Posted on 04/07/2011 8:30:52 PM PDT by llandres
Fact - The natural born citizenship clause of the Constitution requires both parents to be American citizens at the time of a child’s birth in order for that child to be eligible for the Presidency. Mr. Obama has already admitted that at birth he had dual citizenship from his father, a British subject, and his mother, an American citizen. This is irrespective of birth place. A dual citizens’ allegiance is inherently divided. The Constitution requires singular allegiance to the United States at birth.
Fact - Mr. Obama admits he was adopted by an Indonesian national and became an Indonesian citizen in order to attend school there. No record exists as to whether Mr. Obama renounced this Indonesian citizenship or was naturalized as an American citizen when he returned to the United States. Even if he did renounce his Indonesian citizenship, Mr. Obama fails the singular allegiance test of the Constitution as a result of his dual allegiance at birth. As further disqualification then, Mr. Obama has multiple citizenships: British, Kenyan, Indonesian, with his American citizenship confirmed as soon as he releases his naturalization papers. The Constitution requires singular allegiance to the United States. A Citizen of the United States by naturalization is not a natural born citizen
(Excerpt) Read more at drkatesview.wordpress.com ...
1. He has spent over a million of someone’s money to fight disclosing his BC
2. You must have two American citizen parents to be “natural born” and thus qualified to be POTUS. The founding fathers didn’t want any divided loyalty in the White House - and zero is a really good example of what they were trying to avoid.
3. He did not show his long form BC. What he showed may have been forged and even if it wasn’t this particular form could be obtained for babies not born in the US - as is the case with Obama’s sister who has the same form but was born in Indonesia. Apparently many other non-US born babies were allowed the same form. However, there are some twins who were born in a Hawaiian hospital the same time Obama claims he was and their long form birth certificates have been posted on the internet many times.
As Trump says, this may be the biggest con job the US has ever seen.
Something with the whole thing stinks...for sure.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.res.00593:
HR 593 seems to deal the death blow to the entire “birther” phenomenon as it clearly states that it
“Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii”
It passed 378-0, with even Bachmann voting in the Affirmative.
So why on earth would Congress want to pass a “resolution” stating BO “was born in Hawaii” at all?
If BO had actual documentation of Hawaiian* birth (a legitimate birth long-form birth certificate) then why waste time on the House floor repeating it?
If he WASN’T born there, then they could pass all the “resolutions” they wanted and it wouldn’t make a whit of difference.
Something smells.
Stop confusing the issue with facts. We enjoy tilting at windmills.
“Natural born” and “Well regulated militia” are two terms that have and will bedevil us for centuries.
The same level of questioning arises in the legal aspects of medicine. When does life begin, and when does it end?
“The sooner people realize that O’Reilly and Beck are conservatives-lite...”
O’Reilly isn’t a conservative, and never has been. He’s an opportunist of the ugliest order. He lost me years ago when he didn’t bother to research the SBVFT’s claims. The most stupid thing he’s ever said is that he doesn’t use the internet.
Beck is a Libertarian...
Children are always, in a sense, “responsible” for their parents’ actions. Using your logic, why should I be responsible for my parents’s action if I am born in Namibia of 2 Namibia's nationals? It is not my fault. I didn't choose to be born in Namibia of 2 Namibia nationals. Therefore I demand my American citizenship! Wouldn't this line of argument be absurd? The same thing goes for adoption. As long as a child is a “minor,” he is a “hostage” of his parents’ choices. Including his adopted parents.
Parents, natural or adoptive, cannot take an action to deny a child a right.
For example, the “releases” a parent signs to supposedly hold an amusement park harmless if a child is injured may take away the parents right to sue, but not the child's.
There is a way to deal with this legally, (have the parent indemnify the park for all losses it suffers from a child's suit) but the parent (and in fact most people generally)cannot by act or action take away the rights of another.
PS, in the case you quote, since the Namibian child had no right to be born here, US citizenship rights are not taken away, but rather, never exist for the child.
