| > That's why we certify them, BP. A certified copy ... of an image from a website?! Bwa-ha-ha!!! Here's another "certified" internet prima facie copy for your files:
|
Posted on 02/23/2010 8:02:16 AM PST by butterdezillion
no negative numbers allowed? what's up with that????
Can’t see the forest for the trolls. You’ve really got ‘em stirred up.
| > That's why we certify them, BP. A certified copy ... of an image from a website?! Bwa-ha-ha!!! Here's another "certified" internet prima facie copy for your files:
|
I don’t see the term “natural born citizen” there, if we’re talking about the same case. I see it being said that a child born in the country to an alien is a citizen. But where’s the ruling that he/she is also a “natural born citizen?
The Constitution uses the specific term “natural born citizen”; just plain citizenship doesn’t meet that standard, or else they would have just said “citizen”. Why didn’t they just say “citizen” in the Constitution?
How do We The People get this investigated, exposed, and prosecuted?
The Wong court says you’re only a citizen if you have permanent allegiance based on your parents being permanent immigrants. I got it from the beginning. Your Wong is wrong and not too strong.
“Simply saying something” is the only thing that supports Obama’s claim of Hawaiian birth. I’m asking for solid evidence. Ambiguous and misleading DOH statements and birth announcements that lack place of birth are far from making anything so. In the meantime, we have claims made by grandmothers and best friends who say Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia. We have a footprinted BC that hasn’t been disproved. We have an eyewitness report of SAD with her baby in Washington State and NO eyewitness report of SAD with her baby in Hawaii. The DOH refuses to confirm Obama’s alleged COLB and it contains a cert number that apparently belongs to somebody else. Sorry, but Obama’s claim indeed looks like Alice in Wonderland ... pure fantasy.
You leave out the fact that his allegiance was local & temporary until he consented to the sovereign all allegiance & political ties to China. He owed no allegiance to the the US sovereign as a citizen at birth, he was merely obligated to an obedience to the laws of the government.
From the Carlisle case that the DRONES like to dismiss:
In the case of Thrasher, a citizen of the United States resident in Cuba, who complained of injuries
Page 83 U. S. 155
suffered from the government of that island, Mr. Webster, then Secretary of state, made, in 1851, a report to the President in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives in which he said:
“Every foreigner born residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it, as a duty upon him by the mere fact of his residence and that temporary protection which he enjoys, and is as much bound to obey its laws as native subjects or citizens. This is the universal understanding in all civilized states, and nowhere a more established doctrine than in this country.”
And again:
“Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that by the public law, an alien or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2457491/posts?page=2191#2191
‘Stuck on Stupid’ is the DRONE mantra because they base their entire argument on this case when in reality, it clearly shows why Grey only decalred WKA to be a citizen, not a ‘natural born citizen’.
1898 Holding in WKA, born to aliens: whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
1939 Holding in Elg, born to naturalized citizens: The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.
The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed.
Modified and affirmed.
Both born on US soil, but the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ was only brought forward in one of the ‘holdings’ of these 2 cases. It was only held up in the case of the child born to 2 citizen parents.
They could very well be DOJ employees defending the ZERO!
When in doubt, don’t feed the trolls.
Oh pulleeezze!!! Tell me you’re not one of those politically and historically challenged pedants who believes that a republic cannot be a democracy... are you? That idiocy is generally trotted out when a person has lost track of his own argument and wants to regain lost ground.
Bad news. Some republics are democracies. Some are not.
Our republic is a democracy. Deal with it.
ROFL, your hair must be getting pretty thin from all the tugging at it trying to get ‘the ignorant ones’ to understand ‘common sense’.
OOPS...Obama had Sebelius fix that in Jan of 2009. The codes were updated to cover-up for that little mistake made by the forgers.
Yawn.... and there is no evidence there that a penny of that was spent on Birther suits.
~~~~
As there is, as yet, no evidence that it didn’t.
We’re even.
Butter this is called "fishing" and he's on the clock. He's gotten nothing of use. Keep it that way.
NBC is in both Wong and the Indiana case numerous times. I excerpted throughout this thread from both cases on numerous occasions. I can again if you need me to, but I suggest you go to page 12 of the Indiana case and read for about 5 pages.
parsy
The DOH called the COLB into doubt by saying Obama was born in Hawaii, but inexplicably so by citing documents other than the original birth certificate as proof. If the original birth certificate (and associated COLB) are legitimate, there's no reason to cite anything else for place of birth. The only reason to cite anything else is if the birth certificate is inadequate. No vital record maintained by the state of Hawaii declares anyone to be a natural-born American citizen. This was either a personal opinion or an outright lie. The bottom line is that the combination of these statements proves the alleged COLB is flawed and perhaps completely fraudulent.
And I have excerpted from Wong and Indiana numerous times and shown you that you are flatly 100% wrong. This is why I get testy with you. The Wong oourt didn’t say no such thing. Language resembling that is in there and you keep pulling it out, but you ain’t reading far enough. There is a difference between factual background in a case and the reasoning and holding in a case.
This is where I am up against the brick wall. If you show someone something, and they just keep ignoring it, there ain’t nothing else you can do. Except suggest they not pursue law as a career.
parsy, who almost feels sorry for you...
I used your own citatations to show you were 100 percent wrong. You're sounding like a broken record hopeless demanding unearned validation ... something you have in common with Obama's birth claim.
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.
