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

Skip to comments.

Kerchner v. Obama Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument
puzo1.blogspot.com ^ | 6/15/2010 | Mario Apuzzo, Esq

Posted on 06/15/2010 10:48:31 AM PDT by rxsid

"Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia has notified me today by letter dated June 15, 2010 that there will not be any oral argument on the Kerchner appeal to that Court. The case will be submitted on the briefs on Tuesday, June 29, 2010. Our presence is therefore not required.

The Court also informed me that the Third Circuit Panel that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman.

The court can call for oral argument when it has questions. As we know, the Federal District Court granted Obama’s/Congress’s motion to dismiss the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question. The Kerchner plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face for lack of standing and political question, both the trial and the appeals courts are supposed to accept the facts alleged in the complaint/petition as true and in a light most favorable to the non-movant. We have alleged and shown that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen" because he was born a subject of Great Britain through descent from his British subject/citizen father who was never a U.S. citizen, making Obama born with dual and conflicting allegiances if he was born in the U.S. or with sole allegiance to Great Britain if he was born in Kenya. We have also alleged and shown that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was even born in Hawaii. Obama and Congress have presented no evidence or argument to the Federal District Court or to the Court of Appeals contesting these arguments. The issues of standing and political question are well briefed. We have presented in our briefs how the Kerchner plaintiffs have standing and how the Obama eligibility issue does not present any objectionable political question for the Court. Hence, the Court might not have any questions and so it did not see any need for oral argument.

Of course, it is our hope that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the decision of the Federal District Court which dismissed the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question and returns the Kerchner case to the District Court for discovery and trial. If the Third Circuit Court affirms the District Court, we will then be filing a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will have the final word in any event.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq."

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/06/kerchner-et-al-v-obamacongress-et-al.html


TOPICS: Government; History; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: apuzzo; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; fraud; kerchner; marioapuzzo; naturalborncitizen; obama; soetoro; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-323 next last
To: rxsid
The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause.

Ahh, but you see there's the rub. The US Government (i.e. The Executive Branch via the State Department) "recognizes" dual citizenship, but I do not think that the law explicitly does. Dual citizenship exists through a combination of judicial fiat (that says the US government cannot strip dual citizens of US citizenship in most circumstances) and an executive branch usurpation of legislative authority to authorize the recognition of dual citizenship has made it a reality....it may not exist in the letter of the law but it certainly exists in practice now. The US State Department teamed up with SCOTUS to bring this misguided policy into being. Great job team. /s

51 posted on 06/15/2010 1:56:28 PM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“You appear to be someone who believes the Constitution is a living, breathing document that should be interpreted by whomever may be in power in a particular election cycle, in whichever way they deem necessary at the moment.”

I might as well say you’re obviously a martian who has green blood, which has as much justification.


52 posted on 06/15/2010 1:57:53 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Maybe Barack Obama, Sr. is NOT his father....


53 posted on 06/15/2010 1:58:50 PM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“There was only 1 definition available to the framers for citizens who were natural born. That of Vattel’s.”

That is a damn lie, and you know it. You know full well that no translation of Vattel used NBC until AFTER the Constitution was adopted, and you know there were other sources available for that phrasing.

You won’t win in court by relying on lying...


54 posted on 06/15/2010 1:58:57 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“So you see there, the U.S. DOES recognize dual nationality”

If by “recognize” you mean the U.S. government is aware dual citizenship exists, well, duh. What’s important is that it makes no legal difference, which is what I was getting at. The U.S. government does not legally recognize dual citizenship. Persons born with allegiance to another country is every bit a citizen as everyone else (aside from naturalized citizens, of course, who can’t be president).


55 posted on 06/15/2010 2:01:21 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jamese777; Red Steel
Huff Post Jamese777
56 posted on 06/15/2010 2:01:32 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

That is, “A person born with allegiance...”


57 posted on 06/15/2010 2:03:06 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1


58 posted on 06/15/2010 2:06:29 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, hunker down & go Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

“U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1”

What about it?


