Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.
nobarack08 | Feb 12, 2010 | syc1959

Posted on 02/12/2010 12:35:44 PM PST by syc1959

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 1,321-1,329 next last
To: Las Vegas Ron

EnderWiggins needs a kool-aide refill, reality is setting in.


261 posted on 02/12/2010 6:30:39 PM PST by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra

Good posts...gotta run for dinner.


262 posted on 02/12/2010 6:32:28 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog
LOL... more to the point, you do realize that "law of nature and of nations" is not even close to a translation of "Le droit des gens; ou, principes de la loi naturelle."

Right?
263 posted on 02/12/2010 6:33:27 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

pout, pout, pout Enders

http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/vattels-law-of-nations-and-the-founding-fathers

Here’s a whole bunch of Vattel for you to eat crow on.


264 posted on 02/12/2010 6:34:06 PM PST by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: syc1959
Agreed....am off for some sustenance!

Will check in later.

265 posted on 02/12/2010 6:34:20 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra

Ah... I see. They’re still talking about people born overseas, and not on US soil.

Irrelevant.


266 posted on 02/12/2010 6:34:58 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS;

Title 8 and the 14th Amendment both state; All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So explain how “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.”

So to ‘what’ degree was Barack Hussein Obama under US Jurisdiction at birth? Knowing that he was already under British jurisdiction, and how that being only partial or to whatever degree you impose not being in conflict with “completely subject to”?

Mind you this is The Supreme Court that has stated complete and not partial to any degree jurisdiction.


267 posted on 02/12/2010 6:36:36 PM PST by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: anotherview

WRONG.

He father was British. You can ONLY be a Natural Born Citizen if the following applies to you:

1) BOTH parents were citizens of the United States when you were born (This ensures that you ONLY had one single citizenship at your birth, otherwise you have two, and therefore as a CIRCUMSTANCE of your birth and your parentage, have divided loyalties, Which is WHY the framers of the Constitution included this specific requirement, in order to best determine a person’s loyalties... By knowing their Parents loyalties.).

2) You were born on the soil of the United States or it’s territory.

Barack does not meet the number 1 requirement. He had two (possibly more and quite likely STILL DOES) citizenships at the moment of his birth.

The man should be in PRISON and we have an unconstitutional Government.

Don’t wonder for an INSTANT why the congress and Barack are pushing unconstitutional legislation and executive orders and Czars etc.... its because they aren’t BOUND by the constitution! Barack is breaking it with his usurpation, and congress by having certified it. Neither are bound by the constitution and so are doing ANYTHING THEY WANT TO.

Now tell me that crap doesn’t matter.

IT DOES. Get over it.

Don’t wonder for an instant how that bastard is going to, through an Executive order to the EPA, tell it to regulate the AIR YOU BREATHE, and tax modern life out of existence in a completely 100% unconstitutional manner, how he is getting away with it!

I pity the fools that do not understand the gravity of the situation we are in! The Constitution was our ONLY protection against a tyrannical government, and right now, its been shattered. WE HAVE NOTHING PROTECTING US as long as OBAMA is in power.

Tell me to get over it, yea, like the Jews got over Hitler annexing Austria...


268 posted on 02/12/2010 6:36:53 PM PST by Danae (Don't like our Constitution? Try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: syc1959

Barry Goldwater would be one. Arizona was not yet a State when he was born.


269 posted on 02/12/2010 6:37:10 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: syc1959

I already did. Post 228.


270 posted on 02/12/2010 6:38:56 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

try again - they already tried the BG angle. It fell flat.


271 posted on 02/12/2010 6:39:17 PM PST by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

EnderWiggins

ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS;

Title 8 and the 14th Amendment both state; All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So explain how “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.”

So to ‘what’ degree was Barack Hussein Obama under US Jurisdiction at birth? Knowing that he was already under British jurisdiction, and how that being only partial or to whatever degree you impose not being in conflict with “completely subject to”?

Mind you this is The Supreme Court that has stated complete and not partial to any degree jurisdiction.


272 posted on 02/12/2010 6:39:39 PM PST by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
You post that the author did not indicate parent or parentS. The decision clearly states parentS

Sure: "without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

And, obviously, if the citizenship of the parentS presents no barrier, then even less of a barrier is presented by the case when one parent is a citizen, and the other is not.

And given that this is the scenario under which Obama's citizenship must be considered.... "parent or parents" is the appropriate formulation.

273 posted on 02/12/2010 6:40:30 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: syc1959

Who’s “they?”

Goldwater is absolutely one of the folks Congress was talking about when they wrote that.


274 posted on 02/12/2010 6:41:15 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: syc1959

228


275 posted on 02/12/2010 6:41:38 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: syc1959

Simple, Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are two different things.


276 posted on 02/12/2010 6:41:47 PM PST by Danae (Don't like our Constitution? Try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Only some times.


277 posted on 02/12/2010 6:42:25 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

wrong, WKA case law vs. Constitutional Law

You will never overcome that one.


278 posted on 02/12/2010 6:43:47 PM PST by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: syc1959
"wrong, WKA case law vs. Constitutional Law You will never overcome that one."

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
279 posted on 02/12/2010 6:45:11 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

There is only one that matters, the qualifications for POTUS. That defination has not been specifically defined by the SCOTUS, and because of this, the only defination we have is what the founders intended. That the President be a child of two parents who were citizens and be born on the soil of the US or its territory.

Thats it.

There is no arguing out of that. The ONLY body that can define it is SCOTUS who with it’s current makeup, would rule in favor of the Founders ORIGINAL intent, all of which points to Obama being an usurper.

Now, to get a case legitimately before SCOTUS...


280 posted on 02/12/2010 6:45:33 PM PST by Danae (Don't like our Constitution? Try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 1,321-1,329 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson