Posted on 10/27/2011 8:21:30 PM PDT by RobinMasters
WND? Call me a cynic, but they are about as reliable as The Globe. I’ll believe it when I see it...
Ping, please.
Thank you.
88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett
Argued: February 9, 1875 -— Decided: March 29, 1875
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
(excerpt from the Opinion of the Court)
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
If he “admits” that it will not change what the records show as his father. BHO, Sr.
And no, there is no valid COLB that has been released yet. What we were presented with is conjured, but not a real COLB. (ie Forgery)
Perhaps I miss what people say but it seems to me that the quotes of Minor v. Happersett also says the NBC has to be born in the country of the parent’s citizenship. It is important that there are these requirements together.
These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.9
Parents, not parent’s, as in both.
“The probability of Obama being re-elected are better that 50 %, unless a major lawsuit, Impeachment proceedings, or recall petition can be brought to bear on Obama before June, 2012.
zero will fall on his sword and be given the title of Secretary-General of the UN so he can further the goals of his Muslim brothers.... just in time for Hillary! to step in and save the day.
See in post 26 that a child born out side of the jurisdiction of the United States whose Father was a US citizen would be considered a US citizen.
But this of course would disqualify Obama.
AMEN. Welcome to the light beyond the birth certificate!! :)
SHHHhhhhhhh... i’m hunting rabbits. Be werry werry quiet.
If only the Supreme Courts had been so wise as this since the turn of the 20th Century.
These men were deciding if the 14th amendment could give women the right to vote. They knew that the 14th did not expressly do that so they had to look elsewhere in the laws and precedents in courts case law. They did not find anywhere in US law where women were given the PRIVILEGE to vote.
They even found where New Jersey had taken the privilege of voting from women. So the court decided that the Law by long standing in US was universally that women although citizens did not have the privilege to vote.
The court did not see themselves as having the power to make the law be what they wanted it to be.
This is judicial restraint. Savor it for it is a rare treat not often encountered today.
What are you smoking. I need some for Friday night. He's got at best a 10% chance, and that's the level of cheating they can accomplish in selected states.
Let me guess at the court’s eventual ruling. Hmm, let’s see. Ah, yes. Good old, “No standing.”
Me thinks you may be more right than wrong!
However, that said, what happens to every bit of legislation, regulation, etc. that was signed by OBozo while he was wrongfully occupying the 'People's House'?!?
Oh I do wish you right BUT...with HIS media, OUR incompetents running on the GOP ticket, and HIS network of election bandits, I'm not so sure about the 2012 outcome.
Instead, they name the national Democratic Party as a defendant, and ask the court to enjoin officials there from certifying that Obama is eligible for the office for the 2012 election.
PELOSI! I love it
Okay, here's a test. Using the 2010 election results as a benchmark, are there going to be more people or less people likely to vote for Democrats/Obama in 2012?
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.