Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BirtherReport.com Interviews British Attorney Claiming Knowledge That Obama was Born in Kenya
Birther Report + The Post & Email ^ | soon | Birther Report

Posted on 03/08/2014 7:02:43 AM PST by Steven Tyler

So far, just a repeat of the 7 minute video. Wait and see, I imagine BR and Post & Email will get a few hits this weekend

Mar. 7, 2014) — BirtherReport.com and The Post & Email can report that an exclusive interview was conducted on Friday evening with Barrister Michael Shrimpton, who first appeared in a video released on February 26, 2014 stating unequivocally that Barack Hussein Obama "was born in Mombasa, Kenya."

Topics discussed during the two-hour interview include the meaning of the U.S. Constitution's Article II "natural born Citizen" clause;....; what is really driving the unrest in Ukraine; the death of novelist Tom Clancy; and the actions Shrimpton believes should be taken as a result of Obama's usurpation of the presidency.

"He's not a U.S. citizen," Shrimpton told BirtherReport and this writer in a riveting session conducted over Skype.

(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: birftards; birther; naturalborncitizen; notnews; obama; shrimpton
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-226 next last
Audio of the interview will be available shortly in which Shrimpton explains why he believes the video of his declaration on Obama's birthplace was released last week and by whom, among other stunning revelations.

The teaser includes the content of Shripmtons earlier videos. I would like to know why Candidate John Edwards remained silent. Edwards was destroyed by sleaze, then 0bama seemed to absorb Edwards' Union support

1 posted on 03/08/2014 7:02:44 AM PST by Steven Tyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steven Tyler

the timing is perfect.

Sheriff Joes bombshell will be launched soon as well.

How long will he remain in the Virgin Islands I wonder


2 posted on 03/08/2014 7:11:01 AM PST by MeshugeMikey (Jesus came to Save not Entertain / Ground John Kerry Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

I just heard Sheriff Joe speak a few nights ago. He says nobody will listen to him.


3 posted on 03/08/2014 7:14:55 AM PST by LiveFreeOrDie2001 (Elections have consequences - NOW LOOK what we have to deal with...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LiveFreeOrDie2001

Hey, I am All Ears!

“let those who have ears hear” what he has to say!


4 posted on 03/08/2014 7:18:11 AM PST by MeshugeMikey (Jesus came to Save not Entertain / Ground John Kerry Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steven Tyler
Please consider financially supporting his ongoing efforts...

And the reason for the timing comes out.

5 posted on 03/08/2014 7:18:24 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey
Sheriff Joes bombshell will be launched soon as well.

Hmmm. And the details of this "bombshell" are ... ?

The problem with Sheriff Joe's bombshells is that they suffer from the "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around does it make a sound" problem. The members of the MSM have their marching orders and will pay zero attention when this bombshell is released.

Nevertheless, I'm anxious to hear what he has to say.

6 posted on 03/08/2014 7:18:48 AM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

I suspect that Obama’s “response” to the Bombshell may set off a chain reaction.

hes a lot less authentically self assured than he pretends to be..and “something” like this is bound to rattle him


7 posted on 03/08/2014 7:21:40 AM PST by MeshugeMikey (Jesus came to Save not Entertain / Ground John Kerry Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steven Tyler
what is really driving the unrest in Ukraine; the death of novelist Tom Clancy;

Wow, they must have really loved Clancy to get that upset.

8 posted on 03/08/2014 7:22:00 AM PST by Michael.SF. (I never thought anyone could make Jimmy Carter look good in comparison.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steven Tyler; Jet Jaguar; Lady Jag; Slings and Arrows; null and void; maggief; Dog; BP2; Candor7; ..

popcorn ping


9 posted on 03/08/2014 7:22:40 AM PST by bitt (If Obama is really worried about “the children”, he should be bombing planned parenthood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
The members of the MSM have their marching

And those orders do not come from their tainted liberal hearts or their natural affinity towards a white guilt worship of their deity; 0Bama.

It is much deeper than that.

10 posted on 03/08/2014 7:24:36 AM PST by Michael.SF. (I never thought anyone could make Jimmy Carter look good in comparison.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steven Tyler
While it would be outstanding if we could convince the typical American that Osama Obama isn't a "natural born" such irrefutable proof will not cause him to resign and it will not result in his removal from office...either through impeachment or as the result of a decision by the SCOTUS.

We must keep our eye on the ball...the economy,OsamaObamaCare,Benghazi,the IRS and Vlad's having beaten Osama like a rented mule in Ukraine must be our focus.

