Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

nobarack08 | Feb 12, 2010 | syc1959

[dalereed]

“He is a natural born citizen. Get over it.”

Of Kenya, arrest his sorry ass and deport him!

[syc1959]

actually, we’re LOL about you.

[EnderWiggins]

And yet.... which of us appears to be rushing to a nervous breakdown?

[syc1959]

I just like given Obot some fun.
We’ll be laughing whenthe illegal undocumented alien in dealt the hand that he deserves.

Jan 2011 is coming.

[syc1959]

Again;

Still no mention of British Law in the Constitution either?

Come on, where is your evidence?

[syc1959]

we are waiting, wiggy

Still no mention of British Law in the Constitution either

[Lurking Libertarian]

The U.S. Constitution is filled with phrases whose meaning is not self-evident, but which were technical legal terms under English common law (which was what the Founders were trained in)— “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” “Bill of Attainder,” “Corruption of Blood,” etc., etc., etc. In every instance, the courts interpreted those phrases in accordance with English common law. There are literally dozens of Supreme Court cases holding that the Constitution is to be interpreted in accordance with English common law.

[syc1959]

sorry, common meaning and refernces.

Definitive proof with British Law stated verbatium in the Constitution.

[BP2]

> And in both cases... we are still eligible to be President
> of the United States per Article II of the US Constitution.

Good to see you acknowledge Obama is still a British Subject to this day — as he sits in the Oval Office. We're making some progress!

As for Obama’s Eligibility — as most After-Birthers — you confuse the inability TO THIS POINT of Plaintiffs to show Legal Standing & Jurisdiction as PROOF that he's eligible. As you know, it doesn't work that way, especially with heady Constitutional matters like this. Again, this does not mean Obama is eligible; the cases have yet to be heard on their merits.

Patience is the key in the Federal Court system, as even a Harvard law professor with no trial experience like Obama would know.

And as this thread has shown, there's a plethora of evidence that the Justices will review at some point that refutes Obama’s eligibility to hold office as President.

[syc1959]

“Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” as you state;

A letter of marque is an official warrant or commission from a government authorizing the designated agent to search, seize, or destroy specified assets or personnel belonging to a foreign party that has committed some offense under the laws of nations against the assets or citizens of the issuing nation and has usually been used to authorize private parties to raid and capture merchant shipping of an enemy nation.

Quote; under the laws of nations, not British Common law.

[BP2]

> Still no mention of British Law in the Constitution either?
> Come on, where is your evidence?

What?! I thought Article III dictated that Blackstone determines
ALL Constitutional paradoxes ... especially on Common Law < /sarc>

Wow, how about that Wiggie ...

[Lurking Libertarian]

sorry, common meaning and refernces.

Most of those terms were not "common," they were specific to English law.

Definitive proof with British Law stated verbatium in the Constitution.

The Seventh Amendment incorporates "the rules of the common law." France didn't have a "common law"; the term refers only to English law and to legal systems based on English law.

[syc1959]

Bill of Attainder; again as you stated.

Bills of attainder were used through the 18th century in England, and were applied to British colonies as well. One of the motivations for the American Revolution was anger at the injustice of attainder—though the Americans themselves used bills of attainder to confiscate the property of British loyalists (called Tories) during the revolution. American dissatisfaction with attainder laws motivated their prohibition in the Constitution (see the case of Parker Wickham).

their prohibition in the Constitution; dening British Law in the United States.

[Lower55]

“”NATIVE - NOT NATURAL BORN.”

They are the same thing. “

No they are not the same. You are wrong.

[Electric Graffiti]

Interesting article regarding common law:

Are Persons Born Within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens Thereof - George D. Collins

[Lower55]

” Since “children” is plural, their parents cannot be singular.”

This is the stupidest thing i have ever read on Free Republic. Unreal....LOL

[Lurking Libertarian]

The Supreme Court rejected Collins' arguments in the Wong Kim Ark case, decided two years after that article was published.

[EnderWiggins]

"Good to see you acknowledge Obama is still a British Subject to this day — as he sits in the Oval Office. We're making some progress!"

What a strange comment? SinceI have never denied for a second that Obama is a dual citizen, how can that be "progress?" Exactly?

"As for Obama’s Eligibility — as most After-Birthers — you confuse the inability TO THIS POINT of Plaintiffs to show Legal Standing & Jurisdiction as PROOF that he's eligible."

I do no such thing. I instead argue that since he meets the definition of natural born citizen, he is older than 35 and he has lived in the US for more than 14 years... that is what makes him eligible.

This hasn't dragged on for almost two years because you guys don't have standing. It has dragged on because he actually is eligible and you haven't been able to come with a shred of evidence otherwise.

"As you know, it doesn't work that way, especially with heady Constitutional matters like this. Again, this does not mean Obama is eligible; the cases have yet to be heard on their merits."

Actually, standing is the first merit in any civil case to be decided. This is another reason why Birthers embarrass me. Conservative jurists have worked their butts off for the last 50 years finally putting in place a strong set of criteria for standing that would keep the trial lawyers down. And yet Birthers want to throw out all that hard work and devalue it to a mere technicality because of a single election. It is nuts... the proverbial cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

Look... the whole NBC redefinition issue is already dead. That one already got to the Supreme Court and was refused consideration on its merits. The original Donofrio case was not dismissed for standing at the lower court level. It was a request for a TRO, and that request was denied on its merits. His appeal to the US Supreme Court was not an appeal of standing. It was an appeal of the case's denial on its merits. The Supreme Court actually got to consider the substance of his demand for a TRO, and that substance was the whole definition of NBC issue. It was denied by SCOTUS without comment.

I have been telling people for almost two years (first Phil Berg, then Leo Donofrio, then Orly Taitz, then Mario Apuzzo) that if any genuine evidence existed that the Obama COLB was a forgery, then a criminal complaint against the Hawaii DOH for fraud was the swiftest and surest way to get access to Obama's records. The DOH knows there is a COLB circulating with their stamp and seal on it. They know whether or not it is forged. If it is forged and they have not exposed the fraud, then they are complicit. And if there is any evidence that it actually is forged, they would have to prove otherwise in any criminal proceeding against them by opening up the records and showing so.

"Patience is the key in the Federal Court system, as even a Harvard law professor with no trial experience like Obama would know."

Actually, no. Having a real case is the key in the Federal Court system. Having competent lawyers also would help. Birthers appear to have neither.

"And as this thread has shown, there's a plethora of evidence that the Justices will review at some point that refutes Obama’s eligibility to hold office as President."

You keep believing that if it makes you feel better. I still haven't seen it.

[EnderWiggins]

"No they are not the same. You are wrong."

De Vattel says they are.

[EnderWiggins]

"This is the stupidest thing i have ever read on Free Republic."

Oh? It is? Okay, let me pose a situation.

There is a group of 5 unrelated children. Each of them has one parent who is a plumber, and another who is not.

Are they the children of a plumber? Or are they the children of plumbers?