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

To: jamese777
Again. Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401 “Nationals and US Citizens At Birth” of the US Code of Law

This statute or any other statute does not define who is a natural born citizen.

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

A person born can be subjected to more than one nation or power. That would invalidate that person from being a natural born citizen because their allegiance is not total to the United States. The very reason the US Constitutional Framers wrote Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to prevent future presidents who did not have the best interest of the country at heart. Why would anyone want someone at the head of the executive branch who could betray the country in matters of state in favor of foreign powers? Dumb liberals and treasonous people would. How about you jamese777? ...which appears to be the case that you want a president who does NOT look out for the best interests for the country or its citizens.

306 posted on 03/13/2010 2:58:13 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies ]


To: Red Steel

Again. Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401 “Nationals and US Citizens At Birth” of the US Code of Law
This statute or any other statute does not define who is a natural born citizen.

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

A person born can be subjected to more than one nation or power. That would invalidate that person from being a natural born citizen because their allegiance is not total to the United States. The very reason the US Constitutional Framers wrote Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to prevent future presidents who did not have the best interest of the country at heart. Why would anyone want someone at the head of the executive branch who could betray the country in matters of state in favor of foreign powers? Dumb liberals and treasonous people would. How about you jamese777? ...which appears to be the case that you want a president who does NOT look out for the best interests for the country or its citizens.


If your interpretation of the law is correct, I am certain that the US Supreme Court will take up an Obama eligibility case at some point in time. Thus far they have not chosen to do so and they’ve had eight opportunities which were all rejected.

Its unfortunate that no major figure in opposition to Obama has pursued any of the eligibility cases or even written a brief in support of any of these cases, nor have any of the top conservative legal funds or constitutional law firms.

I believe that the way to defeat a president who is not looking out for the best interests of the country is at the polls on election day.

ANY President can take actions that work against the best interests of the nation. Even Ronald Reagan is the only US President to ever sign an amnesty bill for illegal aliens into law. That turned out to be pretty treasonous but Reagan didn’t know it at the time.


309 posted on 03/13/2010 3:10:44 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies ]

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