Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

News from Alan Keyes: Judge Confirms Eligibility Trial to Proceed
AIPNews.com ^ | October 7, 2009 | Alan Keyes

Posted on 10/07/2009 11:23:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance

By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty

 

I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.

Loyal to Liberty ...


TOPICS: Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; judgecarter; keyes; lawsuit; naturalborn; obama; orlytaitz; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,401-1,4501,451-1,5001,501-1,550 ... 1,601-1,648 next last
To: altair

I’ve been here over a year, after lurking for over a year before then. I came here through a friend, who kept sending me prayer requests from here. I actually joined for that purpose.

Much of what I read on this wonderful site on political issues, I agree with and feel no need to repeat what others have already said so well. Nor do I feel the need to post a response publicly every time a prayer request is sent out — although I read every one and forward to our church’s prayer chains as well as forwarding to my friend who is a Catholic, who sends out the requests on her church’s prayer chains.

If the fact that I agree with my fellow-Freepers on most issues addressed here, and that my primary reason for joining - and staying - was to find prayer requests and get them sent out to nationwide prayer chains, means I have serious issues, just because I disagree with the Freepers who seek judicial activism rather than legislative changes, and post on that issue ... so be it.


1,451 posted on 10/10/2009 10:24:10 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1440 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Walk with me thru this...

In order to be eligible and qualified to serve as the President of the United States you must be a “natural born” citizen, be at least 35 years of age and have resided in the U.S. for 14 years. (United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 5).
Whereas, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. “ This means that, in modern times, you cannot legally or legitimately serve as President of the United States, unless you are: . at least 35 years of age . a resident of the United States for at least 14 years . a natural born citizen. Since allegiance of the potential President and Commander-in-Chief was the main concern of the Founding Fathers, ‘Natural Born Citizen’ has been understood to mean meeting the following two requirements: . You must be born in the United States; “on US soil” and . Both of your parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of your birth.


Your statement: So, you’re citing immigration and naturalization statutes, in an attempt at defining the Constitutional term of art natural-born citizen.


Incorrect, I am quoting the Constitution of the United States.

So, if a form of citizenship is determined via statute, then that form of citizenship must be construed as naturalization. That is why you’ve no doubt seen myself and others insisting that naturalization at birth is a necessary understanding under the Constitution.


I have no problem with this statement. As it is clear that Natural Born citizen is defined as meeting the following two requirements: . You must be born in the United States; “on US soil” and . Both of your parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of your birth. So how is determination made for children born of two US citizens, on active duty for the military of the US, but not born on US soil? Hence the need for statutes to determine those cases
The U.S. law in effect during Obama’s birth stated if you are born abroad to one U.S. parent and a foreign national, the U.S. parent must have resided in the United States for a least 10 years, five of which were after the age of 14 in order to register the child’s birth abroad in the United States as a “natural born” U.S. citizen. (Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952 and affirmed several times since). Since Obama was born in Hawaii, this law does not directly apply to him. It does, however, offer another specific definition of “natural-born” citizenship - one which confers “natural-born” status to multi-national children insofar as the US parent has resided in America for 10 years, five of which occur after the age of 14. Unfortunately, Obama’s American mother was just 18 when she delivered him. So he fails to meet even this definition of “natural-born.”
So what we see here is the Constitution definition of Natural Born, really important only for the offices of President of the US and Vice-President, issues on Natural Born and Naturalized citizenship then mover to:

Title 8 of the U.S. Code to fill in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship


So, if a form of citizenship is determined via statute, then that form of citizenship must be construed as naturalization. That is why you’ve no doubt seen myself and others insisting that naturalization at birth is a necessary understanding under the Constitution.


I believe I have demonstrated a general knowledge of the differences between Natural Born, and Naturalized, the constitutional defination and the Immigration and Naturalization processes, and even the additional terms spelled out above. Indeed most citizenship is determined by statute, and the Constitution provides the only defintion of Natural Born Status, again, required only for the office of President and VP, and from Personal Experience, high level clearances for the government also require Natural Born status.

It’s useful to remember, that a natural-born citizen is not dependent upon any law to determine his or her citizenship status. It is innate; a state of nature, without a doubt. Subject to the undivided, complete jurisdiction of the United States. No competing claims from foreign states, and no competing allegiance to such a state.


Where does this leave us? Well, we know that a child born of two US citizens on US soil certainly is a “natural-born” citizen. We also know that if a child has just one US parent and is born abroad, he can still be considered “natural-born” if that parent is over the age of 19 and has lived in the US for 10 years (five of which were after the age of 14). There is no clear precedent to extend the definition beyond that. So to those MSM who have so actively said, “He was born in Hawaii to an American mother, case closed!” - think again!

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born to Stanley Ann Dunham (a U.S. citizen) and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (a National of Kenya and, therefore, subject of the United Kingdom). There is no American precedent which specifically suggests that “natural-born” citizenship might be conferred to a child of dual nationalities. Congress or the Supreme Court could easily make such a ruling so as to define “natural-born” status as conferred simply by being born on US soil, but doing so would not retroactively make Obama a natural-born citizen.

Yet, as I said earlier, legal precedent regarding the specific definition of “natural-born citizenship” is quite murky. Far be it from me to issue a finite definition of the term. All I’m seeking to prove here is that there is no justification for the self-righteousness I’ve seen in the MSM and other critics of the birther movement who assume that simply being born in America means one has “natural-born citizenship.” The people who make such suggestions only show their very limited knowledge of the legal precedent.

So, the question of whether or not Obama is, definitionally, a “natural-born” citizen is the first concern of those “crazy birthers.” It’s a concern, by the way, which is entirely unrelated to any conspiracy whatsoever. It’s merely a question of legal precedent. Doesn’t seem like much of a conspiracy to me... it’s a pity the Supreme Court won’t hear any case bringing this issue up. Why? The Supreme Court has ruled that private citizens don’t have “standing” to sue their president for this info. Why? Because a private citizen is not “uniquely damaged” by this problem. Lovely, right? God forbid the Supreme Court be asked to make a difficult decision on a matter of Constitutional definition which could massively effect the entire country...


1,452 posted on 10/10/2009 10:27:58 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1429 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Exactly...


1,453 posted on 10/10/2009 10:36:45 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1438 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
So, tell me where I am wrong in my assertion that his parents chose his citizenship

Under US law they can't do that. That's where your analysis breaks down. Even adoption cannot do that, nor can it make an alien child into a natural born citizen, although it can make them a citizen.

1,454 posted on 10/10/2009 10:57:12 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1449 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
So how is determination made for children born of two US citizens, on active duty for the military of the US, but not born on US soil? Hence the need for statutes to determine those cases

not by statute. By referance to what BP2 calls "founding era documents", in this case Vattel and Blackstone. Both make it clear that children born of citizen parents while those parents are serving the country, but outside of it are "natural born" citizens/subjects.

1,455 posted on 10/10/2009 11:02:35 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1452 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

By legally stating that Barry was still recieving help with his education and that Maya was the only minor child, the document clearly indicates that:
1. Barry is not a minor child, hence an adult (19yo)
2. Barry was adopted, hence part of the divorce proceedings to show his educational support.

So, it also ties in with his travels to Pakistan in 1980-81 which makes him 19-21 years old, which shows he was traveling with an Indonesian passport IMO.


1,456 posted on 10/10/2009 11:10:39 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1445 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

This is new law, you must go back to pertinent law of the time, ie: 1952 case law, which I have already enumerated.


1,457 posted on 10/10/2009 11:12:03 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1446 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

grin


1,458 posted on 10/10/2009 11:13:30 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1450 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

We are not talking about US law, we are talking about Indonesian law, and ITS requirements. Again, since Dual Citizenship was not possible then, the parents made the decision. I am sorry you don’t like it, but I provided case law from Indonesia that proved it.


1,459 posted on 10/10/2009 11:15:29 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1454 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

call it what you want, I call it
Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401


1,460 posted on 10/10/2009 11:17:35 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1455 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401

Says nothing about "natural born". Nor about children born of US servicemembers. Section 1401a does cover children born to those in the military, but only applies to births between January 12, 1941 and December 24, 1952. It also only covers those with a single serve member and citizen parent. It basically applies 1401 (g) to those persons. WW-II cleanup. But it still doesn't address "natural born".

1,461 posted on 10/10/2009 11:26:00 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1460 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”


1,462 posted on 10/10/2009 11:28:46 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1461 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Perhaps this is what your after?


Whereas, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. “ This means that, in modern times, you cannot legally or legitimately serve as President of the United States, unless you are: . at least 35 years of age . a resident of the United States for at least 14 years . a natural born citizen. Since allegiance of the potential President and Commander-in-Chief was the main concern of the Founding Fathers, ‘Natural Born Citizen’ has been understood to mean meeting the following two requirements: . You must be born in the United States; “on US soil” and . Both of your parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of your birth.


