Free Republic

"I have never seen folks so upset," Wittman responded.

"The documentation of Obama's birthplace that has been presented to the public is valid, though" Wittman responded.

Is it any wonder why they're upset? MORON.

"Is TEA an acronym? "

Taking Environmentalism Away

Taxed Enough Already?

That sounds right.

Taxed Enough Already is what it started as.

Taxed Enough Already?

...the hometown treatment from TEA Party members.

Is TEA an acronym?

Thoroughly Enraged Activists?

Fairly good voting record, he’s not been in Congress long, just 2 years, replacing the late Jo Ann Davis.

Is that the same Washington court that Obama appointed a liberal judge to making the balance a liberal court now?

That would be fun.

It’s also simply not going to happen. Not now or ever.

I think there is a rational argument to be made that citizenship of children should follow the citizenship of the parents. Consider the enormous problems we have with “anchor babies” born to foreign parents in the U.S. There’s an eminently reasonably argument that citizenship should NOT be granted automatically just because the kidlet was born within the U.S.

However... that’s not what the law has said to date.

Republican or just plain RINO?

*VA ping*

obumpa

Republican.

Virginia.

And, is Wittman a D or an R?

The blind leading the blind and fall into the ditch.

Without missing a beat, they blurted out, ‘That means they did check whether Barack Obama is a NBC; and he’s not!’

obumpa

We’ve got way more serious things to worry about that really do matter.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What could possibly be more important than having someone who is a possible usurper, a possible foreigner, who has possibly trampled the Constitution, and possibly defrauded American citizen out of MILLIONS of campaign donations pretending to be president of the United States?

What could be more important than this?

If he is a fraud, we get rid of him, the Dems are in shambles, and **all** of his pronouncements, appointments, treaties, and signed bills are immediately VOID!

It would be nice to have the STATE mentioned in the title, maybe in parentheses? Not everyone knows who Wittman is just from a headline.

Welcome to Free Republic.

Regarding your quote from Mr. Donofrio: As a matter of fact, if any of those people had children born on U.S. soil then yes, those children could legally run for President. Whether they’d be elected is an open question. Sure, it would be offensive. But it would be legal.

Regarding your quote from Mssr. Vattel... does that carry the force of law in the U.S.? No, it doesn’t.

Im beginning to think when they get to Washington, they either have their brains or ba**s removed.

They just don't get it...

He can return to America at the age of twenty one and in due time if the people elect he can become President of the United States

Of course, he was a natural born citizen. Born of naturalized citizens in the US. His parent's actions could not change that, not even their acquisition of *naturalized* German (Prussian IIRC) citizenship.

Natural Born is a (large) subset of Native Born. There is nothing in that section you quoted that contradicts that, nor the notion that Natural Born means born in the country of citizen parents.

tomorrow if i can remember...i am exhausted

good night, FR

it was me that said it “natural born citizen...both parents had to be US citizens.”

apparently it has never been adjudicated. without extensive research...or legal scholarship...i present the following which would favor your view, but makes note of mine as a minority opinion.

forgive the use of Wikipedia...its presented only as a beginning not as an end all authority...

/////

Art 2 Sec 1

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There it is “natural born Citizen”

No, its not defined…so we go to case law…using the notorious Wikipedia we find that the matter is not settled

Some[who?] argue that the phrase “natural born citizen” is distinguished as a separate legal entity from the phrase “U.S. Citizen” in Article Two of the United States Constitution. While it is true that “natural born citizen” is not defined anywhere within the text of the Constitution and that the Constitution makes use of the phrase “citizen” and “natural born citizen,” Supreme Court Decisions from United States v. Wong Kim Ark to the present have considered the distinction to be between natural-born and naturalized citizenship.
Most legal scholars believe that the phrase “natural born citizen” is derived from the works of William Blackstone and depends on the legal doctrine of Jus soli. For example, in her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, Jill Pryor wrote, “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.”[15]

A distinct minority view is that “natural born citizen” requires two citizen-parents. This view is based on the works of Emerich de Vattel, specifically his “Law of Nations,” which, among other things, expressed the international law view that citizenship followed the doctrine of Jus sanguinis - that the citizenship of the child was determined by that of its parents. While Vattel was influential in his views of the relations of nation-states in international law, there is no evidence that his views on citizenship were influential to the founders.[16]

Chester Arthur (born of an American mother and Irish father, purported birthplace of Canada) was sworn in as President, however his status as a “Natural born citizen” was challenged because he was born with British citizenship [17] (therefore not jus sanguinus) and it is contended, on foreign soil (therefore not jus soli).

////

now, as it is late and i am tired i will not track reference (17) since it apparently would not apply to Obama anyway (if he is born in Hawaii)

so is (16) correct? that Jus Sanguinis was not not the consideration of the framers of the Constitution? and is it also correct that the opinion of Jill Pryor in Yale Law Review 1988 (15) is the majority and deciding opinion on this issue?

it has not been adjucicated....and that is what this is all about. it is not settled law....oh yes, to some, it is settled...but it has not been tested in SCOTUS.

that leaves us “minority” with our voice but ignored by the “majority.”

so for now, i concede to your argument...we should not pursue this further...only “birther” arguments about the location of his birth should be pursued. we should focus on the location and the proof, that being the “long form,” and not the nationality of his patronage.

Yeah actually I do know what I’m talking about. Buckeye, I actually apologized to you thinking perhaps I had got something wrong. Well my freepmail lit up. You are NOT against Obama at all. You are for him. Why try playing such games? Just be who you really are. You don’t want the man exposed because this is the man YOU chose. Sorry for you. You can experience his consequences. He has no more concern for you than let’s say “ a flea” or a some poor black person from the ‘hood. He would walk over their face as fast he could get to the next camera and $$$. He’s a profound POS!! Unfortunately he’s dangerous. And you shall certainly see that. CO

Doesn’t matter if he doesn’t get disqualified or not...If the American people find out for sure he’s not a natural born citizen according to the Constitution, he’ll become useless (I know, he is already) as a President...

try it again

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate

If she survives she’s going to get the usurper someday, someway. Bump! This actually looks promising ... ;-)

Glad to see that you have introduced Steinkauler into the conversation.

However, it seems that you left off an important opinion of the Attorney General in that case.

“In Steinkauler’s case (15 Op Atty Gen 15 12 Alb L.J. 23) in an opinion by Mr Pierrepont Attorney General of the US we have the following .Young Steinkauler who was born in St Louis after his father had been naturalized in the United States the father subsequently returning to Germany and taking the boy with him is a native born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty one and in due time if the people elect he can become President of the United States but the father in accordance with the treaty and the laws has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages.”

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/category/precedent-cases/steinkauler-15-op-atty-gen-15/

A bit off-topic, but I don’t see what the big deal is about the Salahis crashing the White House with no credentials and no background check.

Isn’t that how the guy who lives there got in?

I’m happy to explain.

My post that “the Constitution says nothing about that... “ or whatever I said, meant that the Constitution does NOT define “natural born citizen” as someone born to TWO citizens. It just doesn’t say that. Nor does any U.S. law since then. “Natural born” means, quite simply, that someone was born into citizenship— as opposed to being “naturalized” as a citizen, which means that someone had citizenship somewhere else first.

Somebody can be born into citizenship in a few ways. Of course there’s just being born in the U.S. That does it. Somebody can be born to U.S. parents overseas and still be born into citizenship (like John McCain).

But the original point of this discussion was that somebody said that in order to be a “natural born citizen” one had to be born to parents that were BOTH U.S. citizens. That is just false on it’s face. So... there’s that.

It means “born here”. Get over it.

Well, we have yet to figure out if he was actually "born here". We know he's not a natural born citizen. The real question is whether or not he's even a citizen.

If Obama is eligible to be President then so are the sons of Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if they impregnate an American woman who gives birth on US soil. The very notion is obscene. Such a person might be a US citizen under current policy, but their citizenship is not natural born and they cannot be President and Commander In Chief of the US armed forces."-----Leo Donofrio.

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

I say, that, in order to be of the country,it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."



Is there any question why the founders put the Natural Born Citizen requirement clause in the Constitution?

Yeah that pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. It is some varient of what we are thinking. The fact that he is hiding so much says it all.

However like most scams this will eventually see the light of day and hopefully America will have the resolve to do the right thing.

