Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama is not a Native US Citizen
Bouvier's Law Dictionary ^ | 1928 | William Edward Saldwin

Posted on 05/14/2010 3:21:18 PM PDT by bushpilot1

Meandering through my 1928 Edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary on page 833, Native, Native Citizen is defined:

Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens.

If Obama does not meet the standards of a native citizen how can he be a natural born citizen.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: article2section1; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; citizen; citizenship; eligibility; ineligible; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 741-753 next last
To: mojitojoe

Hmm, I wonder who the sockpuppet is? I would assume a newer signup.

I have an idea who it might be, hmmm.

You should alert a ping list to this comment, people can keep their eyes open for said sockpuppet.


461 posted on 05/16/2010 10:06:45 PM PDT by little jeremiah (http://lifewurx.com - Good herb formulas made by a friend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: bgill

I had a TV for about 2 years all told, since I was 17. That was in the late 60s. I did have one for the Clinton impeachment, though! ;-)


462 posted on 05/16/2010 10:08:12 PM PDT by little jeremiah (http://lifewurx.com - Good herb formulas made by a friend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: danamco; little jeremiah; MHGinTN; LucyT; BP2

Does drew 68 have a young son and was or is Drew in the Navy? I don’t feel like checking his past posts, anyone know? I’m going to assume it’s him but it’s pretty stupid to use the same name as he does on here unless he wanted milspecrob, parsifal and his other pals to know he was there.


463 posted on 05/16/2010 10:11:46 PM PDT by mojitojoe (banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; mojitojoe

It’s highly likely BS since they know we are looking at their postings. The post was made only 24 hours ago.


464 posted on 05/16/2010 10:13:29 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I think it’s hilarious. They have no clue that most of the research and things found are never posted here on FR and their “sock puppet” will never fool anyone.


465 posted on 05/16/2010 10:13:44 PM PDT by mojitojoe (banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

Yes, Drew68 has said he has a young son and is in some branch of mil, can’t remember what kind. Didn’t pay attention.


466 posted on 05/16/2010 10:13:44 PM PDT by little jeremiah (http://lifewurx.com - Good herb formulas made by a friend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Birfer Sock Puppet. Sounds almost cute.


467 posted on 05/16/2010 10:14:36 PM PDT by little jeremiah (http://lifewurx.com - Good herb formulas made by a friend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: BP2; Las Vegas Ron

ADMIRATION BUMP


468 posted on 05/16/2010 10:42:39 PM PDT by bitt ("WE THE PEOPLE" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: bgill; Mr Rogers; parsifal; rxsid; Fred Nerks; Red Steel; little jeremiah; Las Vegas Ron; All

> Don’t feed the trolls.

Sorry. I just can't help it sometimes!

I love the taste of their tears, especially when they WHINE about how "crazy" those of use who dare question Obama’s Eligibility are ... and then the Trolls have the nerve to CRY when they are pummeled by other Conservatives because they are GUILTY by Association with Obama!! "Waaahhh"

Photobucket
Yes! Yesss! Oh, let me taste your tears, Mr Rogers!
Mmm, Parsi, your tears are so yummy and sweet!
Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! My-yummy!


Kyle: Dude, I think it might be best for us to never piss BP2 off again.
Stan: Good call.


469 posted on 05/16/2010 10:44:47 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: BP2

You’re feeding them what they need - good and hard!


470 posted on 05/16/2010 10:46:10 PM PDT by little jeremiah (http://lifewurx.com - Good herb formulas made by a friend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; BP2; Red Steel; El Gato; Fred Nerks; x; rxsid
Photobucket
471 posted on 05/16/2010 10:46:31 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Again, excellent find. It ties together Blackstone and Vattel's definitions in one fail swoop.

The work done here contributes to the collective body of knowledge that fuels current and yet-to-be-filed Eligibility lawsuits that will eventually either vindicate (highly unlikely) or REMOVE from office Mr. Barack Hussein ObamaMmmm, Mmmm, Mmmm!


472 posted on 05/16/2010 11:02:53 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Since you pinged me, I guess it is OK for me to answer:

I kinda wanted to wait until AFTER you weighed in with your “esteemed” opinion of this alleged legal source. Has it ever occurred to any of you legal giants to go to the same dictionary and look up the word “citizen” and perhaps the term “naturalized citizen.”

I don’t have access to your version, although I do recall owning a copy, somewhere. Here is the 1892 version. Both volumes are online. You may find “citizen” at page 316, of Volume One. There you will find that “native citizens” unlike “naturalized citizens”, may be presidents and vice presidents, making the term the same as “Natural Born Citizen.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=YCRAAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Once again-—I leave you alone for a few hours, and come home to find you stuck, head first, in the toilet. You see the real problem here is, one doesn’t use LEGAL DICTIONARIES
to TRUMP CASE LAW. That is why most legal dictionaries will reference cases in the applicable definitions.

Plus, by showing the definition of the “LAW OF NATIONS” above to the whole wide world, you have just gutted your premise that those words refer to the book by Vattel. Clearly, BY YOUR OWN SOURCE, it refers to international law.

parsy, who is shaking his head in wonderment. . .


473 posted on 05/16/2010 11:35:05 PM PDT by parsifal (I will be sent to an area where people are demanding free speech and I will not like it there. Orly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: BP2

sure hope someone is reading what we are posting..


474 posted on 05/16/2010 11:49:41 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
The term in question does refer to international law, parsifal. It's only used in reference to those who would be eligible to the Executive branch. Precluding an individual with legal encumbrance by claims of another nation was and is the practical thing to do in the interests of this nation. International, see?

All the prattling about allegiance and loyalty has nothing to do with thoughts in the mind of a President, that's for the electorate to winnow out, since the Founders could not possibly know what some putative, future candidate might or might not believe.

What they did do, however, is preclude future legal claims upon that Executive by any other nation. The only way to do that is to have an Executive who is born both in the country, to avoid any foreign jus soli claims, and of citizen parents, in order to avoid any foreign jus sanguinis claims.

475 posted on 05/16/2010 11:51:29 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

I disagree with the latter part, but its not worth arguing about. I believe the law is clear. Wong Kim Ark lays out the foundation. Ankeny slam dunks it home. This Birfer NBC stuff ain’t going nowhere, legally speaking. My advice is, start getting your ducks in a row for an amendment. That’s the only chance you have.

parsy


476 posted on 05/16/2010 11:55:31 PM PDT by parsifal (I will be sent to an area where people are demanding free speech and I will not like it there. Orly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

Wong Kim Ark was declared a 14th Amendment citizen, and Ankeny was dismissed for failing to state a claim.

No foundation and no slam dunk.

You’re not speaking legally, so there is no legally speaking from the point of view you’re espousing. You’re taking dicta and running with it, to the exclusion of the decision of the case, not once but twice.

Wrong.


477 posted on 05/17/2010 12:00:28 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: parsifal; All

> You see the real problem here is,
> one doesn’t use LEGAL DICTIONARIES to TRUMP CASE LAW.

LOL. Swing and strike.



478 posted on 05/17/2010 12:06:24 AM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Read Ankeny again. In short, cases are decided on facts and the law. Regarding Obama, there was no dispute as to the facts. The 2 plaintiffs claimed he was born of a foreign father, and since such was openly admitted by Obama, there was dispute as to the facts. (Plus, it was one of those things which if taken as true, would not change the applicable law.)

So, the judge ruled on it as a matter of law, which he was entitled to do, and it was dismissed. Appeals court also addressed the issue and relying on guidance from Wong, found Obama an NBC.

Indiana Supreme Court had no problem with that holding. So, yes, the issue was heard and ruled on as a matter of law and the case was dismissed—in part, because Obama is an NBC. There’s like 5 pages devoted to it in the appellate decision.

parsy, who wishes it was earlier


479 posted on 05/17/2010 12:07:55 AM PDT by parsifal (I will be sent to an area where people are demanding free speech and I will not like it there. Orly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Look up there by the number 10. See the stuff that reads “District of Columbia v. Heller”-—that’s a legal case. The judges may use dictionaries, ALRs, AmJurs, treatises, and other stuff. Those are not the LAW, and they don’t trump cases.

In Heller, it isn’t the DICTIONARY, as LAW, that makes the decision. It’s the Court. Because DICTIONARIES ain’t law. If you doubt that, read thru the LEGAL DICTIONARY and look at the thousands of things there that ARE NOT law. Ducking stools might be in there. Wergild (sp) perhaps, too.

parsy, who wishes you would just learn to listen once in a while.


480 posted on 05/17/2010 12:13:30 AM PDT by parsifal (I will be sent to an area where people are demanding free speech and I will not like it there. Orly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 741-753 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson