Posted on 02/13/2011 3:34:00 PM PST by NoLibZone
“They knew his father was a British citizen. They also knew Obama was a British citizen. “
More BS. You care to show Obama’s UK passport? Or ANY sign Obama gives a rat’s rear about the UK?
My sister was born in the 50s in Germany, in a hospital on a US base. Per McCain, she is eligible to run for President - although we do NOT want her...
But she could also have claimed dual citizenship.
Someone else declaring you are a citizen of their country doesn’t make it so. Review the War of 1812...
“They knew his father was a British citizen. They also knew Obama was a British citizen. “
More BS. You care to show Obama’s UK passport? Or ANY sign Obama gives a rat’s rear about the UK?
My sister was born in the 50s in Germany, in a hospital on a US base. Per McCain, she is eligible to run for President - although we do NOT want her...
But she could also have claimed dual citizenship.
Someone else declaring you are a citizen of their country doesn’t make it so. Review the War of 1812...
You've got something, but you don't seem to be understanding what I wrote. What exactly is your point anyway??
I see...so if Putin declares Sarah Palin to be a Russian citizen, she will be ineligible due to dual citizenship?
Are you suggesting another country can make a person a citizen against their will?
If China had made Ronald Reagan a citizen, would he have been ineligible for office?
I’m saying no foreign country can make a citizen of the USA a citizen of THEIR country against that person’s will. And I’m saying the UK has never issued a passport to Obama, nor does the Queen consider him a subject.
Okay, I have spent enough time on this issue.
I read the entire transcript and what you fail to realize apparently is that the entire INTENT of the decision was to determine if a woman can vote or not. To claim anything else is just digging and stretching too far. By the courts own admission:
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. “
All they were interested in was the suffrage issue and not the determination of what was a natural born or native born. They really didn’t care. For them, the most part of the decision was stating that citizens are citizens. They were deciding if males or females were separate in their rights to vote.
TO illustrate that they say:
These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens
Yet that is the exact phrase of a natural born citizen.
They are ambiguous on making any determination and offer several different excerpts to make the case that it doesn’t matter in this case.
Again, as you i am sure read, but did not quote. The court stated what it’s INTENT was in it’s decision.
“The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities of citizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In this case we need not determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily one of them. “
Again: “In this case we need not determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily one of them.”
They are telling you a second time that they are not making any decision on privileges, immunities or even defining. Just making a decision on suffrage.
As for the last paragraph, you need to take the entire quote in context of what they are saying. Without it you miss the intent.
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’7 and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. “
It is a good if you want to piecemeal your argument that all citizens are equal, native are the same as natural born. But as i said it is intentionally ambiguous. They did not want to make a decision on what a natural born citizen was nor did they want to make a decision on what a native citizen was. They wanted to illustrate that it didn’t matter in the context of what they were deciding .. that is suffrage.
So I don;t know exactly what your point is, or what you are deriving from this. But as a case law for an argument in court it wouldn’t weigh very heavily because of the ambiguity or the fact that they claim in two separate instances that they are NOT deciding these matters. They are only concerned with Suffrage.
Now please .. if you want to continue this. I am okay with it. But state your position clearly, I don’t need or have the time to spend my days looking up case law.
A bit more than quoting a few lines from a decision would be appreciated. As in how you think it applies or why it does not.
Again, I urge you to look at the intent of the decisions. When a court says it is NOT deciding what is or is not a natural born citizen, it really doesn’t help clarify anything.
So again, what is your point in this please?
I haven't said otherwise. I showed you specific quotes where Virginia Minor claimed a right to vote based upon being a 14th amendment citizen and the court rejected this claim. I also showed where the majority justice in a case more than 20 years later affirmed this same thing. This IS the Supreme Court's definition of natural born citizen: "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." Obama does not meet this definition. What part of this do you not understand?? You respond with quantity rather than quality. It just looks like you're desperately trying to deny the obvious direct quotes I provided by typing up a copious pile of cattle excrement.
We're not talking about random declarations of citizenship. Barak Sr. was a subject of Great Britain by virtue of territorial jurisdiction and his son fell under that same LEGALLY RECOGNIZED jurisdiction. We don't know who issued Obama's passports prior to his presidential passport and on what basis of identification because it's never been publicly presented.