59 posted on 06/15/2010 2:09:01 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

think you left out a word:

The framers definition for a natural born citizen included people NOT born with allegiance to a foreign nation ...


60 posted on 06/15/2010 2:09:12 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
"“Furthermore, the 14th Amendment deals with ‘citizenship’ and not ‘natural born citizen’ and you know that’”

I think you know natural born citizen means nothing but citizen from birth. But you don’t like Obama, so you’ll say anything.

----------------------------------------

I think you like Obama, and therefore are more than happy to see the office of the Presidency usurped. For someone like you, it's ALL about party politics...the Constitution be damned!

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

The framers knew exactly who a natural born citizen was. One born in country, to citizen parentS. The same definition mentioned in 5 SCOTUS cases, early law books and read into the Congressional record by none other than the framer of the 14th Amendment.

61 posted on 06/15/2010 2:10:43 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Photobucket
62 posted on 06/15/2010 2:11:56 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“I think you like Obama, and therefore are more than happy to see the office of the Presidency usurped.”

Of course you would. People who disagree with you must not have good reason, but rather are motivated by adverse politically ideology. Perchance are you a deconstructivist literary professor?


63 posted on 06/15/2010 2:15:26 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: mo
"Maybe Barack Obama, Sr. is NOT his father...."

A most probable possibility, as a marriage between Sr. and SADO would be considered bigamous or polygamous (depending on what SADO knew or didn't).

What then, for starters, of the world famous short form COLB that list's his father as Sr.? That (alleged) copy of a government document was proudly posted on his own campaign web site.

64 posted on 06/15/2010 2:15:47 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Enough with you Birthers and your ugly cut-and-paste posts. How about you drop the talking points and address things other people are discussing for once.

In every exchange it’s Vattel this, Vattel that. He’s not the key to the universe. Use your words.


65 posted on 06/15/2010 2:17:24 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Forgive me, but I disagree completely.

This is clearly a constitutional matter which directly affects the very legality of this country. I believe they will hear it. Either this case or one of the others.

You cannot make the logical assumption that because they did not hear the previous cases, that they will not hear this one, or any other future case. That logic fails.

The Vietnam War is a completely different case, with different underlying constitutional issues. The case itself and how it may or may not be written has a great deal to do with whether or not it gets a hearing.

You also neglect to note that many of the cases the SCOTUS refused to hear were cases that were brought directly to it. The court rarely ever hears those cases. It has to come to it from the court system. You should know better than this. That was a subtle and misleading statement you made.

Sorry, but I am going to utterly disagree with you. May as well move onto the next poster.


66 posted on 06/15/2010 2:17:49 PM PDT by Danae (If Liberals were only moderately insane, they would be tollerable. Alas, such is not the case.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
"“There was only 1 definition available to the framers for citizens who were natural born. That of Vattel’s.”

That is a damn lie, and you know it. You know full well that no translation of Vattel used NBC until AFTER the Constitution was adopted, and you know there were other sources available for that phrasing.

You won’t win in court by relying on lying...

----------------------------------------

Your a damn lier and a damn fool. You know full well many (if not most) of the framers read French, you damned lier you.

67 posted on 06/15/2010 2:17:57 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

He isn’t the key to the universe, he is the key to the CONSTITUTION.

Get over it and yourself. You are simply wrong.


68 posted on 06/15/2010 2:18:59 PM PDT by Danae (If Liberals were only moderately insane, they would be tollerable. Alas, such is not the case.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
"“So you see there, the U.S. DOES recognize dual nationality”

If by “recognize” you mean the U.S. government is aware dual citizenship exists, well, duh. What’s important is that it makes no legal difference, which is what I was getting at. The U.S. government does not legally recognize dual citizenship. Persons born with allegiance to another country is every bit a citizen as everyone else (aside from naturalized citizens, of course, who can’t be president).

----------------------------

What, now your simply making stuff up? Where's your proof that "The U.S. government does not legally recognize dual citizenship."

I've just shown you proof that the state department (which, as you know, is part of the government) DOES recognize it.

