Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
Firstly, if you know so much more than the rest of us, you should share your knowledge, and perhaps state your credentials, if you want your ASSERTIONS to go unchallenged. Don't call me lazy when you are the one WHO CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION. If your view is that it is not your job to 'school' me then don't respond to my posts.
As for what the FFs had to say on the matter, I once again cite the 1790 statute which was passed by a Congress that contained a number of them and signed by some guy named George Washington who, I was taught in grade school, used to hang around with them.
Now, if you can respond with something more substantial than an anonymous opinion and a refusal to actually substantiate it, please do.
So, then, only one 'set' of Americans can ever have children overseas? Because I 'minced' the plural 'citizens' to mean more than one citizen might actually dare to bear children overseas. Furthermore, your argument is weakened by the fact that at that time women were a protected class that by default acquired citizenship through their husbands if they weren't already. They weren't really factored in. Note the part about 'fathers who have never resided' and reconsider your position - they didn't say 'fathers or mothers'.
Pure nonsense.
You also have to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." In Obama's case, he clearly was, as both his parents were legal residents of the State of Hawaii, so this lawsuit is absurd. I'm thinking the justices are going to hold a hearing on it just so they can have a good laugh.
However, it is not so clear that a child of two illegal aliens is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But that's a topic for another day.
Whether an illegal alien is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US is unclear.
However, a legal alien who is a legal resident of a state is clearly under the jurisdiction of the United States. That would include Obama's father. His mother was a citizen. That means he was born in the United Wtates and under US jurisdiction, which makes him a natural born citizen.
Case closed.
The people who are bringing this case up before SCOTUS are no less delusional and stupid than those claiming McCain is not a natural born citizen, or those who claim Sarah Palin is not Trig's mother.
That's what I said - "As much as I despise Obama and all he stands for, this citizenship thing is silly" - or something very similar. But if he was born in Kenya, and there is some evidence, then he is not a US citizen by birth. Now, I'm catching up here and I'm a few hundred posts behind on this thread, but I bet I'm not the first to tell you that.
...why let this go to court? He is hiding something....
It's not up to him whether it goes to court.
He is hiding something....
What could he possibly be hiding? He released a copy of his birth certificate to the media. Hawaii officials verified the original is on file in Honolulu. We know his Father was a British subject at the time, but a legal resident of the US.
What is your problem?
He is hiding something...
You're not arguing the case at all. You don't want me to prove a damn thing to you. That's apparent because you keep shifting the goal posts in an effort to disorient me.
Using subtle coercion and bullying tactics to drive me into a corner isn't going to work, pal.
Want to see me cower? Forget it. You've proven what your real intentions are, so beat it.
US citizens CANNOT be President.
The very simplest question to ask and get an answer to, to the above is: WHY IS HE HIDING HIS BC, HIS COLLEGE RECORDS, HIS PASSPORT?
Why is all his records in Hawaii, Indonesia and Kenya under seal. Research has not revealed that the name of Stanley Ann Dunham has been admitted to any hospitals in Honolulu in the month of August, 1961??
His paternal grandmother in Kenya clams with adamant that she was present in the delivery room when Stanley Ann Dunham delivered him in Mombasa (?) Kenya???
Finally if this illegal alien becomes YOUR president, we might as well use the paper the Constitution as written in our bathrooms!!!
The goal posts have never changed, and I'll repeat it for you. What is the difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth? And where is that difference defined?
Where? The only place that claim seems to be sourced from is the affidavits that Berg presents on his website. Go read them and see how full of holes they are.
"Perhaps the first most important thing to understand about national birthright is that there was no written national birthright rule until the year 1866. One will look in vain to find any national law on the subject prior to this year, or even any mention of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution."
Yet, there are these:
1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".
1795 Act of January 29, 1795. Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415. (Same general provisions as above).
1802 Act of April 14, 1802. Section 4, 2 Stat. 153, 144. (Same general provisions as above).
1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."
The 'natural born' piece relies on some of the arguments used in the 'jurisdiction' piece, which is based on a faulty premise and much subjective argument. It also discussesd points of British common law but at the very top dismisses its own arguments by quoting George Mason: "The common law of England is not the common law of these States."
Both pieces are very subjective and should not be relied upon, nor can we tell the qualifications of the author. I think he must be a FReeper, based on the timing of some updates. However, its just a website, and as we know, not everything on the web is factual.
I thought I told you to beat it.
Not at all. But the 'citizen at birth but not natural born' class does NOT exist. The US does NOT care about dual citizenship. All that matters at this point is where Obama was born.
Do you think I am somehow supporting Obama? You are gravely mistaken if you do.
Saying it over and over won't make it true. There is no basis in Law or the COTUS to support your assertion. Or do you have something that you can show us?
I don’t think you ever responded to my earlier question of a specific reference for the change in the definition of ‘natural born’ from that found in the dictionary: ‘having an attribute or quality from birth’. Do you have one?
"Foreign Affairs Manual" is a manual, not a law book. It ranks pretty low on the "reliable reference" list. And "does not necessarily imply" is a bit noncommittal, don't you think? The reason that 'natural born' is omitted is because they (Congress) substituted 'citizen at birth', which means the same thing, in later versions.
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.
