Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Rat Called Tandem (natural born Citizen, GA ballot hearing, Obama)
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 2/4/2012 | Leo Donofrio

Posted on 02/04/2012 3:17:29 PM PST by rxsid

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-189 last
To: Mr Rogers

“Natural Born” was no longer common?

It was never “common” to begin with. Natural Born has nothing to do with where you are born. None. It never was and never will be. It has nothing to do with Amendment XIV. It is a requirement for the Commander in Chief position only. The residency requirement handles the citizenship aspect.

That is why it was placed in Article II. Nothing more, nothing less. We can argue all day long about terms, phrases, and concepts. The fact still remains. Mr. Jay asked Mr. Washington for a strong check for the Commander in Chief position, and a guarantee for allegiance to the United States to prevent a military coup in the United States. His request was granted for obvious reasons.


151 posted on 02/05/2012 1:15:08 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Who are the natural children?


152 posted on 02/05/2012 2:10:46 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Are the natural children John Jays strong check?


153 posted on 02/05/2012 2:13:32 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: devattel

“Regardless of how much Obama may “hate” the United Kingdom, he still is a citizen of the UK.”

Obama is not now nor has he ever been a UK citizen under the facts that we know at this time.

This might change IF there was a wedding to Ann and IF Obama Sr has divorced Kezia prior to that wedding and had no other wives. Under these circumstances the law may have allowed him to be a citizen with an affirmative act. I am not sure about this particular set of laws under this particular set of facts.


154 posted on 02/05/2012 2:53:06 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: devattel

“It was never “common” to begin with. Natural Born has nothing to do with where you are born.”

Try to stop being a fool long enough to think thru a few sentences. The phrase “natural born subject” was commonly used in the 1600s & 1700s, and every Founder was familiar with it. It was legalese for ‘a subject due to birth in the realm’.

With time, the natural born part was dropped, and today the British talk about subjects. Natural born citizen was the American equivalent for a person whose citizenship came from birth within the US (or, following British common law, to those born of two citizen parents abroad). With time, the words natural & born were dropped, and citizen remained.


155 posted on 02/05/2012 3:42:47 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The founding fathers were all too familiar with the term natural born subject. They understood the shackles it laid onto anyone born within the realm. They also understood Natural Law. They detested the crown. They detested the fact anyone born within the realm was immediately a subject without recourse, protection, or representation. They had no choice. Even the War of 1812 was fought based on this principle.

No, UK citizens do not consider themselves subjects. They have not considered themselves subjects since the mid 1800’s.

You do bring a valid point to the table, however. Natural born meant “no allegiance to any other” within the realm of the crown’s dominions. The King laid sovereign claim to all those born within his jurisdiction, and demanded their allegiance for war and taxation purposes. The colonists had great antagonism against these claims as they felt the King did not consider them true subjects, even though he taxed them and bound them to chains (see the Declaration of Independence).

The “natural born” was never dropped because being natural-born in the United States still meant “no allegiance to any other crown, nation, democracy, or republic”. It was never a popular term within the colonies after 1789. However, all those in the colonies understood the concept behind its meaning as stated within the Constitution. They were intelligent enough to understand why the president should not be a “subject” of the crown of another nation.

Surely one of your intellect should understand this concept. If you can, please speak your opinion not based on prior legal battles, court cases, or reams of worthless legal paperwork. Put yourself in the shoes of the Framing Fathers, and decide your position of presidential merit based on ethics at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. I ask you, would you allow a man of questionable allegiance at the helm of your nation’s military, especially after a long, arduous war with the very nation which you previously considered your nation?


156 posted on 02/05/2012 8:26:31 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
RummyChick said:

Obama is not now nor has he ever been a UK citizen under the facts that we know at this time.

That is incorrect. Based on what we know, Obama's father was a Kenyan colonial citizen, i.e. a British citizen. Married or not, UK citizenship does not follow U.S. statuatory or naturalization citizenship. If one is born to a U.K. citizen, one is a U.K. citizen.

Mr. Obama had UK citizenship at the time of his birth. In 1964, he gained Kenyan citizenship, but never lost his UK citizenship. Kenya could never have removed this citizenship as it had no authority to do so (he was under the age of 21).

Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship after the age of 23, but never renounced his UK citizenship gained at birth. This means he is still a citizen of the United Kingdom to this very day.

157 posted on 02/05/2012 9:01:55 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Not sure you’ve seen me post this before..

I have not.