69 posted on 06/15/2010 2:19:52 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
"think you left out a word:

The framers definition for a natural born citizen included people NOT born with allegiance to a foreign nation ...

-----------------------------------------

I intentionally left it off, see the /s (sarc) tag. I posted that way, because that's how tublecane and the other's like him believe.

70 posted on 06/15/2010 2:21:58 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

And of course you would too.


71 posted on 06/15/2010 2:23:14 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

” And of course you would too.”

WOuld what? Assume you dislike Obama? The difference is in your case it’s a guess, whereas I know where you’re coming from.


72 posted on 06/15/2010 2:24:20 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

“You know full well that no translation of Vattel used NBC until AFTER the Constitution was adopted, and you know there were other sources available for that phrasing.”

That is complete BULLS***. The Law of Nations was written long before the constitution, and the many french speaking members of the constitutional congress, including Ben Franklin, USED Vattel’s work and referred to it in letters etc. Even George Washington had a copy, as was VERY well publicized just a couple of months ago, he forgot to return the copy he HAD to the Library he BORROWED it from.

The only one trying to obfuscate history appears to be YOU.


73 posted on 06/15/2010 2:24:21 PM PDT by Danae (If Liberals were only moderately insane, they would be tollerable. Alas, such is not the case.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Who said Vattel was "the key to the universe"? What in the world are you talking about? Did you even bother to spend a moment reading my post #1? Answer, no. Otherwise you would have seen this before I stared talking about Vattel:

What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic.

74 posted on 06/15/2010 2:25:56 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Danae
You also neglect to note that many of the cases the SCOTUS refused to hear were cases that were brought directly to it. The court rarely ever hears those cases. It has to come to it from the court system. You should know better than this. That was a subtle and misleading statement you made.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in every Obama case brought to it, including at least seven cases which came up from lower courts.

Sorry, but I am going to utterly disagree with you. May as well move onto the next poster.

Disagree all you want, but time will prove me right. SCOTUS will never hear an Obama eligibility case (unless some lower court finds Obama ineligible, in which case they will hear the case and reverse). I speak not as a defender of Obama (I think he is a terrible President), but as a lawyer who knows something of the way the court system works. If there was ever a nonjusticiable "political question," this is one.

75 posted on 06/15/2010 2:28:03 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: NOVACPA
"Dual citizenship at birth is an automatic disqualifier."

Nope.

It isn't.

76 posted on 06/15/2010 2:29:08 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
"” And of course you would too.” WOuld what? Assume you dislike Obama? The difference is in your case it’s a guess, whereas I know where you’re coming from."

What you started back in post #50:

"But you don’t like Obama, so you’ll say anything." I then stated that you like Obama, so you don't care that a usurper is in the W.H. (paraphrasing). That's what. The irony here, is that it's you who is guessing. I've given numerous sources in many of my posts. You've done nothing but offer up your opinion that's unsubstantiated.

77 posted on 06/15/2010 2:29:28 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Vattel’s work was translated multiple times before the Constitution was written, but not with the phrase “natural born citizen”. The French does no support that translation. “Natives” and “indigenous” would be the transliterated words used by Vattel, so the french speaking members would NOT have thought about ‘natural born citizen’. Had they wanted to follow Vattel, they would have inserted the words ‘native’ or ‘indigenous’. They did not.

English common law had established use of ‘natural born subject’, and it was natural for the Framers to use ‘citizen’ instead of ‘subject’, since a republic has no king. Multiple Supreme Courts rulings have used British common law to determine the original intent of the Founder’s phrase.

It is dishonest to pretend the Founders were using Vattel in writing NBC when you know full well that Vattel did not use the phrase in French, and no translator used it until AFTER the Constitution was written. Vattel was changed to match the Constitution’s phrase, not the Constitution using Vattel.


78 posted on 06/15/2010 2:35:26 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Ping to #78, since you are spreading lies.


79 posted on 06/15/2010 2:37:13 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“’But you don’t like Obama, so you’ll say anything.’ I then stated that you like Obama, so you don’t care that a usurper is in the W.H. (paraphrasing). That’s what.”