1,463 posted on 10/10/2009 11:30:33 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1461 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

The reply of yours, to which I was responding, contained cites of statute law as defining natural-born citizenship. I’ve demonstrated why citing statute law is in error, under enumeration of powers to the Legislative branch under the Constitution. Congress is enumerated power over immigration and naturalization only, and therefore Acts of Congress must be understood to pertain to immigration and naturalization only as a result.

And, you’ve again returned to statute law, determining who is a citizen at birth, and conflate citizen at birth with natural-born citizen. This conflation can be clarified and put to rest, by merely looking to The Nationality Act of 1795, werein children born abroad of U.S. citizens are deemed citizens. That is the prime, original example of citizenship at birth by operation of statute. It’s also a prime example of Congress correcting itself, in one of the first, if not the first, instances of Congressional overreach, in enacting the preceding Nationality Act Of 1790, which clearly exceeded powers enumerated to the Legislative branch.

Continuing on down the line with the multiple, erroneous statements and assumptions, children born of parents abroad due to one or both parents being in the United States Armed Forces, are not natural-born citizens under the Constitution. There have been numerous Bills sponsored, purportedly to make such citizens eligible for the Presidency.

Claire McCaskill sponsored one such Bill just last year, co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Thomas Coburn: S. 2678. Another was sponsored by former Senator Nickles of Oklahoma in 2004, and co-sponsored by Jim Inhofe and Mary Landrieu: S. 2128. This is a matter of public record, easily researched by anyone, so repeated misstatements of fact do not long sway public sentiment on the matter, particularly here on Free Republic.

The sentiment that children born abroad of military parents should be considered natural-born is understandable. But, it is not the law. Matter of fact, the law cannot make such a determination. That is why a Constitutional Amendment would be in order, to accomplish such an end. I’ve named two attempts to do just that in the past five years. Neither was ratified.

You’d have us all believe that such Bills for Constitutional Amendment were wholly unnecessary.

They were not unnecessary. Ill advised, yes, no matter how admirable the sentiment behind them, but necessary to accomplish that end.

For anyone reading this thread who is curious or disagrees, please go to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2128 to look up S. 2128 from 2004. The same can be done for S.2678 from 2008, by using the search field on govtrack.us to locate that Bill.


1,464 posted on 10/10/2009 11:30:33 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1452 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
I am quite familiar with the McCarren-Walter Act effective 12-24-52 as well as the Ted Kennedy Fiasco 1965 Immigration & Nationality Act which eliminated Nation Origins quotas and began the downfall of the US into a third world liberal country, and the IRCA of 1986 (Mazolli-Simpson)which gave amnesty to several million illegal aliens but no or little funding for enforcement which was supposed to be the trade off. Over 40% of amnesty applications were fraudulent, but most were granted anyway.

These statutes say nothing about Natural Born Citizens, only citizens at birth, derived citizenship etc. It is a Statute which yields to The Constitution and its Amendments.

Pertinent point from the State Department link is this:

In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes

1,465 posted on 10/10/2009 11:30:57 AM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1457 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
Barry may have been adopted in Indonesia de facto or de jure. But this has no effect on Barry's legal paternity in the HI vital records and in US law and no effect on Barry's NBC eligibility.

It seems clear to me that a child can have two legal fathers in two different countries just as they can have two legal citizenships.

Stanley Ann may have made a purely tangential reference to Barry in her Soetoro divorce just to dispose of any child support issue. She is also suspected of using the “truth” opportunistically as the Soetoro may have done when declaring Obama to be his son and an Indonesian citizen to get him into school (and Muslin).

We have no forensic legal evidence of any adoption in Indonesia or HI and lack of an index for an adoption for Barry in HI. We have no passport evidence for Barry for the US, Kenya or Indonesia and claims that US citizens couldn't travel to Pakistan in 1981 have been definitively refuted by contemporary travel packages in the NY Times (from memory).

We just don't know and can only guess how Barry got to Pakistan and whether he could travel there on a non-US passport obtained without renouncing his US citizen or NBC status (if he ever had citizen or NBC status).

At least the extremely important confirmation of an HI record of an index for the Stanley-Obama Sr marriage was made last week.

