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

Skip to comments.

On "Birthers," Heed "Radio Patriot," Not Glenn Beck
WEB Commentary ^ | January 6, 2009 | Michael J. Gaynor

Posted on 01/06/2010 9:27:28 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-86 last
To: norge

Based on the following, if your father owed allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, then no you would not be a “natural born citizen” for the purpose of determining your eligibility to run for Vice President or President of the United States.

“Bingham states: 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 not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866”


51 posted on 01/06/2010 10:58:10 PM PST by WVPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: norge

Ok...I’ll make an exception in your case ;)


52 posted on 01/06/2010 11:04:27 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (Well, we didn't get dressed up for nothin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Watch Beck’s ratings drop sharply over the next few weeks.

Will re-post at end of the month.

53 posted on 01/06/2010 11:05:13 PM PST by jla ("Free Republic is Palin Country" - JimRob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
I’ve seen the Governor of the State of Hawaii personally certify that Obama was born there.

No you have not as Lingle has never said that publicly. You are confused with DoH director Fukino who said she saw the vital records that say Obama was born in Hawaii.

However, Hawaii has accepted statements from witnesses who say they were present when a baby was born in the state of Hawaii which doctors were not present or were not in the hospital delivery system. A system that could be easily fooled if the witness is not honest.

54 posted on 01/06/2010 11:08:36 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
If a Russian child is born in Hawaii, is that child eligible to become president? ... Just being born in Hawaii doesn’t make one eligible according to the founders use of the term ‘natural born citizen’.

Yes, under the meaning of "natural born citizen" that child born in the U.S. would indeed be eligible to become President. These different brands of citizenship didn't exist when they made these proclaimations. Curiously enough... there wasn't yet much at that point about "citizenship" documentation. Nobody then had passports.

55 posted on 01/06/2010 11:08:52 PM PST by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Are you just going to make a direct statement like that without documenting sources to support your statement?


56 posted on 01/06/2010 11:12:31 PM PST by WVPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: WVPatriot

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m going to do. Am I wrong in some way?


57 posted on 01/06/2010 11:16:35 PM PST by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, stated: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

This decision was delivered after the 14th amendment was already in place.


58 posted on 01/06/2010 11:21:16 PM PST by WVPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Justice Grey, 23 years later in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) repeated what Justice Waite said in Minor about the need to resort to common law when defining “natural born Citizen:” “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.” U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).


59 posted on 01/06/2010 11:23:57 PM PST by WVPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Lets say that Adolf Hitler was ineligible to become head of Germany because he never became a legal German citizen. In 1932 while he was running for office it would be the “Issue” if it came out. His political career would be over then and there.

By 1935 on the other hand there was plenty of other abuses to remove Hitler for such as imprisoning political opponents. By that point politically the citizenship issue would be a moot point. We are rapidly reaching the same point with Obama. He has been in a year, anything past two years and the majority of the public will say so what if he was ineligible. The courts, individual states, etc has punted the BC issue down the field. You can blame Glenn Beck or others but really the ones who should take up the issue refuse to do so (Supreme Court, State Governors, etc).

Now if in 1945 there was people who wanted Hitler arrested because of the citizenship issue of 1933 and tried because of it instead of starting WWII and killing the Jews I would deem them crazy.


60 posted on 01/06/2010 11:31:21 PM PST by Swiss (Reality don't seem real anymore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Meet Philip Berg.........”Where’s the birth certificate?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyspCRmJv7w


61 posted on 01/06/2010 11:35:05 PM PST by whatisthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

The phrase “natural born citizen” has been defined as a child born in the country to two citizen parents in numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions:

)The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814),
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830),
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856),
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875),
Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890)
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more)

and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.


62 posted on 01/06/2010 11:35:47 PM PST by WVPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: WVPatriot
For your collection:

http://www.barackobama.com/fightthesmears/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the
United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship
status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan
citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

63 posted on 01/07/2010 12:02:29 AM PST by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: WVPatriot
Charles Pinckney
Signer of the United States Constitution, Governor of South
Carolina. Senator and a member of the House of
Representatives.

“Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born
citizen of the United States means those persons born whose
father the United States already has an established
jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are
themselves citizens of the United States.”

64 posted on 01/07/2010 12:28:19 AM PST by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
Just keep reading at least to post #62. I don't have time or the inclination to argue endless crap anymore. Google is your friend and you could easily read all the stuff I have that say what I say is true and you would just retort, "I know you are, but what am I?"

I'm not wrong and the case has been decided in court. If an illegal drops a baby in Brownsville, they wave the Mexican flag, and Jr. never even learns English, the son could run for congressman, but couldn't be President. POTUS and Vice POTUS cannot have parents that are not citizens. Google it. This is why we need lawyers. Sometimes we think we know stuff we don't and the courts need to sort it out. They have sorted this out already. Obama is ineligible for POTUS. Why doesn't he just show the damn BC? Because Daddy is Kenyan. He taught Constitutional Law, ....he knows,....that's why he shows the Cert of Live Birth. His sister has one of those also. She admits she was born in Indonesia. All these arguments have already been made. Allen Keyes has posted his case on the web and he covers most of the bases. He isn't able to be POTUS.

65 posted on 01/07/2010 12:47:34 AM PST by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Like in the case of obama, lotsa folks now have beck’s number!
;)

Semper Truth
Dick G
*****


66 posted on 01/07/2010 4:28:23 AM PST by gunnyg (Just An Old Gunny ~ And *Still* Not A F'n Commie Basterd!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeperFlirt

Excellent post! Thanks for such a clearly stated explanation! It is mystifying why he has been allowed to get away with it. I can hardly believe what is going on in America today. The only thing that brings me any comfort is believing that God is in control! BHO will eventually get what he deserves - in this world or the next!


67 posted on 01/07/2010 5:07:07 AM PST by srmorton (Chose Life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Swiss

People aren’t fighting Obama on his policies too? I didn’t know that. /s


68 posted on 01/07/2010 5:30:31 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: srmorton

thank you I hope BHO finds Gods grace as we all need it ><>


69 posted on 01/07/2010 6:09:46 AM PST by FreeperFlirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
I agree, the cover up is mind boggling.Once the cat is out of the bag all bills sign by BHO will be undo so a silver lining is hopeful~~~
70 posted on 01/07/2010 6:15:14 AM PST by FreeperFlirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dschapin

What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.

What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean

Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?

Unlikely in the strict sense because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were generally referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was part of the “ordinary course of affairs” of the States that only local laws could affect. Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State. Framer James Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union.” These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the United States.

Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual allegiance and citizenship. After independence each State was free to establish their own maxims on the subject. James Madison’s own State of Virginia adopted a birthright law authored by Thomas Jefferson in 1779 that recognized parentage (citizenship of father) in determining citizenship of the child:

[A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
Some States made citizenship conditional on either parent in terms of their citizenship, such as Kentucky: “[E]very child, wherever born, whose father or mother was or shall be a citizen of Kentucky at the birth of such child, shall be deemed citizens of that State.” One common law found in a number of States that defined those born as citizens read, “All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc.”

The State of Connecticut adopted a law that read, “All persons born in this State … except aliens, paupers, and fugitives from justice or service, are and shall be deemed to be citizens of this State, owing it allegiance and entitled to receive its protection, until they shall have voluntarily withdrawn from its limits and become incorporated into some other State or sovereignty as members thereof.” States that were slow in enacting laws over acquiring citizenship through birth forced courts to adjudicate citizenship disputes under common law rules.

Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?

It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.” The British doctrine allowed for double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen.

Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.” House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

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. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.

Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.

Fourteenth Amendment

Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States - a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.

The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said 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, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power 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.”

United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.”

Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes a great deal of sense for the time because there was a great deal of controversy over conflicts arising from double allegiances.

Just as a person cannot be naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while owing allegiance to another nation - neither can anyone born. Why would “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be any different with persons born since this jurisdiction equally applies to persons born or naturalized? If allegiance simply meant location on American soil, then what was the purpose of having aliens renounce their allegiance to other countries and pledge their allegiance to this one for purposes of becoming naturalized? Perhaps because locality itself was never enough to confer allegiance and citizenship?

It is worth noting that wives and children were never naturalized separately but became naturalized through the father/husband. Because “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires not owing allegiance to any other nation, and because the nation does not recognize double allegiances that can be created at common law, narrows the possibilities to what “natural-born citizen” can mean.

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained years earlier that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It should be noted this allegiance due under England’s common law and American law are of two different species. Under the common law one owed a personal allegiance to the King as an individual upon birth. Under the American system there was no individual ruler to owe a personal allegiance to.

The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box. Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,” and goes on to say:

Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues, and thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father might be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law (if there was one) but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father~~~~~~~~~


71 posted on 01/07/2010 6:18:58 AM PST by FreeperFlirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

Today, it is what it was: “...born in the country of citizen parents”. BINGO~~~~


72 posted on 01/07/2010 6:21:44 AM PST by FreeperFlirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Ya think?


73 posted on 01/07/2010 6:31:24 AM PST by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: norge

NO


74 posted on 01/07/2010 6:38:47 AM PST by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: norge
You're kidding, right?

Ok, not "Sharply", but I think this will slowly erode them. It doesn't pay to alienate a significant portion of your audience.