Who are the natural children in Shakespeare’s Henry the V

Haven't a clue. Who were they? I'm sure the founders had read Shakespeare even if I haven't, except when forced, and that was MacBeth and a very long time ago. I have liked the plays I've seen, even in the same "Olde English" than I really struggle to read. I guess I need to rent some videos of the plays.

158 posted on 02/06/2012 12:13:16 AM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; rxsid; DiogenesLamp; edge919; Spaulding; Fantasywriter; freepersup
"then the current Dauphin of France (as considered by the Legitimists) Prince Louis Duke of Burgundy would be considered POTUS eligible."

"This is really a silly argument. Eligibility is no great hurdle. Nor was it designed to be. The vast majority of Americans over the age of 35 are eligible to be President. Electability is a whole different matter, a task so enormously difficult that only 43 Americans in the history of this country have been successful at. Statistically, you have a better chance at winning the Powerball than you do at being elected President. "

I note that nowhere in your ridicule followed by keen analysis on bookmaking did you ever deny that under the NBC definition being espoused by Malihi, the Ankeny ruling he's cited, and apparently yourself, the foreign prince is, at least thoretically, eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States of America.

Given that back when the Constitution was drafted, the threat of a money-backed Just-Soli born offspring of a foreign-born parent was a very real fear held by the founders (Jay, et al), and there is no way in the Halibut that they intended to allow anyone but a person with no presumed loyalties to any country but the United States by virtue of their being born on US soil to persons who were themselves citizens to assume the presidential levers of power, including command of our armed forces. It simply flies in the face of basic logic.

I realize that your impressively long tenure at FR lends you a certain amount of "street cred", but on this issue, in these terms, you're just plain wrong or misguided, if not being deliberately disingenuous or obtuse for whatever reason.

One last thing: "Given that back when the Constitution was drafted, the threat of a money-backed Just-Soli born offspring of a foreign-born parent was a very real fear. . ." Oops! Turns out their fear was well-founded, based on what I'm seeing happen before my very eyes to our country. Why do you think "Obama" constantly does so much that is unconstitutional, hmmm? Perhaps it's because, knowing that he's unconstitutionally usurping the Office to begin with, and knowing that all those who could stop him also know it and yet keep silent about it, he can pretty much crap on the Constitution at will, and no one will stop him.

159 posted on 02/06/2012 12:44:37 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome; Windflier
WF: Should've pinged you on the preceding, given your excellent commentary on the fixit thread.
160 posted on 02/06/2012 12:55:26 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: devattel

You are absolutely incorrect.

Whenever I see a poster be so incorrect about something so basic in British law- it calls into question every other thing they have said about Obama and NBC.

IF Obama was born a bastard in the US (and he was according to the facts that are presented) he could not be a British citizen. That is a FACT as per the law of Britain at the time of his birth. There are no laws on the books that I have found that would retroactively and automatically have made him a citizen.

He could have APPLIED for citizenship and asked for a ruling based on later laws and special dispensation and he MIGHT have been approved - or he might not have been.


161 posted on 02/06/2012 5:33:21 AM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Obama may have been a bastard child according to United States law. However, the United Kingdom accepted polygamy claims in Kenya and its citizens as it was typical of its colonial rule to accept localized culture.

Even today, Polygamy in Kenya is legal. Your argument fails to take into account that U.K. citizenship is separate from U.S. citizenship.

Sorry, Mr. Obama always was, and still is a citizen of the United Kingdom.


162 posted on 02/06/2012 8:34:20 AM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: devattel; RummyChick
"However, the United Kingdom accepted polygamy claims in Kenya and its citizens as it was typical of its colonial rule to accept localized culture."

False on all counts, IMO:

• See Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 paragraph #49:

49. Whoever contracts a marriage under this Act, being at the time married in accordance with native law or custom or in accordance with Mohammedan law to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is contracted, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

kenyalaw.org/family/statutes/...?file=The+marriage+act.pdf

• BNA of 1948 Legitimation of persons born out of wedlock:

“(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.”

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

• The Illegality/Un-Constitutionality of Dual Citzenship

Sunday, December 27, 2009 10:00:02 PM • 28 of 28 Seizethecarp to PugetSoundSoldier

“Yet you can be granted citizenship by other nations, and it will be accepted. So is the problem with dual citizenship or not?”

