Flow Chart Explaining the 14th Amendment and Natural Born Citizen
[Thanks, Seizethecarp.]
Posted on 03/15/2010 5:39:17 PM PDT by BorderRaven
Flow Chart Explaining the 14th Amendment and Natural Born Citizen http://www.scribd.com/doc/28422369/USCitizen-14th-NBC
Where?
Wasnt obama’s father from Kenya? So he’s not a natural born citizen. This means hugo chavez’s son could be president
Officially he was a citizen of the British Empire.
Who would have imagined that an Englishman would rule America?
British Nationaliry Act 1948. “Bambi” was BRITISH ar birth!
We need to remember that the Constitution is not too relevant to the powers that enthroned the one.
Only the President MUST be Natural Born!.
Any U.S. Citizen may become a Senator if the he/she meets the requirement of years of residing in the U.S.
Can you share where you found the statute or court case that determined that the father must be a US citizen?
This means hugo chavez’s son could be president
Was his son born in the US, and was his wife a US citizen?
1 Certified copy of original birth certificate
2 Columbia University transcripts
3 Columbia thesis paper
4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5 Harvard University transcripts
6 Illinois State Senate records
7 Illinois State Senate schedule
8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11 Occidental College Transcripts
12 Parent’s marriage Certificate
13 Record of baptism
14 Selective Service registration records
(Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?
This supposed revelation of 0's SS records has been debunked here and here.)
15 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16 Passport records for all passports
17 Scholarly articles
18 SAT and LSAT test scores
19 Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20 List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
21 Punahou grade school records
22 Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
23 Page 11 of Stanley Ann Dunham's divorce decree.
24 Why isn't Barack Obama still a member of the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?
25 Why isn't Michelle Obama still a member of the Illinois bar, after only about four years of practice, and where are all of the relevant documents?
Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could.
ping...
“British Nationaliry Act 1948. “Bambi” was BRITISH ar birth!”
He may have been British. That’s not completely established. Barak Obama Sr. and Stanley Dunham’s marriage was probably bigamous. He already had a wife in Kenya.
If the US marriage was invalid, the the question is how does the British Nationality Act 1948 handle a bastard born to a UK citizen and a non-UK citizen outside the United Kingdom and it colonies?
Regardless, if born in Hawaii, Obama is an American by right, regardless of any other nation’s claim upon him.
The Constitution cannot be changed by statue. Dozens of court cases use the term. Some, including The Venus, Minor v. Happersett, Shanks v. Dupont, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Ex Parte Reynolds, Slaughter House Cases(see http://puzo1.blogspot.com “Obama - ... But not a Natural Born Citizen") .
In the beginning, 2008, there was ignorance. Now there is simply no alternative to the enormous number of reference to the accepted definition of natural born citizen. The only credible argument may have been posed by a long time FR contributor David who didn't argue the definition, but claimed that our legal aristocracy deemed the old definition passe, and their colleagues in the courts would never allow standing to question their more modern interpretation. To that hypothesis the people will have to respond.
The Becks, Hannitys, O’Riley’s are now employed by a Dubai-based holding corporation which boasts of its growing influence in imposing Sharia on the West - just as Obama’s cousin Odinga promised when Obama was campaigning for him in Kenya in 2006. We still have freedom of the press, albeit with a very active scrubbing campaign removing historical evidence as they are able, from Google/Youtube and lessor sites.
The theme they would like you to accept is that eligibility is a tired issue, now the playground of loonies. To be sure, there are some loonies, but they may well be plants by the left intending to dilute the clarity of the Constitution and both historical and natural law arguments which explain the still valid intentions by our founders to protect us from foreign influence. Obama is a foreigner. His dreams came from his father. His mother spent most of her career in the middle east, Indonesia, Pakistan, Kenya, married to Muslims and a citizen of Muslim countries. His cousin was educated by the KGB in East Germany. This is just the nature of "Prince" (from Vattel, Pufendorf, etc.) from whom our founders sought to protect us. He was born with foreign allegiance, and is guided by it still.
Take the time to read the Apuzzo summary on his web site. It is the basis of his historical and part of his legal argument before the courts, and is a masterpiece. The academics and corporate lawyers have too much to lose, and very few specialize in constitutional law. They would have lots of work to do to defend The Constitution, and doing so would probably cost them their jobs. Mr. Apuzzo is an example of why our country is great (we expect of from our military, so his client Cmdr. Kerchner is not a surprise). We need to see that this coup is terminated and the direct path to that end is by forcing our courts to protect the Constitution by obeying Article II Section 1 and removing Obama and every appointment, every law, every treaty with his name on it (or the name he used in this campaign).
Flow Chart Explaining the 14th Amendment and Natural Born Citizen
[Thanks, Seizethecarp.]
The Child of ANY British Male was a British Citizen AT BIRTH. Marriage or place of birth has nothing to do with it.
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
And that makes him eligible to run for president how?
Actually a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
She was a lot younger, but she was Queen then.
According to the last leg of your chart wherein both parents are US citizens & the child was born on US soil, you only advance the child of married parents as being eligible for president. May I ask your historical reference for this conclusion? Or was it an error on your part because a child born out of wedlock takes the nationality of the mother at birth if born on the soil of the mother's country. According to US & International law dating back to the founding, marriage was not a prerequisite to a child being eligible to be president as long as both parents were US citizens at the time of the child's birth.
International & US Marriage doctrine: both parents must have been US citizens at the time of the child's birth.
International & US Illegitimate child doctrine: if born out of wedlock and as long as the father laid no claim to the child, the only nationality the child held was that of the mother as long as the child was born on US soil.
How the Hell could have only ONE parent??? If one parent WAS NOT a citizen Obama is ILLEGAL! He was BRITISH and American at birth.
Please do your homework before posting and read post #17!
Are you sure about that???
If he is, which is very doubtful, he still IS a Kenyan/British/E.U. citizen by his father's blood and added Indonesian by adoption, but NOT qualified to occupy the W.H.!!!
I don't think it is I who has not done their homework. I never said Obama was eligible. I know he was British at birth. So, after your done fuming at this reply, might I suggest that you actually put in some time studying the history of the law before you come back to rant some more. You can start here: A treatise on the law of citizenship in the United States: treated historically By Prentiss Webster (1891)
http://books.google.com/books?id=ky-TxmjrU0YC&printsec=toc#v=onepage&q=&f=false
FYI...my website says all you need to know about where I stand on this issue: http://www.constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com
If they had not been married and there was no father listed, and as long as Obama Sr never laid claim to Jr prior to his 18th birthday, Obama would be considered a NBC.
Sorry to burst your bubble but this is just the facts of US law and if this was the case, Jr would have shown his long form a long time ago. I suspect, it shows a formal adoption by Soetoro and Obama not reclaiming his birthright citizenship by the time he was 21. But that is just MHO. Regardless, his parents were married and according to US & International law, children follow the condition of the father at the moment of conception unless born out of wedlock, in which case, they follow the condition of the mother at the time of birth.
Sorry, you can’t undo what a court already did. Obama’s parents were, according to Hawaiian courts, legally married and nothing after the fact can change that. The divorce was granted.
The End.
<>Can you share where you found the statute or court case that determined that the father must be a US citizen?<>
You’ve already been told that, Troll.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2471310/posts?page=36#36
BTW — why are you displaying the Chinese Communist flag on your bio page?????
Troll? Why - because I disagree with you? I guess group-think is expected today...
As far as your link, the last SC case presented - the one with the most recent activity and thus, the legal precedent - the majority opinion (the most quoted birther section from the Wong case is from the minority, and thus not a legal finding) simply stated that there is doubt as to the nature of natural born citizen, either for or against. But that looking at English Common Law (not Vattel) we find that birthplace makes him a citizen at birth, born as such.
The SC cases in your link are selectively quoted by that article. Especially Wong’s case, as it is the definitive case after the 14th Amendment, and the majority references English Common Law (which states natural born based upon location of birth).
Yet none of the cases definitively state what is a natural born citizen - none! They hint one way or another, but do not state as much. Apparently innuendo is what rules your world?
As far as the flag, it’s where I live the majority of my life, in Shanghai China. Your question is the actions of a troll... Or at least a small, closed mind.
<>As far as the flag, it’s where I live the majority of my life, in Shanghai China.<>
Thank you — that explains your posts, the political philososophy behind them, why you post behind the moniker “PugetSoundSoldier”, and the reason why you have such a hard time understanding the basic definitions that you encounter here, like this:
<>Yet none of the cases definitively state what is a natural born citizen - none!<>
Right!!! Not even this one from Minor versus Happersett???
“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”
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
If you're trying to insinuate something, come out and be a man and say it, coward.
Right!!! Not even this one from Minor versus Happersett???
Apparently you're either ignorant or English is not your first language; perhaps both? Read that quote again - it says there is no question if you are born in the country with both parents citizens that you were natural born.
It does NOT state that only if your parents were both citizens and you were born in the country are you a natural born citizen. In fact, it does not address any other conditions either pro or against the classification of natural born citizen.
I know, the distinction can be difficult by someone whose judgment is clouded by emotions, or who simply doesn't have the mental faculty of a 4 year old, but please try to keep up and actually read what is written, rather than making up your own flights of fancy!
I’ll let your post stand as a monument to that place and those people where your loyalties truly lie.
No problem. I mean what I write, and I write what I mean.
You write mean! ;-]
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.