“ Parentage is irrelevant: ‘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’
Currently, Black’s Law states,
“The rule [is] that a child’s citizenship is determined by the parents’ [plural] citizenship.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
941 (9th Ed. 2009). That is, the rule is “now” parents, plural. So there you have a contradiction where Black’s Law, subject to the whims of its changing editors and inaccuracy by generalities, is at odds with itself. The key words that are missing is the "parents" of the same nationality, or "citizens" of the same nationality that a child is born to (in order to have an nbc status). The 6th edition is then, hence, overly abridged to convey or allow the presumption of an inaccuracy as many Obama defenders so took it as.
Unfortunately, Black’s Law in the 6th edition is defining only two of five types of citizens, the “Natural Born” and the “Naturalized”. It behaves as if there were no other options, no other complications. And in just 3 editions, oops. Which edition of Black’s is to be believed? In Court, Black’s would thus be effectively neutralized, and the opinion thence rendered as worthless.
It would be nice if those supporting the Usurper Obama would be honest about how the abridgement of Black's has led to an inaccuracy in Black’s law, so that not even the United States Supreme Court found that above-reader cited definition acceptable, but rather still questioned themselves over what a “Natural Born Citizen” was to be defined as in:
Kennedy v .Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, (1969), dissent
Rogers v. Bellei 401 US 815, 826 (1971)
Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)
Nor was that 6th edition Black's Law definition accepted as “settled” or anywhere near the “Authority” that Obama supporters claim that it is:
E.g., http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
Jill A. Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility{&tc}…in 97 YALE Law Journal 881, 887-888 (1988)
claimed that “…at the time of the framing of the Constitution, there was no common understanding of what ‘natural born citizen’ meant.”
And then she delved into some Court cases, the 14th Amendment, and what have you, and still couldn’t get it figured out right (even by her own admission).
And then we could cite: Volume 107, No. 1 Senator John McCain and Natural Born Citizenship September 2008 (Michigan Law Review)
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/mccain.pdf
Again, the 6th Edition of Black's Law was NOT as definitive as pro-Obama supporters claim, and cling to as if a life vest while drowning in an ocean of Obama's deception.
The term “natural born citizen” is very often NOT accepted by Leftist Constitutional scholars, who continually throw up their hands as if to say “I don’t know what it means, unless you apply it against my Leftist Party Candidate”, or words to this effect.
What we are dealing with in “natural born citizen” is a term from Constitutional Federal Law.
Natural Born Citizen is not Civil law, nor English Common Law, and it has yet to be codified. It is a “natural law” which finds it way from a Christian Doctrinal view of Natural Law…not Darwinism, but from an Old and New Testament view that infused the Holy Bible’s G-D and the Laws of Nature into an understanding of what Creation demanded upon mankind, and society in the sight of G-D.
Therefore, the seed of the father was the genesis or beginning of the origin and identity of the child in Creation / Natural Law…the mother’s citizenship, without the absence of the Father was often irrelevant (unless prestige, wealth, rulership, or such complications were involved). The 20th and 21st Century mind has to enter into the 18th Century mind to grasp the “Originalism” or “Intent” of the Founding Fathers. This is something that is most often beyond the grasp or the political machinations of the Communist-Socialist American Constitution Society, the ACLU ( both of which G. Liu held state/ regional executive board positions in) , and others attempting to semantically freakizoid or “evolve” the Constitution, even when arguing against “Originalism”. They just cannot grasp a Christian mindset by which the French Vattel and the US Founding Fathers were profoundly influenced by.
The use of the Greek word "agape" by Vattel in expressing his intent and origins of his Law of Nations, specifically refers us to a passage in John 21 as well as various passages of the New Testament describing "G-D's Love" in an asexual/non-sexual way. It is greater than "Phileo" (the which Peter was only able to give at the time he was questioned)or "brotherly love". Agape is an act or state of grace, forgiveness, and generosity betwen people. And Agape is a NON-classical Greek word uniquely atuned to the New Testament, not so much so to any other sources.
In 1797, Vattel's Law of Nations English Edition in London England translated Section 212 “Indigenes” as “natural-born citizens".
This was consistent with Ben Franklin’s 1775 French copy of Vattel’s Law of Nations, in which an amended phrase of clarification, “des citoyens et naturels" appeared as the explanatory of the “indigenes” usage.
We have yet to hear as to what French Edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations that George Washington checked out of a New York Public Library and never returned. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/04/17/2010-04-17_read_it__weep_by_george_prez_racks_up_300g_late_fee_for_two_books.html
Natural Citizens who are indigenous were hence translated as “Natural-born Citizens”. That is how the English translator views the term “indigenous” in 1797; and it is likely, based on Ben Franklin’s 1775 copy, that the Founding Fathers who specifically wrote the Constitutional Article 2.1 “natural born” provision, also viewed it as so defined as well.
In other words, “natural born citizen” was a term more deeply involved than the generic “native”, those who were full citizens and classified as inhabitants who made their home and identity with a location. In the 1700s, with respects to the Colonies, some natives were original, some were pioneer founders. There was also a synonymous parallel that could be drawn with the “savage” cultures in which Indians were “natives” of a land as far as their oral history could remember (perhaps 600 years or more).
An indigene is from the Latin, “indigena”: in (in) + gen (to beget). In the Bible, the lineages is that Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob, and so on. Someone who is “indigenous, is defined as someone who is born of a particular race that is associated or attached to the country he/she is born in. They are produced and arise naturally in the locale they are brought up in, by two domestics. In nature, a crossing of a foreign and a domestic produces a Hybrid…it is not an “indigenous” species, so neither is Barack Jr. an indigenous or US natural born citizen, even if he were born in the US (which two high officials in the nation of Kenya, and Nairobi’s own media disputes, citing Kenya as the place where Obama Jr. was born).
Therefore, since Barack Obama Sr. was a foreigner, who was NOT attached (by naturalization or any other kind of citizenship to the soil or people of the United States), to call Barack Jr. an “indigene” is to be not only incorrect, but self-deceptive for the sake of a party or ideological loyalty, rather than a scientific adherence and blind application as we must expect in applying the Law uniformly, without respect of person(s).
Hence, Barack Obama is NOT a Constitutionally qualified office holder, and the "Black's Law" excuse is nullified as self-contradictory, shallow, misleading and incorrect, and moot.
I hope this enlightens those who have yet to do the research into the issue, and is of a good help. Thanks for the feedback. Peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment