The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.

Under this second way to look at the issue, there is no problem, there is no confusion, the issue is settled law.

There is "no confusion" because you are attempting to define something without clear definition with something similar and clearly defined in the Constitution. As I have mentioned over and over and over and over and over again, the 14th Amendment did not nor could not (re)define Natural Born Citizenship because it was intended to grant citizenship to emancipated black slaves who had no citizenship at birth.

That is why you do not see "Natural Born Citizen" in the amendment. Wong Kim Ark is the biggest fallacy the Supreme Court has ever decided on, and many historians agree. All it takes is one gander at the dissertation from David Ramsey in 1789 discussing this matter to see just how off-base their decision was.

And before anyone questions David Ramsey's authority he was the president PRO TEMPORE of the Continental Congress between 1785 and 1786 when John Hancock was elected but could not attend. He was also the premier U.S. political historian at the time and was promoted to the position of Congressional historian because of it. I will take Ramsey's definition and concepts over any supreme court's sloppy interpretation of a law. Ironically, in WKA, they failed to cite Ramsey's work when the knew full well it was the definitive answer to the intents of Article II eligibility requirements during the transition of British and American citizens between 1776 and 1789.

Even the authors of the 14th Amendment clearly understood and stated Natural Born Citizenship was in no way redefined. I simply do not understand why people continue to attempt to make poor conclusions such as this. The only way to redefine what Natural Born Citizenship is to amend it once the Supreme Court tells us what it means in the context of the law. And that law is ARTICLE II of the United States Constitution. It is not in the context of "John Q. Public" who comes off the boat fresh from China. It is in regards to Barack Obama, John McCain, Romney, Callero, Palin, Biden, and other politician on the ballots. This is the only way to make a change to its meaning, regardless of how "outdated", "sexist", or "taboo" you or anyone else believes it to be!

Under this second way to look at the issue, there is no problem, there is no confusion, the issue is settled law.

There is "no confusion" because you are attempting to define something without clear definition with something similar (yet distinctly different) and clearly defined in the Constitution. As I have mentioned over and over again like a broken record, the 14th Amendment did not nor could not (re)define Natural Born Citizenship because it was intended to grant citizenship to emancipated black slaves who had no citizenship at birth.

That is why you do not see "Natural Born Citizen" in the amendment. Wong Kim Ark is the biggest fallacy the Supreme Court has ever decided on. All it takes is one gander at the dissertation from David Ramsey in 1789 discussing this matter to see just how off-base their decision was. No review of "common British Law" is required.

And before anyone questions David Ramsey's authority he was the president PRO TEMPORE of the Continental Congress between 1785 and 1786 when John Hancock was elected but could not attend. He was also the premier U.S. political historian at the time and was promoted to the position of Congressional historian because of it. I will take Ramsey's definition and concepts over any supreme court's sloppy interpretation of a law. Ironically, in WKA, they failed to cite Ramsey's work when the knew full well it was the definitive answer to the intents of Article II eligibility requirements during the transition of British and American citizens between 1776 and 1789.

Even the authors of the 14th Amendment clearly understood and stated Natural Born Citizenship was in no way redefined. I simply do not understand why people continue to attempt to make poor conclusions such as this. The only way to redefine what Natural Born Citizenship is to amend it once the Supreme Court tells us what it means in the context of the law. And that law is ARTICLE II of the United States Constitution. It is not in the context of "John Q. Public" who comes off the boat fresh from China. It is in regards to Barack Obama, John McCain, Romney, Callero, Palin, Biden, and other politician on the ballots. This is the only way to make a change to its meaning, regardless of how "outdated", "sexist", or "taboo" you or anyone else believes it to be.

james, we can always count on you to misread and misinterpret just about everything you post. You said, “since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, there have only been two classifications of Americans: born citizens and naturalized citizens ...” which is demonstrably false. Your support citation says “two SOURCES” of citizenship, not two classifications. The two sources are only defined according to the 14th amendment. This is not a comprehensive statement on ALL citizenship in the United States. Gray acknolwedged natural born citizenship as a separate class of citizenship prior to his deliberation on 14th amendment citizenship. It’s really better for you to read but not post here ... at least not until you learn to post competently.

There is no difference between a “source of citizenship” and a “classification of citizenship.”

The proof is in the pudding. The law of the land ONLY covers two classifications of citizenship: (1) “Citizen of the United States at Birth;” and (2) “Nationalized Citizen.”

There is no functional difference under the law between a Citizen of the United States at birth and a Natural Born Citizen that has EVER been adjudicated by any court or that has ever been codified in any act passed by a Congress and signed into law by a President.

If there was a functional legal difference between a Citizen of the United States at Birth and a Natural Born Citizen, Barack Hussein Obama II could not have had his name appear on the ballot in 50 states plus the federal district and he could not have been elected President of the United States, had his Electoral College votes counted and certified by Congress without objection, or had the Oath of Office administered to him by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

There have been ninety adjudications in civil suits challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility over three years. Not one court has ever ruled that he is ineligible under Article II, Section 1. The latest attempt is being heard in Justices’ conference at the Supreme Court of the United States today in a second conference hearing on “Hollister v Soetoro.” That is the thirteenth attempt at the Supreme Court of the United States. We will know Monday or Tuesday of next week whether the Justices agree to hear Hollister v Soetoro.

You’ve nailed it, bluecat6, and in a precise, easy-to-understand way. Case closed. BOGUS. Every one.

There is “no confusion” because you are attempting to define something without clear definition with something similar (yet distinctly different) and clearly defined in the Constitution. As I have mentioned over and over again like a broken record, the 14th Amendment did not nor could not (re)define Natural Born Citizenship because it was intended to grant citizenship to emancipated black slaves who had no citizenship at birth.

That is why you do not see “Natural Born Citizen” in the amendment. Wong Kim Ark is the biggest fallacy the Supreme Court has ever decided on. All it takes is one gander at the dissertation from David Ramsey in 1789 discussing this matter to see just how off-base their decision was. No review of “common British Law” is required.

And before anyone questions David Ramsey’s authority he was the president PRO TEMPORE of the Continental Congress between 1785 and 1786 when John Hancock was elected but could not attend. He was also the premier U.S. political historian at the time and was promoted to the position of Congressional historian because of it. I will take Ramsey’s definition and concepts over any supreme court’s sloppy interpretation of a law. Ironically, in WKA, they failed to cite Ramsey’s work when the knew full well it was the definitive answer to the intents of Article II eligibility requirements during the transition of British and American citizens between 1776 and 1789.

Even the authors of the 14th Amendment clearly understood and stated Natural Born Citizenship was in no way redefined. I simply do not understand why people continue to attempt to make poor conclusions such as this. The only way to redefine what Natural Born Citizenship is to amend it once the Supreme Court tells us what it means in the context of the law. And that law is ARTICLE II of the United States Constitution. It is not in the context of “John Q. Public” who comes off the boat fresh from China. It is in regards to Barack Obama, John McCain, Romney, Callero, Palin, Biden, and other politician on the ballots. This is the only way to make a change to its meaning, regardless of how “outdated”, “sexist”, or “taboo” you or anyone else believes it to be.

“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a “natural born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in allegiance of the United States, natural born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, November 12, 2009.
The decision in Ankeny was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court which refused to hear the appeal and the decision has not been appealed to the federal courts.

If and when some court, any court in the land agrees with your interpretation with regard to Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility, then I will give your point of view serious consideration and a legitimate way to look at this issue. Until then, not so much.

According to Westlaw, “Wong Kim Ark” has been cited in more than 1000 subsequent decisions. It is stare decisis as of this date.

The proof is in the pudding. The law of the land ONLY covers two classifications of citizenship: (1) “Citizen of the United States at Birth;” and (2) “Nationalized Citizen.”

Dude, "nationalized" citizen???? You're losing it. Again, I recommend you stop posting until you learn do so competently. You've been schooled too many times on these issues.

The fact that the Founders didn't spend time debating the meaning of NBC is actually a major point in your favor. It indicates they all clearly knew what it meant. It's like today, when a conservative says, 'illegal immigrant', we don't spend hours and days trying to define the term. We all know exactly what it means. Ditto the Founders. They only had to debate issues that needed clarification--not the ones they all clearly understood a priori.

jamese777 said:

According to Westlaw, “Wong Kim Ark” has been cited in more than 1000 subsequent decisions. It is stare decisis as of this date.

