Skip to comments.Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, others to leave a Legacy of COWARDICE
Posted on 02/19/2012 3:57:01 AM PST by Chance Hart
First off, I am a conservative and have spent countless hours listening to and reading the books of all these men. Reading Levin's Liberty and Tyranny was compelling, as were many of the publications of these Patriots. With the VAST amount of Constitutional research accumulated in order to write these best sellers, there is and has always has been one important fact known to ALL these men to be a Constitutional FACT missing. That non negotiable FACT is that according to the Constitution, Barack Hussein Obama is NOT eligible to be placed on the ballot, let alone occupy his present position as President of the United States of America! Obama himself touts the fact that his father was a British Subject at the time of his BHO 2s birth, making him at the very least a duel citizen and not eligible to hold the office as president. Furthermore, Daddy was NEVER a citizen of the United States, again making Jr. ineligible with that fact alone. None of these men (as far as I know) served in the military for whatever reason and I think there may be some suppressed guilt because of that when I hear their accolades regarding current and former Men of Honor. As they refer to many of their callers and guests as Brother, they at the same time have never felt compelled to commit the heroic act of jumping on a Firecracker, let alone a Grenade to help save their Brothers and in the end help save this Nation. Levin is the one that has disappointed me the most when I heard him disenfranchise many of his loyal listeners on Jan 19th, 2010 (may have been the 20th) by referring to those that even questioned the eligibility issue as (paraphrasing) ignorant and foolish. He followed that comment by saying that Obama was of course eligible to be President. He, in my opinion is an expert on the Constitution and knows full well that his statement was an out and out lie. When the truth finally reveals itself, I can almost hear the excuses from these Less than Honorable radio and TV Patriots now 1. I was given strict orders from station bosses not to bring up or allow discussion on the eligibility issue and to refer to those that do bring it up as ignorant Birthers. 2. Yes, I of course knew the simple truth, but decided it was the wrong approach to be honest when the proper way to handle this was at the Ballot Box. 3. Book sales were BOOMING and I was too GUTLESS to show the Courage that I ask my listeners to display on a daily basis. 4. There are a few in the business that are standing their ground on this issue and Liberals are calling them names. Sticks and Stones will break my Bones and even Words would really hurt me because I AM A COWARD! By the way, there are thousands of these Cowards walking the halls of Congress and other places that have at least to this point failed to MAN UP. All this makes me admire all the more the few that in their heart really do trust God Almighty and FEAR NO EVIL.
I know. Reality will never interfere with your opinions. But no state & no court agrees with you, so Obama will be on the ballot in 50 states, and we will need to beat him in the election.
Why dont you try reading the thread before you make a comment like that.
Whether you realize it or not, there has been an ongoing dialogue.
“Brother, Im way ahead of you. I dont listen to the radio and I dont watch any news on TV. I havent done so for a number of years now.”
So supporting a Birther’s boycott of TV & radio news would be a simple matter of asking others to do what you have already done for quite some time. I suppose your blood hasn’t turned a sickly pale liberal blue as a result, so you could attest that going cold turkey on Rush and every other TV & radio broadcaster is not too great a risk, yes?
They are all pro Romney as well..think about it!
Sadly, I still listen to most of them everyday.
Why dont you try reading the thread before you make a comment like that.
Whether you realize it or not, there has been an ongoing dialogue.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
If you had even one functional brain cell,
Wow! Why the need for personal insult? There’s been a lot of that on this thread.
Is it turning out to be an ugly day in the neighborhood?
I expected little else.
On the other hand, maybe they simply disagree with the idea that two citizen parents are required for a person to be an NBC if the person is born on US soil to parents lawfully residing in the US.
Perhaps you simply haven't looked? There are many, many, many factual refutations of Birther inanity on FR alone.
I stopped in 2008. I doubt that I have heard more than 30 minutes of the yappers since then. Amazingly, though, as little that I have tuned in, I was listening when Mark Steyn call Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution a “technicality”. Imagine that! A “technicality”! ( snort!)
I get my news from Free Republic and other sites on the Internet. I discovered that Free Republic is show prep for these guys. Sometimes they lift the words of the posters word for word ( no credit given to the source, though.)
Additionally, at no time did the Court in Wong Kim Ark (WKA) decalre Wong a natural born citizen. The judge in Ankeny vs Indiana, which is the case cited by Georgia judge Malihi in his decision to rule in favor of "Obama" (whose counsel didn't even show up for the hearing, electing to blow off a subpoena, an act for which he has to date suffered no consequences whatsoever) admitted as much.
