So, let's take a look at these laws, to determine whether they're:
A) Unconstitutional due to Congressional overreach, beyond express limitation to naturalization by the Constitution itself, or:
B) Only dealing with naturalization, and therefore not natural born, which is therefore correct per the power enumerated to Congress by the Constitution itself.
You keep banging your head on this, but if what you repeatedly insist is so, it's either unconstitutional or the law only deals with naturalization. Take your pick. It can be no other way, jamese777.
Congress has indeed made laws that define and explicate Citizen-At-Birth status
So, let’s take a look at these laws, to determine whether they’re:
A) Unconstitutional due to Congressional overreach, beyond express limitation to naturalization by the Constitution itself, or:
B) Only dealing with naturalization, and therefore not natural born, which is therefore correct per the power enumerated to Congress by the Constitution itself.
You keep banging your head on this, but if what you repeatedly insist is so, it’s either unconstitutional or the law only deals with naturalization. Take your pick. It can be no other way, jamese777.
The public law “Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 2, § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth” has been on the books for decades and its never been challenged as unconstitutional.
The issue is indeed “another way” and I’m not “banging my head” at all!
That other way is that Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the Constitution plus the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution plus the Public Law that defines the term “citizen at birth” all have the exact same meaning: someone born in the US.
I believe that to be why Barack Hussein Obama II is the duly elected and sworn in 44th President of the United States today. Remember that when Vice President Cheney certified the vote of the Electoral College, all it took was any two members of Congress (one senator and one representative) out of 535 to object to the vote being certified and an investigation would have had to be held by Congress of the objection. Not one member of Congress objected. There’s a reason for that.
The way to get rid of Obama is to defeat him at the polls in 2012.
Congress has indeed made laws that define and explicate Citizen-At-Birth status
So, let’s take a look at these laws, to determine whether they’re:
A) Unconstitutional due to Congressional overreach, beyond express limitation to naturalization by the Constitution itself, or:
B) Only dealing with naturalization, and therefore not natural born, which is therefore correct per the power enumerated to Congress by the Constitution itself.
You keep banging your head on this, but if what you repeatedly insist is so, it’s either unconstitutional or the law only deals with naturalization. Take your pick. It can be no other way, jamese777.
The public law “Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 2, § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth” has been on the books for decades and its never been challenged as unconstitutional.
The issue is indeed “another way” and I’m not “banging my head” at all!
That other way is that Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the Constitution plus the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution plus the Public Law that defines the term “citizen at birth” all have the exact same meaning: someone born in the US.
I believe that to be why Barack Hussein Obama II is the duly elected and sworn in 44th President of the United States today. Remember that when Vice President Cheney certified the vote of the Electoral College, all it took was any two members of Congress (one senator and one representative) out of 535 to object to the vote being certified and an investigation would have had to be held by Congress of the objection. Not one member of Congress objected. There’s a reason for that.
The way to get rid of Obama is to defeat him at the polls in 2012.