Posted on 02/19/2012 3:57:01 AM PST by Chance Hart
First off, I am a conservative and have spent countless hours listening to and reading the books of all these men. Reading Levin's Liberty and Tyranny was compelling, as were many of the publications of these Patriots. With the VAST amount of Constitutional research accumulated in order to write these best sellers, there is and has always has been one important fact known to ALL these men to be a Constitutional FACT missing. That non negotiable FACT is that according to the Constitution, Barack Hussein Obama is NOT eligible to be placed on the ballot, let alone occupy his present position as President of the United States of America! Obama himself touts the fact that his father was a British Subject at the time of his “BHO 2’s” birth, making him at the very least a duel citizen and not eligible to hold the office as president. Furthermore, Daddy was NEVER a citizen of the United States, again making Jr. ineligible with that fact alone. None of these men (as far as I know) served in the military for whatever reason and I think there may be some suppressed guilt because of that when I hear their accolades regarding current and former Men of Honor. As they refer to many of their callers and guests as “Brother”, they at the same time have never felt compelled to commit the heroic act of jumping on a Firecracker, let alone a Grenade to help save their “Brothers” and in the end help save this Nation. Levin is the one that has disappointed me the most when I heard him disenfranchise many of his loyal listeners on Jan 19th, 2010 (may have been the 20th) by referring to those that even questioned the eligibility issue as (paraphrasing) ignorant and foolish. He followed that comment by saying that Obama was of course eligible to be President. He, in my opinion is an expert on the Constitution and knows full well that his statement was an out and out lie. When the truth finally reveals itself, I can almost hear the excuses from these Less than Honorable radio and TV Patriots now – 1. I was given strict orders from station bosses not to bring up or allow discussion on the eligibility issue and to refer to those that do bring it up as ignorant Birthers. 2. Yes, I of course knew the simple truth, but decided it was the wrong approach to be honest when the proper way to handle this was at the Ballot Box. 3. Book sales were BOOMING and I was too GUTLESS to show the Courage that I ask my listeners to display on a daily basis. 4. There are a few in the business that are standing their ground on this issue and Liberals are calling them names. Sticks and Stones will break my Bones and even Words would really hurt me because I AM A COWARD! By the way, there are thousands of these Cowards walking the halls of Congress and other places that have at least to this point failed to MAN UP. All this makes me admire all the more the few that in their heart really do trust God Almighty and FEAR NO EVIL.
That in fact there are inconsistencies in how portions of the Constitution are labeled.
Where?
There are Birther lawyers that agree with the Arkney (sic) judge.
The ONE lawyer that you've used as an example can be just as wrong as the Ankney judge and you've provided no evidence whatsoever, as of yet, to back up your claim about Indiana.
There are other states that use the same wording.
Where? The @NH example you gave doesn't apply as it doesn't even have any mention whatsoever of any Article, Section or Clause.
No - the case was about the Choctaw tribe’s claim that they could try white men for committing crimes on their land if they were married to a Choctaw woman. So the question was whether the wife was in fact Choctaw. The judge found that because the wife had a white grandfather SHE WAS WHITE. And because she was white, she was an American citizen and not an Indian. And therefore the Choctaws could not prosecute her husband.
The legal argument was her father was the product of an American father and a foreign mother. Because of father was an American citizen, she was an American citizen.
A nice history lesson but completely irrelevant. No one is going to state that American citizenship today can only be passed through the male side. Obama’s mom was an American - he therefore is an American.
Check your eyes:
“I am qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution”
Birthers tend to be very self righteous people who do not care about strategy or building coalitions.
A very large sector of the conservative movement would LIKE to go after Obama’s college records, the possibility of fraud or any claims of foreign nationality in his applications at various institutions -—
However, the IDIOTIC idea that Obama MUST have two US Citizen parents just does not wash.
Smart people, with great legal minds, who are very conservative, disagree with Birthers on their demand NOT found in the Constitution, that every Natural Born Citizen must have TWO US Citizen Parents.
It is BS. It is NOT true!
You state as if it were obvious, settled “fact” and it is not.
So, Birthers, you have lost a great deal of respect, among those who should be your natural allies.