I have been following this thread from the beginning and I have to say, you make a very good case. I have a much better understanding of this issue and I want to thank you for that.
Well said. Any interpretation of natural born citizenship that weakens the founders' intent to prevent, to the greatest degree possible, the possibility of divided loyalties in the CIC flies in the face of common sense and simple logic.
How does posting a link to a FReeper's entire posting history, sans citations of specific examples, constitute a demonstration of their use of personal insults?
Or are you basing your indignant outrage on wintertime's having referred to conservative talk heavyweights as "yappers"?
Of course, Mark "Heroic Defender of the Constitution"* Levin's use of phrases like "Get off the phone, you big dope!" doesn't constitute personal insult. Right?
Yes, I heard Mark Steyn that day as well. Don’t listen to him any more.
As usual, our acknowledged Obot Mr. Rogers inspires clarification of the misdirection surrounding the eligibility issue. So many, Philman, siezethecarp, wintertime, too many to name you all, on this thread are showing such an excellent grasp of the issues that there is little left to clarify. But Mr. Rogers, grasping as usual at straws, has raised two issues the rest of you haven't bothered with yet, the relevance of SR511 and the claim that Minor v. Happwsett’s confirmation of the common-law definition is dictum - not necessary to the resolution of the appeal.
Let's look at SR511. Since the courts will not defend the Constitution, a natural question in a representative republic is why doesn't the legislature act? Since every U.S. Senator signed SR511, except for Senator McCain, SR511 gives us lots of information about the eligibility issue: Since Obama was one of the signatories of SR511, it is important to see what they agreed to, and, by implication, what they agreed to cover up so that McCain would be Obama's opponent. McCain was clearly the reason that no Republican would respond to his or her constituents' written pleas to vet Obama's eligibility as was done for McCain.
1) SR511, signed April 30 2008, was the second effort by Obama’s campaign committee, whose Chairperson, Clare McCaskill was a cosponsor of both efforts. 2) Both S.2678, in Feb 2008 and SR511 had the same objective, making Senator McCain appear eligible to be Obama’s opponent. (S.2678 was “A Bill To Insure That Foreign Born Children of Military Citizens Are Eligible to be President”).
3) McCain still had a pending lawsuit challenging his eligibility, and a resolution would provide some legal cover when power brokers order a judge to dismiss the case. Even while a "resolution is simply an opinion, with no action associated, the Hollowell lawsuit was dropped as soon as SR511 was signed.
4) The signatures of all Senators accompanied testimony to which they signed their accord: “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a ``natural born Citizen’’.” Judiciary Committee Chair Pat Leahy agreed with the statement above, given by former judge Michael Chertoff. No Senator disagreed.
5) Obama Con Law professor Larry Tribe and former Solicitor General Ted Olson, Tribe also on the Obama Campaign Committee submitted a legal analysis which confirmed that all Senators accepted the two criteria for a natural born citizen, though the legal statement was intentionally vague, and, in some places, patently dishonest. Tribe says, in his analysis “These sources all confirm that the phrase ``natural born’’includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation's territory and allegiance.” The question should be raised since Tribe's use of the word “both” is intentionally vague. But Larry cleared it up by citing Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim was born “within a nation's territory and allegiance” and was made a jus soli, or native-born, or 14th Amendment citizen: not a natural born citizen. Thus Larry must have meant the correct, Minor, Marshall, Bingham, Hughes, interpretation when he used the work both - “ These sources all confirm that the phrase ``natural born’’ includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation's territory and allegiance.”
To support his “birth abroad” claim Larry cites “First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 655 (1898).” Were this 1790-1791, Tribe's claim about the First Congress would have been true, but by the Third Congress, 1795, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was wholly repealed, the term natural born citizen never again to appear in an act of Congress. Tribe certainly knows that. What remains is Tribe's assertion that a natural born citizen is not born abroad, but is born to citizen parents, and on territory over which the US has jurisdiction, which is sort of true (though not true of the Canal Zone, according to Democrat Law Professor Gabriel Chin, who cites law rendering the 1936 Canal Zone unincorporated).