11 posted on 03/08/2014 7:24:57 AM PST by Gay State Conservative (Stalin Blamed The Kulaks,Obama Blames The Tea Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt

Thanks for the ping!


12 posted on 03/08/2014 7:28:52 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Steven Tyler

Well, all that is very interesting, but it seems to be OLD. Shrimpton seems to be talking before Obama’s FIRST election to the presidency. IOW, none of this “shocking” info went ANYWHERE, as far as unseating him.


13 posted on 03/08/2014 7:32:01 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steven Tyler
Obama's evasiveness about his birth origin notwithstanding, the issue of his being a natural-born citizen does not depend on where he was born but the citizenship of his parents. If at least one of his parents was an American citizen at the time of his birth, then he's a natural born citizen. Had this Harvard-law school graduate known that I think he would not have been showing us what looks like doctored birth certificates.

I personally think he was born in Kenya. His evasiveness and apparently phony birth certificates support my belief. However, I think it is known that at least one of his parents was a U.S. citizen.

14 posted on 03/08/2014 7:36:27 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steven Tyler

Obama has ripped the Constitution to shreds and is ruling by imperial decree... ample reasons for him to be impeached and there is not so much as a whimper. I doubt that even with iron clad evidence he was not born in the USA there would be any effort made to remove him from office. We can only hope that he leaves office at the end of his term and doesn’t by that time end free elections and declare himself president for life. However, once he is out of office I still believe that the truth about him will be revealed and he will be thoroughly discredited if not tried for treason.


15 posted on 03/08/2014 7:45:10 AM PST by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Has anyone here seen this article in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/07/records-fbi-urged-charges-in-ariz-abuse-of-power-case/6152807/


16 posted on 03/08/2014 7:50:37 AM PST by V K Lee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: V K Lee

Thanks, interesting


17 posted on 03/08/2014 8:33:49 AM PST by Steven Tyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

The interview, to be posted, occurred the evening of March 7 2014


18 posted on 03/08/2014 8:35:04 AM PST by Steven Tyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

He needs to issue an arrest warrant for the Hero of Benghazi for fraud.


19 posted on 03/08/2014 8:42:49 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

The search for truth is a strong motivator. One of the strongest.

Despite all that is going on in the world, it is important to get at the truth, especially when the charges are that someone committed fraud and had dozens of accomplices in order to become president.


20 posted on 03/08/2014 8:45:06 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LiveFreeOrDie2001

Sherrif Joes needs to know that WE ARE LISTENING


21 posted on 03/08/2014 9:06:45 AM PST by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

My family can trace every marriage and offspring in USA to 1640 by paper archival records.
I have traced Indonesian and Dutch families in Indonesia back to the 1600`s, every child and marriage[ coz the Dutch kept perfect records of everyone there til 1940`s.]
via the Mormon Temple genealogical center archives in Oakland CA before it was on the internet.

Obummer is a fraud imposter. He should be tryed and sentenced as a foreign agent subversive communist moslem coz he cannot even be traced, while millions of others in several countries know every ancestor marriage details, available to everyone on the internet..

This SOB BASTARD BUM FRAUD IMPOSTER HAS TO GO!


22 posted on 03/08/2014 10:04:32 AM PST by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

I have a long narrative as to Obama’s heritage. The short of many dots is that Obama was conceived in Indonesia but born in Kenya. There are many established dots as to Obama’s early years that can be and need to be publicly connected.


23 posted on 03/08/2014 10:22:24 AM PST by noinfringers2 ( /*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Both parents must be American citizens.


24 posted on 03/08/2014 10:23:11 AM PST by faithhopecharity (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity
Both parents must be American citizens.

Apparently a debatable issue. For instance, soldiers who got married overseas and had a child overseas, the child was considered a US citizen I believe.

25 posted on 03/08/2014 10:27:53 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

The Obama FBI was going to go after Sheriff Arpaio but then they backed off.
From yesterday’s USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/07/records-fbi-urged-charges-in-ariz-abuse-of-power-case/6152807/


26 posted on 03/08/2014 10:39:18 AM PST by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Not same thing. Regular Citizenship is not same as Natural Born Citizen. Different categories.


