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

Skip to comments.

FIRST TIME IN U.S. HISTORY THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT’S 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 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 651-696 next last
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]

To: curiosity

Yeah buddy it was posted months ago that Kapiolani was a simple “clinic” in 1961 and certainly did not have the facilities for delivering babies. Go back and check yourself. I saw the article posted here some months ago but didn’t make a note of the newspaper. ANYBODY who will not willing prove who he is or where he came from is FRAUD until HE proves otherwise. CO


461 posted on 01/06/2010 11:36:43 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (Conservatism is to a country what medicine is to a wound - HEALING!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Lower55

462 posted on 01/06/2010 11:39:05 PM PST by smokingfrog (Don't mess with the mocking bird! - http://tiny.cc/freepthis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Your right. I stand corrected re: full House vs. sub-committee passage on the Nixon impeachment. Thanks!


463 posted on 01/06/2010 11:42:19 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: jackv

Forget it jackv - Non-Sequitur doesn’t get anything. He’s swallowed the kool-aid by the gallon and you will never get him to admit he’s wrong. His answers are all assinine. I think ALL of us should STOP ANSWERING THE SITE PESTS. They are here for that very reason. To argue nonsense and to pester. If nobody ever replied to them, they would only have themselves to talk to and would eventualy go back to the underground from which they came. Just a thought. CO


464 posted on 01/06/2010 11:44:18 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (Conservatism is to a country what medicine is to a wound - HEALING!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: imahawk

I'm getting bored with this thread.

465 posted on 01/06/2010 11:45:54 PM PST by smokingfrog (Don't mess with the mocking bird! - http://tiny.cc/freepthis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; STE=Q
""The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens". In the original French, IIRC, the terms were "indigenes o naturales". (Pardon the spelling and lack of accent marks). Even though I can't read French, many of those who wrote the Constitution could, and had both an earlier English translation and the original French versions at hand."

Regarding the original French version:

""Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. "
http://www.thebirthers.org

Translating the french text: "les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens"

To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

466 posted on 01/06/2010 11:56:46 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen; All

467 posted on 01/07/2010 12:27:03 AM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG

To my fellow Patriot, Dear, Obamao considers himself to be black. Factually you are right but his skin is dark and that is what they go by, these days. Look at the myth of Tiger Woods. He had been doin the white little turn coats for over a decade and everybody knew about it but to keep the lie alive, they swept it under the carpet, that is a fact. The same goes with MLK. Some say that he was a communist and some say that he was a philanderer. Will the truth ever come out? No way and that is why they locked up all his records for 75 years; to keep the lie alive. Getting back to Obamao, this is why they have locked up all his records... To keep the lie alive.


468 posted on 01/07/2010 2:32:34 AM PST by rambo316 (Take Back America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

To my fellow Patriot, Dear, Obamao considers himself to be black. Factually you are right but his skin is dark and that is what they go by, these days. Look at the myth of Tiger Woods. He had been doin the white little turn coats for over a decade and everybody knew about it but to keep the lie alive, they swept it under the carpet, that is a fact. The same goes with MLK. Some say that he was a communist and some say that he was a philanderer. Will the truth ever come out? No way and that is why they locked up all his records for 75 years; to keep the lie alive. Getting back to Obamao, this is why they have locked up all his records... To keep the lie alive.


469 posted on 01/07/2010 2:34:04 AM PST by rambo316 (Take Back America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
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.

Only if I accept your definition of what an ILLEGAL president is. I don't like Obama, I didn't vote for him, but we're stuck with him. But instead of running around in circles chasing asinine theories like you are, I'm doing what I can to make sure he's a one term president.

470 posted on 01/07/2010 3:55:04 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
Ha!! Even Bill Richardson called him an illegal alien!! Go peddle your claptrap somewhere else.

It's far more fun to hang around here and poke fun at your claptrap instead. Birthers never disappoint.

471 posted on 01/07/2010 3:56:07 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
You have the gall to state what Jim Robinson thinks? Sorry Jim himself has posted that he believes Obama is a Fraud.

I said 'maybe'. But obviously you have no problem telling us all what he's thinking.

Few belive your premise.