>I haven’t said otherwise. <
You most certainly did.
I said:
“The question was about women voting. It declared women citizens jsut as men based upon where they were born.”
to which you replied:
>Sorry, but this wrong. Virginia Minor sued for suffrage because she claimed she was a 14th amendment citizen. <
>”all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.” Obama does not meet this definition. What part of this do you not understand?? <
I understand that perfectly. I stated it before. I have stated it time and time again. But the point is where you made the distinction incorrectly that Natural Born and Native Born are the same thing. They are not.
As i said the court was ambiguous on this because they were not defining Natural born. They simply stated what had been accepted.
They were deciding on a suffrage issue and how it applied to being a citizen.
>You respond with quantity rather than quality. It just looks like you’re desperately trying to deny the obvious direct quotes I provided by typing up a copious pile of cattle excrement.<’
As it looked to me when you started this. The obvious direct quotes you provided were missing the important parts where the court was stating it was not making a decision on what constitutes the varying degrees of citizenship, but rather the fact that a citizen can vote no matter of male or female.
I seriously think that you missed the point of all of this.
regardless Obama can not be a citizen because his father was Indonesian or Kenyan .. Obama himself never claimed to be a natural born citizen. He only claims to be a Native citizen.
The two are not the same.
The idea that Obama has any loyalty to the UK is so far fetched that even birthers ought to be embarrassed to raise it. He despises the British.
The British didn’t want to recognize the right of their subjects to choose to become American citizens. We fought a war over it. They can not force a citizen of our country to be a citizen of theirs.
Let’s suppose Russia declares ALL Americans to also be Russians - does that count for squat? I think not.
The Founders COULD have made ‘born of citizen parents’ a requirement for President, but they did not. They chose wording that allows the children of aliens to become President. You don’t like it? Take it up with the Founders. They are the ones who COULD have made it read your way, but did otherwise.
Hmmm.... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2675310/posts
Maybe the Brits will charge him taxes for his visit - given that he is also a UK citizen. Right? Or maybe they will draft him into their military.
No, you quoted me saying the Minor sued for suffrage. Do you not understand that the term suffrage is about a right to vote??
But the point is where you made the distinction incorrectly that Natural Born and Native Born are the same thing.
It's in the verbiage of Waite's definition of natural born citizenship when he says, "These were natives, or natural-born citizens." The criteria for being a native or natural born (used interchangeably) is still birth in the country to citizen parents. This is the Supreme Court's defintion of native born. How would it not be??
As i said the court was ambiguous on this because they were not defining Natural born.
They absolutely were. Look at this full passage. It's very specific and quotes Art II Sec I.
This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. 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.
In a matter of SIX sentences, it cites "natural born citizen" three times and says this IS the nomenclature of the founders of the Constitution. There's no ambiguity here. You have certainly offered irrational denial, but that's it.
Obama himself never claimed to be a natural born citizen. He only claims to be a Native citizen.
And as I've shown, Obama is wrong in his claim because the Supreme Court definition of native requires him to be born in the country of citizen parents. We know he does not meet this definition trhough his parents and that he cannot legally prove he was born in the United States.
I hope you don't have athlete's foot. That can't be good to jam in your mouth. So-called "birthers" weren't the ones who put this on Obama's website.
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.
Oh really? Obama’s UK citizenship got him in trouble with Russia? And what was Lugar’s trouble - he’s Chinese?
I don’t have a foot in my mouth. You care to show where Obama has claimed UK citizenship and asked for a passport?
You want to show some sign Obama feels kinship and obedience to the UK?
I can't hear you over your toenails.
You care to show where Obama has claimed UK citizenship and asked for a passport? You want to show some sign Obama feels kinship and obedience to the UK?
Moving the goalposts won't remove your heel from resting on your chin. You said earlier, "The idea that Obama has any loyalty to the UK ..." His own website says British law governed his citizenship status at birth. That is loyalty. There's little proof he claimed U.S. citizenship status until he became a politician. Let's see all his passport records.
“His own website says British law governed his citizenship status at birth. That is loyalty.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK. Try to convince others that Obama is a secret agent working for the Queen....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.