Obama is not a Native US Citizen

Bouvier's Law Dictionary ^ | 1928 | William Edward Saldwin

[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.

[parsifal]

Not the part you’re citing.

parsy

[Red Steel]

As I said, CYA.

Troll Parsy didn't want to be bothered to read the asterisk footnote. She'd rather swallow the leftist propaganda on Ankeny completely.

[parsifal]

Sorry. Missed you in rush.

“They were irrelevant and immaterial to the issue??? That was the real issue whether or not Obama or Wong were natural born citizens. Indiana was talking out both sided of its ass. The case you love Parsy is worth dog-crap.”

If you are born in the country, you don’t have to be naturalized, so discussions about that (naturalization) are irrelevant. Real simple.

You have a ONE SENTENCE holding in Ankeny. That should not give you any difficulty.

parsy

[RegulatorCountry]

The “holding” was to dismiss the case for failing to state a claim, parsifal.

What is so hard to grasp about that? I even provided you a cite from the case itself, stating that the sole issue was whether the trial court erred when it dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint. And further, that the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim did not test the legal sufficiency of the claim, nor the facts supporting it.

[BP2]

LOL

Which part, parsi?

There’s a lot that Justice Gray got wrong when citing Dicey in WKA.

Please elaborate.

[parsifal]

Page 3 of the Ankeny decision. 2nd sentence of the first full paragraph says it TESTS THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE CLAIM. Its the facts you don’t contest. The LEGAL merits of the Plaintiff’s, the “Not an NBC” part, has been tested, and it failed.

Again, its a ONE SENTENCE holding for the most part. pretty clear.

parsy

[parsifal]

ONE: If a court cites a treatise, it does not necessarily incorporate everything in the treatise. Look at a treatise. You usually have topical sections with multiple sub-divisions. There might be a part of Dicey, a court finds relevant and good, and another part either not-relevant, or not good, or a combination thereof. For example, some treatises argue BOTH sides (sometimes more than 2) of an issue. Clearly a court can not adopt ALL sides.

TWO: The part you cite appears to deal with jus sanguis citizenship of person born overseas. Wong wasn’t born overseas. Therefore, not relevant to Wong. You appear to be mixing citizenship issues between NBC and foreign borns, which some are probably NBCs and some probably ain’t.

parsy

[Red Steel]

You have a ONE SENTENCE holding in Ankeny. That should not give you any difficulty.

You have 3 sentences that negates and counters the dicta they write in their opinion, and to that 'ONE SENTENCE' you are referring to. It shouldn't be too difficult for you. The whole thing is a sucker's opinion.

Again Parsnips, here it is,

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.

"For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.

"We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief;..."

It was all a dog and pony show of contradictory dicta.

The only holding that mattered in Indiana:

"We believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. "

[RegulatorCountry]

That's funny, I've already cited that exact sentence for you, from page 3, first paragraph, second sentence, parsifal. The case was dismissed for failing to state a claim. Again:

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it dismissed Plaintiffs?complaint. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it.

Maybe paraphrasing would allow you to understand: the only question to be determined by the court is if a mistake was made in dismissing the case for failing to state a claim. Such a motion (as dismissing a case for failing to state a claim) only takes into consideration whether there is an actionable legal basis for Plaintiff appearing before the court. It does not extend to evaluation of the merits of any factual supporting information.

Does this help?

[danamco]

“You identified your wife as a Filipina..was she a US Citizen when your children were born?”

Yes.

Have you served in the Philippines, and how long is the lead time of paperwork for a U.S. military's wife, from the Far East, to be naturalized???

Coming from a low immigration quota country in Scandinavia, it took me 3-1/2 years, 1977-1981 to complete and get a green light for an U.S. Embassy interview!!!

[danamco]

You choose the arguments that support the man you portend to despise, and you wonder why some here abuse you the way they have, you're a disgrace to the uniform if you really wore one.

The sad thing is that he never un-strapped his combat knee-pads, yet Larry Sinclair did it without!!!

[BP2]

> ONE: If a court cites a treatise, it does not necessarily incorporate everything in the treatise.

LOL, you’re working REALLY hard to support TWO flawed cases.

Upon learning how Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark v. US still got it WRONG, you still plug away with your talking points. You’re living up to your reputation for being the Court Jester.

> TWO: The part you cite appears to deal with jus sanguis citizenship of person
> born overseas. Wong wasn’t born overseas.

No, idget. We're not talking about Wong. It was Obama Jr that was born outside of "the British dominions" ... unless you now AGREE with James Orengo when he said, "how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?" (Kenyan Parliament in March 2010).

[danamco]

parsy, who is fed up with idiot birfers

Jim, this FINO just called you, me and many other true Constitutionalists IDIOTS, where is the kitten???

