Posted on 01/06/2010 6:30:17 AM PST by SvenMagnussen
(Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.
Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
“Defending the principles upon which our legal system is based in not the same thing as defending the man.”
Absolutely true. Sadly, I think any number of posters here can’t even comprehend what you’re talking about. Either that, or they willfully refuse to.
What would the opposite of being born in the united states with two citizen parents -- thus a natural born citizen -- be?
Chief Justice Waite's words in Happersett said to this class(paraphrase) there has NEVER been doubt...
That means that **ALL** authorities agree that one born in the united states with two citizen parents IS a natural born citizen!
However "**SOME** authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
As to this class there HAVE been doubts..."
but NEVER as to the first (CLASS)
SOME VS. ALL
DOUBT VS.CERTAINTY
SHAKY VS. SOLID GROUND
Now you can "believe" what you want but, unfortunately, the laws of logic tell a different story.
In any case, your position -- child born in country with a foreign national father -- is the minority view:
SOME AUTHORITIES = DOUBT (maybe; maybe not)
The birther view is the majority view:
ALL AUTHORITIES = NO DOUBT (certainty)
I'm done!
WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Minor v. Happersett
(Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875)
... **it was NEVER DOUBTED that all children born in a country of parents{PLURAL}who were its CITIZENS became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or NATURAL-BORN citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. SOME authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been DOUBTS, but NEVER as to the first.**
(EMPHASES MINE)
STE=Q
You are aware that no court has ordered Obama to show his birth certificate to them, aren't you?
DUH...your response has hit an all time tangental low...
I WROTE THIS POST BEFORE THE ABOVE POST:
N.S. WRITES:
“... he acknowledges that some doubt.(sic)”
MY REPLY:
No, he — Chief Justice Waite — “acknowledges” a lot of doubt.
He uses the word doubt TWO times in referring to those that hold the view — that you yourself ADMITTEDLY hold — that one born in the united states, with a foreign national, for his/her father, is a Natural Born Citizen.
However — as you have indicated to ALL on this forum — the Question of Obama’s citizenship is, in your OPINION, settled law.
By the way, when Justice Waite writes about the opinion YOU hold he uses the term “SOME” authorities... etc.
Do you understand the import of the word SOME in logic?
When Justice Waite writes about the opinion “Birthers” hold — born in the country of citizen parents (PLURAL)— he says (Paraphrase) “of this class there has never been doubt,” meanining, ALL (not SOME) agree: that one born in the country, of citizen parents(Plural)are Natural Born citizens.
Your “opinion” is, indeed, the minority one!
Does that mean that your minority view is necessarily wrong?
NO!
However, it does mean that YOUR “opinion” as to what makes a Natural Born Citizen (born in country with a foreign national for father)is in a state of uncertainty, or DOUBT; whereas, the “opinion” of the birthers (born in country, both parents citizens)is certain, or — as Chief Justice Waite said (paraphrase) — “of this class there can be NO doubt!
Thus, Birthers are on solid ground where the “opinion” of anti-birthers are fraught with doubt!
In review of the above it would seem that the onus would be on those with the shaky position to prove their case, rather than the ones — whom ALL authorities agree — are on solid ground.
I’m afraid that born in the country to two citizen parents(NO DOUBT AS TO NATURAL BORN STATUS)trumps born in country with a foreign national for father.(DOUBTS AS TO NATURAL BORN STATUS)
We’re done here...
STE=Q
You are aware that Obama should submit his birth certificate on his own free will to clear up the matter to where he was born.
Not being born in the U.S. and obtaining citizenship through a naturalization process.
That means that **ALL** authorities agree that one born in the united states with two citizen parents IS a natural born citizen!
I don't disagree with that.
However "**SOME** authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
Yes, and you'll note that Chief Justice Waite did not say that those authorities were wrong. Or that they were right. He did not define natural-born citizenship one way or the other.
Now you can "believe" what you want but, unfortunately, the laws of logic tell a different story.
And you will believe what you want, and you can call conclusions logical or illogical to your heart's content. That doesn't make you right.
In any case, your position -- child born in country with a foreign national father -- is the minority view...
You're assuming that it is.
I'm done!
Promise?
Not being born in the U.S. and obtaining citizenship through a naturalization process.
That means that **ALL** authorities agree that one born in the united states with two citizen parents IS a natural born citizen!
I don't disagree with that.
