Snapped days before the coronation with a dozen lawsuits on the books questioning his eligibility.
Posted on 07/24/2009 2:32:56 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
42 months to go till the end of this nightmare, assuming the electorate wakes up.
Ask those senators of yours who signed Resolution 511. I'm sure they would not have signed it if they weren't sure of the two parent requirement, right???
1) Place of birth -- Coast Hospital in Kenya.
2) Only one parent was a U.S. citizen and she was underage.
3) His adoption by Soetoro and citizenship in Indonesia.
Any one of these is enough to disqualify him and require him to get out of our House.
See the chart at the top.
In fact, scroll down and read what the Law of Nations and the First US Congress had to say.
Snapped days before the coronation with a dozen lawsuits on the books questioning his eligibility.
When you separate out all the various claims and counter claims and all the BS Obama is on top. There is nothing that requires a person to prove his or her eligibility for the office of President. He is perfectly within his rights to stand fast and stonewall any attempts after the fact to force him to prove his status. Like the Slick One did so well he is simply cashing in on a loophole.
That's not to say there aren't legitimate ways to challenge his eligibility, and his duties as CIC is one of them.
Most honest people will not resort to finding loopholes to accomplish their goals.
I understand the others, as they either voted to certify the electoral college results or allowed him on their state's ballot with proof of eligibility, or denied lawsuits, but how does Vice President Cheney get on that list? Did he vote in the SINate for certification?
President George W. Bush had nothing to do with putting him on a state's ballot or voting for certification and does not belong on the list.
BUMP!
Bugliosi indicated that OJ's dream team succesfully created the illusion that circumstantial evidence constiuted a chain so that discrediting a single link would undo the entire case. Bugliosi stated that the prosecution filed to argue that in fact, circumstantial evidence should more appropriately be viewed as a rope consisting of numerous threads so that even if one or two strands are broken or discredited, what remains may be more than adequate to carry the weight of the case.
We *birthers* need to be very careful that we don't allow the left to sell the public on the chain analogy, and promote the rope theory, as you have so ably done here!
Do you support the Constitution?
If so, why would you oppose pressuring Obama to prove that he is Constitutionally qualified?
Can YOU make a case that he is a Natural Born citizen?
If you cannot then you should be very uncomfortable with his apparent lack of qualifications.
Can you make a solid case that Obama is indeed a Natural Born citizen?
If so, please offer it.
If he was born in Hawaii then he's a natural-born citizen per the 14th Amendment and federal law. Both state that children born in the U.S. are citizens from the moment of birth. Since the Constitution identifies only two forms of citizenship - natural born and naturalized - then if you are not one you are the other. Clearly people born in the U.S. are not naturalized citizens so they are natural- born.
The rest is worth the time to read, It’s a very good historical synopses. The first part is more or less fluff.
Actually they have visited it in a round about way...Kim Wong Ark. 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about what determines United States citizenship.
In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
So as you can see...it doesn´t matter if his father was born on Mars, he is a US citizen at birth because he was born here...the decision by the Supreme Court in 1898 was 6-2
As have you.
“Sole U.S. jurisdiction was a core requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to emancipated slaves and their descendants, because they were, and have always been, under sole U.S. jurisdiction.
“For sake of argument, if the 14th Amendment had redefined “natural born citizen” to mean anyone “born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (where “jurisdiction” is understood to mean sole U.S. jurisdiction), Obama would still fail to meet the natural born citizen requirement. Here’s why...
“On his web site, Obama claims that his father was a British subject and that, in 1961, the citizenship status of children of British subjects was “governed” (that’s Obama’s word) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus Obama’s citizenship status, at birth, was “governed” by British law, in addition to U.S. law.
“If Obama’s citizenship status at birth was “governed” by the laws of a foreign country, how could he, at birth, be subject to sole U.S. jurisdiction, which is an essential requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship? “
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref08
Some folks get “citizen” and “natural born citizen”confused. You seem to be one of them. And to those that say they are the same: then why does it specify, in the constitution, Natural born?
Thanks. I popped into this thread real quickly and I thought the author was advocating for Chris Matthews. I’ll read it later when I have the time...
.....So as you can see...it doesn´t matter if his father was born on Mars, he is a US citizen at birth because he was born here...the decision by the Supreme Court in 1898 was 6-2.....
baloney the parents were LAPRs lawfully admitted for permanent residence different from illegal aliens or temporary visitors oh and they only ruled the child was a citizen not natural born:
see section 14
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
Actually no I am not getting it confused...perhaps you are maybe. You might want to read the texts...it is clear he was naturally born in the US because he was born here..naturalized means you were born somewhere else other than the United States..Go read the case and get back to me. It was determined that his citizenship could not be taken from him because he was BORN in the US.
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.