1,466 posted on 10/10/2009 11:31:25 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1456 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Claire McCaskill sponsored one such Bill just last year, co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Thomas Coburn: S. 2678. Another was sponsored by former Senator Nickles of Oklahoma in 2004, and co-sponsored by Jim Inhofe and Mary Landrieu: S. 2128. This is a matter of public record, easily researched by anyone, so repeated misstatements of fact do not long sway public sentiment on the matter, particularly here on Free Republic.


This bill was never passed.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2678


1,467 posted on 10/10/2009 11:34:23 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1464 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

Is there a question in there somewhere?


1,468 posted on 10/10/2009 11:36:01 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1465 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
I am sorry you don’t like it, but I provided case law from Indonesia that proved it.

Niether Indonesian case law, nor statute law directly affects citizenship under US law.

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III

You can see that all renunciation actions must be voluntary on the part of the person, and generally must take place after age 18. (The exceptions being committing treason, insurrection, violent overthrow of the government of the US, etc)

1,469 posted on 10/10/2009 11:41:34 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1459 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

You are making an unwarrented assumption that "citizen at birth is the same as natural born citizen", it's not "natural born citizen" means one who needs no statute to be a citizen at birth, that's why it's call "natural" as in "natural rights". All others, who are citizens at birth solely because of some statute, are not "natural born citizens".

1,470 posted on 10/10/2009 11:44:03 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1462 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
Is there a question in there somewhere?

No it is an answer to your post 1457 (which responded to my post at 1446)We have continually answered your questions and now your failure to read Regulator Country's response has answered mine, good day.

your post 1457...This is new law, you must go back to pertinent law of the time, ie: 1952 case law, which I have already enumerated.....

1,471 posted on 10/10/2009 11:45:10 AM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1468 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

It seems clear to me that a child can have two legal fathers in two different countries just as they can have two legal citizenships.


??? Only one man can father a child, perhaps you meant one father and one step-father???

Item 7 on page two of the divorce eliminates child support for the only minor child.

You do not get a divorce unless you were married. You also cannot confer citizenship in Indonesia thru the mother, only thru the step-father, who is an Indonesian citizen, and to do so, adoption is required.

We have no forensic legal evidence of any adoption in Indonesia or HI and lack of an index for an adoption for Barry in HI. We have no passport evidence for Barry for the US, Kenya or Indonesia and claims that US citizens couldn’t travel to Pakistan in 1981 have been definitively refuted by contemporary travel packages in the NY Times (from memory).


Agreed, what we have is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. Like the divorce decree from Soetoro. IF the documents are ever unsealed, we will learn more.

IMO the biggest news was that his Hawaii info had been modified, See MissTickly, and Leo Donofrio for that information.


1,472 posted on 10/10/2009 11:45:11 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1466 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

The agent in this case was the step-father, who is duly authorized by marriage.


1,473 posted on 10/10/2009 11:47:22 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1469 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I have stated the Constitution, and related statues and US code, your not going to be satisfied, lets move on.


1,474 posted on 10/10/2009 11:48:59 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1470 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
This bill was never passed.

Well, thank you very much, for driving home the point that the status you claim for citizens born abroad of military parents is in error.

Neither the McCaskill-sponsored Bill, purporting to make citizens born abroad of military parents natural-born citizens, nor the Nickles-sponsored Bill, purporting to make citizens born abroad of military parents natural-born citizens, "passed."

Now, what do you suppose the purpose of those two Bills might have been? Would it have been an attempt at making citizens born abroad to military parents into natural-born citizens? That does appear to be the case, etraveler13.

One might reach the logical conclusion that citizens born abroad to military parents are not currently natural-born citizens under the Constitution, might one?

1,475 posted on 10/10/2009 11:49:40 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1467 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

Thank you...I agree that we should move on....


1,476 posted on 10/10/2009 11:49:59 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1471 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

How did we devolve this to an issue about John McCain, and not about Obama?
At this point, I am not interested in issues about Military Children, as Obama does not fall into that catagory.
Perhaps some of the information I posted which were from other locations that I supplied links to, got your panties in a knot, for that I am sorry, and wish to state that my interest is in Obama, not McCain.
I checked your note on the McCaskill bill, read it, and saw that it was stuck in committee and did not pass. To me that shows due diligence to your words.

Save your sarcasm for someone who cares BTW


1,477 posted on 10/10/2009 11:54:16 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1475 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Continuing on down the line with the multiple, erroneous statements and assumptions, children born of parents abroad due to one or both parents being in the United States Armed Forces, are not natural-born citizens under the Constitution.