I have actual evidence to believe you don’t like Obama. You possess nothing of the kind for my alleged love of Obama. False equivocation.

“The irony here, is that it’s you who is guessing. I’ve given numerous sources in many of my posts. You’ve done nothing but offer up your opinion that’s unsubstantiated.”

That’s beside the point. If I’m untethered on the larger issue it doesn’t change anything about this sub-issue.

By the way, people’s long, colorful posts with quotations from Vattel and scans of various old books aren’t necessarily substantial. Most of the time, they are proffered with little or no prompting. And they’re always the same, on every thread, regardless of the particular conversation. Easy way to avoid real argument.


80 posted on 06/15/2010 2:38:15 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

“If there was ever a nonjusticiable “political question,” this is one”

That is your opinion.

This is not a political question. It is a constitutional one. This is why SCOTUS has decided at least 5 cases where citizenship was at issue. It is not a political question. Its a legal one. That is your mistake and the reason perhaps why you are a lawyer and not a judge.

Not hearing a case is not the same as reversing a case, or affirming the decision of a lower court. People confuse these all the time, and apparently so are you.


81 posted on 06/15/2010 2:38:53 PM PDT by Danae (If Liberals were only moderately insane, they would be tollerable. Alas, such is not the case.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“What in the world are you talking about?”

I’m talking about the Vattel worship on these threads, despite the fact that his relation to the Constitution is speculative at best and anyway irrelevant after the 14th amendment.


82 posted on 06/15/2010 2:40:28 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Who is and who is not a Natural Born Citizen for Presidential eligibility purposes needs to be decided, it will come up again like McCain Jindahl etc..We the people have a right to know who is and who is not eligible to be President before we go through this crap again.


83 posted on 06/15/2010 2:43:18 PM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Danae
Not hearing a case is not the same as reversing a case, or affirming the decision of a lower court. People confuse these all the time, and apparently so are you.

I never said they were the same thing. I predicted that the dismissal of the Kerchner complaint would be affirmed by the Third Circuit and that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear the case.

Please ping me if either prediction proves untrue.

84 posted on 06/15/2010 2:43:37 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“I’ve just shown you proof that the state department (which, as you know, is part of the government) DOES recognize it.”

Yes, you found the word “regognize” somewhere in the vicinity of “state department” and “dual citizenship.” Whoopdeedoo. As I stated above, I meant the U.S. government does not legally recognize dual citizenship. That dual citizens are every bit the citizen as everyone else. Which is absolutely true, and need not be demonstrated by me since everyone knows it.

By the way, if you apply a little reason and read between the lines of what you quoted, you’d see they assume dual citizens are not legally different from other citizens, too. There are a couple of stipulations. But one is purely a matter of state department policy (not the law), andf therefore a practical matter. The other has to do with foreign laws that might interfere with U.S. laws, which is obviously another matter altogether from dual citizenship qua dual citizenship.


85 posted on 06/15/2010 2:47:31 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

This is the oath that a naturalized citizen MUST make to become an American citizen.

It is an attempt, through the instrument of an an oath of allegiance, to make the naturalized citizen partake of the attributes of a natural born citizen, namely: NO DUAL ALLEGIANCE!

The Oath of Allegiance is as follows:

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/oath-of-allegiance.html

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

This is the STANDARD we set for a NATURALIZED citizen.

Surely the STANDARD MUST be as high for a NATURAL BORN citizen.

Therefore, it would be illogical to suppose that one with allegiance — FROM BIRTH — to a foreign country could be a natural born citizen.

In conclusion a NATURAL BORN citizen MUST be one BORN free of foreign entanglements.

STE=Q


86 posted on 06/15/2010 2:48:32 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae
...It has to get to SCOTUS for the truth to be decided....

'while I'm young'? also, can't SCOTUS 'punt', by not accepting case?

87 posted on 06/15/2010 2:50:23 PM PDT by 1234 ("1984")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1


Nowhere in the Constitution, in any US statutue or in any decision of the Supreme Court is the term “natural born citizen” further defined as referenced in Article 2 Section 1.

