Posted on 09/21/2009 11:32:45 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
I've seen links to blogs. You know what else blogs tell me? That travel to Pakistan was forbidden to American citizens in 1981. That's why I'm not putting to much faith in blogs. Repeating something over and over and over again doesn't make it true.
If someone is going to make a statement like "Maya Soetoro has a Hawaiian birth certificate because Hawaii gives them out to anyone" they'd better be prepared to prove it. And linking to someone else's blog where they make the same unsubstantiated claim isn't proof.
“Don’t give the dissembling creeps any respect”
I don’t and won’t. Anyone that argues that an anchor baby or whatever is a NBC isn’t worthy of respect. It’s obvious what their agenda is.
The cite stuff out the wazoo, but none of it applies to the subject at hand.
“Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844):
...
“The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”
Exactly (with minor correction to end of quote). “
I’m sorry. What part of the Constitution was this from?
The actual sections of Hawaiian legal code have been posted on threads you’ve beentaking a crap all over and you pretend you have no knowledge of the posts. Typical
From Scalia’s concurrence in Miller v. Albright:
The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).
“The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization”
It might, but not two sources of Natural Born Citizens.
And, as to your earlier cite of Perkins v. Elg, Miss Marie Elg was born of two citizen parents under the law at that time, she was born in the United States, and therefore she was a natural born citizen. So, citing Elg is in no way helpful to you or to Obama.
These Obamabots remind me of the athiest type.
My first question to them is...”What year is this, 2009”
2009 What? OH A.D.
My second question is..”and You are smarter than everyone else for the last 2009 years”
You cannot reason with someone who is purposely dissembling by leaving off important portions of quotes thus fashioning the quote to say what they want it to say. Scalia in fact notes the origins as if explaining a venn diagram, with there being subsets under the ‘birth’ category, such as native born (jus soli) and by citizen parents (jus sanguinin), and when the Constitution was first written, prior to the 14th A ddition, bith by blood and on the soil of were the definition of natural born citizen.
“Yes, there is only one source of Natural Born Citizens, those who are granted citizenship at birth.”
Lol. Natural Born Citizens don’t have to be GRANTED anything at birth. Now that was funny.
Keep trying. They’re getting better.
It’s like Drew88 ignoring the posts where the answer to his taunting repetitious query is found ( http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697 ) in the hope that he can deceive a few readers into believing the lies he favors in order to promote the lying bastard in the Oval Office.
“(”The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.”
But not two sources of Natural Born Citizenship. Keep trying.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
Birtherism is an answer in search of an explanation, thus we have so many conflicting explanations for why 0bama couldn't possibly be qualified.
a) not born in Hawaii
b) born to one noncitizen parent
c) dual citizenship with England
d) adoption and possible Indonesian citizenship.
One would have to believe these obamanoid sycophants are either too stupid or purposely deceiving in that they cannot see their own argument of only two means of citizenship fails instantly with the acknowledgement that McCain was examined by a Senate committee because of at least two subsets of ‘by birth’ citizenship. The parentage of his Mom and Dad was never in question, but the location of his birth was an issue for folks like Leahy and Barry Soetoro. Scalia, BTW, addressed the subsets of the birth/citizenship issue.
There are several categories under the law of those who will be citizens at birth, but that doesn't mean that each has a different type of citizenship or a different “source” of citizenship. The “source” was that they were born and were eligible under the law.
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.