To: ehancock

Note your reference was printed in 2005.
I agree with ““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.” With the following addition as in the 14th Amendment, “..and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..” are CITIZENS. Often called “native born Citizens”, but not Natural Born Citizens. Mr. Meese mixes the two for his own reasons, opinion, or lack of study.
See “Minor vs Happersett” Supreme Court decision (1874), yet to be overturned.
Also note, the Republicans at that time needed to weaken the full meaning of Natural Born Citizen for their own candidate. The Professional Political Class have tried to repeal or change the wording several times, especially over the last 12 years. I do not know their reasons, and I stand with the strict interpretation of how it was written.
I am yet to see any interpretation in the Federalist Papers that argues against the “Born in US with 2 citizen parents” definition.

Re: “See “Minor vs Happersett” Supreme Court decision (1874), yet to be overturned.”

But the Minor vs Happersett case did NOT decide that. Have birther sites explained to you the concept of “dicta” It is that a statement about Y in a case that is about X is irrelevant. And Minor vs Happersett was not a citizenship case. It was a voting rights case.

Moreover, the Minor vs Happersett case said right in it (and birther lawyers cut the sentence out of the quotations that they use) that IT DOES NOT HAVE TO DECIDE THIS MATTER. In other words, it stated that it would not decide the matter, and it did not.

Finally, the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER the Minor vs Happersett case. Hence if Minor was a ruling (and it wasn’) then the Wong Kim Ark case would have overturned it. And the Wong Kim Ark case stated quite clearly that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born.

This is what it said:

“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.”

Notice how close that is to what Meese said?

Well it is also the same as what was said in 1829:

“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 here is how the term Natural Born Citizen was actually USED in the USA in 1803, shortly after the Constitution went into effect:

“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)

Notice that it does NOT use the term the way Vattel does. It uses it the way that the common law does. It refers only to the place of birth, not to the parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within a stat e”.

Obama was born in Hawaii, not Kenya. He has shown both his short form and long form birth certificates. Both the images and the physical copies of both of them, and the long form was handed around in the White House press room and everyone there got a chance to hold it and examine it. One reporter even photographed it.

THREE Republican and several Democrat officials have confirmed the facts on Obama’s birth certificate, and they are further confirmed by the birth notices that were in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961. It turns out that those birth notices could only have been generated by the birth certificate because the papers did not accept birth notices from relatives at the time. They only took their notices from the DOH of Hawaii, and the DOH of Hawaii did not send the notices out for births outside of Hawaii.

Re: “the Court ruled he was a Citizen by birth or “Native born Citizen”, not Natural Born Citizen.”

The actual words of the court were:

“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.”

Do you remember syllogisms? If all men are mortal and George is a man, then George must be mortal.

Well, the Wong Kim Ark case ruled that every child born in the USA other than the children of foreign diplomats and invaders is a Natural Born Citizen, and Wong Kim Ark was born in the USA and his parents were not foreign diplomats or invaders. Therefore Wong Kim Ark, like Obama and Jindal and Rubio, was a US citizen.

“Based on 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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”— Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346

In fact, there have now been THREE state courts and one federal court (Georgia, Indiana, Arazona and the federal court ruling in Virginia cited above, all of which held that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen due to his birth in the USA and the Wong Kim Ark ruling that held that EVERY CHILD born in the USA is Natural Born.

It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not.” Jill A. Pryor. The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty – Yale Law Journal 1988

“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….”—- 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.]

About a handful or more federal and state cases have described the US-born children of foreigners as Natural Born Citizens. Including:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“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.”

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

The legal authorities are overwhelmingly in favor of the definition of Natural Born coming from the common law and referring to the PLACE of birth, not the parents.

To help you in your research, here are some sites:

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

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/#nbc

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/natural-born-citizenship-for-dummies/

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/an-open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo/

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346

There is new information being generated daily by investigators. This info on the “Birth Certificates” makes all other arguments null and void. I will report the site and the author’s synopsis.

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/02/vital-records-indicate-obama-not-born.html
This is part one of a three part story which will present evidence discovered within the vital records archives of the United States, Great Britain and the Prefecture of Hiroshima, Japan which shows that Barack Obama exploited the municipality of Hawaii and U.S. Vital Statistics reporting methods in order to counterfeit birth records in a criminal attempt to deceive the American people and fraudulently usurp the power of the U.S. Presidency.

