- Law Cases
by Nobarack08, blogging at Nobarack08′s Weblog
(Sep. 23, 2011) — Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama was under British Law and British jurisdiction at birth and not the United States. Therefore was Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama even a citizen of the United States?
“The Supreme Court’s in Elk v. Wilkins 112U.S.94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the court held, mean “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” 100% jurisdiction required.
Per Tench Coxe (May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824) was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789. He wrote under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian.”
Written during the discussion of the United States Constitution
TO THE CANDID READER.
Quote “Our President must be matured by the experience of years, and being born among us, his character at thirty-five must be fully understood. Wisdom, virtue and active qualities of mind and body can alone make him the first servant of a free and enlightened people.”
The United States Naturalization Act of 1790 is clear; the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States….” Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father.
Again; the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.
In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean:
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.
All persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent; and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. The common law has made no distinction on account of race or color. Free persons of color, born within the allegiance of the United States are citizens, and have always been entitled to be so regarded.United States v.Rhodes, 1 Abb. U. iS. 28, 40; lAm.L. T. U. S. Ctt. 22.
Citizen has relative applications, which modify its sense in given cases. In its highest political sense, it signifies the persons who constitute the political society. It is not confined to persons enjoying the right of suffrage; and, on the other hand, a person may be an elector without being a citizen. And the mere fact of birth within the territorial limits of the United States does not constitute one a citizen. Opin. of Atty.-Gen. dishing, on Relation of Indiana, 7 Op. Att.-Gen. 746.
“And the mere fact of birth within the territorial limits of the United States does not constitute one a citizen.”
Birth and allegiance go together, get it.
Domicile in a foreign country does not affect the fact of citizenship, nor work a forfeiture of political rights. When the territory and government of a kingdom pass to and become merged in the territory and government of another nation, all of its subjects pass also. The tie which binds them is not bodily presence, but allegiance. Brown v. United States, 5 Ct. of CI. 571.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”
By the common law, a subject travelling abroad on public or private business, with the express or implied license of his sovereign, is under that sovereign’s protection; and, consequently, both he and his children born while so travelling owe allegiance to and are citizens of the native country of their father. The length of the father’s residence abroad is not material, so that it was, in intention and in fact, temporary, not perpetual. And whether the mother was a citizen or not is unimportant: the status of the child is determined by that of the father. Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486; Davis v. Hall, 1 Nott fr M. 292; Lasportas v. De la Motta, 10 Rich. Eq. 38.
Quote: “By the common law, a subject travelling abroad on public or private business, with the express or implied license of his sovereign, is under that sovereign’s protection; and, consequently, both he and his children born while so travelling owe allegiance to and are citizens of the native country of their father.”
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
Under the act of April 14, 1802, ch. 288, 5 4, the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized, are, if dwelling within the United States, to be considered as citizens of the United States. Campbell v. Gordon, 6 Crunch, 176.
Is Barack Obama naturalized as a United States citizen? NO!
Although a state, by its laws, passed since the adoption of the constitution, may put a foreigner, or any other description of persons, upon a footing with its own citizens as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws, that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another state. Dral Scott r. Sandford, 19 How. 393.
The term citizens of a state, as used in the constitution, applies only to natural persons, members of the body politic, owing allegiance to the state, and not to artificial persons created by the legislature, and possessing only the attributes which the legislature has prescribed. Paul o.Virginia, 8 WaU. 168.
Created by the legislature equates to persons ‘naturalized’, even if Baracka Abdallah Hussein Obama was ‘naturalized’ he would be an artificial person.
Baracka Abdallah Hussein Obama born a Brit never legit, foreign and alien to the United States.
Editor’s Note: Part 1 of Nobarack’s essay can be read here.
Categories: Blog of the Day