In my humble opinion here is the key outstanding constitutional question that has yet to be addressed by the Supreme Court or by legislation: Is there any difference between an Article II Section I “natural born citizen” and a 14th Amendment “citizen-at-birth”?


88 posted on 06/15/2010 2:50:28 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

I love my groupies!


89 posted on 06/15/2010 2:51:15 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

ALSO:

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.

http://app.libraryofliberty.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php&pager=true&search=%22president%22&s=20&limit=20&exact=&filter_choice=this_title&historical_period_person=&school_person=&nationality=&historical_period_title=&discipline_title=&topic=&this_title=693&this_set=&this_person=&this_subject=

STE=Q


90 posted on 06/15/2010 2:54:10 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1; james777

He posted an anti-birther comment at Huffington Post...so?


91 posted on 06/15/2010 3:04:38 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

NOTE ON POST #90:

At link adjust for “results 50” and go to result #50

for St. George Tucker citation.

STE=Q


92 posted on 06/15/2010 3:07:07 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
“Remember how Judge Carter suddenly lost his nerve?”

That is another urban myth on these threads. All Judge Carter did was demonstrate professionalism by being polite to a lunatic attorney who showed up in his court room. Orly’s own incompetence is what led her to misinterpret his words to be some kind of binding promise, which any attorney worth anything knows judges don’t offer, for obvious reasons.

93 posted on 06/15/2010 3:10:53 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; Red Steel; BP2

Your thread has the freeper Obots in a frenzy...wonder why.


94 posted on 06/15/2010 3:17:32 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
This is the oath that a naturalized citizen MUST make to become an American citizen.

It is an attempt, through the instrument of an an oath of allegiance, to make the naturalized citizen partake of the attributes of a natural born citizen, namely: NO DUAL ALLEGIANCE!

The Oath of Allegiance is as follows:

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/oath-of-allegiance.html

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

“This is the STANDARD we set for a NATURALIZED citizen.

Surely the STANDARD MUST be as high for a NATURAL BORN citizen.

Therefore, it would be illogical to suppose that one with allegiance — FROM BIRTH — to a foreign country could be a natural born citizen.

In conclusion a NATURAL BORN citizen MUST be one BORN free of foreign entanglements.”

Actually, by your argument, someone with a foreign citizen parent would have to be naturalized, which we know is not true.

The U.S. doesn't hinge citizenship on foreign laws. Just because one has a theoretical right to assert citizenship in another country does not mean one’s U.S. citizenship is in any way affected.

95 posted on 06/15/2010 3:20:51 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man; jamese777; Red Steel
Jameesseee77 paid
96 posted on 06/15/2010 3:25:12 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: 1234

In a sense they can. It depends on the case. But ultimately if the court won’t hear the case, the lower court’s ruling stands.


97 posted on 06/15/2010 4:03:27 PM PDT by Danae (If Liberals were only moderately insane, they would be tollerable. Alas, such is not the case.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

So, where did you get your crystal ball? The FOUNDERS spoke French, and READ french. They knew exactly what they were doing and WHY. The phrase didn’t getin there by accident. It was deliberate. Your whole argument rests on an ASSUMPTION that the phrase was included for what amounts to accidental reasons. BS. The framers were utterly specific for a reason, regardless of how much you don’t want to believe it.


98 posted on 06/15/2010 4:05:32 PM PDT by Danae (If Liberals were only moderately insane, they would be tollerable. Alas, such is not the case.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

I don’t think I will need to ping you. It will be all over Freep when/if that happens.


99 posted on 06/15/2010 4:06:26 PM PDT by Danae (If Liberals were only moderately insane, they would be tollerable. Alas, such is not the case.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Ok smartie, translate this:

Haole.

Hint: its native Hawaiian.


100 posted on 06/15/2010 4:07:14 PM PDT by Danae (If Liberals were only moderately insane, they would be tollerable. Alas, such is not the case.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-323 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