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/02/vital-records-indicate-obama-not-born_29.html
SHOCK AND ODD –Along with previous evidence proving the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted on the internet in April, 2011 was digitally fabricated, we reveal powerful new evidence which shows that data contained on the document contradicts Obama’s birth narrative and vital statistical accounting methods used at the alleged time of his birth. Vast disparities between the natal information appearing in the image and the standard methods used by federal and municipal governments to code, identify and report the contents of U.S. vital records prove that Obama’s alleged Hawaiian birth record was assembled to intentionally obscure the truth about his natal biography.

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/03/vital-records-indicate-obama-not-born.html
DIRTY LITTLE SECRET: Historical evidence provided by the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Reference Library System now confirms the information appearing within the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” disregards his actual foreign birthplace while, instead, providing a statistically based “geographic allocation” which is a result of a widely misunderstood natality data reporting policy which began in 1950. Stalling for four years since Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007, under mounting political pressures and legal challenges, the White House unveiled a lone scrap of counterfeit information in the form of a desolate internet image which, after a six month criminal investigation, now confirms that Obama’s presidency is the single greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.

Please note that Part 3 was only available since yesterday.
I will add a Quote from Part 3:
“Stunningly, Obama, himself, confirmed this definition of a Natural-born citizen in 2008 when he sponsored and voted for passage of Senate Resolution 511 which explicitly states that a candidate for U.S. President is a Natural-born citizen definitively and exclusively because he or she is born to two parents who are both U.S. citizens. The resolution was debated and passed unanimously without inquiry approving the eligibility of Republican candidate, John McCain, during the 2008 election campaign.”

I still say that this matter must be addressed by Congress and the Courts. This arguing about definitions, and interpretations has gotten out of hand and way away from the Founders intent. We are in a Constitutional Crisis and it must be resolved. The Courts can not be trusted in many cases and the Senate is politically dead-locked. The People must educate themselves and demand a Constitutional decision.

Couldn’t have done a better job myself. Thanks Bill!

Thank you for your well-written article, Mr. Brayshaw. This is a subject that needs to be brought out into the open and discussed because it concerns not only every American citizen but the future of our country. The subject of Obama’s eligibility has grown to the point where more than half of the people now question it. A great deal of confusion and misinformation stems from the fact that many people, including the courts and politicians, have interchanged the terms ‘Natural Born Citizen,” Native Born Citizen,” and “Citizen.” This has been done either out of ignorance or as an attempt to confuse.

In looking through some of the articles from references ehancock provided it is easy to see why people are so confused. If you read them carefully, you will see the articles start with Natural Born Citizen, but almost immediately abandons that and switch to “Native Born” and/or “Citizen” as the subject. When I got to the “Obama Conspiracy Theories” I was appalled at what some people inject into the debate. That site attempted to debunk every factual piece of information with trumped-up reasons/excuses. Statements preceded by “he probably” or “what might have happened” or even “this could be explained . .” are neither valid nor acceptable in a discussion of this magnitude. If they were, then I could say, “What probably happened was ehancock slipped on a banana peeling and suffered brain damage, and that could explain his inability to discern “natural born” from “native born.” But I won’t say that because it is an opinion but not a proven fact.

Perhaps ehancock’s confusion comes from the sites he chooses to frequent. I would respectfully suggest he, and any others who are still in doubt, take advantage of the reliable sites that are so readily available on the internet. As Mr. Brayshaw suggested, perhaps the Immigration and Nationality Act would confirm why, in 1961, the year that Barack Obama was born, under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship of any kind to Barack Obama.
“ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301
(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.
“As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

Mr. Brayshaw mentioned a Supreme Court case that confirmed the fact that a natural born citizen is one born in the United States of citizen parents. Details of that case and others can be found at http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Fact 4 – Supreme Court Cases that cite “Natural Born Citizen” as one born on US soil to citizen parents.

You will find an easy to understand and factual explanation of the natural born citizen requirement in this video. The little-girl voice and animated graphics detract from the credibility of the presentation, but you can turn your speakers off and read most of it.
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/videos/supreme-court-and-congress-say-obama-unlawful-president

Did you listen to/read Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s report on Obama’s birth certificate? In separate reports as many as ten experts have come to the same conclusion. The only person who has publically contested those findings has posted his objections on an ehancock recommended site. He has been unable to duplicate the finding of the experts but that, in itself, only means he lacks the knowledge and ability to do so. Just because he can’t accomplish what at least ten independent experts plus the Arpaio team of experts have certainly doesn’t mean their findings are wrong.

Don’t be fooled by those people who claim every eligibility case has been thrown out of court. A case was never allowed to be heard in a court until the hearing in Georgia. While the judge there begrudgingly allowed a portion of the evidence to be presented he unfairly and illegally ignored it along with the fact that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared as ordered at the hearing. Appeals are pending.

Some reliable sites in addition to those recommended by Mr. Brayshaw that will help you understand the eligibility question as well as inform you of the evidence that has been uncovered:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/

There is so much more about Obama that has been discovered by reliable sources but which he refuses to address. I hope to see more articles by Mr. Brayshaw about Obama’s Social Security number, his suspect Selective Service registration and missing documentation as well as his close associates and the many suspect activities in which he is and has been involved. As Obama himself said, “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

Please take the time to inform yourself. This is the most important issue facing our country now, and our future depends on the outcome. If one usurper is allowed to hold the title of President then nothing will stop others from doing the same. Do we really want to take the chance of having a president from an enemy country?

Again another well written article by Molly.
What else do you need “ehancock”? I am not that good of a “word smith” but I do know & feel that even if none of the above were true, we are being led down the ” path to communism” A great hoax has been played on the American Citizens. Here is a quote from Khruschev in 1959
“We cannot expect the American ppl 2 jump from Capitalism to Communism but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small
doses of Socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism” Nikita Khrushchev 1959 Soviet Leader.
The Sheeple just can’t be that stupid to not reconize that the policies Obama and previous administrations have put into place keeps taking us futher from the foundation & intent of our founding fathers. I will refur you to the below site to give you an idea of what our fellow Americans have voted into office.
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/dsa_members.htm How Many Members Of The U.S. Congress Are Self-Declared Socialists?
If we don’t change our voting habits we will be a “Totalitarian Nation” with OBAMA at the helm as a permanent dictator. Open your eyes before it is too late. This is what makes 2012 the most important election of our lifetime. I leave you with a quote to absorb.
There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt… John Adams, 1826

The crux of this commentary is basically as Mr. Brayshaw sets forth in his last few replies. The political divide is widening and each new question brings forth additional widening. The opinion of the left is always going to lean toward the benefit of Mr. Obama. The opinion from the right is going to lean toward the illegality of Obama’s presidency. One can usually put a tad bit of faith in a position that is staunchly opposed by the main stream media when it deals with a democrat subject. The reverse will consistently be the position to take if the MSM takes a pro stance. That is based on my opinion and the history of the left leaning MSM. Regardless of what position anyone takes in this particular discussion, the ultimate decision, again as cited by Mr. Brayshaw, must be made by Congress or the Supreme Court. Nothing short of that will calm the decent or resolve the discussion.

I don’t know if any of you out there are aware of the facts or non-facts concerning Obama’s religion. Is he a Christian or is he a Muslim. We all know that he says he is a Christian, but he has made some very disparaging remarks and mis quotes concerning the Bible. According to the last poll taken 75% of Americans believe he is of Muslim faith. Well here is an eye opener for you. The Islam Religion states if your father is Muslim you automaticly inherit your fathers faith when you are born. This is another fact that the MSM and the democrats covered up before he was elected. As you can see They have done nothing but talk about Romney being a Mormon trying to turn the tide against, but insist that Obama is a Christian that I have my druthers about. I refer you to this article

http://www.meforum.org/3179/obama-islam

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/10-quotes-by-barack-obama-about-islam-contrasted-with-10-quotes-by-barack-obama-about-christianity

Lets face it folks. When he was running for the highest office in the land in 2008 Americans were convinced he could walk on water. Now 3 yrs later we find out he can’t even swim. I rest my case. I would love some replies on this subject