In every single case citing WKA, not one of them is in the context of Article II. What the majority of these cases are citing is based on "anchor baby" citizenship.

I find it most curious the supreme court injected the Natural Born Citizenship clause to begin with. There is simply no reason to introduce it as the 14th Amendment is very clear on the matter of being born in the U.S. to foreign citizens. If the child is born in the U.S. subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the child is a U.S. Citizen.

If you can convince me that Wong Kim Ark was running for office of the President of the United States, then I might accept your argument.

Dude, “nationalized” citizen???? You’re losing it. Again, I recommend you stop posting until you learn do so competently. You’ve been schooled too many times on these issues.

Here’s what I’m talking about in the law of the land:
http://law.justia.com/codes/us/title8/chapter12_subchapteriii_.html

Fantasywriter said:

The fact that the Founders didn't spend time debating the meaning of NBC is actually a major point in your favor. It indicates they all clearly knew what it meant. It's like today, when a conservative says, 'illegal immigrant', we don't spend hours and days trying to define the term. We all know exactly what it means. Ditto the Founders. They only had to debate issues that needed clarification--not the ones they all clearly understood a priori.

You are 100% correct. It was one of the rare few requirements that remained unchanged throughout the ratification. Citizens understood what allegiance meant then. Citizens do NOT understand what allegiance means now.

Many countries have removed the ability to allow dual citizens in their nation. Ireland was one of the more recent. They understood the harm that was occurring in their country by the pure "watering down" of the importance of sole citizenship. Without unified allegiance, a nation will fall because there isn't a clear generational investment to the nation it represents.

I equate it to free agents in the NFL. It is difficult for a team to grow together and produce a sense of harmony when all you have is a resident you can not assume will be there next season. And when they run over to the opposing team when they feel it is in their own personal best interest, all their knowledge of their prior team goes with them.

Does this encourage a healthy society of citizens with a unified sense of sovereignty? I think not!

In every single case citing WKA, not one of them is in the context of Article II. What the majority of these cases are citing is based on “anchor baby” citizenship.

I find it most curious the supreme court injected the Natural Born Citizenship clause to begin with. There is simply no reason to introduce it as the 14th Amendment is very clear on the matter of being born in the U.S. to foreign citizens. If the child is born in the U.S. subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the child is a U.S. Citizen.

If you can convince me that Wong Kim Ark was running for office of the President of the United States, then I might accept your argument.

I can’t convince you on a historic hypothetical but I bet I can convince you that Barack Hussein Obama II ran for president, was elected 44th President of the United States and in 90 adjudicated attempts to challenge his eligibility as a natural born citizen, no court including the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled him to be ineligible.

jamese777 said:

I can’t convince you on a historic hypothetical but I bet I can convince you that Barack Hussein Obama II ran for president, was elected 44th President of the United States and in 90 adjudicated attempts to challenge his eligibility as a natural born citizen, no court including the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled him to be ineligible.

Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere. This is fact. It is the fact we all have to deal with. However, what is also fact is that the issue of Natural Born Citizenship (or lack thereof) will rear its ugly head again. The courts can continue to "kick the can" down the street for a latter court to decide.

Or, they can decide now and resolve this situation before reelection occurs, preventing yet another stain on the history of this nation. The truth will be revealed, and when it does, any trust the citizens of this country had for the Supreme Court and the judicial system will be null and void should Obama fail to have qualified. The same will apply to the DNC and RNC, if they are still in power. They will lose all authority they have to pick and choose qualified candidates. It does not bode well for them to ignore this issue.

Well said! I found your info re: Ireland fascinating. When even Europe is figuring it out, it can only mean one thing: American leftists will double down on their error. ;)

The football analogy is good, except for one thing. Even a free agent has every motivation to play well. His value to the team paying him, and more importantly to future teams, rises and falls on his performance. He may—and certainly will—undercut the esprit de corps (or should I say ‘corpse’?), but at least the agent is playing for his team for all he’s worth.

