Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
2019
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.


Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.










Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Obama's pseudo-US NBC status now slapped silly as fraudulent from the other side of the Ocean via Joyce v. DPP et al.

I came across an interesting British case that appears to fit in nicely with Vattel's Law of Nations, and the newly revived debate that surrounds this work as viewed by the founding fathers like George Washington, Ben Franklin, and others.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/george-washington-consulted-legal.html
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html

I have communicated this information to New Jersey Lawyer Mario Apuzzo in Blog Comment form, and it is my hope that others will utilize it as well.


Joyce v. D.P.P. seems relevant v. Obama regarding his passport issue and his British Commonwealth citizenship.
http://uniset.ca/other/cs3/joyce.html

Some excerpts:
"Held (1.) that an alien abroad holding a British passport enjoys the protection of the Crown and if he is adherent to the King’s enemies he is guilty of treason, so long as he has NOT renounced that protection…
Per Lord Porter: The renewal of the passport did not prove conclusively in law that the duty of allegiance continued until the passport ceased to be valid, unless some action on the part of the Crown or of the appellant put an end to that protection... Resolution of the judges of January 12, 1707, Foster’s Crown Cases, 3rd ed., p. 185, discussed.

… The appellant was born in the United States of America, in 1906, the son of a NATURALIZED American citizen who had previously been a British subject by birth. He thereby became himself a natural born American citizen"

[That is, he only became a "natural born American Citizen" via the Naturalized to the US Citizen FATHER - Brianroy].


"…an alien owes a local allegiance only so long as he resides within the King’s dominions, the nature of allegiance has been long settled: … Calvin’s case 1a, 4b, 5b. Blackstone’s Commentaries, 1st ed., vol. 1, pp. 357-9: “Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. …. Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien, or stranger born, for so long time as he continues within the King’s dominion and protection: and it ceases the instant such stranger transfers himself from this Kingdom to another. … As therefore the prince is always under a constant tie to protect his
natural-born subjects, AT ALL TIMES AND IN ALL COUNTRIES, for this reason their allegiance due to him is equally universal and permanent. But, on the other hand, as the prince affords his protection to an alien, only during his residence in this realm, the allegiance of an alien is confined (in point of time) to the duration of such his residence, and (in point of locality) to the dominions of the British empire. …”

…in Foster’s Crown Cases, 1792 ed., p. 185: “And if such alien seeking the protection of the Crown; and having a family and effects here, should during a war with his native country, go thither, and adhere to the King’s enemies for purposes of hostility, he might be dealt with as a traitor. For he came and settled here under the protection of the Crown; and though his person was removed for a time, his effects and family continued still under the same protection. This rule was laid down by all the judges assembled at the Queen’s command, January 12, 1707.”

http://uniset.ca/other/cs3/joyce.html



Further of significance in the Joyce v. D.P.P. case, beyond the fact that it is the Father's Citizenship that confers a "natural born status", is the "passport" issue.

It was argued by the defense
@355
“Apart from the Naturalization Act, 1870, the general principle still holds good. Nemo potest exuere patriam. Nothing a man does can make him a British subject and nothing he can omit to do can prevent him from being a British subject if he was so born.”


It was argued by the Crown
@358-359:
The passport is now the method by which the Crown accords [*359] his protection to persons abroad. It is the sovereign’s express command to his representatives that protection is to be given and in its normal functioning puts into operation the Crown’s protective system. The resident alien shares now in the general protection of all the inhabitants of the realm but the passport holder has the benefit of a protective machinery going much further, even to the point of involving the country in war: see article on International Law in Practice by Sir William Malkin (1933), 49 Law Quarterly Review, p. 489, and Encyclop3Ú4dia of the Laws of England, 2nd ed., vol X., p. 585, et seq.”


The French word “liege” is believed to be derived from the Feudal “serf” or Latin “letus” or “leticus”. But the Romans themselves appear to have borrowed their understanding from the Germanic “lethigaz” (those who are freed, released, set at liberty, let go).

Is it not the case that the precedent of aliens being born into legience as “born citizens” via jus soli, appears to have only entered English legal interpretation (so far as we are aware) via the Scottish “Calvin’s Case” decision, decided by Lord Coke in 1609?

Reading:
Coke himself on the 1608 Calvin's Case (decided 1609)
http://app.libraryofliberty.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106335&layout=html&Itemid=27

and

The Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, Winter 1997, "NATURAL LAW AND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN CALVIN'S CASE (1608)" by Polly J. Price
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/9YJLH73.htm

Indeed, it seems to be the case.

