Had Romney been successful in 08, we’d still have socialized medicine, only the name would be Romneycare, not Obamacare.

In regards to the missionaries, I point that out to show that the expatriate Mormons HAD to become Mexican citizens since missionary work by foreigners was prohibited by Mexican law at the time. 

Geometry, “if this and this, therefore that.”  If Mexico only allowed citizens to conduct missions/missionary work. The Mormons operated missions in Mexico, therefore,  the Mormons were Mexican citizens.

Since George W. Romney was born in Mexico, son of the head elder,  there for about 3 decades before his birth,  said elder must have been a Mexican citizen, therefore, could not bestow American citizenship, let alone “natural born” to George W. Romney.  Since George W. Romney was therefore NOT A natural born American citizen, he could not bestow natural born to his son Mitt Romney. It does not matter what state Mitt Romney was born in.

The operative immigration law of nations at the time, each government had a tacit agreement about such expatriates as a matter of being put into delicate situations of having to defend Americans on foreign soil.  This procedure was operative when the Mormons fled Utah, the standard being that if an American stayed (at the time the accepted time frame was) 5 or so years, each country would consider they had rejected their native country’s citizenship.

Since the family was in Mexico, depending on the story, 1870′s or 80′s, the USA would have considered them Mexican and Mexico would have too, on that account.

Since Mexican law severely restricted foreign ownership of territory and since Romney’s own family genealogy reports they bought land w/Mexico’s approval, then if this, then that of it concludes that they were Mexican citizens, free to own land and also, do their missionary work.

The Mormons left to escape the US government threats, then passage of two severe laws against polygamy (links below).  They were losing or had lost their citizens’ rights to vote, sit on juries, etc.  The final legislation banning polygamy and assessing severe sanctions in the 1880s made committed polygamy a crime and while the legislation OFFERED THE EXPATRIATES IN MEXICO a legal way back, all those who were married prior to 1864, (and George W. Romney’s father was), he could have chosen to repatriate with all benefits of American citizenship.

He declined and died in Mexico in 1906 or 1907, never returning, never giving up Mexican citizenship.

Clearly American citizenship was not a concern then, Romney et al have a dog in that fight but not the Mexican Mormons, the Romney family tree is clear, committed and leaders of that movement.

Notes to CI from Adrianne:

CI … I went to your site and as I forewarned, said that the “official” accounts are revisionist history.

From your link:
“… While Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered to be a viable and legal candidate to run for president. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished their citizenship.”

Actual Chronological History:

Mitt Romney’s paternal great grandfather Miles Park Romney was one of the many families that left the United States in March of 1885 to conlonize Mexico. (why and their citizenship fate explained below)

Mitt’s paternal grandfather Gaskell Romney stayed in Mexico until the Mexican Revolution forced his family to move back to the United States.

Mitt’s father George W. Romeny was also born in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua – one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico – on July 8, 1907.

Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather, George W. Romney’s maternal grandfather, Helamen Pratt:
Pratt was one of the first missionaries to Mexico, and in 1876 at Hermosillo, Sonora, Pratt and Meliton Trejo performed the first baptisms recorded by the LDS Church in that country. Pratt latter served as president of the Mexican Mission based in Mexico City for part of the 1880s. After his release he moved to Colonia Dublan in Galeana, state of Chihuahua, Mexico, where he died.

He married in Salt Lake City, Utah, 20 April 1874 German Anna Johanna Dorothy (“Dora”) Wilcken (Dahme, Zarpin, Rheinfeld, Ostholstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 25 July 1854 – Colonia Dublán, Galeana, Chihuahua, Mexico, 22 June 1929), daughter of Carl Heinrich Wilcken (Eckhorst, Holstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 5 October 1831 – Salt Lake City, Utah, 9 April 1914) and the first of at least four wives (m. Neustadt in Holstein, Ostholstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 10 August 1853) Eliza Christina Carolina Reiche (Neustadt in Holstein, Ostholstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 1 May 1830 – Salt Lake City, Utah, 13 August 1906), both of whom also became LDS Church members. He was also a polygamist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helaman_Pratt

His maternal great grandfather, Helaman Pratt’s Obituary:
Helaman Pratt, a Frontiersman From Birth, Closes Long Missionary Life at 63

In the death of Helaman Pratt, the Juares stake has suffered an irretrievable loss. He died of apoplexy, Nov. 26, 1909, at his house in Colonia Dublan, Chihuahua, Mexico. Few have done more for the spreading of the gospel among the natives of Mexico than he. None have taken a more general interest in the work both temporal and spiritual. ….”

