Or perhaps it means that we no longer capitalize all our nouns any more just as we no longer use the "long s" letter either.
Posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13
4 Cases have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that define the status of Natural Born Citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Nor didi anyone say there was. Being born in a hospital is about honesty, not the Constitution. We won't know if Obama meets Constitutional requirements until we honestly know the truth about where Obama was born.
The Constitution requires birth in the United States and age 35 plus 14 years residence in the US.
You have two parts correct.
Anyone who doesn’t have enough transparency from Obama should vote against him in 2012.
If his lack of transparency is because of criminal fraud, we shouldn't have to wait till 2012 to get his criminal butt out office.
If his father isn't at least a permanent immigrant, like the parents in Wong Kim Ark, then arguably Obama isn't an American citizen period. Otherwise, then, yes, the father needs to be an American citizen.
If there was, the McCain/Palin campaign would have sought an injunction to stop Obama’s election; Vice President Cheney would not have certified Obama’s electoral votes; and Chief Justice Roberts would not have sworn him in as the 44th President of the United States.
You're right. They should have sought an injunction. Failing to take action does NOT justify the transgression.
If the parent left the other country before the child was born and naturalized before the child reached majority, then I'm saying there would be less reason to challenge the child's claim of natural born citizenship. The child would have grown up in a home in this country with parents whose allegiance was to this country. That's pretty much what natural born citizenship is all about.
What then?? Find the truth. If Obama intentionally deceived Americans by claiming to be born in a hospital in America when he knew he wasn't, then the bum has committed criminal fraud ... which would be impeachable.
The court clearly concludes that all of those cases imply that a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States, on US soil, is a natural born citizen.
Being a liberal troll, you OBVIOUSLY do not care to read the applicable citations. Because, you will find out that you are wrong.
BTW: If you bothered to read Calvin's Case - you will find that he WAS declared to be a natural born subject. The Court had been petitioned to deny him that status so that he could not inherit - since he had been born in Scotland. The Court ruled that he had been born AFTER James I united the kingdoms and, being born in Scotland he was born within the sovreign's dominion. It was ALSO ruled that he WAS BORN under a single allegiance to that same sovreign [James I].
As far as the citations, Justice Gray CLEARLY lied to some extent.
Although children born in England to alien parents were USUALLY considered to be natural born subjects, he CONVENIENTLY NEGLECTED to add the following citation from Calvin's Case:
" ... 3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because, though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject ..."
Calvin's Case clearly states that a child can only be a natural born subject if he is born within the sovreign's dominion AND under actual obedience to that same sovreign. That obedience was transmitted through the parents - BOTH parents had to be under actual obedience to the sovreign.
Actual obedience means solitary allegiance - but Justice Gray fails to mention it.
That would seem reasonable in this day and age - but absent a Constituional Amendment, we are talking about what the Founding Fathers understood at the time they wrote the Constitution. The father would have had to have been naturalized prior to the child's birth.
On what basis?
Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, the law presumes that what's in the state's vital record is the truth. That is, if his long form says he was not born in the Hospital, but still says he was born in Hawaii (and the revelations of the Hawaii DOH don't leave any room to doubt that), then the presumption still is he was born in Hawaii.
If you want to say he was born elsewhere, you'll have to prove it. To this day, no credible evidence of a birth outside Hawaii has been produced (and no, transparently phony Kenyan birth certificates aren't credible evidence).
If Obama intentionally deceived Americans by claiming to be born in a hospital in America when he knew he wasn't, then the bum has committed criminal fraud
Actually, I don't think that's true. It's not criminal fraud to lie in a book or to lie to the public in speaches. Besides, he could always claim his mother concealed the truth from him and didn't find out he was born at home until now, so he wasn't really lying. And, frankly, I don't see how anyone could possibly prove otherwise.
And, frankly, I don't think many people would care wheher he was born in a hospital or at home. Though I doubt very much he was born anywhere other than Kapiolani medical center.
I disagree, mainly because the Founding Fathers were composed of many a British immigrant (including Irish immigrants). Rejecting the British crown to live in America was what defined this country. Shanks v. Dupont reinforces this idea by noting that those who were native born in this country but adhered to the United States were considered citizens and those who adhered to the crown were considered British subjects. Naturalization laws have been somewhat arbitrary as to length of residence and other requirements. At that point you're getting away from the natural character of allegiance.
“...a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.”
The above statement is the Wong Kim conclusion. Note “citizen of the United States.” Furthermore, Wong Kim refers to Minor v. Happersett in which Chief Justice Waite refers to and quote Vattel - "born in the country of citizen parents." Now I know you two won't stop the nonsense because you have a job to do which does not involve truth.
McCain/Palin did not try to stop Obama because McCain too is ineligible. McCain would have been stopped had he won the nomination in 2000. There were law suits and lots of congressional hearings. It is possible that the plan to use McCain's ineligibility had already been hatched by 2000. There were honest Democrats, Prof Gabriel Chin and others doing thorough legal research which confirmed McCain's problem. Had the 1790 Naturalization Act survived - it was rescinded in 1795 - McCain would have been deemed a natural born citizen, but it didn't, and McCain wasn't.