I know better than to try and convince you hard core Birthers. You are beyond rational discussion.

472 posted on 01/07/2010 3:59:39 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Not many terms are defined in the Constitution, Treason being an exception. But that doesn't meant they didn't have known definitions at the time. Whatever those were, they still are.

If not defined in the Constitution, like treason is, then they are defined by law. And the current law does not define natural-born citizen the way you do.

473 posted on 01/07/2010 4:00:57 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
Yes, and you also believe that Obama is a Natural/Native Born Citizen -- even though he admits his father was a foreign national.

Correct?

Yes.

In Minor v. Happersett Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court, which included a definition of natural-born citizens based on the common-law...

No, he does not. Chief Justice Waite acknowledges that some do not believe that those born of non-citizen parents are not natural-born citizens. However he does not clarify the situation by saying whether they are right or wrong. He leaves the question unanswered. So there is no defintion, in Happersett or any other decision.

It would seem that if Chief Justice Waite were on this forum he would be called a "birther" for indicating that such a birth as Obama's is fraught with doubt as to his (Obama's)Natural/Native Born status.

No, he would not. Not based on his Happersett decision.

474 posted on 01/07/2010 4:05:37 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
1) Note the plural of “them” in the sentence, obviously this indicates that the states themselves are being referenced.

Notice the term "United States" which refers to the country as a whole. All the country. When other nations dealt with the United States or waged war on them, they waged war on the country and not X number of separate entities. Likewise, when the United States dealt with other nations it did so as a single sovereign entity.

Therefore, while an attack [by a foreign power] on DC would rightly be considered an Act of War as it is an assault upon the seat of our governance, it is not Treason for the people, or even several states, to besiege that city. Perhaps Sedition, but that has a different definition.

I believe you are wrong in your conclusion. Regardless, how can one commit treason against D.C. or a single state? If captured, do you say, "I was only fighting those D.C. people. I never shot at anyone from Alabama or Illinois?"

475 posted on 01/07/2010 4:09:44 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
So, you are a birther?

According to the Birthers around here I appear to be a troll.

476 posted on 01/07/2010 4:11:56 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: danamco

I am not sure what exactly I am abusing. Have a fine day.


477 posted on 01/07/2010 4:15:17 AM PST by castlegreyskull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

Thats for the reply, you made my point. You repeatedly refer to “natural born subject”. We have no Natural Born Subjects in the United States. Our Laws do not follow the “King’s” Laws we are free citizens not subjects and our laws decide our issues, not English common law which followed monarchs. England still does not have a codified criminal law while the US does.

I hope you take the time to understand the difference between a subject and a citizen, we fought several wars to become and remain free citizens of a Constitutional Republic not a monarchy or fascist government who made their own rules. We the people allow ourselves to be governed only when those we temporarily grant power of government to follow our Constitution and wishes.

You can make all the argument you want and so can I, but the only decision that counts is that of the Supreme Court of the United States. They will have to decide the issue, and your court case and quotes despite your wishes does not.


478 posted on 01/07/2010 5:29:20 AM PST by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: danamco

You may be right. But you can bet that on a few short months they certainly will be as you say. ;-)


479 posted on 01/07/2010 5:42:11 AM PST by Candor7 ((The effective weapons Against Fascism are ridicule, derision , truth (.Member NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage

I remember reading that we now have the least qualified President in the history of the country elected by the least educated voters who have ever cast ballots.

You can thank the NEA (with their determined and irresponsible MSM enablers) for the gargantuan factual, ethical and jejune blind spot Liberal (and ‘independent’) voters display when considering Presidential candidates.

Ask yourself… if you did NOT even vaguely comprehend history, geography, theology (as a believer, or not), culture, social psychology, economics, politics, civics, the military (its purpose and history), international diplomacy, ethics, individualism (an individual yourself, or not) … and if you had NO concept of personal/private property and NO notion of the meaning of a thing called a ‘man hour’, would “O” look attractive to you. I suggest that he would!!


480 posted on 01/07/2010 5:54:26 AM PST by SMARTY ("What luck for rulers that men do not think. " Adolph Hitler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate
Good call on Rahm-Sequitur.

That guy is such an @ss.