Would you agree then, that despite the claim on the official page, the link I give from the FAMILY genealogy page would show that Romney’s great grandfather and his descendants all considered him a missionary?

Mexican law, until the 1940′s prohibited foreign missionaries.
I know this because my cousin was a Franciscan missionary and was imprisoned and tossed from Mexico, the third time with a warning he’d be shot.

Interesting old article, some name dropping, too:
Mormons Carry On In Mexico Farm Area

May 03, 1986|By William Stockton, The New York Times
NUEVO CASAS GRANDES, MEXICO — A hundred years ago, a group of Mormons loaded their possessions and families onto wagons and moved to Mexico to seek a place to practice polygamy free from interference and to establish a beachhead from which to convert Mexico to Mormonism.

Polygamy died out not long after the turn of the century, and most of the Mormon colonies disappeared, too. But two survived and prospered in northern Chihuahua, and the descendants carry on their ancestors` religious traditions and work as farmers and ranchers.

Residents have names such as Romney, Taylor, Wagner and Hatch, and some live in two-story Victorian-style brick houses reminiscent of Salt Lake City. But a century of living here has produced a life of dual identities.

On one hand, the Mormons are Mexican citizens, some proudly, ardently Mexican. They speak Spanish, are subject to Mexican laws and economic woes, and must meet the Mexican military service requirement.

But their outlook on life is decidedly American. Their children attend Brigham Young University in Utah, and they receive Bride`s magazine when a daughter`s wedding is imminent. The side of the refrigerator in one Mormon home has a very American set of household rules posted for the children.
Whole Story …

In order to stay and own property, they had to become Mexican Citizens.

HELAMAN PRATT — Mission to Mexico City

” ….Helaman’s duties with the exploration commission did not release him from his duties as Mission President. It was not until after the trouble with the Governor of Chihuahua that he was released and set apart by President Taylor to help in the colonization of the Saints in Mexico. In this new calling he worked hard to help the Saints get land, secure land titles, water rights, spearhead the building of canals, and ditches and all that was necessary to make their new home a happy and prosperous one. At the time he set Helaman apart, President Taylor told him that he was called until death released him, and that he was to become a Mexican citizen and take part in the government. Helaman accepted the call and all its ramifications. ….

Helaman Pratt’s Mexican naturalization paper.

State side persecution from the government only increased as the Mormon Church continued to grow. In 1882, the Edmunds Act, which outlawed cohabitation with more than one woman, was passed. To enforce this, U.S. President Chester A. Arthur sent the Utah Commission. All Mormons who practiced polygamy were disenfranchised, stripped of the right to vote or hold public office. Many of them were also jailed. Although this clearly violated U.S. constitutional law forbidding ex post facto laws, over 1,300 men were jailed. In Idaho, a loyalty oath was instituted in 1885, which required all residents to swear they opposed polygamy or any organization that taught it in order to vote. This effectively disenfranchised all Mormons. Mormons appealed these laws all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, but things only got worse. In 1887, the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which dis-incorporated the Mormon Church and seized virtually all of its property. It required loyalty oaths from local officials, which kept even Mormons not practicing polygamy from holding office, and allowed the federal government to appoint state officers and even control what textbooks could be allowed in classrooms.

In July of 1862 the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law by Abraham Lincoln. Then in March of 1882 the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 was signed into law.

The Edmunds Act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also revoked polygamists’ right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office.