27 posted on 03/08/2014 10:46:37 AM PST by faithhopecharity (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

Quite a few courts have explicitly ruled that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. No court has ruled otherwise.
1) Allen v. Obama (Arizona)
2) Ankeny v. Daniels (Indiana)
3) Fair v. Obama (Maryland)
4) Farrar v. Obama (Georgia)
5) Freeman v. Obama (Illinois)
6) Galasso v. Obama (New Jersey)
7) Jackson v. Obama (Illinois)
8) Jordan v. Obama (Washington)
9) Judd v. Obama (California)
10) Kesler v. Obama (Indiana)
11) Martin v. Obama (Illinois)
12) Paige v. Condos & Obama (Vermont)
13) Powell v. Obama (Georgia)
14) Purpura, et. al. v. Obama (New Jersey)
15) Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections (NY)
16) Swensson v. Obama (Georgia)
17) Taitz v. Obama (District of Columbia)
18) Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia)
19) Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (Florida)
20) Welden v. Obama (Georgia)
For example:
Taitz v. Obama {Quo Warranto} “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0

Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v. Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

Pupura & Moran v. Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

Allen v. Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint


28 posted on 03/08/2014 11:42:57 AM PST by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Not a single court appears to have ruled on the merits however. From what we've seen at least, they've all pretty much skirted the constitutional issue entirely or ruled contrary to evidence or ruled / dismissed on real or imagined procedural grounds A lot. A dismissal or ruling on procedural grounds does not reach the merits of the case and is therefore not precedent concerning same. Since his daddy was not an American citizen it would seem most improbable ( to put it mildly) that a properly constituted court could find him a qualified NBC, Magic not operating of course. (Even his basic citizenship status is unknowable as long as he keeps hiding his USA immigration, Indonesian citizenship, UK citizenship, Kenyan citizenship, birth, selective service. and passport records. ).
29 posted on 03/08/2014 12:11:11 PM PST by faithhopecharity (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bitt
RE: "popcorn ping".

Indeed it is at this point.
30 posted on 03/08/2014 12:31:08 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Galt level is not far away......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

One who is born of an American citizen is considered a natural born citizen.


31 posted on 03/08/2014 12:42:00 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Not necessarily. Under the citizenship and naturalization laws that were in effect at the time of his birth, his mother would not have been old enough to confer U.S. citizenship to him if he was born outside of the United States:

http://www.greencardlawyers.com/citizenship/citizenbybirth.html#Chart%20to%20Determine%20Citizenship%20Rules

32 posted on 03/08/2014 1:04:59 PM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Close, but I believe not quite correct.
To be a Natural Born Citizen, both of one’s parents must have been American citizens at your birth (plus you were born in USA).
A person born of one American citizen parent (as you cite) is usually considered to be an American citizen, yes, you are correct on that score.


(note: this is a different category than the Natural Born Citizen as required for eligibility for the presidency) ...

Also, this citizenship for the child is not universally the case ...as it is governed at least in part by certain statutes ... For instance, I believe reading that if someone is born outside USA to an American parent who is statutorily unable to pass his or her citizenship along to the child, such as someone like Obama’s mommy at the time? ... since she was reportedly not old enough to meet the statutory test then in effect ...?, then the child does not acquire citizenship at his birth....but anyway I was speaking to the Natural Born Citizenship issue above and that’s far more than sufficient for us now.)

ps: I think that takes care of it... I do need to sign off now .... so maybe somebody else can kindly pick up the ball and advance it forward for us all here now? Thanks!
Thanks!


33 posted on 03/08/2014 1:05:23 PM PST by faithhopecharity (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

If Obama was born in Kenya, then his mother couldn’t have conferred citizenship on him. The law said that you have to be a citizen for 10 years with at least 5 of those years being after the age of 14. Obama’s mother was 18 when she gave birth, so she did not meet the requirements to confer citizenship on him.


34 posted on 03/08/2014 1:19:02 PM PST by Elyse (I refuse to feed the crocodile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

The Georgia ruling in Farrar, Powell, Swenson, and Welden came after a trial on the merits that was requested by the plaintiffs. The Georgia Judge was ready to issue a summary judgement because Obama’s attorney refused to show up for the trial but the plaintiffs requested a trial on the merits and they were granted that. They lost and then appealed to the Georgia Superior Court. They lost there as well and appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court, they also lost there and finally the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which refused to grant cert and hear the case.
Many of the eligibility lawsuits against Obama were dismissed for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. The people who had standing to sue because they suffered direct injury from Obama’s election were the other candidates who received Electoral votes and had an opportunity to be elected: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan or the Republican National Committee on their behalf. None of those person or that entity filed suit.
To have standing you must be able to demonstrate DIRECT injury not indirect.


35 posted on 03/08/2014 1:20:23 PM PST by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Elyse

The issue seems to be debatable but certainly doesn’t seem to be the open-and-shut case as many think it is. If a U.S. soldier marries overseas and has a child, that child should be a natural-born citizen at birth.


36 posted on 03/08/2014 1:43:45 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Hi there. Thanks for your note. Here’s the last note on this I can do today.....I hope I say something helpful for you?

Yes, the Georgia courts hardly distinguished themselves (the nicest possible way of putting the point), nor did they resolve the issues at bar.
Perhaps that was not the best imaginable case for the USSCt to maybe take up, I suspect it wasn’t....but it nevertheless seemed a shame the USSCt did not find a case that dealt intelligently with the issues and... take that one up. After all, it will take a new USSCt decision to overturn the previous and apparently controlling language, or to provide a new, modern definition perhaps (if you believe the SCt should do that). Some holding by a local ALJ or even a state court somewhere ... can do little to resolve a US Constitutional matter (particularly when it appears that the ALJ gentleman ruled against the evidence before him? There was quite a lot of concern about that at the time...).

Also, the record was not benefited by courts turning down so many cases for “standing” or as “frivilous” or as a “waste of the court’s time” -—
“Standing’ has its value (to insure that plaintiffs have sufficient incentive to present vigorous and competent litigation), but it can also provide an immense skirt for a reticent court to hide behind, as we all have come to realize.
Nor was it particularly benefited by one or more of the plaintiffs or one plaintiffs’ attorney (who seemed prone to somewhat odd statements at times).

We are therefore left with little or nothing of recent date worth much weight. We thus return, as we always must, to the US Constitution. We immediately note its provision setting up a different or higher standard for the office of the presidency than for any other purpose in our country, a standard driven by the well-known concerns of our Founders that somebody with allegiance to a foreign power, Great Britain in particular as it happened, could someday (after the Founders’ generation) acquire the office. The law of nations at the time (and some of the documents relating to the Founding fathers) illustrate that two citizen parents, plus birth in the USA, were what was envisioned for this higher standard...that being their best effort at insuring the loyalty of future presidents. And, the USSCt has referred to this (including its two parents aspect). I am aware of no USSCt decision since that overruled this or provided a different definition of NBC. (There have been many citizenship-related decisions, but none can recall addressing the NBC standard since the early language citing two USA citizen parents etc.)

Daddy having been a British citizen (via Kenya colony), it is impossible to see how sonny boy could possibly qualify for the office on this basis.

(Note also that we also have been quite deliberately, and I would have to note amazingly, denied nearly all of the simple documentation or evidence needed to ascertain even his basic citizenship status and of what countries that may pertain (Indonesia? UK? Kenya? USA? Romulus?). ALL this difficulty could have been avoided had there not been such a concerted and comprehensive concealment of every conceivable pertinent document, record, witness, or scrap of evidence .....

History may someday clear all this up, one way or another. It often does; the facts have a way of surfacing one way or another.

I am open to correction but also regret that I have no more time for the internet this weekend. So maybe someone else, possibly with more light to share with us all, can please pick this discussion up right now and move us forward? Thanks!
Over and out, and thanks for the notes. Much appreciated!!!


37 posted on 03/08/2014 2:10:04 PM PST by faithhopecharity (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

If one or two courts had ruled “incorrectly” or even five or ten, I might agree with your premises, but all told since 2008 there have now been 220 judicial rulings on Obama eligibility and not one single judge anywhere in our nation has ruled that Obama isn’t eligible.
Not one of the nine Supreme Court Justices has seen fit to put an Obama eligibility appeal on the “Discuss List” for their Certiorari Conferences and there certainly aren’t the required four Justices’ votes to hear an Obama eligibility appeal before the full Court. Nineteen appeals have been sent up to the Supreme Court and all have been rejected.
This issue has worked to aobama’s benefit, not against him.


38 posted on 03/08/2014 2:30:33 PM PST by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

Please see the link I posted in post #32. It has a chart that lists the U.S. citizenship and immigration laws that were in effect at various times. BHO’s mother (Stanley Ann) would not have been old enough to confer U.S. citizenship onto BHO if he had been born outside of the United States. He would have had to go through an expedited naturalization process, which would have made him a naturalized citizen — not a “natural born” citizen.


39 posted on 03/08/2014 3:10:31 PM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

I am pretty sure that like 99% of Americans Obama forgot birthers exist a long time ago. I doubt he cares at all about some nut ranting on a conspiracy blog, and some imaginary investigation that has allegedly been going on for three years and will produce results any day now.

