Posted on 02/03/2012 2:19:38 PM PST by GregNH
We just spoke with plaintiff Kevin Powell and he reports Judge Malihi has ruled against the Plaintiffs and stated in his order that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore Obama is a natural born Citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Of course they are, Drew! Dual citizens can be president!
And that's a good thing. If I buy stocks from companies in another country and get a dual citizen in the presidency from that country, I can make some serious money.
Mr. Odinga in Kenya must be skimming billions of our aid that his cousin sends to him. Its a good deal. We borrow from the Chinese, pay interest on the loan, and send it to Obama’s cousin. Where's the problem?
|
|
tablelamp
Since Feb 4, 2012
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||||
You reek of obot.
He will never be my President.
I am sorry I disagree with you. No reason to take it personally. I don’t.
Disregard - got my threads mixed up. Sorry.
Yes, when the Entire world believes the World is flat, Columbus cannot be correct.* When the Entire World has decided that the Earth is in fact round, and at the center of the Universe, Galileo must be wrong when he says that it is not. When the ENTIRE Scientific community says that Light is carried by Ether waves, the Albert Einstein must be mistaken when he says that it is not.
The answer is right in front of you. It’s the simple answer, not the complicated, contorted arguments of Taitz, Apuzzo and Donogrio. The Chief Justice would not have sworn in someone who is not eligible.
You ARE painfully unacquainted with the fallacy of Argumentum ad verecundiam. You are also not familiar with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. BOTH fallacies are incorporated into your argument.
Wong Kim Ark, Ankeny and Malihi decisions are unbeatable. It’s time to accept the courts have decided based on the correct interpretation of the Constitution and the Law.
If this interpretation is correct, then why were Slaves and Indians not citizens? They were "born here" and they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", so why were THEY not citizens? When you learn to think for yourself, get back with me.
.
* This is a common misunderstanding of the facts. Many people believed the world to be round at this time, (1492) but this fiction is widely repeated (as is the belief that being born here makes you a "natural" citizen) and so serves the purpose of my point.
Who was being mentioned then?
Trying to get people to use their energy in a way that might actually accomplish the goal is “obot”?
The answer isn’t in the courts. It’s time to change strategy or have Obama for another 4 years.
“- self honesty is a conservative value.”
Aren’t we lucky to have Harlan1196 who signed up Jan. 28, 2012
explain conservative values to us?
Thank goodness he/she has arrived.
Oh, so NOW you claim to understand the answer? No more confusion about the "constitutional scholar" crap eh?
Given how erratic is your ability to follow the conversation up till now, I see no reason to trust your judgement as to anything else.
When you can explain to me why Slaves and Indians were not always "natural born citizens" then I might be interested in your opinion.
And all those insults directed at me - do they reflect conservative values?
I understand the values I embrace daily - I see nothing wrong with sharing them with you. You can take them or leave them.
Geeze, will you people never figure this sh*t out? Here is what James Madison (Father of the Constitution, you may have heard of him) had to say about this exact point.
The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions [of the several States] equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution of Virga. [Virginia] drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committee of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.
Your argument has been demolished. Take it out and place it on the trash bin.
Having a dual citizen president give us many benefits.
Just think of all the dollars we can borrow and then give away to “Home Countries” such as Kenya or Indonesia.
We can also bind our security to other nations.
I just don't see a down side to this, Drew, do you? Are these people all nuts or what?
Hey, I like going to work and having my president take a cut and send it to his home country. I'm fine fine with that. His people deserve some of my labor.
Why is everyone bitching about this Drew?
No - I understood the argument, I just rejected it as the ramblings of an IT consultant playing Constitutional scholar. It is a compelling argument only to the true believers.
Again, My apologies. In my rush to get out of here I have become careless.
“If this interpretation is correct, then why were Slaves and Indians not citizens? They were “born here” and they were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, so why were THEY not citizens? When you learn to think for yourself, get back with me. “
When you learn to read, try again. Slaves were considered property, and the Indians were discussed in WKA:
The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State but who did not appear to have been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen either by the United States or by the State, was not a citizen of the United States, as a “person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the clause in question.
That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was
not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance;
that, by the Constitution, as originally established, “Indians not taxed” were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives in Congress and direct taxes were apportioned among the [p681] several States, and Congress was empowered to regulate commerce not only “with foreign nations” and among the several States, but “with the Indian tribes;” that the Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States, but were alien nations, distinct political communities, the members of which owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes and were not part of the people of the United States; that the alien and dependent condition of the members of one of those tribes could not be put off at their own will without the action or assent of the United States, and that they were never deemed citizens except when naturalized, collectively or individually, under explicit provisions of a treaty, or of an act of Congress; and therefore that
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
And it was observed that the language used in defining citizenship in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, was “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 112 U.S. 99-103.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Woods, dissenting, were of opinion that the Indian in question, having severed himself from his tribe and become a bona fide resident of a State, had thereby become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment; and, in reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, said:
Beyond question, by that act, national citizenship was conferred directly upon all persons in this country, of whatever race (excluding only “Indians not taxed”), who were born within [p682] the territorial limits of the United States, and were not subject to any foreign power.
And that view was supported by reference to the debates in the Senate upon that act, and to the ineffectual veto thereof by President Johnson in which he said:
By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races, born in the United States, is, by the bill, made a citizen of the United States.
112 U.S. 1114.
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
“You can do this the easy way or the hard way, but either way you’re doing this our way.”
Yes, they would be winning if they were just more polite.
I have, on the other hand, the opposite view. We might be winning if we behaved more like offended Muslims. Nothing like a good head chopping to get people to keep things in perspective.
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.