NBC is a condition of birth which is impervious to foreign claims. If a person, after the age of majority undertakes to acquire and is granted citizenship of another country, that has nothing to do with and does not negate NBC status. “The problem” with Obama is that his stated biography (assuming a non-bigamous marriage of his parents) with his UK subject father would make Barry “governed by the BNA of 1948” and thus a dual UK-US citizen at birth. Barry would be a native born citizen (born on US soil if, indeed, he was) but not a natural born citizen, according to some constitutional scholars.

If Barry's parents had a bigamous marriage due to his father's previous Kenya marriage to Kezia, Barry would be the illegitimate son of a legally single US citizen mom and would be NBC under US law because he would not be a dual citizen. The BNA of 1948 does not pass citizenship to illegitimate children.

If Barry were actually born in Kenya and his HI vital record came about as a result of a fraudulent report of a home birth or some sort of post-birth amendment (so far hidden by HI vital records due to Barry refusing a release) Barry would not be NBC or even a US citizen due to the age of his mother under US law at the time.

163 posted on 02/06/2012 1:02:28 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: devattel

Perhaps this link will help you begin to understand the issue

http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/legitimacy?view=Binary


164 posted on 02/06/2012 2:59:43 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Your reference to the Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 would be a valid one. Unfortunately it only applies to marriages licensed in Kenya. Tribal marriages are not considered binding in Kenya as they have never been licensed. Therefore Obama's tribal marriage to his three other wives, albeit polygamous in certain situations, were not legally binding.

Nevertheless, marriage to Dunham is irrelevant to Obama's citizenship. Based on citizenship law in the United Kingdom (Part II of the Nationality Act, 1948):

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth

165 posted on 02/06/2012 3:48:56 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Justice Gray intentionally IGNORED the Debates on the 14th amendment. All he wanted was enough leeway to twist the words to his satisfaction. Looking at what was said during the debate would not allow him to rule they way he did.


Yes, Gray admitted it straight up in his 1898, WKA opinion.

Gray ignored the meaning and intent from the authors who wrote the 14th Amendment that it didn't mean a thing to him or to his flawed ruling.

What do we call that these days? Right, it is called 'judicial activism' and writing laws from the court bench. A BIG no no.

166 posted on 02/06/2012 4:52:01 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: devattel

Lord have mercy, you TRULY do not understand how to read the law.

Did you bother to read the link that I gave you.

You totally misunderstand that Kenyan law.
Maybe this will help clear it up:
http://www.kenyalaw.org/

“Any person who is married under this Act, or whose marriage is declared by this Act to be valid, shall be incapable during the continuance of such marriage of contracting a valid marriage under any native law or custom, but, save as aforesaid, nothing in this Act contained shall affect the validity of any marriage contracted under or in accordance with any native law or custom, or in any manner apply to marriages so contracted.”


167 posted on 02/06/2012 6:46:02 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: devattel

(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.

Now, in case you don’t understand, this means the child cannot be a bastard except if someone is legitimated through the provision in section 23.


168 posted on 02/06/2012 7:00:05 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: devattel; RummyChick
"Your reference to the Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 would be a valid one. Unfortunately it only applies to marriages licensed in Kenya. Tribal marriages are not considered binding in Kenya as they have never been licensed. Therefore Obama's tribal marriage to his three other wives, albeit polygamous in certain situations, were not legally binding."

No. Tribal marriages were legal and binding and you cannot play mix and match between the three legal types of marriage. There is no evidence that BHO Sr. was ever a Muslim (he was a professed atheist socialist) or that any of his three marriages were Muslim or that any of his wives were Muslim. Only multiple Muslim marriages would be permissable and only within Kenya...not in HI where bigamy of any kind is illegal.

You quoted from the 1948 BNA:

"5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth"

But this does not apply to Barry if his parents bigamous marriage made him illegitimate. UK does not recognize any marriage that was illegal where performed such as alleged Muslim plural marriages if performed where illegal.

Under the 1948 BNA only legitimate children of a UK subject father automatically become UK subjects at birth. You appear to have missed the following passage from my prior comment which would exclude little Barry from the passage you quoted:

“(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.”

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

169 posted on 02/06/2012 7:20:01 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Nowhere in the BNA of 1948 does it say marriage was paramount in Citizenship by descent.

If a child is born out of wedlock within the UK and its territories, but the father was an alien of the UK, then your argument applies. You are missing the key concept in section 23, which discusses legitimated children.

Do you understand the difference between legitimate and legitimated?