Among the firms attempting to get the natural born citizen definition amended (the only way to change it) was Chicago's Kendall and Ellis, whose partners sat on Obama’s election board, but also defend McCain in at least one of the law suits about his ineligibility. I doubt we will ever know if McCain was a traitor, paid or coerced, to provide cover for Obama, but his ineligibility is an old topic which has never been decided legally in his favor.
That the parent rejected the crown in immigrating and wanted to be a U.S. citizen.
Let me know when any of this gets Obama out. Meanwhile I think the better effort is in producing new better candidates to take out Democrats and to promote more conservatism in the REPUBLICAN party.
You need to read more of my posts before you lump me in with anything curiosity has posted. You clearly don't understand what I've been commenting on or haven't picked up on the fact that I disagree with him. I would encourage everyone to read Wong Kim Ark.
Calvin's Case clearly states that a child can only be a natural born subject if he is born within the sovreign's dominion AND under actual obedience to that same sovreign. That obedience was transmitted through the parents - BOTH parents had to be under actual obedience to the sovreign.
Yeah. All that means is that the parents are subject to the King and have to obey his laws at the time and place of the birth. In a republic without a King, the analogous concept is that the parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the the government at the time of birth, which was the case with both Wong's parents as well as Obama's.
Actual obedience means solitary allegiance -
Uh, no. Allegiance and obediance have different meanings.
All "actual obedience" means is that the parents are living in territory under the King's rule and obligated to obligated to obey the King at the time and place of their child's birth.
Applied to a republic, it just means that the parents are living in the sovereign territory of the Republic and are only obligated to follow that Republic's laws at the time of the child's birth. That is also clearly the case with Obama's parents, as well as Wong's.
We haven't seen any state's vital record yet. There's nothing to assume, except that Obama is hiding his vital records.
That is, if his long form says he was not born in the Hospital, but still says he was born in Hawaii (and the revelations of the Hawaii DOH don't leave any room to doubt that), then the presumption still is he was born in Hawaii.
Instead of assuming what the long form says, let's make it public for everyone to see.
If you want to say he was born elsewhere, you'll have to prove it. To this day, no credible evidence of a birth outside Hawaii has been produced (and no, transparently phony Kenyan birth certificates aren't credible evidence).
Sorry, but the Kenyan birth certificate with the footprint is at least as credible as Obama's redacted (and alleged) COLB. At least the Kenyan certificate contains signatures and information that can be cross-checked. Obama's alleged COLB, not so much.
Actually, I don't think that's true. It's not criminal fraud to lie in a book or to lie to the public in speaches.
Yes, but once you sign affadavits claiming to be eligible for president on the basis of your claims ... that is criminal fraud.
Besides, he could always claim his mother concealed the truth from him and didn't find out he was born at home until now, so he wasn't really lying. And, frankly, I don't see how anyone could possibly prove otherwise.
I think this is extremely possible. I really, truly think that Obama cannot prove where he was born and may not know.
And, frankly, I don't think many people would care wheher he was born in a hospital or at home. Though I doubt very much he was born anywhere other than Kapiolani medical center.
If he wasn't born at the hospital, he may not have been born in Hawaii. That's the point. Who can affirm where he was born?? At least in a hospital, the doctors are pretty reliable sources of information. An unattended birth reported by Granny, not so much. Based on his nonsequential certificate number, I think it's very, very, very unlikely Obama was born in a Hawaii hospital.
No it is not - it is despicable, but not criminal.
On the other hand, it IS criminal to file for candidacy in each state, since you have to swear that you are eligible to the office.
If the AZ legislature passes the eligibility act that is now before them, then Obama might be in a world of sh*t ...
If passed, he would have to prove his eligibility - including NBC in order to be on the ballot in AZ. The AZ SOS might deny him, under the NBC part. Since he cannot prove it by documentation [the term NBC has not been defined], he then has three options:
1. He could take it to court - and it would be appealed all the way to SCOTUS [regardless of being affirmed or denied in the lower courts].
SCOTUS would then have to decide to affirm, which would open the door to posssible "agent provocateurs" being POTUS in the future.
or
SCOTUS could deny and Obama would be out of the presidential race - and I don't know what they do with the laws he signed in his first term. He would then also be potentially liable to answer to criminal prosecution for affirming [in all 50 states] that he was eligible the first time around.
2. Obama could decide NOT to file in AZ [in which case, he would forfeit AZ's electoral votes] - but that would instill mis-trust in other states, meaning "what does he have to hide?". This could be devastating [electorally] in the so-called "swing states" and he could lose the election.
3. He could choose NOT to run at all for a second term. He would not have to reveal anything - but he would not be POTUS after January 20, 2013.
Did you notice that every noun (following in the German style) is capitalized in it?
As are all the other nouns in it as well.
Every noun in the original handwritten Constitution is capitalized. Capitalization of those two nouns means nothing more than the capitalization of all the rest means -- which is that those are nouns.
Or perhaps it means that we no longer capitalize all our nouns any more just as we no longer use the "long s" letter either.
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.