Actaully they are. See Vattel, "Law of Nations" Book I section 217, in context of sections 212-217.

For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

No statute is required. Blackstone also has an exception for those in the King's service, but serving outside the country.

1,478 posted on 10/10/2009 11:59:16 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1464 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
“??? Only one man can father a child, perhaps you meant one father and one step-father???”

I said “two legal fathers” not two biological fathers.

I don't believe Leo and MissT have actually confirmed directly that there was modification of Barry's BC vital record. I think they have overstated the confidence level they can have in the assumptions behind their deductive reasoning that there was such a modification.

1,479 posted on 10/10/2009 12:02:21 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1472 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
I agree with citing Emerich de Vattel's The Law Of Nations regarding the origin of the term natural-born citizen under original intent.

However, there are the many and numerous attempts at amending the Constitution, for the purpose of making citizens born abroad of U.S. citizen parents in service to the United States Armed Forces, into natural-born citizens.

This alone throws your extended interpretation, of the influence that Vattel had, into serious question. It's clearly and demonstrably not within the understanding of those with authority under the Constitution to propose Amendments to the same.

Perhaps a legal challenge should be mounted, to any such Bill under current or future consideration in the Senate? I'm sure any number of parties would be highly relieved, if such a challenge were to be successful.

The very real issue of messy legal entanglements, for any future President with citizenship claims upon him or her, from a nation of birth under jus soli remains, though. Imagine a President with citizenship in a nation with which we are at war. Is this a person who should be Commander In Chief of the military? I don't think so.

That's why such proposed Bills for Constitutional Amendment are ill-advised.

1,480 posted on 10/10/2009 12:17:33 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1478 | View Replies]

