Posted on 02/12/2010 12:35:44 PM PST by syc1959
Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.
Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition Under Jus Soli, the following is written "The Supreme Court's first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the court held, mean "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." Most Indians could not meet the test. "Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102. It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the 'Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.
The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Barack Hussein Obama did not have sole jurisdiction under the United States.
Title 8 and the 14th Amendment clearlt state the following;
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
Note: 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'
EnderWiggins needs a kool-aide refill, reality is setting in.
Good posts...gotta run for dinner.
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.
Will check in later.
Ah... I see. They’re still talking about people born overseas, and not on US soil.
Irrelevant.
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.
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...
Barry Goldwater would be one. Arizona was not yet a State when he was born.
I already did. Post 228.
try again - they already tried the BG angle. It fell flat.
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.
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.
Who’s “they?”
Goldwater is absolutely one of the folks Congress was talking about when they wrote that.
228
Simple, Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are two different things.
Only some times.
wrong, WKA case law vs. Constitutional Law
You will never overcome that one.
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...
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.