A POTUS with divided loyalties may very well play for the other side. When you’re dealing with a post-American, post-modern marxist with an axe to grind—and he’s not even a NBC—it only makes sense he would play for HIS team, not ours. That is what the Founders intended to prevent. In the Age of Stupidity, there are plenty who don’t understand that, but it’s true nonetheless.

Here’s what I’m talking about in the law of the land:

The Supreme Court said natural born citizenship is defined outside the Constitution. They distinguished it as a separate class of citizenship than those who are born without regard to the citizenship of the parents. IOW, it is not defined by statute or legal codes. Plus, your link doesn't address your obvious error. Again, you should refrain from embarrassing yourself further. Read, don't post.

no court including the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled him to be ineligible.

Technically ... no court has ruled him to be eligible. Yes, they've denied cases, but they've not issued an actual ruling on his eligibility. By denying standing, the courts are punting the issue and rejecting claims on different procedural issues. Even the Indiana idiots in the Ankeny appeal were smart enough not to say Obama was constitutionally eligible for office.

Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere. This is fact. It is the fact we all have to deal with. However, what is also fact is that the issue of Natural Born Citizenship (or lack thereof) will rear its ugly head again. The courts can continue to “kick the can” down the street for a latter court to decide.

Or, they can decide now and resolve this situation before reelection occurs, preventing yet another stain on the history of this nation. The truth will be revealed, and when it does, any trust the citizens of this country had for the Supreme Court and the judicial system will be null and void should Obama fail to have qualified. The same will apply to the DNC and RNC, if they are still in power. They will lose all authority they have to pick and choose qualified candidates. It does not bode well for them to ignore this issue.

It is certainly true that we might get clarifying legislation out of Congress or a precedent setting court decision at any time. That’s the way our system works.
I wonder if Obama would sign an eligibility bill into law?
Since the Constitution is unequivocably clear on its prohibitions against ex post facto laws and Bills of Attainder, we have to look to the future.

jamese777 said:

I wonder if Obama would sign an eligibility bill into law?

It depends on whether the Supreme Court will make a decision before 2012 (or later should he be re-elected). If they decide and he is found ineligible, he will not be able to sign anything ever again.

It depends on whether the Supreme Court will make a decision before 2012 (or later should he be re-elected). If they decide and he is found ineligible, he will not be able to sign anything ever again.

The Supreme Court is not a court of original jurisdiction. They would send an appeal back to the Court of Appeals for a trial on the merits. After that trial and appeals are heard and the actual finding gets back to the Supremes, it would be well after the 2012 election.

After the Supremes conference on Hollister v Soetoro today, there is no Obama eligibility appeal on their docket for the rest of 2011.

Look up the “de facto officer” doctrine and you’ll see that no actions of Obama’s would be invalidated by a later finding of ineligibility.

jamese777 said: “...in 90 adjudicated attempts to challenge his eligibility as a natural born citizen, no court including the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled him to be ineligible.”

Not a lawyer here - nor even a law student - so perhaps I’m just ignorant of some legal fact of which jamese777 is aware, regarding court rulings.

I’ve always been under the impression that under the US judicial system, in order for there to be a court ruling in a case - the case must first be “heard”.

Perhaps there’s a list somewhere of all those “is Obama eligible to be US president” cases - not those waiting in limbo, or those smacked down due to “lack of standing” - bet those cited...no, not cited...hhmmmmm...implied by jamese777 as having been heard and ruled upon by the Supreme Court, and whatever other courts.

Thank you in advance for enlightening me.

jamese777 said:

The Supreme Court is not a court of original jurisdiction. They would send an appeal back to the Court of Appeals for a trial on the merits. After that trial and appeals are heard and the actual finding gets back to the Supremes, it would be well after the 2012 election.

The Supreme Court is a court of original jurisdiction. Here are the cases where a party can directly submit a case to the Supreme Court, as per U.S. Code:

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

Obama can not pass any further law upon immediate decree he is ineligible, should the case ever be decided and the decision claims the Natural Born Citizen clause is what it is supposed to mean.

A sidebar to this is why the multiple states did not just go directly to the Supreme Court for the health care bill. Apparently the attorney generals do not know the law.