That troll never provides anything of substance in these discussions, and always resorts to ad-hom attacks before it's over.

He is incapable of acknowledging that it's extremely suspicious that Obama is spending a fortune to prevent a simple document from being examined.

481 posted on 01/07/2010 7:09:48 AM PST by GI Joe Fan (GI Joe represents Real American Heroes, not a bunch of globalist drones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
You repeatedly refer to “natural born subject”. We have no Natural Born Subjects in the United States.

Agreed. But do you contend that the states did not adopt the principles of British common law, merely changing "natural born subject" to "natural born citizen"?

Are you aware that there are multiple cases in US history where children of two foreign citizen parents are referred to as "natural born citizens" even where, e.g., a parent is here illegally from Mexico?

The Heritage Foundation and others take the position that these and similar cases (such as Wong) are decided wrongly. But even the Heritage Foundation (and others) acknowledge that that is the law of the land today. They seek to change the law. But they don't try to argue that that is not the current law.
482 posted on 01/07/2010 7:10:10 AM PST by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

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

Public figure's records have the same privacy protections that the rest of us have, so Obama need do nothing to keep them "sealed" (private).

What Orly and others have tried to do is to get access to private records by court order, in other words, unseal them, by claiming the records are relevant to their lawsuits. However, in order to proceed with their lawsuits they have to get over the hurdle of standing which is narrowly defined:

STANDING - The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.

There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm

The lawyers for Obama show up in court to prevent a default judgment and further court action.

default judgment n. if a defendant in a lawsuit fails to respond to a complaint in the time set by law (usually 30 days), then the plaintiff (suer) can request that the default (failure) be entered into the court record by the clerk, which gives the plaintiff the right to get a default judgment. If the complaint was for a specific amount of money owed on a note, other money due, or a specific contract price (or if the amount due is easy to calculate) then the clerk of the court can enter a default judgment. If proof of damages or other relief is necessary, a hearing will be held in which the judge determines terms of the default judgment. In either case the defendant cannot speak for himself/herself. A defendant who fails to file an answer or other legal response when it is due can request that the default be set aside, but must show a legitimate excuse and a good defense to the lawsuit.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Default+Judgment

Presidents get sued all the time necessitating the services of lawyers who often provide their services pro bono so its not clear that Obama has spent any money at all on these suits.

When Orly complains that her cases have not been heard on their merits, she is either being disingenuous or ignorant. Her case have no merit to begin with; they do not get past the hurdle of standing.

483 posted on 01/07/2010 7:23:57 AM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
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.

That's simply not true.

484 posted on 01/07/2010 7:29:32 AM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage

Yes, you are right. Until mojitojoe printed off his quotes from DU he was on a roll!! Hahaha!!


485 posted on 01/07/2010 7:50:56 AM PST by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
Oops. I misjudged you. Your mission is to confuse.

And apparently yours is to insult and provide unsubstantiated conjecture. Hallmarks of conservatism they are not!

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.

And how is that, for he was not born on British soil. Unless you have proof otherwise?

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

Please read Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 84 where he reassures his fellow New Yorkers

that the Constitution adopts, in their full extent, the common and statute law of Great Britain, by which many other rights, not expressed in it, are equally secured

and extends it with language defining where the power for the law comes from (the people) and the ability for the people to change it (amendment).

He also argues against the bill of rights, as they are

not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

This is the English common law understanding that rights not spoken of are inherently with the people, not the Government. Hamilton's concern was that by strictly defining certain rights, a case could be made that any area outside that definition would be inferred as residing with the Government - exactly was we see happening now...

So we have Hamilton acknowledging the foundation of the US legal system and Constitution literally and implicitly relying on British common law; not a surprise given he was a lawyer educated in the British legal system (as were many of the founders).

486 posted on 01/07/2010 7:55:12 AM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
Thats for the reply, you made my point. You repeatedly refer to “natural born subject”. We have no Natural Born Subjects in the United States. Our Laws do not follow the “King’s” Laws we are free citizens not subjects and our laws decide our issues, not English common law which followed monarchs. England still does not have a codified criminal law while the US does.

In Great Britain - as with most monarchies - citizens are referred to as subjects; the words and phrasing mean the same thing. A person who's under the jurisdiction of their Government, whether power is vested with a figurative monarchy (such as England), or a representative Government (such as the US).

