By inheritance is how clans, tribes, and people *naturally* form. Boundaries are artifically contrived artifacts created by governments. If citizenship was determined under natural law by boundaries, the governmnet would be creating the people. But the people created the government, and existed before it.
I found an article on Michigan Law Review that in the middle of it reviews everything I have been saying on this forum that I think might be useful to look at. It asks every question except one, which I'll follow up on after qouting it. The principles behind Obama's elibility are much deeper than who should be president, they involve who is a citizen, if the citizens are free or are they subjects, and if the citizens create the government or the government determines the citizenry.
But even so, letters and lawsuits following this line of reasoning are a lot shorter than allegations about Obama's place of birth, because the burden of proof is no longer yours, but Obama's - at the end of this post I give an example of just how short it is. The post is long because I want to show that some of the principles behind all this are important.
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/solum.htm
First, on citizens and subjects the review says:
"The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between “citizens” and “subjects.” For example, Article III, section 2 differentiates “citizens” of the several states from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states. In the framing era, these terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state. In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post-revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people."
Second, the review article notes 'the first great constitutinal case decided after the ratification of the Constition,' i.e. Chisholm v. Georgia, with the opinions of Chief Justice John Jay that (quoted a little more fuller than the michagan law review) “At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty” followed by Justice James Wilson opinions on the difference between citizen and subjects.
There is a wide difference between the concept of sovereign citizenry as expressed by this supreme court case and subjects, and the issue relates to citizenship being determined by Jus Solis - or where you are born,or Jus Sanguinis, or parentage.
This last quote from the above review article may make the point clearer: "Those leaned in English law, however, understood another aspect of the concept of “natural born subject.” Children of the sovereign were natural born subjects wherever their birth occurred. The issue of the king owed a natural obligation to their father; [...] But in republican theory the people are sovereign, suggesting that the republican conception of natural born citizens would naturally treat the children of citizen-sovereigns as equivalent to the children of a monarchical sovereign or king."
Jus Solis is derived directly from the english concept of subjecthood, and serfs, that you owe your alligence to the king because you were on his 'property'. Jus Sanguinis is how the kings passed on their citizenship by parentage as noted above as did freemen, as I noted previosly quoting the first part of the Magna Carta to demonstrate it.
This is how the founders understood these concepts, as seen by the previous quotes from blackstone, the magna carta, jefferson, and the supreme court case noted above. Natural born did not mean what most people are qouting, which is the 14th amendment. Insofar as it cuts right at the heart of the issue of a free society, Not mere citizens, but *sovereign citizens* versus subjecthood, it seems somewhat vital.
We share the same common law heritage with Britain, and for the same legal principles that made Obama a natural born British citizen at birth makes him at the very same time not a natural born citizen here. In which case, I am writing a very short letter decrying this - much shorter than questions on where he was born, because he needs to prove everything himself.
Dear Sirs,
Obama was a British Citizen at Birth. He is not a national born citizen here. Here is the documentation showing he was a British Citizen at birth. Obama has never disputed this, showing that he was an American citizen at birth.
Since he is not eligible to be president under the constitution, please remove him post haste.