We disagree with you on the Constitution
We disagree with you on the law.
We disagree with you on strategy .
But?
We are still conservatives, perhaps even more conservative than most Birthers.
(The Birther movement was started by Hillary Clinton PUMA Democrats!)
Conservatives who oppose you DO know the truth:
We know that you are wrong!
“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: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives
Partus sequitur ventrem was also used in the South specifically to ensure that the children of slaves were born slaves.
That is one of the main reasons that particular theory fell out of favor.
Yes, I am aware of what it was used for, but I am not arguing that the law for free people was Partus Sequitur Ventrem, I am arguing that it was Partus Sequitur Patrem.
Poking around the internet today, I may have very well found some more proof of this. I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, but I think i've found a good lead.
While I am at it, I will direct your attention to Mackenzie v Hare. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage to a Foreigner expatriated an American Woman.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915)
Argued November 11, 12, 1915
Decided December 6, 1915
Marriage of an American woman with a foreigner is tantamount to voluntary expatriation, and Congress may, without exceeding its powers, make it so, as it has in fact done, by the Act of March 2, 1907.165 Cal. 776 affirmed.
It's what your side has been using from the beginning, so I am surprised to see you objecting to it now. :)
Your argument is Any person born here is a "natural born citizen" just because. (English Law says so or something.)
It allows split citizenship because if an American women married a foreign national, she doesn’t lose her citizenship like the 1907 bill required. Nothing you have posted challenges this.
Mackenzie v Hare, posted previously. Prior to that, it was a mixed bag. Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't. In any case, it was an unusual circumstance.
Mackenzie v Hare was a 1915 challenge to the 1907 law.
What about pre-1907 law?
“The statute which the Court there sustained did not divest Mrs. Mackenzie of her citizenship. [n19] It provided that “any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband.” [n20] “At the termination [p70] of the marital relation,” the statute continues, “she may resume her American citizenship. . . .” (Emphasis added.) Her citizenship was not taken away; it was held in abeyance.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0356_0044_ZD.html
Interesting semantics there - “Her citizenship was not taken away.”
It is clear that birthright citizenship could not be taken away by legislation.
So what’s your point? It is not the law now. It was not the law when Obama was born. Laws change.
But surely you are not arguing that today citizenship is past only through the father? Nor when Obama was born?
What was the role of Partus Sequitur Patrem in 1960 in regards to citizenship?
Again, you are NOT READING the stuff I am showing you. If it was as you say, why does it end with the "Defendant is remanded into the custody of the Marshall. " ?
The Judge is ruling that the man is not protected by the treaty with the Indians (under the jurisdiction of Indian law instead of Federal law) because he is NOT AN INDIAN. He was only an Indian BY MARRIAGE. Turns out, the woman he was married to was not an Indian (and therefore he was not either because marriage to a non-Indian does not make you an Indian) because her Grandfather was an American Citizen, which made her Father an American citizen which made *HER* an American citizen. :)
If you aren't going to read this stuff closely enough to understand the point, I wonder why I should bother with any evidence at all? Go to page 110 and read the case from the beginning.
http://books.google.com/books?id=u-87AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
It was a jurisdictional fight. The Choctaws wanted to try him in a tribal court. Why are they talking about his WIFE’s grandfather? Because the Choctaws could try him only if he was married to a Choctaw. The judgement is talking about the WIFE’s citizenship.
What about pre-1907 law?
I'm still looking. As I said before, it was a common practice that was not necessarily codified before that 1907 law.
ML/NJ
Reading at least one of the pointers left by an Obot revealed that he/she was using two or more Free Republic identies. That too is encouraging. Seeing Harlan roll out the Connecticut law, the old Smith case, and then refer you to his web site means you are making progress. His web site is a glossary of the more obscure wild goose chases used by Obots over the past three years. And you know you are making progress when one of their talking points is to claim that none of these questions were asked before the election.
Of course Commander Kerchner had sent dozens of registered letters to legislators during 2008, both to Democrats and Republicans, not one of which was answered. The fix was in, and the Obama team had been working, probably for years, to prepare for their “coup”. Even the expertly Alinsky’d Orly Taitz stated clearly in her National Pres Club appearance in December 2008, that nothing could change Obama’s birth to an alien which rendered him defacto ineligible. Her legal experience with was fraud. Knowing that she wasn't equipped to argue constitutional law, she went after what she had seen lots of in the real estate business, the trail of identity obfuscation. Obama is the front man for a thoroughly professional “con job” to further ends about which we can only guess. My guess is that it is about money, though money and power are hard to separate.
When someone has the background, and time, to confront each stab of misdirection with an historical correction, it is like reading comments to a peer reviewed thesis or scientific paper when I'm not expert in the subject matter. I learn more from the comments of experts, like Diogenes and rxsid and ... than from reading the original, but flawed, paper. Thanks Diogenes. I had already read most of the sources cited by the “true conservative” because he/she or his associates have relied upon them for several years.
For someone whose field is not the law, the clarity of Minor v. Happersett, Marshall, Hughes (and Breckenridge Long who showed Hughes that we haven't forgotten our common law, and Bingham, along with the remarkable scrubbing of Minor citations at Justia, and of the final Binney document that Gray used in his intentional misdirection, show what they are concerned with.
Having read James Wilson's devastating critique of English Common Law I wonder why a man known for his grasp of history like Justice Gray would suggest that our framers really meant that our Constitution wanted its citizens to be subjugated to any authority, let alone to the unwritten law of England, which deemed a written Constitution too restrictive and unnecessary, given that the first charter of the British legal system was protect the Monarch (the Magna Charta was an historical artifact).
It seems more likely that Gray was protecting himself in case Chester Arthur's ineligibility were to be discovered (which didn't happen until 2008 when Leo Donofrio’s careful research discovered the truth, not even detected by the biographer in possession of the few remaining Arthur documents). As the questions about "Birthright citizenship" become more and more important, the inconsistencies in Justice Gray's decision and his reliance upon at least one major misquoatation by Justice Story, and Binney's amazing mistakes, Justice Gray will be examined more carefully. As it is, Gray created a "penumbra" which has had enormous consequences related to anchor babies which appear not to be supported by positive law.
Dr. David Ramsay differentiated subjects from citizens so concisely that it is clear why someone interested in clouding the issue would avoid his Dissertation on Citizenship. “Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution: but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens.” Ramsay, of course, was our first Congressional Historian. Ramsay was writing in 1789, when the only class of citizenship defined by our Constitution was natural born citizenship, the fact upon which the Minor decision depended, since it made Elizabeth Minor, born to citizen parents on our soil, the only class of citizen defined by the Constitution before 1868, not by a state, a citizen also.
ml/nj - I just heard that very sad situation on Levin. I am only referring to this one subject that these men have in common. As far as being good human beings, I think the one’s that I mentioned in my post are. I am just disappointed in their hiding of knowledge that I believe that they know to be the truth. God Bless Levin for his attempt to help this poor soul that called in. Probably a very fortunate man for calling Levin rather than a Hotline.
Anyway, thanks for your comment.
Two examples is hardly evidence that all States have the same thing. And you have shown nothing as to why there is even such a discrepancy besides conjecture.
Show me the why and where and then you'll have a leg to stand on.
Interesting context there...
20. This clause merely expressed the well understood principle that a wife's nationality "merged" with that of her husband's. Cockburn, Nationality, 24; 3 Moore, Digest of International Law, 450-451, 453; 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law, 246-247. This was a consequence of the common law fiction of a unity of interest in the marital community. During coverture, the privileges and obligations of a woman's citizenship gave way to the dominance of her husband's. Prior to the Act of March 2, 1907, the Department of State declined to issue passports to American-born women who were married to aliens. 3 Moore, 454; 3 Hackworth, 247. The Attorney General ruled that a woman in such circumstances was not subject to an income tax imposed on all citizens of the United States residing abroad. 13 Op.Atty.Gen. 128. Several courts held that, during the duration of a marriage consummated prior to the Act between an American-born woman and an alien, a court may entertain a petition for her naturalization. In re Wohlgemuth, 35 F.2d 1007; In re Krausmann, 28 F.2d 1004; In re Page, 12 F.2d 135. Cf. Pequignot v. Detroit, 16 F. 211.
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.