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

Skip to comments.

FIRST TIME IN U.S. HISTORY THAT A SITTING PRESIDENTíS ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS
The Post & Email ^ | Jan. 5, 2010 | P. Patriot

Posted on 01/06/2010 6:30:17 AM PST by SvenMagnussen

(Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.

Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.

(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: barackhusseinobama; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; deal; dontstepintroll; drew68troll; eligibility; fraud; liar; nathandeal; nonsequitertroll; obama; puppet; putativepresident; trollsonfr; usurper; whoisyourdaddy; whoseyourdaddy; whosyourdaddy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 681-696 next last
To: PugetSoundSoldier

BS show me where English common law uses the term natural born citizen.


441 posted on 01/06/2010 9:27:26 PM PST by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The one where they posted an actual picture of an actual Kenyan birth certificate from that period and which didn't look anything like Smith's document.

Yes, but that is because they were looking at one form of BC, while Smith's document purports to be another. The official government "Return of birth" was more akin to our short form, or just a birth ledger, while the Smith Document is more akin to our older hospital birth certificates, with the footprint.

And you'll notice that they are careful not to call Smith's a forgery, just that "their sources" say it is. All it would take would be one certificate that looks like Smith's to blow their argument right out of the water.

442 posted on 01/06/2010 9:44:00 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: IntolerantOfTreason

You are totally wasting your time to have an intelligent dialog with any of the usurper’s “AFTER-BIRTHERS” and 24/7-ZERO-BRIGADE. Their main goal is Alinsky tactics to disrupt and distract from the real issues by orders from somewhere. Kill the messengers instead of the message!!!


443 posted on 01/06/2010 9:47:38 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Lower55

You are wasting your precious time with the ‘AFTER-BIRTHERS”!!!


444 posted on 01/06/2010 9:50:57 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

I can vision that all the “AFTER-BIRTHERS” are of the same heights???


445 posted on 01/06/2010 9:53:21 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
Myth: Common law states that being born on the soil – Jus Soli – makes one a “natural born subject” and therefore every person born on US soil is a “natural born citizen”.

Attorney Collins takes this on directly and establishes clearly that there is no common law in the United States. He also explains that natural born citizens are in no way, shape or form, the same as natural born subjects.

See link:Are Persons Born Within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens Thereof - George D. Collins

Source:Leo's blog Natural Born Citizen

446 posted on 01/06/2010 9:53:58 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (Well, we didn't get dressed up for nothin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

Have you heard about the three (3) little words N.B.C.???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsX5DzZHkIU&feature=PlayList&p=B278681E23614868&index=0


447 posted on 01/06/2010 10:20:04 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
In the case of natural born citizens, English common law assumes those born on US soil - as the 14th Amendment also states - are natural born citizens. They are a citizen by the act of birth (and because of the 14th amendment, that act means location of birth).

If the 14th amendment merely restates English common law, and the defintion was already part of the Constitution, by reference so to speak, , why bother with that portion of the 14th amendment? It's actual intent was to make former slaves and their descendants citizens. But it, the 14th, also does not say anything about "natural born" it says "citizens" not "natural born citizens".

You are also confusing Vattel with Chief Justice Wait. Vattel states, in an English translation: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

In French the words were, IIRC, "indigenes o naturales"

448 posted on 01/06/2010 10:20:29 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

i thought public figures could be researched and their records opened...some article implied that millions must have been spent to seal his records.


449 posted on 01/06/2010 10:22:16 PM PST by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
BS show me where English common law uses the term natural born citizen.

How about the Congressional record, citing Black's Law Dictionary:

Black's Law Dictionary defines "native" as "a natural-born subject or citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to". Black defines "natural born" as "In English law one born within the dominion of the King".

Or even the birther site Federalist Blog:

Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance...
Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects

Or how about in United Stats v. Wong Kim Ark where the United States Supreme Court ruled:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject

It seems that English common law considers a natural-born subject (citizen) to be granted by the place of birth. Black's Law Dictionary states as much, the Congressional record states as much, the US Supreme Court states as much, and birther sites state as much. This should not be in doubt.

Vattel also discusses the role of a sovereign; where is the US sovereign? And in the section in Vattel on citizens and natives it explicitly states that it is the opinion of Vattel himself - not that of natural or other laws - that a man's natural born citizenship flows from his parents. Vattel is quite clear on that; the other "laws" in that section refer to the behavior of other nations (and interestingly, often that of England!), but in terms of the Vattel definition of natural born citizen, is comes from Vattel himself, alone.

So here's a question for you: what legal tradition - other than the de-facto pronouncement of a single man, with no references or tradition to buttress himself - considers the citizenship of a child's parents in terms of natural born status?

450 posted on 01/06/2010 10:52:31 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: Electric Graffiti
Myth: Common law states that being born on the soil – Jus Soli – makes one a “natural born subject” and therefore every person born on US soil is a “natural born citizen”.

