Posted on 12/12/2008 9:18:49 PM PST by ckilmer
Born? I think he was hatched.
ping for later
Not to worry, Resko and Blagojevich will rid us of this imposter, leaving Barry free to run again in some other local Marlboro marathon.
LOL
interesting
Are you referring to the scandal-plagued Obama administration-elect?...
Remember when Bill Clinton was first elected? His buddy was president of the cable network CNN, and forbid CNN employees from mentioning the word “scandal” when referring to the so-called president Clinton.
We’re obviously seeing the same sort of self-censorship happening in the media yet again.
Hatched? Only birds, insects and reptiles are hatched....A bird he ain’t....
Perhaps he did.
Excellent article.
Lets see what happens come monday.
Lets see if the laws of the Constitution start to be tossed aside for sake of convenience.
Something to consider in the discussion on 'natural born citizen':
The term “natural born citizen” has NEVER been defined in the U.S. Constitution or in codified U.S. law.
The OPERATIVE phrase of the 14th Amendment expressly states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside ...”
It says “citizens” NOT “natural born citizens”.
In situations like this, SCOTUS has USUALLY devolved to ascertain what the “original intent” of the framers was ... What does the 14th Amendment mean and what is its intended scope, as introduced the United States Senate in 1866?
Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI), who introduced it in the Senate, tells us (as it was being debated):
“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country ... I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Senator Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now ...”
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, inserted the phrase:
“... All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means ... Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens ...”
Senator W. Williams further stated:
” ... In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States ...”
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”
Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Obama, admits on his own website that he held British citizenship at birth due to his Father being a British subject and in no way an American. Thus Barry is precisely whom Bingham was implying is not a 'natural born citizen' regardless of where he was born, for purposes of Constitutional eligibility.
There is no doubt he is hiding something.
You should not have to write that letter. All that the American people should have to say is that they have the right to know who is being installed in the WH instead of playing a guessing game, because the security of every citizen (inclusive that of the SCOTUS) is at stake in this time of war.
Logical, clear, and concise. This reading would be a lost on many (most?) of our Senators. But I still have high hopes for the SCOTUS.
This is the first i’ve heard of this. I’m sure this story will have great legs and that people aren’t working themselves up over something that will never happen.
Sure he is & if he would just show the darn thing all of this would stop. I still say it should be required that when you run you produce the correct info & documents or else you can’t run for office. Make it a law!!!
Then maybe the better scenario is that he is found to be ineligible during the first term, becomes totally ineffective, can't run for a second term and we get all that America is a racist nation nonsense out of the way.
and just how many sheep who voted for him, knew any of this?
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.