Wong Kim Ark's parents were non-citizen parents, and the case does not address natural born citizenship, other than to cite Minor, and mention that the native-born citizen has all the rights of a natural born citizen, differentiating the two classes, but not clarifying that being President is not a right. Justice Gray's first citation in WKA is to Minor, and Gray never questions the definition asserted by Minor, finally determining that Wong Kim is a 14th Amendment citizen, just like Obama. No Supreme Court interpretation can be be changed by inference. Changes must be explicit, and Gray certainly didn't try to modify Minor - he cited it as precedence.
Thus SR.511 confirms that every Senator, or at least, every Senator who read SR.511, knew that NBC was associated with being born to two citizen parents. That was the foundation of SR.511, as well as the prior action, a bill, S.2678. And every Senator knew that Barack was born to no more than one citizen parent, and that she was a dual citizen, too young to confer citizenship. Barack, as he himself told us, is a "Native born citizen of the U.S." - a 14th Amendment naturalized citizen. They all know, and clearly don't care whether we understand the truth. They may have noted how quickly Obama brought ethics charges upon Congressman Nathan Deal when Deal was so audacious as to write a public letter to the White House asking for confirmation of eligibility.
Mr. Rogers states that “The dicta in WKA goes into great detail on what NBC means.” Hardly. Justice Gray mentions natural born subjects, but cites Minor in which the common law definition of NBC is unequivocally confirmed - “it was never doubted.”
Finally, the claim that the definition in Minor of who were natural born citizens is dictum is not supported by the facts. Elizabeth Minor claimed that the 14th Amendment granted her voting rights. Chief Justice Waite addressed her claim by showing that Mrs Minor, a citizen, had no voting right before the 14th Amendment, and that the 14th Amendment nowhere addressed suffrage. To have jurisdiction the court needed Mrs. Minor to be a Constitutional Citizen. Before the 14th Amendment, there was only one class of citizen defined in the Constitution, and that was the class of natural born citizens. Like every term but one, “Treason”, this term was defined, as Justice Waite explained, in the common language and common law familiar to our framers. (As Madison explained, definitions were not included in the Constitution. It needed to be interpreted in the language and common law familiar to the framers to have meaning.)
Natives or natural born citizens were citizens about whose citizenship there was no doubt. Being a natural born citizen, Justice Waite explained, made Elizabeth Minor a citizen. He also explained that there were still doubts about who belonged to the class of naturalized citizens, just established six years before by the 14th Amendment. Waite avoided the uncertainties of the 14th Amendment by using the never doubted class, and by far the largest class of citizens, citizen born on our soil to parents who were citizen. This construction would not have been possible without the confirmation of the Marshall, Bingham, Vattel, Washington, Hamilton, Jay, definition, the never doubted definition. That established the Minor v. Happersett interpretation as positive law. (A fact confirmed by the scrubbing of citations to Minor v. Happersett from more than two dozen Supreme Court decisions by Center for American Progress associates Tim Stanley and Carl Malamud at Justia.com, Google, Cornell, and who knows where else.)
With the Minor v. Happersett decision depending upon the Vattel common law, we don't need the wild goose chases. When progressives assiduously avoid Marshall and Waite and Bingham (author of the 14th Amendment), you don't need the tours through crackpot legal tools like Ankeny, Carter, and Malihi. It is disappointing that our presumed pundits, Levin, Beck, Limbaugh, etc. etc. prove their fear and impotence by avoiding Chief Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Waite, Chief Justice Hughes, Congressman Bingham, and many more of our brightest stars, but we can read for ourselves. Perhaps someone unafraid of the certain attack on income, character, and impervious to Alinsky’s 5th Rule, the use of ridicule, will arise. For now, we need, as Beck understood and proclaimed, but couldn't abide, we need to question boldly. We have the most to lose, but our numbers will dwarf theirs as we communicate the truth.
In the realm of conspiracies, it is public information that Alwaleed bin-Talal is second to Murdock among News Corp investors - Fox News, Wall Street Journal. The evidence grows as the Feb 18 WSJ leads with a front page advertisment (with no disclaimer) touting the great strides being made by the Arab Spring and Muslim Brotherhood with America's business community. Alwaleed, Obama's supporter through college according to Percy Sutton, now uses our oil purchases to sell us on a partnership leading to Sharia Law in our largest business daily. That could have explained Beck's fear, particularly as he proudly displayed the historical books he was discovering. Somehow, he never came across the delightful WWII book by historians who discovered that Vattel's Law of Nations was the first book on Washington's desk in his New York office on his first day as president. He didn't come across the pamphlet describing our first law school, created by Thomas Jefferson in 1779 at William and Mary, where Jefferson made Vattel our first law book, and where it remained the leading reference for over fifty years. Obama, bin-Talal, and Soros are busily rewriting our history.
Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and Fox News are all broadcast on Premiere Radio, a Bain Capital company. Is that why they avoid our greatest Supreme Court justice and the most cited legal source for thirty years after the ratification, Law of Nations? Is that why the importation of Law of Nations by Ben Franklin, where he provided at least six copies to The Colonies beginning in 1763 is too close to the fire of ineligibility for acknowledgment?
If we don't head off this coup soon the 1st Amendment will mean no more than Article II Section 1, and this sort of honest discussion could land us in Bill Ayers' reeducation camps. From this thread it appears that more and more are finding the time to learn the truth. When we reach the desperation recorded by Russians during the years of the Bolshevik Revolution (much was written, but Ayn Rand's “We The Living” was close to the experiences of many I knew as a child), the time to learn will have passed, and and our Constitution will be a relic. Survival will be the issue.
“That statement should scare the hell out of any true conservative. Giving in on any front is giving in period. Thats what happened in the 60s when prayer was take out of schools. Its what happened when Roe v Wade became law.”
The 60s were owned by the libs and the radicals. But, there came a time when good men and women stood up...in the 70s. I’m glad Reagan wasn’t nominated in ‘76 because I don’t believe any Republican could have been elected that year because of Watergate.
The silent majority found their voice, and scared the wits out of the Republicans in ‘76. Ford ended up being the nominee, and he lost. It all came to fruition in ‘80, with the election of Reagan.
I don’t understand all of this ranting against Rush, Mark, et al. They are our voice. You might not like that they didn’t go after the birther thing, though Rush poked fun at times. He made his point through humor.
God help this country if we didn’t have Rush, Mark, Sean and others. Just who do you think would give us our voice if they weren’t there?
Courtesy Ping to you, Spaulding. Sorry I left you off the first. :(
Hey, at least he's a fan of the 2nd Amendment, even if his commitment to an originalist interpretation of A2S1C5 is "in doubt". . .
Right on. I don’t watch TV news or listen to radio.
And who do you think needs to hold their feet to the fire so they dont cave on issues?
“Thus SR.511 confirms that every Senator, or at least, every Senator who read SR.511, knew that NBC was associated with being born to two citizen parents. “
That you for once again lying. As you know, SR511 concerned itself with those born outside the USA.
The text of SR511 is below:
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.
S. RES. 511
“Mr. Rogers states that The dicta in WKA goes into great detail on what NBC means. Hardly. Justice Gray mentions natural born subjects...”
He mentions NBS for half of the decision, because he concluded, reasonably, that the meaning of NBS determined the meaning of NBC - and that it applied. He did not write half a decision on a matter that had no bearing on the case.
But in BirtherWorld, facts and decisions don’t matter. Birthers cover their ears and eyes, and make up things - but they cannot convince a single state or court they are right.
Not because everyone in the US is a traitor, but because birthers are wrong. Clueless. And they stay wrong and clueless because they can’t handle reality.
Waste time in the courts if you wish, but Obama will be beaten in the polls or not at all.
You suggest that a person who wouldn't even be classed as a citizen of ANY sort prior to 1922, is a "natural citizen" and you think *I* have a problem with reality?
As for the courts, they don't agree with me about Roe v Wade. Do they agree with you? If not, then stop repeating that as if it proves something.
Absolutely. It has likewise puzzled me that our supposed brilliant commentators never address the factual points, preferring to say instead "because I say so."
The Funny thing is, if you read what Ann Coulter and George Will both wrote about "anchor babies", you would realize that intellectually they are 100% on our side! Unfortunately, when the name "Obama" is brought up, their eyes simply glaze over and they simply parrot what the rest of the media says.
I think I’ll wait to hear Michael Medved’s opinion on this first.
I understand that birthers reject that idea. But at a bare minimum, all ought to be able to agree that honest people can look at the evidence and disagree with the idea that two citizen parents are required.
Prior to 1922, it was not POSSIBLE to have other than two citizen parents. How can a non citizen parent rule apply to a time before it was even possible?
