Posted on 03/31/2010 9:00:21 AM PDT by americanpatriotfoundation
Lt. Col. Lakin uses the term "Natural Born Citizen", twice, in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea9JVnck_-E&feature=player_embedded
Why the Army would change that to "native" citizen, who really knows. I think, many/most of us, know full well why.
If he gives you a hard time I will pull him through the screen and bounce him off the wall like I do the other trolls, it slows them down.
Sickening.
Just found this funny on another website and thought you two could use a laugh..(our federal buraeucracy’s future or present...who knows?...lol)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LIpAxjPt9U&feature=player_embedded
I am recording 24. Need to watch last week’s epsisode before tonight. Is tonight the last night?
So are you saying that all those hundreds of thousands of men and women who deploy on schedule as ordered are dishonorable?
There is of course no such law. But there is also not any law that says they are the same thing.
But it's easy to prove that "citizen at birth" and "native born citizen" are not the same thing. Persons born outside the US of two US citizen parents are citizens at birth, but they are not "native born". And in fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that, with some eceptions, persons born outside of the US, but citizens at birth under the statutes are "naturalized at birth" and are not even 14th amendment citizens (born or naturalized in the US), even though they do not need to go through the usual statutory naturalization process. The same was true of residents of lands acquired by the US, such as Puerto Rico, they were naturalized en mass, and did not need to go through the naturalization process.
But as to "Natural Born Citizen", the issue can only arrise, in cases involving Presidential or Vice Presidential eligibility. There are no other circumstances where being a "natural born citizen" matters. Native born may matter, "naturalized in the US" verses naturalized outside the US may matter, and boht have been the subjects of many cases. But no cases exist at the Supreme Court level at least, where "natural born citizen" matters.
Here is a link from Justia, with links to applicable case law, that states:
The first sentence of � 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.1230 This contemplation is given statutory expression in � 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,1231 which itemizes those categories of persons who are citizens of the United States at birth; all other persons in order to become citizens must pass through the naturalization process. The first category merely tracks the language of the first sentence of � 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment in declaring that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens by birth.1232 But there are six other categories of citizens by birth. They are: (2) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe, (3) a person born outside the United States of citizen parents one of whom has been resident in the United States, (4) a person born outside the United States of one citizen parent who has been continuously resident in the United States for one year prior to the birth and of a parent who is a national but not a citizen, (5) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of one citizen parent who has been continuously resident in the United States or an outlying possession for one year prior to the birth, (6) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five unless prior to his twenty-first birthday he is shown not to have been born in the United States, and (7) a person born outside the United States of an alien parent and a citizen parent who has been resident in the United States for a period of ten years, provided the person is to lose his citizenship unless he resides continuously in the United States for a period of five years between his fourteenth and twenty-eighth birthdays.
So right there you have 7 types of "citzen at birth". Most of which are clearly not "native born".
No but a double shot two hours!!
Oh jeeze .. that is something ... LOL.
Probably present times, and the ACORN
lady and SEIU thugs were off camera .... :)
well, at least on Madelyn's side of the family they knew what natural-born means...
I appreciate your research to verify that ALL citizens-at-birth qualify as “natural born citizens.”
Its really very, very simple: if you are an American citizen but not a naturalized citizen and therefore ineligible to be president or vice president then you are a citizen-at-birth and you qualify to be president or vice president as a natural born citizen.
A person who was in one of those seven categories of citizens-at-birth that you named was Charles Curtis, the 31st Vice President of the United States who was the first person with acknowledged Native American ancestry to reach either of the two highest offices in the United States government’s executive branch. His maternal ancestry was three-quarters’ Native American, of ethnic Kaw, Osage and Pottawatomie ancestry. Curtis spent years of his childhood living with his maternal grandparents on the Kaw reservation.
The fact that Barack Obama is President of the United States and that John McCain COULD have been president of the United States is verification of the above.
The national Republican Party, the McCain-Palin campaign and all of the Republican attorneys in the House of Representatives and the US Senate would have never allowed Obama’s elevation to the presidency without a legal challenge if what I have stated was untrue. Nor would the US Supreme Court have rejected all Obama eligibility challenges from being heard if there were constitutional grounds to disqualify him.
I take it you have not read the Constitution. God is not mentioned therein. Not even as "the Creator", or even "Nature".
You were perhaps thinking of the Declaration of Independence? That does show that while the Government of the United States was not intended to be, nor is it, religious, per se, the Country of the United States was founded by and for those who believed in "Natures God" and "The Creator", and belived that our rights are "endowed by" our "Creator". However several parts of the Constitution, the first amendmenet and Article VI paragraph 3 for example, make religious discrimination, by the government unconstitutional. It also forbides interferance with Religion. It does not however forbid persons with religious motivations from trying to influence or become part of the government. That of course includes both majority and minority religions, however those might be defined or determined.
But the Constitution is a contract and it clearly states that "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". Given that there is considerable information, including Obama's own books, that he is not a Natural Born citizen, no "conspiracy" is required of those wanting the Constitution enforced as written.
Dear Lord.
He’s up against evil.
My research, as you term it, verified that not all citizens at birth are natural born, nor even native born. Some are, for Constitutional purposes, naturalized at birth. This is sometimes referred to as "acquiring" citizenship at birth, but only to distinguish it from individual naturalization of persons originally holding foreign citizenship. But since Congress has no power over citizenship other than via establishment of a uniform rule of Naturalization, anyone who "acquires" citizenship via a statute, must be considered "naturalized" for Constitutional purposes.
Charles Curtis was born in the US, was he not? Of parents who were citizens?
McCain would have qualified because he was born of two citizen parents, and "in the armies of the nation". Parents who have children while serving outside the country are deemed not to have left it's jurisdiction, and those children are deemed "born in the country". See Vattel, Book I, section 217.
Nor would the US Supreme Court have rejected all Obama eligibility challenges from being heard if there were constitutional grounds to disqualify him.
None were rejected on Constitutional grounds. The lower court cases were rejected on "standing" and "justicibility" grounds, while the Supreme Court never gives a reason for not hearing cases, so you can't make any conclusions from their doing so, nor does it create any precedent.
As to the Republican Party and the McCain Campaign, they were likely afraid of being termed "racist".
Sarah Pallin states in her book that she wanted to go into Obama's background, associations and so forth (but not specifically eligibility) but the McCain campaign would not let her. If they wouldn' let her talk about Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright, they sure as heck weren't going to even look at the eligibility of the first Black (well half Black) major party candidate for President. Wouldn't have been politically correct.
I just came here to say the same thing, glad you noticed the wording also!!!
Oh, surely you have got to be kidding. Puleeze tell me Lakin did NOT say Hussein wasn’t “native born.”
They, and they are a few here, are similar to Norway’s detestable QUISLING!!!
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.