“..vetting blocked and disallowed by the journalistic community..”
The Senate Judiciary Committee could have blocked Obama in January-April 2008. Almost single-handedly Claire McCaskill (D-MO) tried to circumvent the Constitution with S 2678 (children of military families natural born citizens act), which failed, and SR 511 which said McCain was eligible as were those born out of the USA and previously thought ineligible (to attempt to vet Obama.) It was a lie. Obama could not prove he was eligible, but the near unanimous vote for the non-binding resolution by both parties was in violation of Constitutional requirements.
Did the secret meeting of Congress on Mar. 12, 2008 result in SR 511 (April 30) and Dean’s illegal actions at the convention? Was McCaskill a participant in a conspiracy or of her own love for Obama, or both? With Obama eligible(?), Dean forced Hillary’s delegates to switch to Obama. Who planned that? Congress will not hold hearings or even discuss the issue because they are all guilty and lack the integrity to admit it and right their wrongs. Their betrayal let the country suffer needlessly.
We may not agree with it, but we dismiss it at our peril.
In addition, these contemporaneous writing are not part of the Constitution, ergo, the falsity of the statements that referred to them as constitutional facts.
In situations as these, whenever I must make an argument, I always expect the other side to have equally compelling arguments as I do.
Please remember (said kindly), As long as we plan on implementing our ideas through logic and argument, and not guns, it matters not what we think, but what we can convince others to think.
Have a good weekend.
“Fact - The natural born citizenship clause of the Constitution requires both parents to be American citizens at the time of a child’s birth in order for that child to be eligible for the Presidency”
is not true. The Constitution makes no such requirement. It is mute on a definition of “natural born.”
We can argue what Natural Born means, and use FP as guidance, and certainly believe as we choose, but that still does not insert that language or requirement into the Constitution.
Remember, there are also many examples of proposed elements that were rejected for the final Constitution, but are still discussed and supported in the FP.
“Fact - The natural born citizenship clause of the Constitution requires both parents to be American citizens at the time of a child’s birth in order for that child to be eligible for the Presidency”
is not true. The Constitution makes no such requirement. It is mute on a definition of “natural born.”
We can argue what Natural Born means, and use FP as guidance, and certainly believe as we choose, but that still does not insert that language or requirement into the Constitution.
Remember, there are also many examples of proposed elements that were rejected for the final Constitution, but are still discussed and supported in the FP.
The prime example of this was amendment proposed by Madison that would have Constitutionally granted what we now call "Conscientions Objector" status to to those opposed to military service on religious grounds.
Others advocated making the US Constitutionally a Christian nation. These were often written of, but never adopted.
The Constitution, like many great documents, was the result of great deliberation, debate and compromise.
Although Jefferson, Paine and Adams’ thoughts run through it and Gouverneur Morris, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, George Wythe all made significant contributions, in essence, it was and is Madson’s document.
But you ask if any writings “made it into the Constitution.” Please understand, I am not evading your question, but as a strict Constructionist (with certain time and technology driven additions, for example, I consider Freedom of the Press to include Freedom of the News, as TV and Radio were not yet invented), I hold that if they FFs wanted anything “in” the Constitution, they put it in there, with black ink on white paper for all to see!
Other than that, I would claim no wisdom or insights into the minds of the FFS, nor right to decide 230 years later what they were thinking. Leave that to the poor bastards at SCOTUS who have to wrestle with it every day!
Be well.
It's like that damn “Well Regulated” phrase in front of “Militia.” If they had left that out, or just simply said “The people have the right to keep and bear arms,” the other side would have no argument.
It's like passages from the Bible, Koran, Buddhist, Taoist or any other old religio-philosophcal text. You can read about anything you want into it.
To expand on the previous; our enemies argue that the other ratifiers of the Contstitution did not vote on what the FF wrote in the FP, but only on the document itself.
You can read about anything you want into it.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
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.