170 posted on 02/06/2012 7:44:14 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: devattel; RummyChick
“If a child is born out of wedlock within the UK and its territories, but the father was an alien of the UK, then your argument applies. You are missing the key concept in section 23, which discusses legitimated children.”

No. None of that applies to Barry. A legitimated child is legitimated under section 23 if the UK subject father marries the mother of the child AFTER the child is born. Prior to a post-birth marriage, such a child was illegitimate and NOT a UK subject at birth.

There is zero evidence that BHO Sr. and Stanley Ann were married anywhere, bigamously or not, Muslim or not AFTER Barry was born...and which could have legitimated him under section 23, IMO.

171 posted on 02/06/2012 9:01:33 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: devattel

Yes, I do. But apparently you don’t.

So we have either two things here - or BOTH

You are woefully unable to understand how to read the law and/or you are trying to obfusicate.

Your posts have to be dismissed.

And you wonder why birthers get such a bad rap??? Because of posts like yours.


172 posted on 02/07/2012 6:13:56 AM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Yes, Gray admitted it straight up in his 1898, WKA opinion.

Gray ignored the meaning and intent from the authors who wrote the 14th Amendment that it didn't mean a thing to him or to his flawed ruling.

What do we call that these days? Right, it is called 'judicial activism' and writing laws from the court bench. A BIG no no.

Absolutely. My current theory regarding the Gray court is that they were Republicans in the Ascendency, and "waving the bloody shirt" was a common practice in those days. Gray wanted to ram the Democrat's racism back down their throats, and when given the opportunity, he couldn't resist himself and he just went a little too far. (depending on how you interpret the Wong Kim Ark decision.)

I will point out that Justice Black, in Duncan v Louisiana explicitly says to use the opposite approach of Justice Gray.

I have read and studied this article extensively, including the historical references, but am compelled to add that, in my view, it has completely failed to refute the inferences and arguments that I suggested in my Adamson dissent . 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.

Original intent? Whodda thunk? :)

173 posted on 02/07/2012 7:00:12 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

If you can explain to me the legal differences between legitimate and legitimated, then you have a point. And if you understand Kenyan marriage rituals with regards to British citizenship law without reaching out to “armchair internet” definitions, touché for you.

Otherwise, your lack of legal and cultural understanding of British citizenship law is evident by your veil insults. Cite case law. Cite legislature. Cite barrister interpretations. Cite anything you want. By all means, knock yourself out.

I have seen this sort of behavior amongst several women here on Free Republic. They simply are angry other cultures allow men to pass citizenship to their legitimate, illegitimate, and bigamous children. They get angry the framing fathers did not allow bastard children to be president. They are still angry the world is not equal and they want their opinion to be known by the roar of their voices. Are you one of these members?


174 posted on 02/07/2012 8:47:06 AM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Sizethecarp said:

No. None of that applies to Barry. A legitimated child is legitimated under section 23 if the UK subject father marries the mother of the child AFTER the child is born. Prior to a post-birth marriage, such a child was illegitimate and NOT a UK subject at birth. There is zero evidence that BHO Sr. and Stanley Ann were married anywhere, bigamously or not, Muslim or not AFTER Barry was born...and which could have legitimated him under section 23, IMO.

This argument might hold water if it were not for the Obama/Dunham divorce decree from the state of Hawaii. That alone is enough evidence in any court in the U.S. or U.K. they were perceived to be married by the state of Hawaii, and that the child was born legitimately in the United States.

The Nationality Act of 1948 is quite clear. Section 23 only applies to children who are not legitimate based on the jurisdiction where they are born. As Obama Jr. was supposedly born in the United States and the marriage was perceived to be binding in the United States at the time of birth, the BNA would consider him a British citizen. Had Obama Jr. been born in Kenya, this would be quite a different story.

Putting it in laymen’s terms: If the U.S. says Obama was legitimate, the U.K. honors this for citizenship as Obama Jr. was “born in Hawaii”, a jurisdiction of the U.S.

If this is enough to make anyone’s head hurt, it is quite clear the Framing Fathers did not want to deal with this messy situation. Hence the Natural Born Citizen clause in Article II.

175 posted on 02/07/2012 9:28:12 AM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: devattel
“This argument might hold water if it were not for the Obama/Dunham divorce decree from the state of Hawaii. That alone is enough evidence in any court in the U.S. or U.K. they were perceived to be married by the state of Hawaii, and that the child was born legitimately in the United States.

“The Nationality Act of 1948 is quite clear. Section 23 only applies to children who are not legitimate based on the jurisdiction where they are born.”

IIUC, your interpretation of Section 23 is wrong. There is nothing in it that distinguishes illegitimate children of UK father NOT being UK subjects whether born in or out of UK jurisdiction.

Also, the BHO Sr. INS files clearly show that the US Government strongly suspected and in fact INS acted on a clear belief that BHO Sr. was a bigamist and the SADO claimed (but not ever proved) marriage was a sham and moot explicitly due to BHO Srs. known prior Kenyan marriage when the INS BOOTED him from the USA. The claim of a marriage in a divorce proceding does not PROVE that the marriage ever occured.

So contemporaneous proof that the US gov’t acted on a belief that the BHO Sr and SADO marriage was a bigamous and moot sham in no it the GA ALJ court record and was uncontested due to Barry's failure to appear.

176 posted on 02/07/2012 9:51:33 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
IIUC, your interpretation of Section 23 is wrong. There is nothing in it that distinguishes illegitimate children of UK father NOT being UK subjects whether born in or out of UK jurisdiction.

Are you sure? It states right in Section 23:

(2) A person shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents if by the law of the place in which his father was domiciled at the time of the marriage the marriage operated immediately or subsequently to legitimate him, and not otherwise.

I am interpreting the law based on what the government says the interpretation is. Take note:

1.9 -- An illegitimate child should be regarded, for the purposes of s.47(1) of the 1981 Act, as having been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents if, by the law of the place in which the father was domiciled at the time of the marriage, the marriage can be regarded as having legitimated the child. Note, though, that s.47(1) only refers to legitimation through subsequent parental marriage - it does not extend to those who are "legitimated" by means of legislation passed by another country (see, for example, 5.1.2 below). Where a child, born illegitimate of a British citizen father, has been legitimated by operation of law rather than by the subsequent marriage of his or parents, it may be appropriate to consider registration under s.3(1) of the Act.

- http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/legitimacy?view=Binary

The document goes a step further stating courts could not nullify polygamous marriages until the Matrimonial Proceedings Act of 1972 was passed. By then Obama and Dunham were divorced:

2.2.4.1 The courts did not have jurisdiction to grant a decree of nullity in respect of polygamous [the term includes potentially polygamous] marriages until 29 June 1972, when the Matrimonial Proceedings (Polygamous Marriages) Act 1972 was enacted. However, the effect of this Act is to allow the courts to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any polygamous marriage, irrespective of the date on which it was contracted.

I believe we are mincing concepts here based on what we know based on what we suspect, regardless as to what is the truth. Here is what we know:

Here is what we do not know:

Until evidence of what we suspect comes to light, this is all the information we have to use at our disposal.

177 posted on 02/07/2012 10:25:24 AM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Just how wrong can you be?

The judge did not rule the natural born citizen clause inoperable at all.

It still applies, as it always has, to those citizens who were not “natural born” but “naturalized”.

Naturalized citizens are not eligible for the Presidency and neither are non-citizens.

I didn't know the coat of arms of the Dauphin of France had a Dolphin on it! That makes Mark Twain's joke about the “Dolphin of France” even funnier!!!!!

178 posted on 02/07/2012 10:37:45 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]




Click the pic       Thank you, JoeProBono

This Little Cutie Will Soon Be
Ready For His Bottle of Tabasco!


Become a monthly donor
And keep the FReepathon Dragons away

Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up


179 posted on 02/07/2012 11:17:04 AM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: devattel
“The document goes a step further stating courts could not nullify polygamous marriages until the Matrimonial Proceedings Act of 1972 was passed.”

IIUC, the BHO Sr. SADO marriage was absolutely NOT a polygamous marriage IF performed in HI because the Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 did not recognize marriages that were illegal where performed due to bigamy. Under the Kenya Marriage Act, mixing marriages from three separate marriage codes was illegal and a bigamous marriage is moot in the UK and US.

IIUC, legitimation can only occur via a post-birth marriage of the parents which converts a child that was illegitimate at birth (and thus non-UK subject at birth) into a “legitimated” post-birth UK subject. There is no evidence of a post-birth marriage of SADO to anyone but Lolo Soetoro, IIUC.

180 posted on 02/07/2012 1:05:16 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: devattel

There is no use citing anything to you because you don’t understand how to read the law. Those that do know can see that you don’t. Those that are not sure how to read the law might actually believe you.

And that’s too bad because you don’t know what you are talking about.