Also, here's another piece of evidence *YOU* won't look at. According to this newspaper from 1811, A child could only be a citizen if his FATHER was a citizen. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!
“Prior to 1922, it was not POSSIBLE to have other than two citizen parents.”
I have no idea what drugs you are on, but they must be good.
Every attempt to get a court case to be heard prior to Georgia was rejected under the claim that no one had "standing" (an injury which could be rectified by the court) to bring a case before a court.
It is like saying "You are too tall to ride this ride." It has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and everything to do with judicial procedure denying the obvious. EVERYBODY ought to have a right to demand that their chief executive is legitimate.
Whenever I try to follow the argument I get lost in a pile of esoteric legalism and questionable interpretations of the Constitution, laws, and public policy. If the so-called "Birthers" cannot provide a simple, clear argument, it is no wonder popular talk show hosts won't touch it.
The "birthers" are divided up into several groups which have some overlap. 1.There are those that think Obama was born in Kenya (All the evidence of which I am aware is against this.)
2.There are those that think his Indonesian citizenship destroyed his claim to American Citizenship. (Not true.)
3.There are those that think his travel to Pakistan in 1981 occurred using an Indonesian passport, and that if this is true, it caused him to lose his citizenship. (No proof of either theory.)
4. There are those who believe that a correct historical interpretation of the term "natural born citizen" means a person can have no ties of allegiance to any nation but the United States. (I am in that group.)
5. There are those who believe that he has yet to submit an ORIGINAL Hawaiian birth certificate, so his actual *PLACE* of birth is as yet undetermined. (I am also in this group.)
6. There are those who believe his mother was a CIA spy, and Obama is part of some master plan for world domination by the Tri-Lateral Commission, the CFR, the Bildibergers, and the other Usual "New World Order" suspects.
7. There are some people that believe all of the above.
So to address your point, what you are hearing depends upon to whom you are talking. As I have indicated, I believe that the historically accurate position of our Nation is that a child must be born of two American Citizens within the boundaries of the nation to be a "natural born citizen" as intended by the usage of the term in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. I also believe we have yet to see the truth out of Hawaii as to what Barry's original Hawaiian birth certificate looks like.
I believe what he has put forth last year is a copy of a Replacement birth certificate which was designed to appear as though it were original, but was created by the Department of Health in Hawaii under the direction of a Court Order to produce a replacement birth certificate for an Adopted Child who has had his adoption annulled.
In 1971, Barry's mom abandoned him, leaving him in Hawaii when she went to live with her husband in Indonesia. He lived with his Grandparents ever since he was ten years old, and it is unreasonable to think they did not acquire guardianship over him. Most likely they adopted him, and a new replacement birth certificate was created for him in 1971.
I think Barry only recently got the courts to order the issue of a new birth certificate which said what he wanted it to say.
I will mention at this time that *I* am adopted, and *I* have a replacement birth certificate which was created for me 6 years after I was born, so I know very well that this sort of thing is typical in the case of an adoption.
That the courts have a common and widespread misconception about the correct meaning of the term is a given. However, we should stop accepting what the courts say as the final word on the subject. It has been a long time since the courts accurately administered the law, and what respect they were previously due is no longer applicable to the modern courts.
They are wrong on Roe v Wade, they are wrong on Lawrence v Texas, they are wrong on Kelo v New London, and they are wrong on Wickard v. Filburn! We need to stop pretending the courts are always right when they are in fact WRONG.
I am in groups #4 and #5. I do no know enough about the law to take a position on the necessity of having 2 citizen parents.
I have no idea what drugs you are on, but they must be good.
Don't play stupid with me! You know very well I am referring to the Cable act of 1922. PRIOR to the Cable act, any woman who married an American Male, was automatically naturalized and became an AMERICAN CITIZEN. Any woman who married a Foreign Male became a citizen of HIS NATION. Any Children born to the couple had two citizen parents of one nation or the other.
You talk about OTHER people being dishonest, and yet here you are pretending not to know to what I am talking about! Mr. "Glass House" needs to stop lying and stop throwing stones!
Nobody does.(Without learning about it.) The incorrect interpretation is widespread and ubiquitous, especially amongst the legal people. The only way a person could know the correct interpretation is they have to research it. See where it originated, and what it's purpose was in being included in Article II.
Prior to 1922 it was NOT POSSIBLE to have parents of different nationalities. According to the laws in place at the time, Anyone who married an American Husband was automatically naturalized upon marriage. Anyone who married a foreign male took his citizenship.
