[100]

The appellate decision addressed the question of whether Obama's eligibility was affected by his father's lack of U.S. citizenship, saying that "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."[101] On April 1, 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court rejected, without comment, a request to consider the case.[102]

Have you ever and/or are you now a Citizen of any country other than the USA?

northland10 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 9:52 am Two comments on various things mentioned above by us or the idiots.

1. Wasn't it Mario who used the Dred Scott citation (and not even from the majority opinion IIRC). I seem to recall him getting routinely mocked for that not that it would have any impact on him.

2. Funny how anybody born here is NBC was all fine and dandy until the one running for POTUS looked different from old white men.

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 9:58 am The sayre guy above had a habit of using the dissents in stuff he referenced and was called out by multiple lawyers for it

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 9:30 am https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/fil ... Harris.pdf

northland10 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 9:52 am Two comments on various things mentioned above by us or the idiots.

1. Wasn't it Mario who used the Dred Scott citation (and not even from the majority opinion IIRC). I seem to recall him getting routinely mocked for that not that it would have any impact on him.

2. Funny how anybody born here is NBC was all fine and dandy until the one running for POTUS looked different from old white men.

Paul Ingrassia
·
Jul 22, 2024
@PaulIngrassia
·
Follow
Everyone is wrong for criticizing John Eastman’s analysis.

He’s correct. None of the Founding Fathers believed citizenship should automatically be conferred by birthright,...