Posted on 05/30/2011 7:40:28 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
The United States is in a Constitutional and political crisis without precedent.
What can ordinary Americans do when a large number of politicians are corrupt and an even larger portion of the national political leadership is complicit in a cover-up of that corruption?
Do we petition those leaders to investigate and punish themselves?
(snip)
The evident bewilderment displayed by Will is prima facie evidence of the depth of denial now prevalent in Washington, D.C.
It is an equivalent to writing an article after the Pearl Harbor attack entitled “The Japanese might not like us.”
(snip)
Having been born in Panama and not eligible to run for the Presidency, McCain obviously doesn’t recognize the Constitution either.
For me, the uncertainty about McCain’s ineligibility was resolved by the bogus, non-binding Senate Resolution 511, co-sponsored by Obama, which declared McCain a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
The fact that Congress has no authority to do such a thing was apparently completely irrelevant to that majestic body. Maybe I’m a cynic, but it sounds to me like just another crooked, backroom deal.
If McCain and Obama both didn’t need the “cover”, why go through that elaborate Senate charade?
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
“The tea party and Palin threaten the corrupt system.”
That’s it in a nutshell. I thought after ‘10 the DC Old Guard would at least pretend they got the message, but they haven’t. Now it all hinges on ‘12. Somebody like Palin, who beat corrupt Alaskan GOPers like red-headed stepchildren, scares them witless. We just have to hope and pray we get a gung-ho conservative running in ‘12—and one way or another, we HAVE to win.
Then YOU show us a copy of his “non” fake certificate of birth since you know so much about it.
The Congressional Research Service finds Soetoro inelligible.
May 30th, 2011:
Discussion ensues:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2727177/posts
Senator McCain hasn't made his birth certificate available to the public.
Wait, didn't they say the complete opposite?
He does, of course. He was just making a point that he would do more than just stand behind a pulpit and talk about it.
How many pastors do you think today would actually pick up a rifle like the original members of the Black Robe Regiment?
Of course, but it was all unsupported, made up of whole cloth.Resulting conclusion was the opposite intended. They found him inelligible and covered.
Because he's a deliberately ignorant after-birther. Pay no attention to him.
Wow. Just wow.
Many folks born in the Panama Canal Zone know that they are U.S. citizens because their parents are U.S. citizens. They are not, however, eligible for the Presidency BECAUSE the Canal Zone was never U.S. sovereign territory. Born in the Canal Zone meant born in Panama.
We leased and managed the Canal Zone while Panama never released sovereignty over their own land. We no longer have the lease.
Natural born citizen IS NOT a statutory type of citizenship. It is only an eligibility requirement per Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
There are three types of citizenship recognized by the U.S. government.
1) Native born - born within the United States.
2) Derived citizenship - born overseas to U.S. citizens.
3) Naturalized - foreign born citizen naturalized as U.S. citizen.
See the following:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
Why are you so anxious to follow Swiss law instead of American or English? And if you would actually READ cases from the late 1700s & 1800s, you will find subject and citizen still being freely mixed, although the laws of the colonies turned states replaced subject with citizen, while otherwise remaining unchanged.
So did natural born citizen come from the laws of the new states, that replaced that phrase with natural born citizen? Or did it come from a translation of Vattel made 10 years after the Constitution was written?
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut (1795)
“that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805)
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)
Colon was not in the Panama Canal Zone.
In most cases, someone born to U.S. citizens overseas would be citizens at birth, a natural born citizen.
Derived citizenship is citizenship passed on to the child from parents who become naturalized citizens.
What would be the difference if he was born in the Colon Hospital?
Perhaps none in the first wave. Moral courage is nearly nonexistant in the church's ministry. I pray for your pastor that he is a man of courage. We need moral leadership now more than ever before. The church must be its source, founded upon the guidance of the Lord.
Nope. Wrong again, Kleon.
I keep telling you to read the Citizenship section of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services online site.
Natural born citizenship IS NOT a type of citizenship. It is only an eligibility requirement for the Presidency.
You keep making stuff up for you hero, Obama. Shame on you!
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Another take on the topic... Consider the likely consequences should the powers that be (or were) rule Obama ineligible on what would be commonly thought to be a technicality just to deny a black man the duly elected presidency.
If Schwarzenegger can forge a birth certificate why cant the Obama campaign...
Native and natural born are interchangeable, so it fits into your list of types of citizenship. As for derived citizenship, it's just a form of naturalization, or citizenship derived after birth. This is what your link says, so I don't see where your confusion comes from.
Yes that is another meme. Yet the constitution makes no reference to race on the eligibility issue.
Obamas policies are treasonous in many respects to American culture and to our allies with whom we have treaties. That is the true measure of the man, not his skin color or his minority and ethnic support by virtue of race at all costs. Those who give such support need to be taught a lesson
in the civics of freedom. The duty to support freedom and the constitution supercedes all other factors, including one’s race.Therefore I would have no problem supporting the removal of Obama/Soetoro.None what so ever. Damn the rascists who support Obama at any cost and full speed ahead.
That so-called fake was created, I guess, by Obots to make sure that McCain was disqualified as a candidate for the presidency of errrr...Panama, I presume. McCain voluntarily claimed a birth in Colon and you question the proof of such, the certificate, as not being legit. What logic am I missing? So I guess McCain really was born in the USA, in Ohio? You are right and by that logic, McCain cannot become the President of Panama. LOL.
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.