Their citizenship was unceremoniously stripped.
According to the anti-polygamists the Mormons were charged with “political treason” by establishing a separatist theocracy in Utah. Second, they saw a social treason (Race Treason) against the nation of White citizens when Mormons adopted a supposedly barbaric marital form (polygamy).

By the time George W. Romney was born, it was quite safe for the Romneys to come back to the United States. They chose not until the revolution in 1912 forced the issue.

The polygamists expatriated.
They went to Mexico planning to convert Mexico and stay in Mexico.

And the bottom line is that immigration law then, put a time limit for natural citizens to live in a foreign country. Especially with no indication they’d come back. The Mormons bought and owned property. Not to mention that Mexican law at the time severely restricted foreign ownership, they COLONIZED the place, all their literature freely admits that.

Go to the American colonists. How many of them came with the intent of going back? They came to stay. As did the Mormons who because citizens.

Now, here is the link and the pertinent points of law that show that law and protocol at the time considered the Mormons expatriates.

“…….Congress finally got into the act in 1907, passing a new law that essentially codified most of these administrative rules governing expatriation. Loss of citizenship depended on the act—naturalizing elsewhere or assuming lengthy foreign residence, for example—not the conscious choice of the individual to give up US nationality as a result…”

Dual citizenship was rare and frowned upon at the time, if it existed in real terms at all.
But the idea is moot since dual is not natural born.

Hey wait a minute here … are U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal natural-born citizens of the United States, and thus eligible for the presidency?

I can hardly wait to hear the weeping, wailing, screams from the progressive left should either of these 2 staunch conservatives decide to throw their hats into the ring.

UPDATE: FACT: With the release of the Obama BC a couple of weeks ago. Instead of clearing up the matter of his birth. He has raised more and more questions. Even his supporters are scratching their heads in wonder WHY HE SPENT OVER 2 MILLION covering up what was presented?

Apparently that document has some big issues that will be ironed out quickly as soon as OBAMA is booted out of office by the people or perhaps before if we are all lucky.

However today we are down to the brass tacks of the matter.
The legal matter. Barack Obama is not and never was eligible to be President under the “natural born citizen” REQIREMENT of the Constitution.

The snivel, whine and I OBJECT din from liberal/progressives, Obama supporters, the ignorant and those who have no ability to logically reason is interesting but NOT A SURPRISE.

This issue has 3 commenters: Ellen, Ohioborn and Ohioborn1. (you can read the exchange if you want to be bored to tears under the comments at the bottom of this article.

These 3 commenters are one in the same. I can only guess why this person thought they should change their handle … perhaps they feel there is safety in numbers? Immature and silly but what the hey … LOL
Or that the more people who spout the same WRONG LOGIC somehow make that logic CORRECT?

Personally I have quit trying to figure out why liberal/progressives think the way they think.
I acquiesce to Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., a forensic psychiatrist … it is simply a mental illness.
One can not argue logic with anyone without the ability to understand/utilize common logic.

———————————————————

Since Barack Obama was backed into a corner by Donald Trump and was forced by public polls to show his long form birth-certificate. More questions have arisen.

Here is the TRUE FIGHT and ONLY FIGHT NOW.
The birth-certificate NO LONGER MATTERS.
Obama has painted himself into a corner.
Let me make it clear how.

Is the long form legit?
Is it forged?
It does not matter! If the document is forged Obama is a confirmed liar.

Now Obama has given us legal evidence that his father was actually Obama Sr.
Sr. WAS NOT either born here nor naturalized here in the USA.
So Jr. NEVER WAS QUALIFIED as “NATURAL BORN”.

So today Obama SUPPORTERS are thrown into a tizzy trying to make “IT” into something other than it. They are citing case law and opinions galore that are relative to NOTHING.
They are trying to convince the public that: THAT APPLE is a BANANA.
Is it working?
For his avid supporters? … they do not care as long as their guy APPEARS VALID.
For the thinking public? … not so easy.
If the thinking public does their own research with an open mind? … not at all!