181 posted on 02/07/2012 7:26:05 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

What was the domicile of Sr. -Kenya or the US. I would argue Kenya since he was on a temporary visa when he stayed in the US. But it doesn’t really matter because neither the US or Kenya would have recognized that marriage to Ann.

Hashmi Versus Hashmi

http://webdb.lse.ac.uk/gender/Casefinaldetail.asp?id=45&pageno=3

Furthermore, any idea that a tribal marriage has to be licensed to be valid is just ludicrous. It was very easy to get married in the Luo tribe and that marriage was recognized under Kenyan law.

I submit that it might have been possible for Obama to fall on the mercy of the system in UK and actually get registered through special dispensation or court proceeding.

HOWEVER, I still see no law that made his citizenship automatic and retroactive.


182 posted on 02/07/2012 7:39:23 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

I understand the law fully. So does Obama. He even admitted he was a British Subject at birth.


183 posted on 02/07/2012 7:39:49 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: devattel

“That is incorrect. Based on what we know, Obama’s father was a Kenyan colonial citizen, i.e. a British citizen. Married or not, UK citizenship does not follow U.S. statuatory or naturalization citizenship. If one is born to a U.K. citizen, one is a U.K. citizen.”

This quote shows that you do not fully understand the law. Just quite pretending that you do.


184 posted on 02/07/2012 8:44:58 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

You will need to let Parliament know your findings. And Obama. And everyone else born to citizens of the U.K.

That being said, you have yet to cite one statute. Would you at least try to do some research and post it here before you continue making yourself look like an argumentative antagonist?


185 posted on 02/07/2012 8:50:58 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
“I submit that it might have been possible for Obama to fall on the mercy of the system in UK and actually get registered through special dispensation or court proceeding.”

This brings to mind the fact that if Barry was actually born in Kenya, then he might still be a UK national and/or a Kenyan national.

If, somehow, BHO Sr. bamboozled the Kenyan gov’t to accept Barry as a Kenyan citizen (hmmmm.. could that be the reason for the mysterious BHO Sr. trip to Hi in 1971?) we don't have proof that the citizenship was ever renounced.

We do have a claim by the Obama campaign that Obama was, in fact, a dual Kenyan-US citizen despite the bigamous marriage, and an associated claim that he never renounced his US citizenship in favor of his Kenyan citizenship. But Barry lies all of the time, so why would we believe that without investigating the Kenyan records? Oh, darn, they were scrubbed!

186 posted on 02/07/2012 8:54:35 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: devattel

I have been posting about this for YEARS on this forum and was the first to bring it here.

Thankfully , many here followed my links and actually began to look at the law and have tried to understand the point.

You refuse to do so.

I Don’t care. I have been posting about this subject for so long that I don’t feel it necessary to go point by point by point. I have done it so many times before FOR YEARS. it gets old when people don’t want to really look at the law and be honest about it.

It just makes you look foolish when you refuse to educate yourself to the actual law.

But rock on.

You would be better served to look at the facts that might suggest that Sr wasn’t married to Kezia at the time - or at least the time lines don’t match up for some things. But in the end it likely wouldn’t matter since it appears to have been possibly CIA related.

The official story is that Kezia was married to Sr. Plenty of documentation. I doubt anyone would be able to prove otherwise.

Besides, it is all fruitless anyway.

Nothing will ever come of this - as I have said for a very long time - because the family was involved with the spooks.


187 posted on 02/07/2012 9:03:09 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

He could have been born in Canada.

I think it is quite possible that the problem in all of this is that Barry went to college as a foreign student to get aid.

I really don’t think Sr is his father.

In the end, no one will do anything about any of it.

It will be talked about in the future as one of the grand mysteries.

At least now we know that Chester Arthur’s father was not a citizen when he was born.


188 posted on 02/07/2012 9:07:50 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
You ought to pay more attention.

I have often posted the results of my ultra-scientific research, using the latest DNA kits. I have proven tbeyond any shadow of scientific doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is not only our President, but is also the God-Annointed....

Le Dauphin Perdu
de la belle France

The only question you should have as a loyal subject of King Barry is, "Since when does a King have to leave office?" It is a lifetime gig. The discovery of Prince Louis, Duke of Burgundy living in the Big Apple is most reassuring. He can be Heir to the Throne!

Pour me a Bourbon. Please.

189 posted on 06/02/2014 10:15:31 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Vote for a gay African Marxist for POTUS? Sure. What could go wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-189 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson