Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter concurring in result, the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.

In an article in the Creighton Law Review, Volume 33, number 4, 1999-2000, Roger Roots, Juris Doctorate, wrote:

In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without government influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.

Judges and prosecutors and attorneys began using the phrase “runaway grand jury” to create ridicule and scorn upon a jury that chose to think for themselves, which is the Constitutional Right of any jury. Roger Roots continues:

A runaway grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's “runaway” grand jury is in fact, the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model for American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact runaways, according to the definition of modern times. They operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.

BTW, you seem to right at hand to post the “dead horse” comments.

Pot…. Kettle… Black…. as they say.

LaLee responded:

“So you have no proof whatsoever?

In that case i don't need to answer ANY of your question because without proof NONE of those questions are relevant.

You can call me whatever you want for not answering those questions but THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ACCUSER which is you.

So if anyone has to answer question it's YOU.”

No LaLee, I am not going to call you anything for not answering those questions other than to point out that this is just a tactic to continue in your use of circular reasoning, begging the question, and proof by assertion, which by way of definition are logical fallacies.

The questions I posed which LaLee refuses to answer:

(1) “Does the US Constitution define the term naturalized citizen?”

My answer is no, it is not defined but we can determine what a naturalized citizen is NOT, by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States …”. Therefore a naturalized citizen is one NOT born in the United States. It also important to note that the distinction of the phrase “natural born” is only applied to the requirements of the office of the President and Vice-President of the United States. As a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen are mutually exclusive, then a naturalized citizen cannot assume the office of the Presidency or Vice-Presidency.

(2) Do you believe there to be a difference between a naturalized citizen and a native-born citizen and a natural-born citizen?

I can't answer that question for LaLee. I can answer that I believe there is a difference and I would define it as follows: a naturalized citizen is a person who becomes a citizen not by parentage or by location of birth but by naturalization laws, a native-born citizen is a one based upon where the person was born, and a natural-born citizen is a person who is born in the country of parents (two of them) who are citizens of that country.

As a suggestion, try Googling native-born.

(3) Do you believe that that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning, which was established at the time of its drafting?

I can't answer this one for LaLee either. I believe that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning, that was established at the time of its drafting. I also believe that if the meaning of particular wording isn't intuitvely obvious that referencing other source documents as close to the time of the Constitution's drafting is instructive in determining the Founder's meaning.

Another definition for LaLee: “Ad nauseam” arguments are logical fallacies relying on the repetition of a single argument to the exclusion of all else. This tactic employs intentional obfuscation, in which other logic and rationality is intentionally ignored in favour of preconceived (and ultimately subjective) modes of reasoning and rationality.

Now it is established fact that the Founders were presented with Vattel, “The Law of Nations” as evidenced by this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=jmfaceHkyKcC&p…

An extract from (the previously mentioned link) Benjamin Franklin's letter to Charles W.F. Dumas (dated December 9, 1775) is as follows:

“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”

Here is another online link to Vattel's online version of The Law of Nations:

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm

And an extract from Section 212:

Ҥ 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 society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Here is a link to the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 a letter from John Jay to George Washington:

http://www.archive.org/stream/recordsofthefede0…

The text of which is:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

And from the 2nd Session of the First Congress (1790 Chapter III) “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”:

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&f…

The excerpt being:

“And the children of citizens of the United States, that my be born beyond sea, or out of limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens…”

And yes the wording “natural born” was removed by the Third Congress of 1795, but the understanding of the phrase “natural born citizen” can be determined by these documents.

These First and Third Congress references are also cited in the US v Wong Kim Ark decision.

Lastly review S. Res. 511 of the 110th Congress at this link:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./…

The text of which is as follows:

“RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

Notice how last year's Senate referenced the “First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'”. This was considered and agreed to on April 30, 2008 and coincidentally submitted by Sen. McCaskill on behalf of Sens. Leahy, Obama, Clinton, and Webb.

The Senate did perform its duty with regard to candidate McCain but not with candidate Obama.

“There are none so blind as those who will not see”.

Its requirements for establishing one's right to be considered of native Hawaiian extraction is irrelevant to any discussion of President Obama, whose maternal family is from Kansas and makes no claim to be descended from the aboriginal peoples of Hawaii.

But I do have to tip my hat to you for your dogged determination to beat this dead horse until the last bit of flesh has been flayed from its skeleton. Good job!

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/appl…

That being said it appears that the text has been revised since the publication of the news article where I pulled the quote. Here is the current text:

“Primary Documents

Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”

However, the fact remains that there are two forms and the original birth certificate (Certificate of Live Birth) contains “greater detail” (in other words a long form) as opposed to the Certification of Live Birth (or short form).

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You can believe that all you want but the SCOTUS decisions, opinions and the 14th amendment support Obama’s US natural born citizenship.

Oh and he didn’t hide it, Hawaii State Health Director Chiyome Fukino already seen it (Regardless of the nitpicking of what she did or didn’t say) .

He just doesn’t need to personally showed it to anyone who doubt his citizenship, especially if that someone has no legal authority.

And no just because you’re a citizen doesn’t give you the right, if you don’t believe me you may try asking your next door neighbor (He/she might be offended though /Sarcasm).

If your daughter decides to come back to Korea and run for president she would be ELIGIBLE.

You know why?

Because US laws DO NOT supersede Korean law and vice versa.

UNLESS when she is an adult your daughter RENOUNCED her allegiance to Korea or something like that.

Here are the relevant SCOTUS quotes from United States Vs Wong Kim Ark which support my point.

“Manifestly, when the sovereignty of the crown was thrown off, and an independent government established, every rule of the common law, and every statute of England obtaining in the colonies, in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded, was abrogated.”

And:

“Mr. Justice Curtis, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 577, expressed the opinion that under the constitution of the United States ‘every free person born on the soil of a state, who is a citizen of that state by force of its constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.’”