I have harped and harped on the John Bingham document that I stumbled upon in 2009. It has been posted and referenced here a number of times. It makes it abundantly clear today (amid the shrieks and howls of the Obama supporters) exactly what our founding fathers meant in their SPACIFIC REQUIREMENT of “natural born citizen” FOR ANY SEEKER of President or Vice President to the USA.

Still the Obama supporters want to say Bingham does not count. I have argued these same facts ad nausium on youtube for years now. Do I expect it to sink in for them? Not at all! However what is beginning to happen is the thinking public are becomming educated to what our founding fathers intended.
It is becomming clear that THEY (OUR FOUNDING FATHERS) EXPECTED HIS (Barack Obama) KIND OF ATTACK AND WANTED TO FORESTALL IT.
NEWSFLASH GUYS!
Until the SCOTUS rules different the founding fathers DEFINITION STANDS!
You do not get to cherry pick YOUR OWN MEANING for YOUR OWN AGENDA or that of Barack Obama.

This is what I ran into today so I will post it here for all to see:

Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), emphasizes his reliance upon the statements made by Representative Bingham and Senator Howard in Congress which pertain to the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment. Justice Black stated that “it is far wiser to rely on” the words of Bingham and Howard when analyzing the 14th Amendment.

This is crucial to understanding that Obama is not eligible to be President as it provides the strongest Supreme Court statement – post Wong Kim Ark – indicating that the current occupant of the White House is not in legal possession of the office of President.

Here is the relevant statement by Justice Black:

“Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.” (Emphasis added.)

A few weeks ago, I published a report entitled, “The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of Citizen Parents in the US“. (Please review that report now as I have directly re-posted from it below.)

During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.

John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. Obama does not fit that description since, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject.

To read the rest of this story and the conclusion of why Obama does not qualify go to:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/justice-hugo-black-in-duncan-v-louisiana-indicates-obama-would-not-be-eligible-ineligibility-echoed-by-former-attorney-general-jeremiah-black

The Leo Donofrio website Natural Born Citizen is the most comprehensive website on this matter TO DATE.
Obama supporters LIVE IN STARK TERROR this matter will be pursued until the SCOTUS IS ALSO FORCED to address this matter once and for all.

In the end it will reach SCOTUS.
That is where the rubber actually meets the road. Will that be before or after the election of 2012.
It is indeed interesting times ahead.

Finally the “natural born citizen” issue is gaining some traction.
So THANK YOU Donald Trump!
Apparently the only one with balls enough to meet this issue head on.

Pay close ATTENTION to those who want to sweep the “natural born citizen” issue under the rug.
NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY … THEY ARE NOT PATRIOTS OF THE USA.

As a nation founded on “THE CONSTITUTION” here is where we make our stand or not!
To those who continue to rail on and on about how “raciest” the opposition is in challenging Barack Obama over his citizenship. It is clear their intent is of “self interest” and NOT FOR THE PEOPLE!

They fully understand the mass is easily propagandized by their duplicitous hypocrisy. The progressives also realize they are about to go down for the count AGAIN!

The hardworking THINKING Americans who are about to foot the bill for all of this government folly are NOT WILLING to lose their freedom to those who deliberately want to trash what our founding fathers set up for us.

YOU CHOOSE! Which side are YOU ON?

For those who doubt what our founders interpretation of “natural born citizen” actually was?
Here it is in living color from the government archives in 1866. If you want a copy yourself go to .gov and download it there. Click the image itself to enlarge.

Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen or is he not?

I have been saying for a very long time that Barack Obama is going to have a big problem over this hiding of his birth certificate.

To me the issue has always been what the founders actually said about “natural born citizen”. It is VERY CLEAR that Bingham declares a “natural born citizen” requires 2 (TWO) citizen parents. That definition has never been challenged by congress at the time of Bingham’s declaration. That declaration out of the shoot DISQUALIFIES Obama.

It does not matter what the opinion of others TODAY might be.

Until the SCOTUS addresses the 2 parent issue and CHANGES (which is not likely) the amendment it stands as stated. “Natural Born Citizen” REQUIRES 2 citizen parents!
I have a friend that solidly sticks to the logic “If Barack Obama WAS NOT a natural born citizen don’t you think SOMEONE in the opposition would be on this?”.

