Birthright Citizenship-ers, Dual Citizenship-ers, and Birth-ers

Going with the new trend of adding “-er” to the end of terms describing groups of people with similar beliefs ungrounded in commonly-accepted reality, we need to add Birthright Citizenship-ers and Dual Citizenship-ers to the mix, along with the Birth-ers.

The reason to group them together—they march to the same drumbeat—all apparently believe that birth in the US is all that is necessary for anyone to have US citizenship. The only point on which they seem to disagree is whether a long-form or a short-form birth certificate is sufficient proof. (Many of the so-called birthers will argue the finer point of “natural born” type of citizenship for the Presidency, but that will be addressed here later.) Ironically, those who loudly ridicule the “birthers” who shout “show me the birth certificate” find themselves also relying on the birth certificate. They can all march together to Washington DC with Philip Berg, hand in hand, waving their certificates.

The addition of the “-er” to these other groups is merited because the notion of Birthright Citizenship—automatically granted to all children born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens—is not grounded in the reality of the Constitution. And even though dual citizenship is now tolerated, the oath for US naturalized citizens specifically disallows allegiance to any other country.

OK, I get it.
You cannot produce a citation from the US Constitution, a citation from the US Code of Laws or a definitive U.S. Supreme Court decision stating that two American born or naturalized parents are required in order to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen for Article 2 Section 1 purposes.
Thanks anyway.

Barack Obama’s Jus Sanguinis natural born citizenship extends from his Topeka, Kansas born mother and his Jus Solis natural born citizenship extends from his birthplace of Honolulu, Hawaii.

OK, I get it.
You cannot produce a citation from the US Constitution ... stating that two American born or naturalized parents are required in order to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen ...

Can YOU pull a citation out that says it does NOT?
Of course you can't. LOL.

“To keep and bear arms” was undefined (or at least ill-defined) from 1787 until 2008. “Natural Born Citizen” is equally as UNIQUE in the Constitution. No other office has that requirement.

We have a lot of inference that Obama is still ineligible to serve as POTUS. That's why "quo warranto" is about the only way to settle this.

Vattel unequivocally required TWO parent citizens; Blackstone showed under common law that it was the FATHER alone that defined the child as a British subject, regardless of place of birth. Obama is screwed either way.

To define “natural born citizen,” the SCOTUS will — as it has time and time again — look at “other legal documents of the founding era.”

The SCOTUS will use "legal documents of the founding era" such as "Blackstone’s Commentaries" and Vattel's "Law of Nations" ... NOT a 20th Century version of "Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401," as YOU use, for goodness sake.

You Flat-Earther After-Birthers are such a riot for the rest of us to watch in action ... placing your FAITH and TRUST in the very man who wants to take everything away from you, including the Constitution itself.

You actually believe the "proof" that Obama himself has provided to FactCheck.org — HILARIOUS and pathetic at the same time.

So, tell me jamese777 ... do you believe in Global Warming, too?! LOL

You are absolutely correct in stating that I cannot prove a negative and show that the Constitution does NOT require two American parents in order to qualify as a “Natural Born Citizen.” Barack Obama has one American born parent and the Constitution is also mute on that situation.

However, what does the Constitution have to say about powers that are not delegated to the United States in the Constitution? I’ll give you a hint (10th Amendment).

There would be a stronger case if there was a direct reference to Swiss philosopher Emerrich Vattel in the Constitution but alas, there is none. And the Constitution contains no footnotes.

When the plaintiffs made reference to Vattel and the Law of Nations in the Obama and McCain eligibility lawsuit “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor Of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected the argument that Vattel had legal relevance. Yes, that’s only one state level court but its the only court to take a look at Vattel with regard to Obama, thus far.

As to Quo Warranto:
I expect that Obama’s appointees: Attorney General Eric Holder and US Attorney for the District of Columbia Ronald C. Machen Jr. will get right on pursuing a Writ of Quo Warranto againt their employer.
I bet those two African-American Democrats are already jumping at the bit at the opportunity to remove the first African-American President from office.

It could be interesting if even ONE of the current 219 Republicans in both Houses of Congress would file an amicus brief in support of an Obama eligibility suit but thus far, no Republican has done so. The Republican congressional delegation has gone in the opposite direction, inviting PRESIDENT Obama to their winter retreast and asking not one single question about his eligibility.

My understanding of the US Constitution and the US Code of Laws is that if a presidential candidate receives a majority of Electoral College votes and if those Electoral College votes are certified by the President of the Senate in a joint session of Congress and if the person whose Electoral College votes are certified is sworn in as President, that person is then the duly elected President of the United States.

The way to remove a duly elected president is via impeachment and the way to stop an ineligible person from becoming president is by not certifying his/her Electoral College votes and/or not swearing that person in.

None of what you posted proves me incorrect. The pivotal factor in WKA was that the parents were permanent residents (it says specifically “but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States”). Obama’s papa did not. He was a visiting scholar. Hawaii has not documented that Obama was born in Hawaii. What they have said amounts only to hearsay. As for what I posted from the Immigration and Nationality Act, you asked only for “the type of citizen at birth who cannot be President.” I provided several examples. Obama may be one.

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.