Obama is concerned about real issues like the failed Obamacare roll out and his failed “lets just talk to them nicely” foreign policy.


40 posted on 03/08/2014 6:42:44 PM PST by BurningOak (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2830849/reply?c=1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

“Both parents must be American citizens.”

Nope. Neither one has to be, birth on American soil is enough, or if born on foreign soil one American parent is enough. That is why Obama is President. Also why Jindhal, Rubio, and Cruz are (probably) running for President.


41 posted on 03/08/2014 6:45:26 PM PST by BurningOak (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2830849/reply?c=1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
The issue seems to be debatable

It's actually.....crystal clear.

but certainly doesn’t seem to be the open-and-shut case as many think it is. If a U.S. soldier marries overseas and has a child, that child should be a natural-born citizen at birth.

Why? Just because the father's a soldier?

Not good enough for Constitutional requirements!

42 posted on 03/08/2014 6:57:14 PM PST by Diego1618 (Put "Ron" on the Rock!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak
birth on American soil is enough,

Birth on American soil makes them a citizen....but a "Natural Born Citizen" is something else entirely different. That's why the Constitution grandfathered part of the requirements of Article II; Section I which states

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

I highlighted the part that no longer applies....namely a citizen of the United States.

43 posted on 03/08/2014 7:08:36 PM PST by Diego1618 (Put "Ron" on the Rock!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

Natural Born Citizen = Citizen From Birth. There are only two types of citizens, citizens at birth, and citizens who went through a naturalization process. If you are a citizen and not naturalized you are a natural born citizen (Rubio, Cruz, Jindal etc).


44 posted on 03/08/2014 7:16:39 PM PST by BurningOak (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2830849/reply?c=1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak
Natural Born Citizen = Citizen From Birth. There are only two types of citizens, citizens at birth, and citizens who went through a naturalization process.

Then....explain why the "Citizen" was excluded from seeking the presidency after a certain time had gone by [Article II; Section I; Paragraph 5]

There are three categories; Naturalized Citizen, Citizen and Natural Born Citizen. Your own Constitution verifies this by grandfathering "Citizens" from seeking the presidency. Why do you think they did this?

45 posted on 03/08/2014 7:24:55 PM PST by Diego1618 (Put "Ron" on the Rock!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
The issue is not so debatable. You are new to the discussion, but this has been debated here in depth starting in 2008.

The law at the time said that: 1) if he was born here, he is an American citizen; 2) if he was born outside the country, then his parents had to be citizens residing in the United States for at least 5 years after age 14 prior to his birth. His mother did not meet the age requirement to confer citizenship on an international birth, and his alleged father was a Kenyan citizen.

What is open for debate is whether Obama Sr. is his father, as well as where Obama was born. If Obama Sr. was covering for someone else impregnating his mother, then he may very well be a citizen.

The final issue for debate is what constitutes "natural born" citizenship as a Constitutional qualification for President, aside from a general class of citizenship. Writings from the generation of the Founders is mixed on this.

-PJ

46 posted on 03/08/2014 7:25:29 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

You describe basically the requirements for citizenship not natural born citizenship. Different things. Suggest you may enjoy some history of the founding fathers’ concerns that the presidency never fall Into hands of anyone having loyalties to Great Britain especially or other foreign governments. Best regards,


47 posted on 03/08/2014 7:27:54 PM PST by faithhopecharity (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
Article II, section 1, pa. 5: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President..."

What is a natural-born citizen according to you and why would a child born overseas to American parent not be considered a natural-born citizen? According to you, that child would have to go through a process to become a U.S. citizen. I don't believe that child would have to go through any process because he has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. The debate is not about WHERE he was born. The debate is whether one or both parents must be a U.S. citizen.

48 posted on 03/08/2014 8:22:53 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Well, I may be new to YOUR discussion, I'm not new to the discussion. We were talking about this in law school a few yeas ago.

I think you're saying if he was born to at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen he would be considered natural born. I also believe that to be the case. But there seems to be disagreement about that.

49 posted on 03/08/2014 8:27:16 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1865, there are only two types of American citizens: born and naturalized. There is no third variety, “natural born” that is distinct from a “Citizen of the United States at Birthwhich is the statutory term.

Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana
A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court in its 1898 decision in U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf


50 posted on 03/08/2014 8:32:52 PM PST by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-226 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson