Supremes to review Barack's citizenshipCase challenging his name on ballot set for 'conference'

1961 US Constitution? If Obama or anyone else is born in the US, they are natural born citizens even if their parents were illegal aliens. We have birthright citizenship under jus solis.Okay, but he still cannot be NATURAL BORN, no matter how you examine it.

He can be natural born if he was born on US soil, or if his mother was unwed even if he was born overseas.

Okay, so I was drinking a bit when I replied in haste.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution in effect in 1961.

Obama MAY be a US Citizen Snopes (the left leaning authority?) states that "Natural Born" has no meaning. Well, Snopes is wrong. The Founding Fathers put in Natural Born so that the child who became a man and a President held allegiance to only ONE Country, this one, the one where he was physically born (assuming his Mom meets the requirements of citizenship).

Obama has shown that he does NOT hold any US citizenship he may have in high regard. He went over to Kenya to help his cousin Raila Odinga get elected. He broke the Logan Act and gave Odinga a million dollars according to the Media. OBAMA REFUSES TO PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. (emphasis mine and intentional) That Flag represents the 13 initial colonies and the 50 (not 57) States in the Union. You ask a Naturalized American about the Flag and you'll find reverence. Obama's friend, Bill Ayers, tramples the US Flag. Obama does't trample the Flag, he just won't hold his hand over his heart or say the pledge. Bet he doesn't even KNOW the words of the National Anthem.

If you surround yourself with liberals, leftists and Marxists, there' a fairly good chance that you agree with them.

God Help Us All!

Policy is not law and Berg believes the Hague Convention requires the US to respect the law of Indonesia in preventing dual nationality. I guess Berg’s contention here would be that so long as it doesn’t contradict the Constitution, treaties are law, even if they don’t appear in the statute books.

The policy is based on law, including Supreme Court decisions, e.g., Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253, 87 S. Ct. 16601118 L. Ed. 2d 757 (1967).

I don’t know whether dual nationality is prohibited by Ireland or Israel, so it may not apply there. I’m virtually certain Israel doesn’t prohibit dual nationality, since a significant fraction of the population openly votes in US elections. It could also be that Berg is right, but nobody previously felt like pressing the issue.

Whether a country prohibits dual nationality or not is a matter between the individual and that country. The USG is not involved except if a particular dual national is claiming protection by the US while in the other country of nationality. Then it becomes difficult to protect a dual national who is subject to the laws of both countries.

I don’t believe Berg is right, but the law is sufficiently complex and I am sufficiently ignorant that I admit that he might be. Frankly, I think Berg is throwing everything up against the wall that he can imagine to see if anything will stick.

No dispute there. I am very skeptical this will go anywhere. The only thing that bothers me is the fact that Obama could end this by just producing the vault copy of his birth certificate. Why isn't he doing this? What is he hiding? The cover-up is always worse than the crime.

I hope you’ve heard this call to the Kenyan Embassy posted on Mike in the Morning.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2135992/posts

The Kenyan ambassador chats with a local radio station and admits that Obama was born in Kenya and that his birthplace is kind of a monument already.

You’ll have to wait until about 12 min. into the interview, but it is very funny, well worth the wait.

isn't that their job

Well, that depends on their ideology.

A conservative/constitutionalist judge sees his job as applying the law/Constitution to the case.

A liberal justice sees his job as "forming society". He will have an outcome in mind to start with, then "back justify" the decision.

"But the operation of the appellate power in the supreme judicial of the United States, would work infinitely more mischief than any such power can do in a single state."

"This court is to have power to determine in law and in equity, on the law and the fact, and this court is exalted above all other power in the government, subject to no control; and so fixed as not to be removable, but upon impeachment, which is much the same thing as not to be removable at all" (Who knew, those dead white guys were sometimes highly sarcastic).

"Agreeable to these principles I suppose the supreme judicial ought to be liable to be called to account, for any misconduct, by some body of men, who depend upon the people for their places and so also should all other great officers in the State, who are not made amenable to some superior officers...."

BRUTUS (Allegedly Judge Robert Yates)

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.