Not Natural Born -- TRUTH MATTERS (Obama's own words condemn him)

youtube ^ | 5/2/10

[bestintxas]

The video starts out with some content from obamasnippets.com, which, of course is contrived. And yet, there seems to be a synthetic truth about what the president says. Is he "natural born" according to the Constitution? No. The requirement is that BOTH parents need to be U. S. Citizens. Two U. S. Citizen

[Max in Utah]

According to whom?

The Founders of the United States of America.

Judges and lawyers are trying to preserve their wealth and health, if you know what I mean.

[Longbow1969]

According to whom? A few nutjobs on the internet. Not a single Federal judge and not a single CONSERVATIVE lawyer.

Yup, that's pretty much what they've got. Come on now, don't you trust random youtube conspiracy video's?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Barack is being given the benefit of the doubt because nobody has yet proven he was born elsewhere than inside of the USA, the new loose standard for NBC.

Also can you say plasma-temperature hot potato?

[stylin19a]

for later

[Jack Burton007]

“He wasn’t born at all. Someone just turned over a rock, and there he was!”

Actually, Obama was a lawyer and he is proof that you can get pregnant as a result of anal sex. That is where Obama is from. Someone squatted down and crapped him out.

[douginthearmy]

Judges and lawyers are trying to preserve their wealth and health, if you know what I mean.

Except for those like Mark Levin who could profit greatly by taking up the mantel of the 2 parent rule. If it were actual truth he could make great hay from it, but he won't touch it with a ten foot pole because it is not true. You guys who are on this bandwagon simply won't listen to any form of reason.

[Lurking Libertarian]

It was understood among educated men of the eighteenth century that natural born was someone born to two citizens.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829): "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."

John Jay, the first Chief Justice understood what the term meant and sent a letter to George Washington asking him to change the requirement of president from "citizen" to "natural born citizen". If the two terms were interchangeable, why change the phrase at all?

To exclude naturalized citizens.

[spookie]

1874 The US Spreme Court clarified the definition of NATURAL BORN as being a person born of two u.s. citizens.
14th amendment has been used by liberals as saying everyone born here are natural born. The portion on birth does not cite that meaning whatsoever.
He is no eligible.

[DiogenesLamp]

According to whom? A few nutjobs on the internet. Not a single Federal judge and not a single CONSERVATIVE lawyer.

How would Lawyers and Judges know the truth? They are taught that idiot crap in law school where "Precedent" has more effect then reality.

You have to study HISTORY to understand the correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen." Studying law just acquaints you with the knowledge of legal procedures, not the understanding of founder's intent.

I'll have James Madison explain it to you from a letter he wrote to a newspaper in 1811.

As for it being a "A few nutjobs on the internet." There have been several Constitutional Scholars that have espoused a correct understanding of what was meant by the term of art "natural born citizen." That you don't know about them indicates you are discussing a subject in which you are in over your head.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yup, that's pretty much what they've got. Come on now, don't you trust random youtube conspiracy video's?

Law Professor Lawrence Solum and Constitutional law professor Dr Herb Titus, just off the top of my head. Both well respected constitutional scholars. There are several more, but I will have to look up their names once again.

Apart from that, we have quotes from 18 supreme court justices defining a "natural citizen" as the child of citizen parents. We have the creators of the 14th amendment also defining "natural citizens" as the children of citizen parents. Beyond that, we have numerous lesser court decisions asserting the same thing. Look up ex parte Reynolds, which invokes the legal principle I use as my tag line. Partus Sequitur Patrem. (A Child is a citizen of his father's nation.)

What have you guys got? One misinterpreted court decision? You've got rubbish, and a majority of ignorant fools to support it! Informed people know that the common assumption is just ignorance pretending to be knowledge.

[DiogenesLamp]

His mother — if it is his mother — was too young to confer citizenship on him.

Only if he was born outside the country. If he was born inside the country, he gets 14th amendment citizenship. Not the same thing as "natural citizenship" but still a version of citizenship.

[DiogenesLamp]

Except for those like Mark Levin who could profit greatly by taking up the mantel of the 2 parent rule. If it were actual truth he could make great hay from it, but he won't touch it with a ten foot pole because it is not true. You guys who are on this bandwagon simply won't listen to any form of reason.

You can't "reason" against facts, and the Historical FACTS are on our side.

Agreeing with you is not reason, it's buying in to a common ignorance that many people believe in because they did not learn any better.

[DiogenesLamp]

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829): "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."

Here we go again. William Rawle was a BRITISH trained lawyer who was the son of a BRITISH LOYALIST during the revolutionary war. He is not the best person to look to for guidance for what it means to be a CITIZEN rather than a subject. He and his family were fighting on the WRONG SIDE of the war when we won our Independence. After that he was corrupted by BRITISH influence on Subjecthood, and he erringly transferred this influence to his understanding of American Citizenship.

To exclude naturalized citizens.

John Jay grew up speaking French. For him it was a first language. He certainly knew how to read Vattel's "Droit Des Gens" , which was like the most popular Book of the Revolutionary Era. John Jay wasn't trying to prevent "naturalized" citizens, he was trying to prevent ANY FOREIGN INFLUENCE.

READ the D@MNED LETTER!

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. "

You do a disservice to the nation when you keep repeating false or discredited information about the correct meaning of "natural citizenship."

[douginthearmy]

At the time of the founding women could not own property nonetheless confer citizenship, nevermind the precedents based on the 14th ammendment. You claim historical facts but clearly do not understand history. There are no credible constitutional scholars who say that a natural born citizen requires two citizen parents. It is ludicrous. The concept has been refuted on countless threads on countless angles, but birthernuts simply ignore all reason and skip back in time jumping over centuries of changing legal precedent to arrive at their predetermined conclusion.

There is no 2 parent rule. It was made up on the internet. It was made up well after the born in Kenya reports could not be substantiated. The birther movement has spiraled ever further down the rabbit hole.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Willaim Rawle was a loyal American who was appointed by George Washington as the first United States Attorney for the District of Pennsylvania. He wrote the first legal treatise ever published on the U.S. Constitution, which I quoted above.

[DiogenesLamp]

At the time of the founding women could not own property nonetheless confer citizenship, nevermind the precedents based on the 14th ammendment. You claim historical facts but clearly do not understand history.

I think you mean that I don't agree with you, therefore I am wrong in your opinion. Otherwise it is a non sequitur.

There are no credible constitutional scholars who say that a natural born citizen requires two citizen parents.

Lawrence Solum, Dr. Herb Titus, John Greshack, Edward J. Erler, Thomas G. West, Dr. John Eastman, and Notre Dame President Charles E. Rice, among others.

You aren't even AWARE of dissenting Scholarly opinion on this subject. Apart from that, the TRUTH is not proven by how many people say something is true.

It is ludicrous.

It is ludicrous that Anchor Babies can be President under YOUR misinterpretation of the law. THAT is what is ludicrous.

The concept has been refuted on countless threads on countless angles, but birthernuts simply ignore all reason and skip back in time jumping over centuries of changing legal precedent to arrive at their predetermined conclusion.

It has never been refuted. It has been mocked, obfuscated, misled, and ridiculed, but it has never been refuted. You cannot refute what is true. It is proof against lies. Simply repeating what you want to believe, and pointing out how many other fools believe it too, doesn't not prove that you are correct.

There is no 2 parent rule.

Yes there is, people must have two parents. See, you're wrong again.

It was made up on the internet.

Yeah, 2500 years ago by Aristotle!

Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?

...Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place;

...But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices.

...a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;

It was made up well after the born in Kenya reports could not be substantiated. The birther movement has spiraled ever further down the rabbit hole.

No, Idiots and LIARS keep spreading false information about the truth of this subject. Unfortunately there are more idiots and LIARS spreading LIES than there are informed and honest people spreading the truth.

Here is a link to a lot more information which I have previously compiled in response to another such misleader as yourself.

Read it. Follow the links. LEARN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

[DiogenesLamp]

Willaim Rawle was a loyal American who was appointed by George Washington as the first United States Attorney for the District of Pennsylvania. He wrote the first legal treatise ever published on the U.S. Constitution, which I quoted above.

He may have BECAME an American Loyalist, but during the Revolutionary war, his father (and therefore presumably himself) was supporting the OTHER SIDE!

His training was all at BRITISH Law Schools, so it cannot be helped that he was taught an incorrect understanding of American Citizenship law. It is unfortunate that he is regarded as an authority on this subject as his legal training was completely inconsistent with the American Principles of citizenship.

Attorney-General Black, whose opinion of July 4, 1859, concerning the case of Christian Ernst, a naturalized American citizen of Hanoverian origin who was arrested upon his return to Hanover, has become a classic on this subject. It seems worth while to quote from this notable opinion:

“The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place—the general right, in one word, of expatriation—is incontestible. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”

Link:

[Max in Utah]

Bravo, sir! You have done well, would that all of our brethren were so informed!

[Forty-Niner]

“His mother — if it is his mother — was too young to confer citizenship on him.”

This statement is only true if the birth occured outside of the US. While there is much speculation that Obama was born in Kenya nothing has ever been proved that is either likely or true.

In the end, any such speculation become moot because the underlying disqualifying fact is that being born to a foreign citizen father prevents you from claiming to be a natural born citizen, which, of course is the Article II Constitutional requirement.

[DiogenesLamp]

Bravo, sir! You have done well, would that all of our brethren were so informed!

Thank you very much. I have researched this subject quite a long while, and feel informed enough to take on anyone in the opposing position. A year or so ago, I visited Dr. Conspiracy and his ilk, and I handed them all their heads. :)

I have a lot more ammunition in reserve, and I hope I shall get an opportunity to use it. :)