Posted on 12/19/2008 10:36:11 AM PST by Gemsbok
I see that you have changed form the the delcarative statement of:
Barack Hussein Obama WAS born in Hawaii.
to the more subtle,
IF, he was born in Hawaii.
and, that is progress!
Let’s see, he will refile it with all the judges and then he will not be able to anymore. I bet Scotus is sick of this bozo.
Good to hear that there are still some patriotic Americans, willing to uphold the Constitution! Thanks for the good news.
Progress would be if you actually came up with evidence he wasn’t born in Hawaii. I’m not holding out much hope.
Hopefully, not in the same way that we’re sick of little obama lemming trolls, bronx-boy
Real progress would be if SCOTUS upheld the Constitution and requested documentation of NB status.
Real Progress would be if you came up with the long Vault form of the authentic birth certificate.
(You do know there is still a one million dollar offer offered by the Rosary Films if you can produce a verifiable document to SCOTUS?)
Bravo!
MSM buries yet another bone as it carries the water for Usurper.
Two classes of citizenship: natural and naturalized. At least three paths to citizenship: by naturalization, by statute, and by birthright. Paths to “citizenship” in and of themselves are not paths to “natural-born citizenship”. Birthright may be a requirement for the natural-born status but not the only requirement. More import is a natural, exclusive, allegiance to this nation.
Then give them a reason to. Come up with concrete evidence Obama is lying. Until you do then I don't see the Supremes getting involved.
Real Progress would be if you came up with the long Vault form of the authentic birth certificate.
I don't have it. And I don't think Obama is inclined to help you.
(You do know there is still a one million dollar offer offered by the Rosary Films if you can produce a verifiable document to SCOTUS?)
And nobody's collected yet. Tells you something, doesn't it?
Heh. Good observation, Gemsbok.
Dress code is optional. What's important is that you show up.
In 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from the earlier statement in the 1790 NAturalization Act, to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered "natural born citizens" of the U.S. This was done to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a "natural born citizen" per the framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject in regards to the use of those words in the Constitution. George Washington was also President in 1795, and thus he was aware of this change. And if he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new act in 1795, he would have vetoed the Naturalization Act of 1795.
The term “natural born citizen” has NEVER been defined in the U.S. Constitution or in codified U.S. law.
The OPERATIVE phrase of the 14th Amendment expressly states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside ...”
It says “citizens” NOT “natural born citizens”.
In situations like this, SCOTUS has USUALLY devolved to ascertain what the “original intent” of the framers was ... What does the 14th Amendment mean and what is its intended scope, as introduced the United States Senate in 1866?
Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI), who introduced it in the Senate, tells us (as it was being debated):
“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country ... I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Senator Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now ...”
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, inserted the phrase: “... All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means ... Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens ...”
Senator W. Williams further stated:
” ... In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States ...”
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents[plural, parents] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”
If and when a House and a Senate member object to the vote counting of electoral votes, the question of whether mister obama is a natural born citizen or not will be adjudicated relying upon the words from the early framers. The opinions of we few will be irrelevant to their deliberations. But we may draw informed opinions using those same words.
Thanks, LucyT!
And yet, nowhere in the Constitution, Federal law or case law is there any evidence that the status of one's parents or the fact that one is a dual citizen makes any difference to one's qualification as a NBC.
Right on.
“Let me get this straight. You’re not arguing that Obama was born in Kenya, right? This is all about parentage? In that case, I have to ask, don’t you think filial ties to foreign despots would come up during the election? Are the American people stupid enough to vote for Castro’s son? No!”
It really does not matter where Obama was born. His father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. According to the Constitution, one must be born in the US of two parents who were US citizens at the time of one’s birth. Obama’s father was not a US citizen. The way our media is, it is quite possible that ones ties to foreign despots would not come up during an election. The American public knows very little about Obama’s friends and ties. So,in your example, Castro’s son could just say he does not know who his father was, and the media would not even try to find out. After all he would not have to show his birth certificate, just like Obama. :)
Repeating since it’s good:
>>>>ODINGA, yes it does ring a bell.
As a Senator, he successfully raised 1 million American dollars for cousin Odinga ‘s election and flew to Kenya to campaign for him!
List of Known Foreign entanglements and involvements:
1. Kenyan dad
2. Kenyan birth
3. Campaign for Kenyans
4. Raise American dollars for Kenyan politicians
5. Solicit & Accept near 2 hundred million dollars in foreign campaign $$$
6. Jot about the globe, campaigning as ‘citizen of the world’ (Berlin)
Standing mute, without his hand covering his heart, instead of honoring our flag, doesn’t support the concept of complete an unwavering American allegiance.
So if America becomes embroiled in a serious conflict involving Kenya or Indonesia, where does he stand?
After 9-11-01,
When it came time to invade Afghanistan, what if First Lady Barbara Bush (GWB’s mother) had been an Afghani citizen or still possessed dual-citizenship with Afghanistan? Wouldn’t the President’s allegiance been possibly conflicted?
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
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.