Obama’s Father transfers a de facto British Commonwealth Citizenship of the territories of Britain legience to Barack II, so that not only is Barack II a Kenyan “natural born citizen” and US Presidency Usurper, but he must be viewed as a British “natural born citizen”, because it is the Father’s Land… Nemo potest exuere patriam - No one may leave the Fatherland…that counts in Vattel, US Supreme Court Law, and in the British Law of Citizenship argued by Joyce v. D.P.P. in Great Britain
.
Re: Patrium as "Father's Land": http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=patrium&la=la&prior=ad
et al.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Sunday, February 26, 1888, p.6 argued that the paternity (cf. also Alexander Porter Morse's concurring reply) was the determinent in the child's natural-born status, and the only overseas possibility for the child born as a US Citizen under protection by law to be called natural born and possibly ascend to the Presidency was by being born to a US Citizen Father (and US citizen mother) on a ship under a US Flag on the High Seas (in International waters).

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Sunday, February 26, 1888, p.6



Time Magazine 1943
What a difference 67 years makes in the Media. During World War 2, the publisher of Time Magazine had a Vattel-like perspective on the difference between native-born and natural-born.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,791199,00.html

"Time Magazine: A Letter From The Publisher, Dec. 13, 1943

April 26—U.S. at War. The Constitution provides that the President must be a "natural born" citizen, but he does not have to be "native born." If he had to be "native born" a man born of American parents outside the country could not become President."

So said the publisher of Time Magazine in 1943.

Now it seems to me, that clearly in 1943, the publisher of Time Magazine had the legal view that a United States "natural-born citizen" was born of 2 United States citizen parents, even if the child was (by presumption)
born outside the confines of the US or its territories (say on an ocean liner in International waters, under a US Flag as the 1888 Brooklyn Eagle stated, perhaps). But he may simply mean the "territories of the US". In any scenario of the above TIME Magazine position, Obama's alien father denies Barack legitimacy in the eyes of the Law.

But now, 67 years later, the media and Liberal position has reversed from a "jus sanguinis only" position of both parents to a "jus soli only". Hmmn. Curious, and too convenient.

But the 2 parent rule has been a recognized "Law of Nations" for citizenship since at least, and before the 350s B.C.

If we were to go back to Greek sources like Aristotle, we would see that though the situation of what defined citizenship (and legience) may have pragmatically varied (being relaxed) in times of dearth or in war (Aristotle, Politics Book 3.5).

But in times of prosperity, the 2 parent rule in defining citizenship (and a natural-born legience) was not only the ideal, but preferred as a norm, and appears to have been an ancient means to "restrict" immigration and growth from those not "jus soli".

By example, Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution, 2.26, (translated by Frederick G. Kenyon)
“…it was resolved, on the motion of Pericles, that no one should admitted to the franchise who was not of citizen birth by both parents.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/athenian_const.2.2.html

I still contend that the best and most correct application of citizenship, as it regards "natural-born" subjects, must be focused on through paternity, the Father, in US Supreme Court Law. And in the quote I used from Joyce v. D.P.P. @348, is when the rubber meets the road. The British took the same view toward whose naturalization to the United States granted the US "jus soli" birth of the child his US natural born status. The mother status was left out as though it was irrelevant (where the father's citizenship and status was known).

Since Obama's father never naturalized to the USA, it is impossible for Barack to be a natural born child of any other nation (under natural law or the Law of nations outside a special circumstance of World War or Great Dearth) than that of his father's. In 1961, we had no World War 3, nor a great dearth in the USA (Britain and Kenya) so as to relax our laws in regards to the ease of transferring or swapping citizenships as they might have in pre-Aristotle Greece and elsewhere.

And in that sense, without a renunciation of the same British Commonwealth and Kenyan Citizenships by Barack Hussein Obama II's 21st birthday, the US Supreme Court (if they decide on this case) must apply to him as extant his British Commonwealth citizenship: Nemo potest exuere patriam; and call Barack Hussein Obama II as malum in se, unConstitutionally in the Office of the Presidency of the United States, and that every act he commits or has ever committed while egregiously and illegally presuming the Presidency of the United States, is another illegal act that needs to be reversed by the Supreme Court and ruled invalid.

No comments:

Post a Comment