To: mlo

There’s no dispute that his father was British, or whether BO had British citizenship.

~~~~

Curious .. how do you reconcile that statement
with your understanding of our Founders’ immense
bloody struggle to separate themselves from the
British Crown in the fight for the creation,
complete independence and sovereignty for this
new nation, and

when deciding this form of government, their
understandable and explicit requirements in
their documented expressed fears, concerns and
statements that those in the highest office in the
land who came after them shall have no possible
taint or question of divided loyalty or allegiance
to America?


1,481 posted on 10/10/2009 12:30:58 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1413 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
How did we devolve this to an issue about John McCain, and not about Obama?

Because all legitimate discussion of eligibility under the Constitution drew to an abrupt halt, when it became clear that Barack Hussein Obama, II was himself questionable. Obama never was beneficiary of such Senatorial collegiality as was John McCain. Where is Obama's Senate Resolution? He has none.

Perhaps some of the information I posted which were from other locations that I supplied links to, got your panties in a knot, for that I am sorry, and wish to state that my interest is in Obama, not McCain.

Your quaint, derisive colloquialisms aside, the operation of our Constitutional Republic is what it is. You've made repeated misstatements, and I've corrected them. Whether your misstatements pertain to McCain, Obama or whomever, even Bobby Jindal, is irrelevant. But, you are the one who brought the topic into discussion, here.

I checked your note on the McCaskill bill, read it, and saw that it was stuck in committee and did not pass. To me that shows due diligence to your words.

I've shown far more understanding of the issue at hand than you've shown, etraveler13. That the Bill was not "passed" means what, exactly? It means that a Bill for Constitutional Amendment, allowing citizens born abroad to parents serving in the U.S. Armed Forces to be considered as natural-born citizens, is languishing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It has not been "passed," let alone ratified. That you do not grasp the meaning of this, means that you don't understand this matter, at all.

Save your sarcasm for someone who cares BTW I've been far more polite than several other FReepers, with which you've exchanged replies, on this thread alone. You clearly do care, otherwise you wouldn't keep returning to your spurious claim that natural-born citizenship is determined via statute, as you have.

Repeated misstatements of fact do not make the misstatements factual, etraveler13, just as breaking the law does not revoke the law.

1,482 posted on 10/10/2009 12:33:59 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1477 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
“We also know that if a child has just one US parent and is born abroad, he can still be considered “natural-born” if that parent is over the age of 19 and has lived in the US for 10 years (five of which were after the age of 14).”

This is incorrect. Such a child is a citizen, not an NBC ( and you are quoting the law in effect in 1961, not the current law which requires fewer years after age 14).

The number of years after age 14 for the parent of a foreign-born child only applies to the citizenship of that child who can't possibly meet the NBC standard of both blood and soil for a birth on foreign soil.

1,483 posted on 10/10/2009 12:59:14 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1452 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

When a father adopts a child, the biological father is legally relinquished of custody. I know this from personal experience. A child cannot legally have two fathers. Biologically a child can only have one father as well.
So there is no possibility for two legal fathers. Period.

As for the other statement, your entitiled to your opinion, as I am mine.


1,484 posted on 10/10/2009 1:42:14 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1479 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

Two distinct jurisdictions certainly can recognize paternity differently, etraveler13.

It’s time for some disclosure. Clearly this is a personal issue, for you.

Me, I’m natural-born under any interpretation, from the strictest to the most liberal. The only ancestors I have who would not be considered natural-born, going all the way back to the so-called “grandfather clause” were native American. Then, there’s the matter of the late unpleasantness, with two ancestors having to pledge the oath of allegiance after Appomattox. But, that still does not change their birth status.

And you?


1,485 posted on 10/10/2009 1:49:54 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1484 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

Unfortunately, not true. She is in her position as a result of hte 2006 midterm Congressional elections. Democrats won the majority and thus the voting bloc power and ability to select the Speaker of the House.

Reid is in no position whatsoever. He is Senate Majority leader, not President of the Senate, Pro Tempore. That position belongs to Sen. Robert Byrd, ancient fossil of Virginia.

If there is ultimately validity to these legal arguments and proceedings to be carried out in their wake, it would be strategically best for the GOP (as the current minority party in both house and Senate), to wait until immediately after the 2010 midterms.

Given the current state of disgruntlement among “We, the People”, there should be an all-new cast of characters - which would hopefully mean Pelosi’s removal as Speaker and her relegation to a powerless nobody in the minority party, with no committee assignments...

A.A.C.


1,486 posted on 10/10/2009 1:53:48 PM PDT by AmericanArchConservative (Armour on, Lances high, Swords out, Bows drawn, Shields front ... Eagles UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
Dominus tecum.

You, and truth, are appreciated.

1,487 posted on 10/10/2009 1:54:34 PM PDT by browardchad ("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact" - Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1451 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Because all legitimate discussion of eligibility under the Constitution drew to an abrupt halt, when it became clear that Barack Hussein Obama, II was himself questionable. Obama never was beneficiary of such Senatorial collegiality as was John McCain. Where is Obama’s Senate Resolution? He has none.


I find it humorous that he was a co-sponsor on the McCaskill bill personally....

Your quaint, derisive colloquialisms aside, the operation of our Constitutional Republic is what it is. You’ve made repeated misstatements, and I’ve corrected them. Whether your misstatements pertain to McCain, Obama or whomever, even Bobby Jindal, is irrelevant. But, you are the one who brought the topic into discussion, here.


Actually the article posted brought the topic into question.

I’ve shown far more understanding of the issue at hand than you’ve shown, etraveler13. That the Bill was not “passed” means what, exactly? It means that a Bill for Constitutional Amendment, allowing citizens born abroad to parents serving in the U.S. Armed Forces to be considered as natural-born citizens, is languishing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It has not been “passed,” let alone ratified. That you do not grasp the meaning of this, means that you don’t understand this matter, at all.


I know that it has not passed. Is that not correct?

I have conversed with you and provided my reasoning, you don’t agree, fine.

If your a lawyer, say so, if your not, quit pretending to be.
On this board, I am trying to learn, if you can’t convince me, your not a very good teacher.
IMO you throw your weight around like a legal bully, yet cannot seem to put a cohesive understandable sentance together to convey your point. I have gone out of my way to explain what I understand and why, and where I derive my information. You reply with pompous insults and innuendo.
You must be a joy to work with...

Do you need to have the last word? Be my guest.


1,488 posted on 10/10/2009 1:54:56 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1482 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

The law in effect in 1961 is the law that applies, not the laws today.

What I quoted, was the law of the day.


1,489 posted on 10/10/2009 1:56:57 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1483 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

I am a natural born citizen as well, under any interpretation.

