Posted on 08/26/2009 12:40:24 PM PDT by kellynla
If Obama's father was a Kenyan then how could Hussein be eligible to be POTUS?
“OK. Now let’s give YOUR dumb ass a quick little IQ test. Did you ever stop to consider that amongst the “Foreigners” that Jay was referring to were the PARENTS AND THEIR ASSOCIATES. And that the reasoning was to minimize the possibility of alien ideas transmitted thru their children by ensuring that the PARENTS were vetted by US citizenship???”
***
Nope, I sure didn’t, and I’ll tell you why: Because I can read and comprehend what I am reading. John Jay was talking about foreigners “IN” the government. Parents of presidents aren’t “IN” the national government.
John Jay wrote:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Your interpretation, and thus your conclusion, are both based on your inability to read English and understand it. See the phrase above “into the administration of our national Government;” Do you? Do parents of presidents have any role in national government????
Think, man!
“Natural born” comes from English common law.
You totally misunderstand what SR 511 meant. He was born outside the United States (Panama was NOT U.S. soil, nor is any military base of the U.S. in a foreign country; Panama was LEASED to the U.S.). The federal law at the time of his birth was that a child born abroad of two U.S. citizens is a citizen at birth. That’s all SR 511 said. It simply affirmed the provision of the law that existed in 1936, which as a matter of fact, is the same provision in TODAY’S law regarding the status of children born outside the U.S. to two U.S. citizens.
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html.
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
169 U.S. 649
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore 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.
III. 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.
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Nothing in that statement/suggestion/comment from a man who would sit on the SCOTUS even addresses parents except in the context of natural born, the ones that would be admitted into the administration of our national government, not the parents. Thus Jay established the contrast between foreigners and those natural born. Thing is, you know that yet are bound by your obamanoid kneed pad servitude to try and spin the obvious into something obscure. You Obama defenders are real devious, but apparently not so smart little nettles.
You need to read that State Dept. page more carefully. You cannot lose your U.S. citizenship unless you choose to obtain citizenship in another country. So Obama was born with dual citizenship, yes. That does not make him any less of a natural born citizen, though. Certainly a question would be raised if he had dual citizenship today, but he doesn’t, so it’s a non-issue. The accident of birth that gave him dual citizenship does not deprive him of the rights of a natural born citizen.
Is he really a NBC? I don’t know. I don’t think it’s likely the State of Hawaii would knowingly participate in a fraud. Is there a fraud that Hawaii doesn’t know about and is itself a victim of? That’s possible, but as of now, there is no evidence to support that theory.
He’s a socialist/communist enemy of America, of that much I am sure. And IF he was born in Hawaii, he’s a NBC.
Right. Nothing about the parents. But YOU are the one saying the parents have to be citizens. The parents could be foreigners!
I detest Obama, so your calling me a supporter of him is another measure of your inability to think clearly. I am not defending anything but clear thinking. You cannot comprehend plain English. Jay is talking about "the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government." A child born of foreigners is not a foreigner: He or she is a natural born citizen. That was the law in the colonies and that was the law in the states after independence was declared.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
169 U.S. 649
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore 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.
III. 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 hereby give up on getting through to you. If you cannot respond to reason, and continue to deny facts that are as plain as day, there’s not much more I can say to you.
Carry on, fool, you're getting quite amusing in your fraudulency. It is amusing to watch a fool pretend to be wise, and all reading your posts except you can see your deceits unfold.
No, bless your little heart, it is the foreigners who will ‘not be allowed into’ ... you’re the fool trying to play double talk and focus upon the foreign parents. BTW, fool, naturalized parents are foreign born, yet if a person is born of naturalized parents byt he time of their birth, they are considered natural born by jus sanguine.
Oh yeah. The parents would have whatever influence that POTUS allows them to. You have forgotten how the MSM insured that the general voting public would know as little about him as possible. I’m pretty sure that I know what the founders meant. They surely didn’t intend for a Marxist usurper with an admitted multiplicity of citizenships at birth to be POTUS. I am abso-bloody-lutely positive of that!!!!
The following is the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no clearer statement of the issue of who is natural born than this.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore 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.
“III. 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.”
The following is the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no clearer statement of the issue of who is natural born than this.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore 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.
“III. 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.”
The following is the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no clearer statement of the issue of who is natural born than this.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore 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.
“III. 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.”
Interesting, that you think our Founders would defer to such a concept.
I don't misunderstand a thing, as far as that ludicrous SR 511 is concerned. It was a collegial effort to provide cover fot one of their own, Constitution be damned, that's what it was.
Buh-bye.
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: ‘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.’
True to legal form, the question put before the court was extremely narrow and explicitly described. No question of natural-born citizen was raised in it. Only the concept of “citizen” is in question and this is reinforced by adjoining “born or naturalized” to it (natural-born-citizens would not required naturalization). The ruling in Wong Kim Ark is careful to step around the NBC definition. And the SCOTUS does not have the authority to define natural born citizen in any shape way or form. The legislature is granted in the Constitution the ability to manifest uniform rules of naturalization. But even the legislature is not granted the authority to redefine NBC from what it was commonly known to be. To grant that authority would (should) necessitate a Constitutional Amendment — but of course the liberals and Obamunists prefer to legislate from the bench.
Bottom line, SCOTUS cannot define NBC and does not do so in Wong Kim Ark — it only affirms “citizen”ship for the individual meeting the above listed criteria.
I say we take the entirety of what your side says and the enirety of what my side says to the SCOTUS for adjudication. It is CLEAR that we need a precedental ruling that deals with this issue directly and not peripherally, so we may establish stare decisis in this matter.
But your boy Hussein is DETERMINED to avoid a judicial inquiry undoubtedly because he fears that the outcome will not be in his favor.
That is why he has spent over $1,352,000 on legions of lawyers to quash the issue.
So it was like when the Senate votes to accept or reject the results of the electoral college, right???
And the reason why it was never intended to be signed into law is because it deals with a matter that the Senate has no jurisdiction over.
So the Senate has no jurisdiction over the application of the clause "natural born citizen" when it votes to accept or reject the results of the electoral college.
The Senate could not declare John McCain a natural-born citizen unless the law first said he was. Anymore than they could declare he was not a natural-born citizen if the law said he was.
But the Senate can vote to reject the results of the electoral college for a candidate who is not a "natural born citizen". So that makes this Senate Resolution 511 was perfectly within the purview of Senatorial business and binding on those 98 senators in that vote.
Can you point out just where that non-binding resolution refers to McCain's birth certificate? Or any other documentation?
It doesn't. And yet they declared that he was born on a military base even without it. Therefore the Senate should have had no problem producing an SR511 for Mr Undocumented himself. So where is it???
Oh that's right. They can't and they couldn't because BOTH of his parents were not U S citizens and therefore he can't be a natural born citizen, according to the Senate's own definition of the term.
And it’s the same Constitution under which Thomas Jefferson became President, even though one his parents was born overseas.
And it’s the same Constitution under which Andrew Jackson became President, even though both of his parents were born overseas.
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.