Orly will become an American hero, maybe sooner, maybe later, but she will be a hero. Those who are trying to discredit her will drop to the dung heap of history.

bump

Yeah, like a letter to Holder is going to change things !?

yes i know that is why it was put there...but it is there.

does its orgin in the beginnings of the country remove it from the Constitution?

i am confused by your post...you say there is nothing there but then you say “the founders put that line in”

its either there or not there...

and its my understanding that it is

can you explain your statement:

“There is nothing in the Constitution or U.S. law that says anything of the kind.”

i might agree that it is not a practical expectation of ours to remove this PUTUS on this issue...the Supreme Court cannot remove him and the Congress will not...so what’s the point of pushing this? i might agree. but i think it is in the Constitution and in US Law and that he is not eligible in fact for President and should not have been nominated...but how to remove him now is a more difficult problem. i would like to have this issue presented at every opportunity to illustrate his defiance of the law but i do not think it should be the main thrust of our attack on him....his socialism, his realignment of foreign policy, disrespect for our culture and values, arrogance, narcissism and so on will and should be emphasized.

I fully agree. The problem here is that nobody expected that an usurper, and the DNC, would anticipate in such a voter fraud.

In the same way that a very few could visioned that 19 Arab hijackers, educated in American’s flight schools would use commercial airliners as explosive missiles to level the WTC and attack Pentagon and the Capitol???

You’ve been busy.

:-)

I’m marking it so i can come back to it later.

Don’t EVEN mess with me regarding the Constitution. You’re more off base than you have any idea. You don’t know me. Please keep your juvenile taunts to yourself.

If you’d ever actually read this Constitution that you so beat your chest over, you would also know that it doesn’t say anything about having two parents born in the U.S. to be a “natural born” citizen. It means “born here”. Get over it.

We’ve got way more serious things to worry about that really do matter.

Really... this kind of nonsense just distracts from real issues that must be fought with this communist-in-chief.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes! That silly ‘ole Natural Born Citizen stuff it is just so distracting. Why focus on the fussy ‘ole document, the Constitution? The Constitution is just such and UN-”real” issue! ( sarc.)

OH YAH, BABY!

STE=Q

still, i advocate keeping the pressure on, concentrating on the 2010 Congress elections...the eligibility issue...sure keep pushing it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

All”birthers” I know **ARE** concentrating on the 2010 election. All the birthers I know can walk and chew gum at the same time.

This is **not** an “either-or” situation.

In fact, when posters suggest that somehow it is and “either-or” issue ( OH!..Be sure to abandon the eligibility thing! The election, or this or that bill, is soooo much more important that our Constitution!), I immediately suspect that they are Marxists in a conservative sheep's costume.

with a British father he is not a Natural Born Citizen...even if he was born in Hawaii.... he must have two American citizen parents to be eligible for POTUS...

That's simply not true. There is nothing in the Constitution or U.S. law that says anything of the kind. Really... this kind of nonsense just distracts from real issues that must be fought with this communist-in-chief.

This whole "natural-born" discussion has gotten way out of hand. The only reason that the founders put that line in the Constitution was to prevent "Naturalized" citizens (born elsewhere) from becoming President. They did this because there was a very real risk that certain British royalty would move to the newly-freed colonies, gain citizenship and take control back for Britain via elections. So... they said that to be President you had to either already be here when the nation was formed, or you have to be born here.

It really is just as simple as that. That's all it means.

" I bet the laundry services are getting a lot of rush orders from certain parts of Washington DC. "

with a British father (which is admitted in his first book and acknowleged in his debate with Alan Watts during the Senatorial campaign for Illinois...to paraphrase...”yes, but I’m not running for President.”)

with a British father he is not a Natural Born Citizen...even if he was born in Hawaii....

he must have two American citizen parents to be eligible for POTUS...

Our nation has survived riots before and will again

riots...exciting...but not fun

survive...yes...no doubt

still, i advocate keeping the pressure on, concentrating on the 2010 Congress elections...the eligibility issue...sure keep pushing it, but don’t make it the central theme...let it fester and everyone will know about it, they already do...lets defeat socialism personified by this clown who is not really, legally our president...let him and his perfidiy personify the corruption and disease that is socialism...we can let him be the face of the sewer he brings us in....its going to get worse even without briging the eligibility issue to the front of the march...let it be on the signs and banners of some but not most of the crowds who protest the socialization and destruction of American culture and self-esteem...but let it not be the defining characteristic of our protest...if it were we would only defeat 0bama and not the progressive disease he infects us with.