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
-- 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.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Selected George D. Collins quotes, from his public domain ALR 1884 article

Are Persons Born Within The United States IPSO Facto Citizens? By George D. Collins

The American Law Review, September/October 1884 issue

[Selected quotes:]

1.   “Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution there was no full and complete definition of citizens of the United States in any of the laws thereof.

It is evident, however, that all those who constituted the people of the several States at the time the Constitution went into operation were citizens of the United States, and were so termed by it; and all persons born within the United States, whose fathers were at the time of such birth citizens thereof, are likewise citizens of the United States.

But the question presents itself, are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of such birth were aliens, citizens thereof?”

2.  “It is well settled that the common law is not part of the jurisprudence of the United States. In Wheaton v. Peters


the Supreme Court say :

 (in the Syllabus):

‘It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The Federal government is composed of…sovereign and independent States, each of which may have its legal usages, customs…

There is no principle which pervades the Union and has the authority of law, that is not embodied in the Constitution or the laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of our Federal system only by legislative adoption.’”

3. There is nothing in the Constitution to indicate that the term ‘citizen’ was used in reference to the common-law definition of ‘subject,’

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

nor is there any act by Congress declaratory of the common-law doctrine, and the subject of citizenship being national, questions relating to it are to be determined by the general principles of the law of nations.”


At this point, I would interject that we today can also now reach back well past 2,300 years to quote  Aristotle and The Athenian Constitution, 2.26, (translated by Frederick G. Kenyon), a fundamental document used for the basis of Democratic Government and International Law as we know it,  one to which Vattell himself might have relied upon in defining what is a "natural born citizen", where Aristotle said:
“…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. “

Collins continues:

4.   "Vattell thus defines natural born citizens:
 ‘The native or natural citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens;’
and he continues:
As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights. …The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.’”

{Tacit is defined as "silent, to pass over in silence, to say nothing" or words to this effect.  In law, the operation of law  " 'void of' /'without' the intervention by the parties involved." 

  In other words, without any legal action to deny Obama any Kenyan citizenship, even dual, by tacit consent, Barack Hussein Obama II remained a natural born citizen of the country of his father, which was and is KENYA.  There are no legal or court documents to say otherwise, and as long as Obama claims a Kenyan National, a foreign national to the US,  for his father, it is impossible for him to ever be a US Natural Born Citizen.  His legal citizenship was manifest at his birth and by his and his mother's tacit consent, remained until his 23rd birthday...unless they wish to argue that by being adopted as an Indonesian, he ceased being a Kenyan/British Commonwealth dual citizen as well as a US citizen, if he was born here, and became solely an Indonesian citizen via Lolo Soetoro.  If they argue that, that makes Barack an illegal alien and an illegal immigrant sneaked back into the USA in circa 1971.  Now, perhaps  you can realize why he and his lawyers spent over $1.400,000 before moving Robert Bauer from Perkins Coie to being Chief White House Counsel, and charging "we the people" for his defense to keep this case from going to trial...not to mention alleged bribes to a US Supreme Court Clerk and a California Law Clerk that need to be investigated and brought to light by Congressional Investigators and a Special Prosecutor.}

5. “As stated by Vattell: ‘By the law of nature alone children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and can not of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him.’

Generally no nation considers as aliens the children of its citizens or subjects born abroad; but, on the contrary, they are deemed to be citizens or subjects.”

6.  “Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution…is as follows: --
‘All persons born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’
 The phrase in the above section ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ does not mean territorial jurisdiction…but means national jurisdiction; that is the jurisdiction which a nation possesses over those who are its citizens or subjects as such.

…evident from section 1992

Which is a part of section 1, of what is known as the ‘Civil Rights Bill,’
’All persons born in the United States
and not subject to any foreign power,
excluding Indians not taxed,
are declared to be citizens of the United States.’

As before stated, generally every nation claims as a citizen or subject the child born abroad whose father was at the time of such birth a citizen or subject of the country making such claim; and this is supported by the principle of international law before referred to. Now, it is obvious that such child would be subject to a foreign power, to wit, the country of his father, which of course would exclude him from being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

7. Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof….”

No comments:

Post a Comment