75 posted on 01/07/2010 6:52:42 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I have not been able to determine if it is included in the duties and responsibilities of DoH director Fukino to determine/adjudicate citizenship status. This is an opinion of the person or a finding of the office?


76 posted on 01/07/2010 8:03:29 AM PST by PeteCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Who has been one of the most effective persons alerting the public about Obama’s policies? Glenn Beck, he has gotten more personnel changes and reversals from the Obama administration than any “Birther” I know.

So who are you guys going after? Glenn Beck

Unless something major comes out that even the liberal media can’t ignore about Obama’s Birth Certificate then its over. The truth will be reported on page 67 of the New York Times about twenty years after Obama leaves office.


77 posted on 01/07/2010 8:37:05 AM PST by Swiss (Reality don't seem real anymore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: chuckles

**He isn’t able to be POTUS**

Yet he is.

Has any of the researchers here can tell me have we ever removed a publicly elected office holder years after he took office because he invalidly took office?


78 posted on 01/07/2010 8:48:45 AM PST by Swiss (Reality don't seem real anymore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Swiss
Where did I go after Beck? I've never seen him. And don't care about him.

I was responding to what you posted.

79 posted on 01/07/2010 9:21:53 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: norge; Ramius
See post #27 above ... in my opinion, you are not a natural born citizen based upon what you posted. In post #27, you will see how the principle framer of the 14th Amendment defined 'natural born citizen'. The dissonance the obamanoids and their confused audience is nothing more than ignoring the actual historical data available in favor of believing what they want to be the truth but what has yet to be settled for pres and v. pres by a SCOTUS ruling.

The obamanoids have conflated so much at this point, it is nearly impossible to change the confused perspective of some. We may see that the SCOTUS--if they ever rule on the term--will, as activist judges, also ignore the historical data such as listed in post #27 above, and make up a new definition along the lines of the deceit the obamanoids are pushing. We shall perhaps see, but don't hold your breath for that one, since the criminal enterprise party is now firmly ensconced as heads of the federal oligarchy ... even judge Roberts bows to their power.

80 posted on 01/07/2010 9:24:17 AM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Swiss
No he's not. We've only had 44 so how many should we have removed? America has only gone insane in the last 40 years anyway. The earlier generations at least still had some common sense.

You have to admit, electing Barrack Husein Obama, a guy that speaks perfect Farsi, A guy whose only verifiable paperwork says his name is really Barry Soretoro and that he is a Muslim, a guy that spoke to Muslims before he gave a formal speech to the US, a guy that apologizes for the country he represents every chance he gets, and is trying to release terrorists and bring them to New York for trial at a cost of $200 million, a guy that has Mao admirers and card carrying commies in the White House, A guy that has blown spending up 4 times the previous 200 years, well, you get the picture.

I wonder if the Bush haters would rather have a DOW 14000 and 4.5% unemployment or what we have now. Oh yeah, we've gone crazy so they defend Obama. As he dismantles the US to make it more like his dad's country, I wonder what you will think about his loyalties then?

81 posted on 01/07/2010 10:51:46 AM PST by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

You may be right, but you know, I have never once questioned my status. And to be honest, even with an ethnic name like mine (with j’s and k’s and only one vøwel...my son’s nickname is “buy a vowel”), should I have run for President (what a joke!), nobody would have raised the issue.


82 posted on 01/07/2010 7:34:25 PM PST by norge (The amiable dunce is back, wearing a skirt and high heels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

You may be right, but you know, I have never once questioned my status. And to be honest, even with an ethnic name like mine (with j’s and k’s and only one vøwel...my son’s nickname is “buy a vowel”), should I have run for President (what a joke!), nobody would have raised the issue.


83 posted on 01/07/2010 7:35:10 PM PST by norge (The amiable dunce is back, wearing a skirt and high heels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: imahawk
Happenstances are no coincidences, and to many coincidences are no accident.
84 posted on 01/08/2010 1:51:03 AM PST by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WVPatriot

4th. None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence, for this obvious reason: no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of British subjects, but not of American citizens. —David Ramsay, Founder, 1789.


85 posted on 01/08/2010 1:21:38 PM PST by WVPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: WVPatriot

Citizenship conferred by special grant was awarded to the Marquis de Lafayette by the General Assembly of Maryland at the session held on November 1, 1784 to January 22, 1785 at Annapolis, Maryland. It provided that “the Marquis de Lafayette and his heirs male for ever, shall be, and they and each of them are hereby deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, natural born citizens of this state, and shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural born citizens thereof.”


86 posted on 01/08/2010 1:35:49 PM PST by WVPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-86 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