Posted on 12/16/2011 5:31:52 PM PST by bushpilot1
Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2009
I don’t see how at any time you could literally translate the French “Les Naturels ou indegenes” (plus accent marks) into “natural born citizens”, i.e., create the word “citizens” when it simply isn’t there. If it’s not a literal translation, then it cannot be a dictionary-like definition used by the framers. That is, the entire argument is destroyed.
The Obot side has to work slower because we are bound by the truth and can’t just make stuff up.
Chief Justice Fuller gets it right..Dr. Conspiracy is a fraud.
“Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Book I, c.19, § 212.
Thanks again patlin for locating the document.
Your welcome. I'm done with the heavy research for the time being. The 1859 Attorney General Op is the key to the Civil Rights Act that became the 14th Amendment and its sister legislation which is the 1868 Expatriation Act. Until Congress restores the definition of citizenship as defined by the US Administration in 1859 and published in all major newspapers nationwide, the road to complete tyranny will continue to spiral at mach speed.
They lack shame plus a whole lot more. Their most essential lack is any appreciation for the gift the framers gave us. In specifying only NBCs could become POTUS, the framers specifically sought to exclude jerks like Obama who are half-foreign and don’t even know how many states there are. Obama is a foreigner by thinking, sympathy and via his father [whose thinking/positions he embraced in his ghostwritten ‘memoir’.] Which is precisely why he represents the ideal of the Obots, since they don’t like traditional America any more than Obama does. So they have no choice but to argue that the framers specifically wanted to enshrine the rights of foreigners to become POTUS.
By which I mean exactly what I write: foreigners. They’re okay w Obama being half-American, but that’s only because he’s a transition. When the argument is ‘soil vs blood + soil’, there’s no way to make it soil + half-blood vs soil + full-blooded’. That’s a purely arbitrary tweak, and one that 99.9 percent of Obots reject anyway. Their argument is ‘soil only’.
By which is meant—and I’ve had them admit this to my face—that if a high ranking red Chinese communist is in a plane flying over the US and gives birth, her kid is a NBC. Which only makes sense. Since ‘soil only’ refers solely to location and leaves parentage out completely, then US airspace is as good as the seventh floor of a maternity ward. By the same token, a one-day, or one-hour, stay—i.e.: just long enough to give birth—is all it takes. Just get the foreign-raised, indoctrinated brat back into the US long enough to establish residency, then run him for POTUS and laugh their butts off when he wins and immediately begins his systematic destruction of traditional America.
Iow, to these Obots being raised American by American parents is so divorced from the requirement of being a NBC, it’s only the ignorant silliness of ‘birthers’ that enables them to imagine that it is. I.e.: only jingoistic rubes would even want to exclude foreigners from the Oval office—oh, and racists too, of course. The truly erudite among us welcome foreigners as POTUS; citizens of the world trump US citizens on every score, doncha know.
The stupidity of their thinking is impossible to quantify. It’s like they imbue US soil w some kind of magic pixie dust, so that the location alone creates the type of citizen the framers sought to occupy the highest office of the land. Except that it’s equal parts hatred of the US and stupidity. They want to destroy the parts of America that conservatives love and value most. How better to do it than to argue ‘soil only’, get an America-hating foreigner in office, and then rub salt in the wounds of conservatives every chance they get? Unfortunately for them, we’re tuning them out to such a degree it’s getting harder and harder to get the salt where they want it. ;)
The fogblowers among us are very low and jerkish [just like their Won]. They’re also to be pitied. They have small minds and they walk in darkness w’out even realizing it. Most will never wake up out of their moonbat stupor. What a sad, twisted and wasted way to go through life.
Constitutional presidential eligibility is not a matter of theory. I'm sure there was a very good reason Soros' goons wanted all the Minor citations excised from Justia.com and spent a goodly amount of time and money in the effort. Think about it.
HF
Thanks for the ping. This sounds like a good development...or am I mistaken?
holden wrote: “I’d bet from your answers you never had a course in logic or programmed computers for a living.”
How about a bet we could settle? I bet Obama wins the challenge in Georgia and appears on the ballot.
George Romney’s citizenship was an issue when he was running for president. He was born in Mexico.
I hope these people are prepared and that Orly is NOT part of these proceedings. The Supreme Court IS the legal precedent here, so as long as they cite that as the primary factor, there’s no solid legal footing NOT to follow that actual guidance.
So Taitz is also after the Hawaiian COLB of Virginia Sunahara.
Here we go...Motion for separate hearing..
C. Different Legal Theories
Plaintiff Welden’s legal theory relies upon one substantive fact, which has beenrepeatedly and publically admitted by the Defendant, and one definition from the SupremeCourt.
See Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875). The other Plaintiffs intend to assertmultiple legal theories including fraud, identify theft, and others.
C. Different Legal TheoriesPlaintiff Welden’s legal theory relies upon one substantive fact, which has beenrepeatedly and publically admitted by the Defendant, and one definition from the SupremeCourt.
See Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875). The other Plaintiffs intend to assertmultiple legal theories including fraud, identify theft, and others.
So why not accept my counter-challenge?
For me to win my counter-challenge *all* those legal theories must lose. If you like Welden's argument, great. If he wins in court, you win against me. Are you game, or do you cower away?
Whether or not you have the stones, I'm on record: "I bet Obama wins the challenge in Georgia and appears on the ballot."
I’m not a legal expert, jut a hobbyist OBOT debunking utter crank nonsenseanything that can possibly harm my dear, jug eared, darling Oblahblah the Marxist.
There, fixed it for you..TROLL
This would have been settled long ago and obama would not be in the WH right now had the media not run interference for him. The major media outlets are complicit in the cover-up.
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.