However "**SOME** authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
Yes, and you'll note that Chief Justice Waite did not say that those authorities were wrong. Or that they were right. He did not define natural-born citizenship one way or the other.
Now you can "believe" what you want but, unfortunately, the laws of logic tell a different story.
And you will believe what you want, and you can call conclusions logical or illogical to your heart's content. That doesn't make you right.
In any case, your position -- child born in country with a foreign national father -- is the minority view...
You're assuming that it is.
I'm done!
Promise?
Could it then be that I mistook the DU for your posting on KOS instead???
I just like to get the record straight. BTW, have you noticed that this thread is about a letter to Mr. ZERO, the one you are defending all the time, and Orly is NOT here either!!!
Don't post on KOS either.
I just like to get the record straight.
You'll have to ask mojitojoe about that. I've no idea what he's been saying.
BTW, have you noticed that this thread is about a letter to Mr. ZERO, the one you are defending all the time, and Orly is NOT here either!!!
Your claim that I'm defending Obama 'all the time' is also inaccurate. I've never defended his policies or his legislation. As is common with Birthers, you mistake defending the law and the Constitution and judicial precedent with defending Obama himself. As I've pointed out before, should you Birthers try the same arguments on Bobby Jindal should he run then I'd be defending him just as strenuously, because your typical Birther argument would be just as wrong.
But then, maybe it's not a common term to birthers.
Also, if I were so inclined how long to you think it would take me to have “danamco” registered on DU with posts? The fact that there may be a “Non-Sequitur” signed up on DU is meaningless.
I wrote:
“That means that **ALL** authorities agree that one born in the united states with two citizen parents IS a natural born citizen!”
N.S. wrote:
“I don’t disagree with that.”
I wrote:
“**SOME** authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
N.S. wrote:
“Waite did not say that those authorities were wrong...”
___________________________________________________________
I write:
Neither did I!
You MAY be right; You May be wrong.
We don’t really know do we?
Maybe we could flip a coin?
However — as you agreed above:
“ALL** authorities agree that one born in the united states with two citizen parents IS a natural born citizen!”
The anti-birther position as to Natural Born Citizenship — born in country with foreign national father — is debatable; whereas the birther position — born in country with two citizen parents — remains uncontested, as to natural Born status, even by you.
Your view — that an Natural Born citizen may enjoy a foreign national for a father at his/her birth — appears to be the minority one.
In view of the above it would seem that the onus is on YOU to make YOUR case.
Until you DO make a solid case your doubtful position remains — as Chief Justice Waite indicated — in DOUBT!
Good luck!
STE=Q
The issue isn't considered remotely controversial in the legal community. That's why no one blinked an eye at putting Obama on fifty state ballots even though it was a stipulated fact that his father wasn't a citizen. Why no elector blinked an eye at casting electoral votes for him even though it was a stipulated fact that his father wasn't a citizen. Why Dick Cheney presided over counting the electoral votes without blinking an eye, etc. etc. Why the Supreme Court has passed up every opportunity it had to review a case on Obama’s eligibility.
The status quo is that a sitting President was elected with his non-citizen father a stipulated fact. The status quo is that no competent legal authority is on record supporting the birther position. To anyone living in reality, the onus is clearly on the birther community. From what we've seen of their efforts to date, they don't have the talent to prevail even if they had a case, which they don't.
Not much of a post, either.
Oh, I’m convinced. The DU one is not hyphened and not capitalized LoL! Oh such a big difference! /sarc Two Non Sequiturs on the same subject. The screen name is fairly common to after-birthers I see.
Show were it defines "speech" or "press".
I wouldn't agree with that. I think there are several cases which clarify the question.
Only in dicta. Ms. Elg was declared to be natural born, both her parents were naturalized citizens at the time of her birth, but that was not necessary to the conclusion of the case, that being that she was a US citizen. In "Wong Kim Ark", the term "natural born child of a citizen" was used in contrast to child of an alien born in the US, in Justice Grey's quote of Binny, but that too was not necessary to the conclusion of the case.
Acctually the opposite of (born in the US) AND (Having two citizen parents) is:
(Not born in the US) OR (having 1 or no citizen parents). With the "OR" being inclusive (that is both be true).
Logic 101.
(NOT)(A and B) == (NOT A) or (NOT B).
Show were it defines “speech” or “press”.”
Just curious as to what your point is. The Constitution doesn't define “speech.” Where what constitutes “speech” is not self-evident, there is a body of law and considered opinion outside the Constitution that defines what is protected and what is not.
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.