[parsifal]

It doesn't CONTRADICT the holding. You didn't put in the ENTIRE sentence. You said: "We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief;..." It was all a dog and pony show of contradictory dicta. The ACTUAL sentence reads: "We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite THE FACT THAT THEY WERE BORN ABROAD." [caps added to show what you left out.] That's the REAL COMPLETE sentence. It gets followed by: That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty united states is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status. " This comes from footnote 14 and 15 found at the bottom of pages 17 and 18 of the decision which can be found here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf (Very simple. No contradictions. The Ankeny Court didn't deal with foreign born citizens. It just dealt with those born in the United States. Just as the Wong Court did with poor Wong, who was born in the United States. That does not, in any way, contradict the Ankeny Court's holding about those born IN THE USA. Not even talking about the same thing.) Now, lets look at your last statement: ""We believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. " Lets rewrite that a little so that its all in one place. . . "We believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments [ that . . ."there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’(page 12)"] fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." And, what does the Ankeny Court say, again: "Based upon the language of Art. 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 Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)" Its a published case. The Vattel two-citizen parent theory is NOT good law. The Ankeny Court shot it down in flames. parsy

[BP2]

> Jim, this FINO just called you, me and many other true Constitutionalists IDIOTS, where is the kitten???

Parsi and a handful of others malign Free Republic pretty regularly both here and
over at Politijab. It’s shameful to see them here pretending to be Conservatives so
they can appear to have a contrarian view on Conservatism ... when it’s really just more
Liberal propaganda that we could all hear by watching CNN and MSNBC.

Conservatives are Conservatives ALL of the time ... not just when it’s used as a cover
to infiltrate FR.

[parsifal]

You aren’t a “true Constitutionalist.” You’re somebody who can’t read a legal case and wants to get rid of anybody who can. If I get zotted over this,it’s worth it.

YOU are a prime example of what’s wrong with Birfers. You can’t defend an argument and you go running off whining when anybody tells you so.

BTW, maybe you should go after Chuck DeVore, too. He doesn’t call you “true Constitutionalists” either. He calls your theories “crazy”. He wouldn’t even appear at the same function as Orly Taitz.

Here. Read it and weep:

In the article, a representative Orange County’s top tea-partier, Chuck DeVore, bashes Taitz.

“I can say emphatically that the Chuck DeVore campaign and Chuck DeVore himself strongly disapproves of Orly Taitz and the crazy theories she continues to advance,” said Josh Trevino, a DeVore spokesman.”

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/orly-taitz-uninvited-to-tea-pa/

parsy, who, if he does get zotted, at least won’t have to be around sorry excuses for freepers like yourself!

[parsifal]

You aren’t a conservative. You’re a twit who can’t read one single case and get it right. Heck, you can’t get ONE SENTENCE right!

Talk about a bunch of Rocket Scientists!!!

I tell you what. I’ll save Jim the trouble of zotting me. I had hoped to make a dozen years, but what the heck. As long as you idiotic Birfers are loose to make this place look like some kind of Art Bell Halfway House, I don’t want my name, uh er uh, screen name, associated with it.

Jim should have spanked Birfer Butt a long time ago and made you idiots behave. You have been terrorizing the threads too long and calling anybody who disagrees with you trolls and whatever. Should have been stopped a long time ago.

So, I tell you what. Jim Rob made you, and Jim Rob can have you. He can give you a bottle at 3:00 am when you wake up crying with a poopy diaper!

Until then, I ZOTTTTT! myself. The door ain’t hitting me in the ass on the way out. . .

parsy, who . . . . .bows, and takes his leave. (Applause)

[Candor7]

- this “making conservatives look crazy” is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thats attempted rule by political correctness, and it goes agaionst a nation of laws. Its actually the way fascism is imposed, via poliitical correcteness , a “moral imperative” which changes with the whim of der Fueher who uses repulsive charisma to sway his zombified masses. This you have the dirty rottenbankers, the dirty riotten auuton companies , the dirty rotten Israelis etc. It changes from one hissy fit if fascism from one week tio the next,

And its dedicated to the fall of AMerica , turning it into a nationalist socialist state.

This “political correctness ploy” is both subtle and coarse. I call everyone of them on it and refer them to the law of our land.Sooon political correctness VS law could become a shooting matter.

Like most Americans, I refuse to live in a nation governed by the imperial whims of a pretend president rather than law.Thet can stuff their PC methodology where the sun doesn’t shine.

[little jeremiah]

Politcal correctness is the first (or could be second if we want to get detailed) on the path to the gulag.

Thought crimes - wrong ideas - hateful thought - violent speech - wrong speech - hurtful speech - victims - haters - we’ll arrest you oand your grandma and grandma’s neighbor.

I read most of the “Gulag Archipelago” years ago. Should get ahold of it and read the whole thing. But I don’t want to...

Political correctness is tyrants’ method of making free thought and speech illegal so they can use the jackboot on our necks more easily with less fightback on our part. Making people into scared rabbits so they submit.

[danamco]

Hey FINO, or would "Fido" in the dog house be a more appropriate name???

I don't care what Chuck de Vore or Orly Taitz is saying. I don't need to run to their site for getting "help." I know in my gut that your dear leader is a fraud and no NBC, and I just want him removed ASAP, whatever it takes, "mam", in the name of the CONSTITUTION, period. A Honduras event would suit me just fine!!!