Posted on 03/13/2009 11:57:12 AM PDT by AJ in NYC
“You need to learn some manors.”
Unless you are in home renovation, it should be MANNERS.
Yes, you are correct
I should have said manners -—
Spelling is the least important part of writing, but to some, spelling is all that matters.
Never met a good attorney, a good doctor, or a good businessman who could spell worth a damn.
Congratulations for your courage, Congressman, and best of luck!!!
Thanks.
Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided:
1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant's birth;
3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and
4) while the person is under the age of 18 years —
A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile,
B) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.”
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
The State Department!
This is the part that might disqualify Obama, if Obama was not born in the United States.
I still think it possible that Obama WAS born in the United States, but that he might be “embarrassed” (his words, in his court filing) by paternity or some other issue.
He is obviously hiding something!
Or, it will be fun watching Obama try to run in fewer than all 50 States!
Also, on the “standing” issue, make sure a Conservative Democrat runs, in the primaries or in the Caucuses, in any State that has a Birth Certificate requirement.
That Candidate might better have “standing” in Federal or State Court to force Obama to obey the rules!
Well done my FRiend!
Whatever his motive, the tactics he uses work. He’s being as irritating to both sides of the issue as possible, because he wants hits on his blog.
And it is likely that his two books would be then seen as simple , dreamy fiction.
But at the same time, the suppression , all across the board, of Obama's history, and the suppression of his writings, college writings, anecdotal history all point to one thing.
That Obama has a hidden agenda, a personal agenda, a surreptitious agenda, which one can infer is nationalist socialism. It is that mold from which he was cast that has vanished. And it means great ill for America.
This is what is called , the sub issue, or even the universal issue, depending how one wants to regard it, that invests the birth certificate data issue.
And the suppressed information WILL come out , too many people are investigating it for that not to happen at this point
Thus we have so many Obama operatives now posting on the issue here on FR, to subvert that effort and marginalize it. Their presence has been welcomed, because in the final analysis, the inquiring minds of FR always win such issues. Jim Robinson knew this, and that is why he has allowed their presence, welcomed it,which was a very intelligent move on his part.
And so now, tens of thousands witness on Free Republic their solipsist effort, thereby proving the seriousness of the endeavor of this factual exposure, and its necessary execution for the benefit of a someday grateful nation.
We will prevail.
Kev - read Candor7’s comments.
Candor - I appreciate your view on this.
.....and mud in the eye for the tropes!
LOL.
We can start trolling for them now!
I love to fish, as many other freepers do.
We have about 20 such fish in the creel now.
More are welcome.
At the end you said — “He is obviously hiding something!”
—
Oh yeah. I’ve thought so all along. I just don’t know exactly what it is. But no matter what it is, it will be good to get that legislation in place to make it a legal requirement to show certain and specific documentation.
I look forward to that time...
“Yes
Actually.
They can!”
What were you saying - “Yes We Can”? Hmmm - reminds me of something...a catch phrase...
You were saying — The fun part will be watching Obama try to get on the ballot, in these states! Or, it will be fun watching Obama try to run in fewer than all 50 States!
—
Yes, I was hoping that we might see up to, maybe 20 states. That might be wishful thinking, but you never know. At least we’ve got three working on it now.
And yes, can you imagine Obama trying to get around, maybe 20 states... no way! This should break the whole thing wide open...
I concede only that if the legislature and legal system (grew a pair and) further defined “natural born” you could *become* correct. But until then, the language of Morrison Remick Waite and John Bingham stands as the most authoritative definition available. Ergo, in the language of my Constitution itself, every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a natural born citizen. And, until we legally add to it, that is where it stands.
However, I still believe that precedence matters.
I still believe that Congress, or the Courts, if they were to rule on the matter, would take a hard look at the rules as they relate to Citizenship:
“Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.” US Dept. of State.
I strongly believe that “Natural Born Citizen” means what it says, in the phrase itself.
Anyone who is a Citizen, when they are born, is a Citizen due to natural birth.
That person does not need a Court or a Naturalization process, or an oath or an adoption.
I can find no authority, anywhere, that states one can be born a citizen, and at the very moment of birth be recognized as a Citizen, without also, simultaneously, being a Natural Born Citizen, as well.
And where in the Constitution or the Common law as understood by the authors of and those who ratified that provision of the Constitution, is that written? Even a court case that says that, other than maybe in dicta?
Otherwise, it's just your opinion.
There really are no court cases, because the only time the distinction arises is for eligibility to the office of President. There has never been a President, or major party candidate, whose natural born status was questioned in court. Still aren't.
There is one President, Chester Arthur, who hid the fact that, while he was born in the US, and was thus a citizen at birth, his father was not naturalized until he was 14. The fact was only discovered until well after he had left office. And he was not elected to the Office, but rose to the office because as Vice President, his President, James A. Garfield, was assassinated. Of course the VP must meet the same qualifications, but generally does not get the same level of scrutiny, although his opponents did allege, falsely, that he had been born in Canada. Arthur actually lied about his father's status. He claimed that his father had come to the US at 18, and lived here for several years before marrying. He also lied about his father's age when he was born, as part of the "cover up".
So we've had a usurper before, one who knew he was a usurper. (How could he not have known that his father was naturalized when he was 14, nearly an adult in those days, and why would he lie about his father's age?) His mother was born in Vermont. His situation was thus very similar to Obama's except that we don't know for certain where Obama was born. But if he was born in Hawaii, the situation would very closely parallel Obama's, except that Arthur was raised by his parents, in Vermont, not in England, Canada or any other country, unlike Obama, who spent years living in and going the local schools in a foreign country (Indonesia).
It is very rational to assume that a court, if asked to define, “Natural Born Citizen”, would rule that this simply means “Citizen When Born” -— That Citizenship was NOT due to Naturalization, but instead due to Birth.
It is very rational to assume that any Court would look at the laws of Citizenship, as they applied at the time of Birth, to make such a ruling.
No Naturalized Citizen may ever be POTUS.
If you are a Citizen, and were NOT Naturalized, and you were not granted Citizenship due to adoption, and you were not granted Citizenship by any retroactive law, but were a Citizen with your very first breath?
Well, then there is no Constitutional bar to you being POTUS.
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.