That logic sucks to me because I can think of a million reasons WHY THE OPPOSITION has done nothing. Some of them are not very complimentary to the opposition.

However it is most likely no one even thought about it until it was to late.
Can you imagine the hoopla that would have occurred if this very popular man were booted at his height of popularity?

Talk about instant revolution.

I have also said when the Obama kingdom comes crashing down around his feet it will be at the hands of his own party and supporters.

I have also said in the past Obama will not slide by again without opening his records for full disclosure. WHY SHOULD HE SLIDE BY?

Now we have one of the most powerful MONEY “movers and shakers” (Donald Trump) publicly opening this Pandora’s box. Someone who is toying with a Presidential run himself?

The pandemonium on the horizon is going to be interesting indeed

I have often wondered where the HELL is Bill O’Reilly on this (he with a staff of researchers bar none)? His credibiolity is severly dented when he states that his certificate of live birth is all the proof needed. I do understand how bad Bill hates ending up with egg on his face.

Where is Glenn Beck with all of his constitutional experts?

How soon will the rest of those who really are interested in the truth going to jump on “The Donald” bandwagon? Why did it take them so long?

I spend a good deal of time in political forums when I have time to spare. Inevitably comments regarding the qualifications to be a citizen of the USA and that of natural born citizen arise. What usually follows is a “knock down drag out” on Obama meeting or not meeting the “natural born citizen” qualification for President of the USA.

It is staggering how many people seem to believe Juan and Rosita Valdez from Mexico stepping across the border to have baby Juan Jr. now have a “natural born citizen” in tow.

Another comment that is common is “there is nothing defining natural born citizen in our original documents”.
There is information on the subject for anyone choosing to ferret it all out. The problem is few are willing to put in that effort.
The most prevalent logic seems to be that if no one has done anything about this situation there must be no problem.
Believe me I have asked the same questions.
Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck both with the best research teams have not found the information below?
I have heard Andrew Napolitano a Constitution expert say nothing about this.
I have to wonder why? There has been enough flap in the media over the Obama BC. Why no comments about this apparent breech to the Constitution from the people who claim to be fighting for the preservation of it?

Read below and judge for yourself.
Clearly with all of the controversy surrounding Barack Obama at some point (probably after he is voted out of office in 2012) this issue will be visited and settled again in another landmark case by the SCOTUS.
Meanwhile?

“Republished with permission of The Post & Email.”

IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
by John Charlton

(Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

There are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

§ 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 French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .

The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen: one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.

In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.

Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).

Let take a brief look, now, at each case. For each case I include the link to the full text of the ruling.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:

Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.

John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.

William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.

Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823

Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.

Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.

Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845

Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.

Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

CONCLUSION
Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

© 2009, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

Posted: April 07, 2009
10:03 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

‘It is morphing now to include members of the armed forces’

A security analyst who provides intelligence information to a wide range of law enforcement, private corporation and security interests has written in a publicly released “white paper” that the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president could become a “flashpoint” in the United States.

The suggestion comes from Lyle Rapacki, a former police officer who has worked in the field of psychological disorders for years. Since the 1990s, he has provided his analysis in public “white paper” reports and classified documents to various safety and security interests.

Rapacki’s report cited the continuing controversy over Obama’s birth certificate and a long list of lawsuits that have alleged he is not eligible to be president under the Constitution’s requirement that the office be occupied only by a “natural born” citizen.

If the president would be found to be ineligible, Rapacki suggested, there would be a “constitutional crisis” over which of his orders, laws and actions “should be valid.”

Once I really started paying attention to Barack Obama and what was or was not being said about him I found the lack of TRUE confirmed information astounding.

Barack Obama essentially has no history other than that he has made up for himself. Because he has sealed his records and refuses to provide even the bare essentials required by law to become President of the USA. “We the people” literally know nothing about him.

This is disturbing on a number of levels.
Why the secrecy?
I can think of no reason that is positive can you?

Here are a few clips addressing the issues.