Excuse me, English common law - which is also a foundation of our legal system - states that Jus Soli is the right and proper way to consider natural born citizenship.

And here are a few dozen references stating that English common law was the foundation of our own legal system.

Can you show any references that state that Vattel's The Law of Nations was the foundation for our legal system? I'm not denying it had an influence, but for 150 years the Americas had used English common law, it was the law that our Founders were governed by until the revolution, and it is widely acknowledged by multiple legal references (West's Law, Black's Law, etc) and our own Supreme Court and Government as the foundation for our own Nation.

451 posted on 01/06/2010 11:01:19 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

If I was that small - and also in that position, I'd have a sh*t eatin' grin on my face too ...

452 posted on 01/06/2010 11:02:55 PM PST by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY

I would change your word “blase” to purely EVIL!! Unfortunately, America “bought”Obamam not even knowing WHO he was or where he came from. THAT, in itself is the real pity. Think of how many Whites voted for him. Not that it was a racial thing but it was a left vs right vote. The people of America, according to Dennis Miller, stated that folks “had such a huge suppository of hate against George W. Bush up their collective beehinds” that they could NOT think or see straight. In additon, add to that the usual black and other minority sheeple who think they are going to get a free hand out, and then add to THAT the ACORN voter fraud. Any wonder? Now is payday I as I see it unfolding. Very sad situation. CO


453 posted on 01/06/2010 11:08:24 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (Conservatism is to a country what medicine is to a wound - HEALING!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

All of your posts prove that you don’t care about having and ILLEGAL President. I guess he represnts your values and philosophy. Otherwise you would be concerned. CO


454 posted on 01/06/2010 11:12:55 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (Conservatism is to a country what medicine is to a wound - HEALING!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; Electric Graffiti

A Place To Ask Questions And To Get The Right Answers!!!

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/


455 posted on 01/06/2010 11:18:09 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: Art in Idaho

THAT is the problem Art, you don’t know WHO he is. He is a BLANK SLATE. Not very comforting. I think tho that it’s becoming adundantly clear WHO and WHAT he is. He’s not a friend of the United States period. He’s using the United States, exploting everything she has, lining his own pockets, and all the while, his goal is to destroy her. A very very bad time in history for sure. CO


456 posted on 01/06/2010 11:18:15 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (Conservatism is to a country what medicine is to a wound - HEALING!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Yeah, I notice your ping list - says it ALL!! CO


457 posted on 01/06/2010 11:19:22 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (Conservatism is to a country what medicine is to a wound - HEALING!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You have the gall to state what Jim Robinson thinks? Sorry Jim himself has posted that he believes Obama is a Fraud. Sorry. Keep on with your tired old excuses. They fall flat, Few belive your premise. A handful but that’s ok. Your posts won’t EVER change any of our minds. CO


458 posted on 01/06/2010 11:29:28 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (Conservatism is to a country what medicine is to a wound - HEALING!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

Oops. I misjudged you. Your mission is to confuse. But I’ll bite on your general premise; we respect both the British and the American common law. Lets see what happens.

From Kent’s Commentaries on Citizenship:

“It is the doctrine of the English law, that natural born subjects owe an allegiance, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and which cannot be devested by any act of their own. In the case of Macdonald, who was tried for high treason, in 1746, before Lord Ch. J. Lee, and who, though born in England, had been educated in France, and spent his riper years there, his counsel spoke against the doctrine of natural allegiance as slavish, and repugnant to the principles of their revolution. The Court, however, said, it had never been doubted, that a subject born, taking a commission from a foreign prince, and committing high
treason, was liable to be punished as a subject for that treason.”

Our commander in chief, born, by his own admission, a natural born subject of The Crown, is liable to be punished for treason to Britain. Interpol, which, thanks to our president, now has no restrictions against arresting our citizens, can enter the White House and arrest the British subject for one of his attacks on the peaceful villagers of Afganistan, if there is some civil case brought against him - perhaps by the Sharia courts of England.

Then, concerning the regard of our founders for British Common Law, in the words of Alexander Hamilton:

“The adoption of a constitution, by the Constitutional Congress in 1787, based on Leibnizian principles rather than British legal doctrine, was certainly not inevitable. However, British legal experts such as Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution, were increasingly recognized by the Americans as proponents of arbitrary power. The early revolutionary leaders’ emphasis on Vattel as the authority on constitutional law, with his conception that a nation must choose the best constitution to ensure its perfection and happiness, had very fortunate consequences for the United States and the world, when the U.S. Constitution was later
written, as we will see below.”


459 posted on 01/06/2010 11:31:28 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Ha!! Even Bill Richardson called him an illegal alien!! Go peddle your claptrap somewhere else. CO


460 posted on 01/06/2010 11:32:14 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (Conservatism is to a country what medicine is to a wound - HEALING!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 681-696 next 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