Posted on 03/18/2011 8:38:52 PM PDT by patlin
1859 Official Opinion of US Admin
1859 Opinion of US Attorney General
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com ...
You have it completely wrong. The feudal doctrine that usurped the original common law of England based on natural law is what has caused the many civil wars in England and across its colonies from the Norman Conquest forward. In fact, it really wasn't until the mid 1300’s that the feudal doctrine really gained a hold and it is that doctrine that is the core of oppression. It forces the will of a Sovereign ruler by taking away the natural God given rights of locomotion. Cicero, Aristotle, Grotious, Pufendorf Sidney & Locke are the works in which Vattel brought together and laid out so simply & eloquently and why since his time, his works are quoted more than any other in Supreme Courts around the world to date. He took the natural right & reason of all those before him and gave us the basis for all international law today.
Respectfully disagree with the assessment that feudal administration began in the 14th century. There’s pretty solid evidence for it in the 11th. Granted, before the governance was not nearly as strong, but it would be difficult to argue that Britain was at all prosperous from the 5th to the 10th century. It’s a complicated and difficult period to study, in part because of the lack of centralization.
“He took the natural right & reason of all those before him and gave us the basis for all international law today.”
Without question. Very much in agreement. However, I’m very skeptical that taking the UK’s system of naturalization would work in America without the Queen. Even as a constitutional Monarch, she’s got significant influence all out of proportion with the political power that she weilds, and across many different nationalities and governments. Even in America she is highly regarded.
I wonder how much of the damage caused by Obama could have been mitigated with the Queen.
That established meaning being someone who was born domestically to citizen parents .
You should stop lying about this.
A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals also disagreed, 220 years after James Madison: “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 British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”
“Ankeny, et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, November 12, 2009
You said elsewhere that the BC discussion detracts from the NBC issue, you have also said …the Hawaii BC…serves a purpose. It is mis-direction…, and now you say in #35: The BC/COLB/Place of birth are not relevant.
That is exactly what O would like us to believe isn’t it?
Has he, Ayers, Rahm concealed the foreign father issue?
Have they consistently concealed the birthplace issue?
Lets consider the possible ways to resolve this national fraud either very quickly or perhaps during the next two terms.
Dual citizenship/foreign father?
We agree a foreign father precludes eligibility, even if the USSC agreed – and that is uncertain - it would likely opine the law was previously unsettled and it should not be applied to O. Even if the court agree and offered no such restriction, the dem Senate would almost certainly not convict arguing as above plus, “he never concealed his parentage and his parentage was not within his control”. (One way to win and two ways to lose.)
His failure to affirm citizenship upon reaching majority?
Was it even possible for him to do so? If so, "Hey, it was just an oversight by a stressed college kid, could have happened to anyone, kicking him out of office would be a punishment that was beyond all reason, etc."
The fact he likely traveled on an Indonesian passport for most of his life after being removed from his mother’s passport?
“It was simply a matter of convenience for a kid”.
Improper use of SS#’s and draft registration process?
Since taking office, political operatives, Rahm , et al, have cleansed all relevant files. Even if not, it could take years to obtain evidence based on the records that may yet exist. Recall how during the House impeachment investigation re Clinton, the Justice Dept was markedly uncooperative and stalled, resisted and obstructed at every point. We should expect a similar lack of cooperation from any federal agency involved.
Education records, student aid fraud?
See above. There is little chance anything of evidentiary value remains at the government level and it is almost certain any document trail at the private level has either been bought or destroyed. These people are not amateurs.
So, at this point, notwithstanding all the fine, esoteric arguments, do any of those potential defects in eligibility offer reasonable chance of success of resolving the concealment fraud within the next few years?
Not likely, but I believe we should nonetheless pursue them.
Non U.S. birth?
Again, if established it is game over. Few in the Senate will vote to leave a foreign citizen in the Oval Office and it is likely there would be a resignation.
What are the odds of a non-U.S. birth?
There is substantially more credible evidence, albeit circumstantial, that he was born in Kenya than anywhere else. That body of evidence includes statements made on the floor of the Kenya government. Add the fact Lucas Smith has not been detained or even questioned by law enforcement despite having presented every member of Congress with his written charges and the offer to appear and testify.
How to obtain the birth documents from HI?
The only way to obtain credible copies is via a House subpoena and that will require much public pressure and almost certainly a revolt by the new members of the House.
Here is my bottom line. The “axis of evil” outed by Pres. Reagan is much wider and larger around the globe, and now has a larger, multi-headed presence in the U.S. than when he spoke. Its agenda is to diminish or eliminate America’s influence. At the same time we presently have an established enabling supporter of that effort as the CEO of our nation.
Time is not on our side and we should pursue every avenue. How can you logically wave us off of a BC inquiry when it offers perhaps the best and quickest step toward the long process of reclaiming our nation?
In the alternative, why would anyone attempt to persuade the public to not pressure politicians to seek a BC from HI, perhaps the single thing that can bring him down within the next two terms?
And I clearly stated that it did not begin in the 14th century, I stated that was when it got its strongest foot hold. I do believe I stated that it began after the Norman Conquest and would you not agree that that happened in the 11th century? So what is your real argument other than you prefer to be a subject to a sovereign master rather than pursue your own happiness & success? Last I heard from my close e-pal over there, things are pretty tough. Especially when her hubby who has worked his entire life for the English public school system can not get a simple stint put in place to correct his ailing heart. And they can not afford to come over here to have it done. No thanks, yo keep your system & we'll fight for ours.
true ,the Supreme court has ruled on this issue. Minor vs happensett CHILDREN WHO PARENTS ARE CITIZENS ARE NATURAL BORN. PARENT’S’ MEANS BOTH. so, why is obama sitting in the White House
That isn’t what they said, which is why WKA addressed the issue in the 1890s.
Wong Kim Ark was about whether or not a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were not yet citizens have a right to citizenship. It was found that the parents has legally immigrated to the U.S. and thus had partial allegiance to the U.S.( not yet sworn in as citizens). Ark was said to have citizenship equal to that of a Natural Born citizen. He was never granted Natural born status. Ark was granted citizenship by code not by birth.
“Ark was granted citizenship by code not by birth.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good summary
Please stop posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.
I second that emotion. No need to apologize for the long writing.
I’ve cited the Supreme Court decision. What have you done?
jameseeeee, you are SOOOOO out of you league, but if you insist on posting then it shall be our duty to keep laughing at you.
Smile though your heart is aching,
Smile even though it’s breaking.
When there are clouds in the sky;
You’ll get by,
If you smile though your tears and sorrow.
Smile and maybe tomorrow,
You’ll see the sun come shining through...
For you.
“Ark was granted citizenship by code not by birth.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
“[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’”
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’?
“…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
“The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
I have pointed out that you’re lying.
No, you’ve made an accusation without any evidence.
That is name-calling, and while it may make you feel better, it doesn’t constitute an argument.
My evidence comes from a Supreme Court decision - one I disagree with, but understand - that makes it very clear that the meaning of NBC is found in the common law term ‘natural born subject’, and that includes those with 2 alien parents.
There are other arguments they could have followed, and I think they SHOULD have followed, but the US Supreme Court isn’t going to overturn 110 years of precedence to throw out a sitting President. Nor should they.
FIAP,
I am sorry my various comments have been taken to mean that things should not be done. Given the post that your post is a response to I see the issue and your concern.
Let me respond by saying it is possible Obama has issues with all 4 elements of a ‘natural born Citizen’. These elements are:
1. jus sanginius
2. jus soli
3. being a natural Citizen since birth
4. He is still a British subject today
I will address these in reverse order.
Item 4. Obama was a British citizen/subject. Without form RN - he still is.
Item 3. Obama likely a recognized Indonesian citizen by the US after his adoption at a young age under the Hague treaty.
Item 2: The issue so far has focused on jus soli in the MSM and in the comments from the politicians. This is why there is focus on the forged Hawaii COLB (and it is a forgery!) and his birth place. I believe this is 100% valid issue. The problem is that the original records are likely legally sealed due to adoption or adoptions. They may never surface without voluntary disclosure. I think it worthwhile to prove and show the fraud and forgery and deliberate obstruction by HDOH as part of this. But the original records may never appear. I hope they do, but I am not hopeful.
Item 1. jus sanguinis. This issue takes no research, it takes no release of documents. It is the eligibility issue that Obama fails on. It is the element that no one it politics or the media will bring up because - it is a slam dunk (it is March Madness).
The focus on solely the BC/COLB/jus soli issue and about the ‘alternate father’ both detract from the issue of jus sanguinis. It is not that these should not be pursued. But Item #2 is used a smoke screen by the administration. And as long as the COLB is labeled as genuine by the MSM and cable talking heads it will difficult to make headway quickly here.
The reason I suggest not aggressively following up with the ‘alternate father’ theory is primarily this. The possibly of a US citizen father allows an out to the issue of jus sanguinis. One could say - well, if Obama’s real father is a US citizen then this is a non-issue. But that is not the case. Obama Senior is the father. That is the legal established ‘fact’ and it is not changing. So - a) legally another father is not a possibility and b) it allows for conjecture that jus sanguinis is not really an issue - when it is THE issue that can not be deflected.
So I am not trying to discourage any finding of fact. But if you want anything to happen in the short timeframe we better get focused on jus sanguinis as THE issue. It is the issue where the current facts are laying right in front of all to see.
This is why the MSM has not picked up the Thai Prime Minister Dual Citizen story. They are avoiding like the plague.
I would recommend people take those articles and send them to your representatives and say - if the Thai PM is a dual citizen how is that Obama is not since his father was a British subject at the time of his birth.
Put up billboards - “”Born a Brit, ain’t legit.” (p.s. and he is still a Brit today).”
jus sanguinis is terrifying the ‘cloakers’. They can not cloak the father. Regardless of everything else Obamas father is foreigner and that issue nullifies Article II eligibility without any further research.
I hope this helps in understanding my posts.
There is no changing the father legally. Even with a DNA test proving otherwise. The LEGAL birth father is Obama.
Until the courts say otherwise, it appears your daughter is no less eligible for the Presidency than the man who currently occupies the position. A man who earlier today ordered the most powerful navy in the world to launch a cruise-missile strike against Libya, orders which were carried out.
If you were born in Europe but you became a US citizen and your husband is a US Citizen and your daughter was born in the United States... then she is eligible to become president because she owed no allegiance to a foreign power at birth. That is what this is really all about... allegiance to foreign powers. In Obama’s case he has had since birth foreign allegiances and he has maintained them throughout his adult life. Everyone seems to know this at some level, even his loyal followers. This has been part of his allure which Obama himself cultivated. This is why people around the world were so enamored with him. They felt Obama was first a citizen of the world and second a citizen of the United States. The framers of the constitution thought it was dangerous to have an individual who was not totally committed only to the interests of the United States be our commander in Chief.
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.