I hope you take the time to understand the difference between a subject and a citizen

I understand it, and your attempt to use it as a justification of ignoring the basis of English common law for the US is weak, at best. Legal and historical scholars and works will tell you that the specific word is representative of the persons of the country; you are throwing out red herrings to justify your point.

Look a post or two above - I just quoted Alexander Hamilton assuring the people of New York that the Constitution was based on English common law - that very law that uses "subject"!

You can make all the argument you want and so can I, but the only decision that counts is that of the Supreme Court of the United States.

On that I fully agree! And that means - until proven otherwise - the presumption of innocence, or in this case, citizenship, must be correct (a very English common law thing). It needs to be proven otherwise in a Court of Law, that is the American legal and constitutional system.

Until the SC weighs otherwise, we should assume President Obama is a natural born citizen. It is fine to support a challenge, but the creation by some of the bizarre twisting of the foundation of our legal system being NOT on English common law defies history and logic.

487 posted on 01/07/2010 8:03:34 AM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

parsifal is a troll, if he thinks Orliy is a nut he could still support the issue but not here. He posts along with Rahm-sequinter.


488 posted on 01/07/2010 8:03:43 AM PST by stockpirate (Dec. 24, 2009, the day liberty in America died to applause in the US Senate. Republicans helped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
To be accurate, as I told you before, UPI didn't change anything,

Yes they did change it, once WND made them aware of their error. Furthermore, they didn't just scrub the error. At the very bottom of the story, they acknowledged the error and stated it was the writer's.

I was specifically speaking about the original source. The Queens hospital story, Obama's birthplace came from some where. The most likely source are the Obamas.

Not according to UPI:

"This item was corrected July 8, 2009, to fix the name of the hospital where Obama was born. The original item incorrectly identified the facility as Queen's Hospital, an error made by the writer."

Can you read? What part of "error made by the writer" can't you understand?

If it was an error by the writer, then Obama could not have been the source.

The bottom line here is that the public does not really know to where Obama was born.

Yes we do. Obama and every single member of his family has always maintained he was born at Kapiolani. The fact that exactly one reporter made an error and said it was Queens doesn't change that.

489 posted on 01/07/2010 9:03:25 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
Yeah buddy it was posted months ago that Kapiolani was a simple “clinic” in 1961 and certainly did not have the facilities for delivering babies. Go back and check yourself.

I did check it for myself, and I found it to be a complete fabrication.

Do birthers never get tired of making stuff up?

490 posted on 01/07/2010 9:11:44 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: bitt

Excellent post bitt, I saved it for email.


491 posted on 01/07/2010 9:20:09 AM PST by potlatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo

Good post Phil. Lots of ‘firsts’ with the First Clown.


492 posted on 01/07/2010 9:27:33 AM PST by potlatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
“Yeah buddy it was posted months ago that Kapiolani was a simple “clinic” in 1961 and certainly did not have the facilities for delivering babies. Go back and check yourself. I saw the article posted here some months ago but didn’t make a note of the newspaper. ANYBODY who will not willing prove who he is or where he came from is FRAUD until HE proves otherwise. CO”

Honestly, do the people pushing this even care about their own supposed “evidence.” The Nordyke twins you push? Their birth certificate identifies the place of birth as the Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. The World Net Daily of all places specifically states that the majority of childbirths on the island in 1961 were delivered at Kapi’olani and Queens. This mere “clinic” was founded for maternity care in 1890.

I'm simply flabbergasted at the ability to sneer so certainly and wildly without making the slightest effort to check any facts.

493 posted on 01/07/2010 9:49:19 AM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Thank you for that lucid and straight forward explanation. It really does distill it nicely. Not that I expect it will do any good. Nothing is more intractable than a human mind that wants to believe.
494 posted on 01/07/2010 9:54:14 AM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

“And apparently yours is to insult and provide unsubstantiated conjecture. Hallmarks of conservatism they are not!”

Absolutely correct. One of the hallmarks of conservatism is supposed to be respect for reality and a willingness to honestly face it whether one likes what it is currently indicating or not.

