2 Responses to “I will be recording a TV program on eligibility tomorrow, talked to the host and producer today, will advise the date of release later”

1. MichaelN
   February 15th, 2011 @ 10:58 pm

   Orly,

   Most of the proponents of jus soli use the Wong Kim Ark court’s holding, (as opposed to the decision) based on Lord Coke in Calvin’s case, where they concluded that a child of an alien, visiting, temporarily is an English ‘natural born subject’ so therefore a US Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ is one who is born of an alien, as long as they are born in USA.

   But if you read Calvin’s case, where Calvin was deemed a ‘natural born subject’ of England, you will find that Lord Coke actually said:
   “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by PROCREATION and birth right”

   “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by NATURE and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.”

   This was NEVER mentioned in the WKA court.

   A reading of Calvin’s case proves that sanguinis was ONE of the TWO essential elements to qualify a ‘natural born’.

   Quite the opposite to what the WKA court held.

   It proves an error in the holding WKA court and this error has festered and grown ever since.

   Bottom-line is that sanguinis IS essential in English common law & not only soli for ‘natural born’.

   The very legally educated framers with their very learned and comprehensive knowledge of English common law, must have seen this holding of sanguinis and soli in Coke’s report of Calvin’s case, and the principle of sanguinis and soli was applied in the USC Art. II for a US ‘natural born Citizen’.

   Given the clear intention of the framers to protect and secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim, the TWO element qualification principle was a perfect fit.

   Maybe a writ of error is in order to be filed with SCOTUS, particularly to correct the Indiana decision in Ankeny case and maybe to correct WKA holding (not decision).

   Striking at the heart of the festered error, like the WKA case would be a step toward stripping back the error from it’s origins.

   Research would be needed to see if it would be accepted by the court.

2. web hosting forum
   February 16th, 2011 @ 4:10 am

   Nice post. I learn something more challenging on different blogs everyday. It will always be stimulating to read content from other writers and practice a little something from their store. I’d prefer to use some with the content on my blog whether you don’t mind. Natually I’ll give you a link on your web blog. Thanks for sharing.

Leave a Reply