The practice existed all the way back to the creation of this nation, but the codification of it into law occurred in 1854. See Section 2 below.
Care to list them? Just a few, maybe.
I wouldn't bother waiting for his reply. He regards any statement that disagrees with him as "dishonest." He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
You are talking about a period from 1907 to 1922:
“The Law: Federal legislation that changed the status of married immigrant women so that not all of them would automatically obtain the citizenship of their husbands
Date: September 22, 1922
Also known as: Married Womans Act
Significance: In 1907 a federal immigration law was passed that specifically stated that upon marriage a woman would take the nationality of her husband. The Cable Act changed this, except for women who were American citizens and married men who were ineligible for American citizenship under federal law because of their race.”
Please show the legislation and case law prior to 1907.
All of the figures that you mention have looked into it, thought about it critically, weighed the evidence and decided that there is nothing to it.
Then one can only conclude that they are either astonishingly dull witted, (not likely) or that they have NOT seen the evidence which *I* have seen. I'll not attempt to go over it all right here, but I will post this excerpt from an 1811 newspaper article purportedly written by James Madison under his Pseudonym "PUBLIUS."
The way to get rid of Obama is the old fashioned way- vote him out. If we can't do this, and the country actually wants this guy, the problem is a lot bigger than Obama and where his father was born. The problem is that the populous is irreversibly lost.
This is not just about attempting to get rid of him, (it's really too late to worry about that.) it is about attempting to deny him legitimacy in the History of the United States. All of our History books need to contain an asterisk by his name *First Illegitimate President.
All of his works and all of his appointments needs to be tainted with the label of "illegitimate."
No, it said that Two Parents was definitely settled, and that "Some Authorities" (implying the minority) would go further.
The problem is that, at the time of the approval of the Constitution, NO ONE had suggested two citizen parents were a requirement.
And that is because any other formulation WAS NOT LEGALLY POSSIBLE at this time! Split citizenship parentage did NOT BECOME POSSIBLE until 1922! You might as well suggest that they didn't mention the parents had to be male and female! OF COURSE NOT! NO OTHER POSSIBILITY EXISTED!
All the law prior used the phrase natural born subject - and that phrase was used interchangeably with natural born citizen for at least a few years after the Constitution.
And according to John Adam's Law book, that meant having Parents who were in Actual Obedience to the KING! (Owing allegiance to England.) As that meant exactly the same thing as the Vattel definition, there was no need to specifically mention it.
I am not going to fool with the rest of your comment. I can only take so much crap at one time.
In what way would we be worse off? Would we have a bigger than 15 trillion dollar debt? Would we have MORE than two more Liberal @ssholes on the Supreme court, and countless others worming their way through the Federal Judiciary? Would Iran be MORE likely to make Nuclear bombs with which to start World War III? Would we have had MORE banning of domestic drilling and oil production if Obama was gone?
In what manner, pray tell, would we be WORSE off if Obama was determined to have never been legitimate? Riots in the Cities? I think the question regarding those is when, not if. Most of the Urban poor is the DIRECT result of Liberal Democrat Policies in the 1960s. Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs has virtually guaranteed the creation of a massive poor underclass dedicated to the proposition that Democrats will always hand them out free goodies from other people's pockets.
The Wong Kim Ark decision did not deal with the status of "natural born citizen" so therefore any attempt to cite it regarding "natural born citizen" is a misapplication of Precedent. As the Ankeny decisions is also based on this false conflation of two distinctly different terms, it is utter crap of no legal value.
You meant to say that laws to prevent split citizenship parentage were only in place from 1907 to 1922.
And note that it was only from 1907 and 1922 that a woman with American citizenship automatically lost her citizenship when she married a foreign national.
“After 1907, marriage determined a woman’s nationality status completely. Under the act of March 2, 1907, all women acquired their husband’s nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date. This changed nothing for immigrant women, but U.S.-born citizen women could now lose their citizenship by any marriage to any alien. Most of these women subsequently regained their U.S. citizenship when their husbands naturalized.”
It is not as simple as you present it.
When that “utter crap of no legal value” is repeatedly upheld in courts across the country, will you perhaps entertain the notion that you are wrong? Or do you really feel you understand the issue better than all those judges?
How could the court make such an error? They made the same error many times over.
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.