William F. Buckley solidified the modern conservative when he stood athwart history and shouted “stop.” He then made cogent, reasoned arguments based on facts and reality. He didn’t just make up wild, insane stuff and spew it.


495 posted on 01/07/2010 10:00:40 AM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“He leaves the question unanswered”

He leaves the question of children born to a foreign national — being NATURAL/NATIVE born — in a state of DOUBT.

Birthers are also in a state of DOUBT as to Obamas Natural Born Citizen status as he TOO was born with a foreign National for a father.

THEREFORE: ‘BIRTHERS’ PLEAD THAT OBAMA AND OR THE COURTS REMOVE THOSE DOUBTS.

VERY SIMPLE LOGIC.

HAVE A NICE DAY!

STE=Q


496 posted on 01/07/2010 10:10:28 AM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

Well, he seems nice and I don’t see him calling other freepers names, nor does he ping the nasty DU BO lovers to come to the BC threads. Rahm-sequinter as you call him, also posts on DU.


497 posted on 01/07/2010 10:59:02 AM PST by mojitojoe (“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” - Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Yes they did change it, once WND made them aware of their error. Furthermore, they didn't just scrub the error. At the very bottom of the story, they acknowledged the error and stated it was the writer's.

So you withheld that knowledge... misleading the readers by not crediting WND . You gave the impression that UPI on their own recognizance, out of the goodness of their hearts, made the correction on their own.

Can you read? What part of "error made by the writer" can't you understand?

If it was an error by the writer, then Obama could not have been the original source.

On the contrary again. Someone in the Obama family could have been the source.

And I read and comprehend better than most. You'll notice in my last post to you that I questioned UPI, if they did "a real" investigation on what happened?

An error by the writer? The correction is sufficiently ambiguous that we do not know what type of error? No details. Was the error because UPI believes was an error by their source(s), or was it that UPI just made the crap up? Without seeing the real Obama birth certificate, either one of the listing of Obama's birth hospitals could be an error.

Yes we do. Obama and every single member of his family has always maintained he was born at Kapiolani. The fact that exactly one reporter made an error and said it was Queens doesn't change that.

I don't trust the Obamas telling the truth. It appears that you do - you take their words as truth by swallowing them hook line and sinker.

498 posted on 01/07/2010 11:25:21 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

By the way, when the founders use the word “natural” they do so in a very special way.

As you know many of the founders were Masons who believe in a grand “architect” of the universe (God)— although they left it up to the individual to worship/conceive of this grand creator in their own way

They had studied natural law and believed — by extension — that the natural or “nature” proceeded from this source.

They, therefore, attempted to cooperate rather than be at odds with nature.

It is Natural that citizenship — including acculturation and all that implies — to be passed from the parents to the child.

Therefore, it would appear and be reasonable that the term Natural Born — as used by the founders — implied two citizen parents(PLURAL)and, of course: born in the country of/by citizen parents.

Also, although the words Native and Natural may be interchangeable today, they didn’t, necessarily, mean the same thing to the founders in THEIR day and time.

The meanings of words do change and a word that means one thing today, may acquire — even over a short time — the exact OPPOSITE meaning!

Translations of words from other languages can complicate the matter of understanding the intent of the author of same even more. (see post #466)

STE=Q


499 posted on 01/07/2010 11:34:59 AM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
Also, although the words Native and Natural may be interchangeable today, they didn’t, necessarily, mean the same thing to the founders in THEIR day and time.

A common fallacy by the After-Birthers is that native and natural born are interchangeable in meaning. The Supreme Court has consistently used the two terms as distinct in meaning. They do not know how to read a court legal opinion. I've gone over about 6 SCOTUS legal opinions about citizenship from circa 1870 to 1953 and they all show distinction between native v. natural with the Perkins v. Elg, 1939 case being the key.

They really confuse the long and dry and confusing dictum in the 1898 Wong ARK opinion as the facts and the holdings of the case. Nowhere in the dictum does the majority opinion refer to Ark as natural born, but it does say he is a native born in the first part of the body of the opinion where the facts are presented. In fact, Kim Ark is barely mentioned in the dictum.

500 posted on 01/07/2010 12:00:13 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 651-696 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