In indonesia, only one legal parent is recognized. In America, the same adoption is recognized. Althought the birth father is known, legal custody, and rights are only recognized from the Legal Stepfather. The child can have a legal name change, but cannot denounce the legality of the step-father. He can ignore, or refrain from interaction, but can only lose that relationship by relinquishment from the step-father, to a new step-father, even if that is to the biological father. Interestingly the father would then legally be a step-father.


1,490 posted on 10/10/2009 2:03:25 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1485 | View Replies]

To: AmericanArchConservative

“... Sen. Robert Byrd, ancient fossil of Virginia.”

Please be careful here ... Virginia has it bad enough; Byrd is from WEST Virginia.


1,491 posted on 10/10/2009 2:04:23 PM PDT by EDINVA (Obama CAN'T see the Olympics from his back porch !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1486 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
You do seem to have all the old BBS tricks down pat. But, before then, your statements require answering, and I'll answer them.

I find it humorous that he was a co-sponsor on the McCaskill bill personally....

As far as Obama, I find it a conflict of interest. There were aspects of that McCaskill-sponsored Bill that were removed, which were far more favorable to Obama. He knew what he was doing, and the entire Senate knew. This pose of innocence is nonsense, on both sides of the aisle.

Actually the article posted brought the topic into question.

As have you. Why were you questioning how the discussion has turned out as it has, then?

I know that it has not passed. Is that not correct?

You've acknowledged that, and I've thanked you for that acknowledgement. You seem to want to present this as meaning that citizens born abroad of parents in service to the military are somehow natural-born citizens as a result, but the opposite is the case.

I have conversed with you and provided my reasoning, you don’t agree, fine.

Some things are a matter of subjective opinion, and some things are not.

If your a lawyer, say so, if your not, quit pretending to be.

I've never presented myself as an attorney. I've sued and been sued. I've studied this eligibility issue from a Constitutional standpoint, and have spent a great deal of time to understand it, for going on close to a year.

On this board, I am trying to learn, if you can’t convince me, your not a very good teacher.

The "teaching" doesn't appear to be the problem, so much as the student. I'm far from the only FReeper who has attempted to point out your errors.

IMO you throw your weight around like a legal bully, yet cannot seem to put a cohesive understandable sentance together to convey your point. I have gone out of my way to explain what I understand and why, and where I derive my information. You reply with pompous insults and innuendo.

What weight I have to throw here is due to having spent time to understand the matter, etraveler13. That is something you appear not to have done, in all honesty. Wishful thinking does not change that. You've received no insult from me, other than my stating that you clearly do not understand this. And, you clearly don't.

You must be a joy to work with...

I had my own, very successful business for over 13 years, and had to shut it down last year, due to the economy. I was hired by a customer, and am employed by that now former customer to this day. That should tell you that at least some find me competent at a minimum, if not a joy. You should try sales for your own business sometime. It'll disabuse you of the notion that what you want always matters.

Do you need to have the last word? Be my guest.

No, please do yourself. I insist, lol.

1,492 posted on 10/10/2009 2:17:37 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1488 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

Being the daughter of ol’ Virginny as West Virginia is, the mistake is perhaps understandable, lol.

It goes to show just how upside down our nation has become, that the only person in the current line of succession, that I’d entrust the nation to in the least, would be Robert Byrd.

He’s about as old-school of a Democrat as you’re going to find above ground. He has all the old-school Democrat baggage, too. But he loves his country and his people, that is not at question.

He’d try to do the right thing as he understands it, of that I have no doubt. It’s just that his understanding as a Democrat is too often at odds with mine. He’s still superior to any of the other transnational progressive trash before and after him in that line of succession.


1,493 posted on 10/10/2009 2:25:20 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1491 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
"There’s no dispute that his father was British, or whether BO had British citizenship."

"Curious .. how do you reconcile that statement with your understanding of our Founders’ immense bloody struggle to separate themselves from the British Crown ... and statements that those in the highest office in the land who came after them shall have no possible taint or question of divided loyalty or allegiance to America?"

There's nothing to reconcile. They didn't try to make a rule assuring "no possible taint or question of divided loyalty". How could they? It's not possible. Loyalty isn't just about circumstances of birth, it's a state of mind. There can be no rule requiring someone feel "loyalty".

The fact of the matter is that they addressed the reasonable concern about divided loyalty with the reasonable rule, not the infallible rule, the reasonable rule, requring a natural born citizen. Which they understood to mean as someone a citizen at birth.

There's no conflict in that meaning. The only conflict is with birthers now who think the founders couldn't have meant that. But they did. The historical and common law meaning is clear. Courts have ruled on it. And it is NOT an unreasonable thing for the founders to have required, despite what birthers think now.

1,494 posted on 10/10/2009 2:59:30 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1481 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"I agree with citing Emerich de Vattel's The Law Of Nations regarding the origin of the term natural-born citizen under original intent."

As has been pointed out, Vattel didn't define the term "natural born citizen". He also wasn't talking about universal rules. He was a Swiss philosopher writing in French about general rules. He specifically noted that rules regarding citizenship at birth were different in England.

1,495 posted on 10/10/2009 3:03:15 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1480 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
"As usual, you appear to be trying to ensnare the new, unwary or inattentive FReepers with a blatantly false statement."

Oh get off it. People can disagree with you without being dishonest.

"There is such a dispute."

OK, fine. You tell me you dispute whether BO was a British citizen. Great. Someone disputes it.

But I don't, and the person I was talking to doesn't, and it detracts from the Birther position anyway, who cares?

"Are we to believe that BO II was British at birth just because he says to?"

I don't care. If he was a British citizen, it doesn't matter. If he wasn't, it still doesn't matter. It's the Birther's that think it matters.

1,496 posted on 10/10/2009 3:09:25 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1448 | View Replies]

To: BP2
"The SCOTUS regularly uses "founding-era sources" to define the intent of the Framers in SCOTUS Opinions, especially for Constitutional questions."

Yes, and the SCOTUS did not agree with you on this issue.

"SO, by applying Vattel's "Natural Born Citizen" definition, using natural law in requiring BOTH parents to be citizens ..."

Vattel didn't HAVE a "Natural Born Citizen" definition.

"By applying Blackstones's "Natural Born Subject" definition, using the common law to recognize the children born "out of the country" of the FATHER (only) as being a "Natural Born Subject" of his FATHER's country ..."

Which is completely meaningless if BO is born IN the US.

1,497 posted on 10/10/2009 3:14:15 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1438 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
"I think you fully understand the corner to which BP2 has backed you and your Blackstone "angle", into: Here and Here. It will be interesting to here your answer to BP2's comments."

He didn't back anyone into a corner. He, and apparently you, are missing a basic point. He's trying to apply a rule about being born OUT of the country to the circumstance of someone born IN the country.

The whole discussion stems from whether BO can be a natural born citizen due to parentage, *even if he was born in Hawaii*. Citing rules about being born OUT of the country doesn't exactly address that question, does it?

1,498 posted on 10/10/2009 3:17:39 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1428 | View Replies]

To: mlo

There’s nothing to reconcile. They didn’t try to make a rule assuring “no possible taint or question of divided loyalty”. How could they? It’s not possible.

~~~

I don’t get that reasoning.

From its most basic and logical premise,
would you not agree it’s certainly possible
to most fundamentally determine allegiance to
country from the standpoint of country of
origin and citizenship of one’s parents?

Let me attempt to simplify your reasoning
for my understanding.

My grandparents came here from Poland, where
they were born, and became proud naturalized
citizens of the US.

So, my Mother was born to naturalized citizens
of the United States.

Let’s say hypothetically my grandparents were
merely been visiting here on a visitor’s or student
visas when my Mother decided to arrive into the
world, and they separated shortly after her birth,
with my Grandfather returning to Poland and my
Grandmother choosing to stay here on her visa
to build a life here.. perhaps illegally at first,
and then eventually becoming a legal naturalized
citizen of the US.

And let’s say that, even though her Father never
contributed any financial or other support for her,
my Mother initiated and kept up communications with
her Father and extended family in Poland, and visited
there regularly.

Would the Founder’s and the Constitution assert that
my Mother would be eligible, and completely without
any taint of foreign allegiance or loyalty to another
country, if she eventually successfully ran for and
became VP of the US when she was 35?


1,499 posted on 10/10/2009 3:38:01 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1494 | View Replies]

To: mlo; All

> By applying Blackstones’s “Natural Born Subject” definition, using the common law to recognize the children born “out of the country” of the FATHER (only) as being a “Natural Born Subject” of his FATHER’s country

>> Which is completely meaningless if BO is born IN the US.

Perhaps applying CURRENT US statutes and State Dept policy ...

... but NOT in the eyes of the Framers, or the British Crown, both using common law for a British Subject — Barack Hussein Obama SR


1,500 posted on 10/10/2009 3:45:54 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1497 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,401-1,4501,451-1,5001,501-1,550 ... 1,601-1,648 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson