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 ...
Oops
that is both *could* be true, for the overall statement to be true, IOW either A or B or both must be true for (A or B) to be true.
That terms in the Constitution have the same meaning now as when the Constitution was written, that meaning is not dependent on "a body of law". It is what it is. Now a "body of law" may have ferreted out that meaning, but it is what it was.
Speech is a actually a much more complicated arena than "Natural Born Citizen", because there is only one sitution where being an NBC matters, and only a very few possibilities for the definition.
The problem being that all previous Presidents, save Chester Arthur, met the "born in the country of citizen parents, and he successfully his the fact. So there has been no test. And it appears there never will be, at least until someone with a foreign parent appears to have a chance against a media darling.
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
Yes, restoring sanity to a country that apparently lost it's collective mind will be an uphill battle.
Then again with Obama's voter confidence tanking it would appear that people are waking up.
Americans always bounce back!
I love the American spirit -- don't you?
Thanks for posting!
...And have a nice day!
STE=Q
It is sad. What they don't realize is that when we give up defending the principles that define our legal system for the expedient, we give up that part of ourselves, as a country, that has made us great.
Really? What court has requested his birth certificate? Obama can't refuse what hasn't been asked for.
That's the issue here not some haughty magnanimous cause like I'm 'defending the principles of our legal system
"...for they know not what they do."
Read post 606...you may get a clue.
“(1) Being an unspecified number or quantity; (2) Being a portion or an unspecified number or quantity of a whole or group; (3) Being a considerable number or quantity; (4)Being part and perhaps all of a class; (5) An indefinite or unspecified number or portion.”
So, let's start simple. Some people voted for Obama, just like some people voted for Bush in 2004. Neither were a minority. Now for the advanced stuff. Let's suppose that 100% of the population believes that being born here with two citizen parents makes one a NBC. Let's suppose that 80% also believe simply being born here is good enough. That's some. But the relevant minority/minority numerical comparison is not 100% to 80% (which adds up to more than 100%). It's 80% to 20%, which is by no means a minority.
Math and linguistics aside, you seriously aim to restore sanity to the entire country based on a 135 year-old case that didn't in any way determine who is a NBC, but rather upheld limiting the suffrage to male voters only? I doubt very many women will rally behind that as the definitive standard bearer of anything (which it certainly isn't for NBC determination).
Finally, all else aside, you have a decision from as long ago as 2009 that is directly relevant. The Indiana Court Of Appeals blew one of these stupid suits out of the water with the following:
“The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution...
The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth...
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Again, no credible legal authority doubts this conclusion. It is pretty self-evident. I imagine Judge Waite would probably even agree these days if we could reanimate him after one-hundred-and-twenty years in the grave. But by all means, cling to that “some” he used in an idle dissertation as the be all and end all of the universe.
Uh, no, she won’t. That’s just the mindless mantra you chant no matter how many times people who do know what they’re talking about have explained it to you.
How about this? Why don’t you just show up at your nearest Federal Court with your birth certificate and ask them to authenticate it for you. See what they tell you. To make it all seem worthwhile, you could even bring one of those American Grand Jury presentments with you.
Obama was born at Kapiolani hospital in Hawaii? That is right - correct? You do agree with that he was born in Hawaii? Submiting his long form BC to a court would prove that Obama was native to the soil of Hawaii. So what's the big problem? Is Obama afraid of his own birth certificate like it's the boogie man?
You two will not admit that Obama could easily show his birth certificate in court to prove his United States native born status, but you two play silly games so you can avoiding the question.
The mindless chatter is all yours.
A correction to my last post
It’s a nonsense request = It’s NOT a nonsense request... .as in reasonable.
Hey, oldie; did I offended YOU???
That is very interesting that you conveniently "missed" that post when your sharp eyes scrutinizes every single "BIRTHER's" posts with magnifying eyes. It was actually a reply post to your own #366 that was posted in #388. You then came back with post #470 as a reply to #454.You may want to reverse to post #388 which is the post I am referring to!!
There were three (3) candidates on the 2008 ballot who were ineligible to run for that office!!!
Who has said that Jindal is running???
“...for they know not what they do.”
The real question here is: -— Why is it that YOU don’t want him to show his real B.C. and other sealed records???
Now don’t give us your typically “tap-dancing,” McLame did show his, which Chuckie said was the right thing to do, huh!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ6iLuyCAx0
Like I said, give me 5 minutes and I can have Red Steel posting all over DU.
It's absurd of Obama not to submit his BC to a court to prove he was born in Hawaii. They can't answer the question to why he has not with any satisfaction. The would rather resort to evasiveness.
“(1) Being an unspecified number or quantity; (2) Being a portion or an unspecified number or quantity of a whole or group; (3) Being a considerable number or quantity; (4)Being part and perhaps all of a class; (5) An indefinite or unspecified number or portion.”
Well, ALL things being equal I'd say ALL trumps SOME.
For instance, ALL numbers would trump SOME numbers; just as ALL authorities agree would trump SOME authorities agree.
Perhaps the word 'minority' did not convey my meaning as precisely as it should have, so please allow me to amend it:
More precise, I think, would be to say that the born in the country to citizen parents view of NBC is the MAJOR position; whereas born in the country with a foreign national father is the MINER position.
I believe The Indiana Court Of Appeals decision leaned heavily on the 'Natural Born Subject' from English common law.
This is a very interesting subject that I look forward to participating in but, unfortunately, with your permission, I will have to put this discussion off until another time, as I am tired and ready to hit the sack.
Thank you for your reply!
STE=Q
Now. Probably 99% agree that born here with two citizen parents by whatever means is a NBC. So 99% is a subset of a larger lowest common denominator set, but it's still a position with huge support. Now say we drop to 70% for those who agree that being born here alone is enough. That's still a major or mainstream position even though its a subset. At some point of course, that's not true. If you go to considering a naturalized citizen as NBC, I would guess you're down into the 1-10% support range, clearly a minority position.
Basically there's a whole spectrum of subsets, or cut sets if you want to look at them a different way. Multiple subsets can all be considered major or mainstream positions.
I do think the Indiana court relies heavily on English Common Law. I think any court will.
I’ve seen enough of the world that you’re not capable of offending me. But this is a site whose demographics no doubt skew elderly and more devoutly Christian. You should respect that fact and avoid the sexually crude stuff.
Not as of Feb 2008
As I reported earlier, the McCain campaign has declined to publicly release the senator's birth certificate. But a senior campaign official showed me a copy of his birth certificate issued by the "family hospital" in the Coco Solo submarine base.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html
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.