Posted on 05/14/2010 3:21:18 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Actually the paternal mohter-in-law’s statements are murky - they were translated, and the translator (one of the times, IIRC there were two conversations about her famous grandson) who was a relative tried to correct her when she said she was present at the birth.
She was cut off from all reporters by the Kenyan gov’t not long after the interview. The translator wanted her to be saying that she had NOT been present.
Everything is covered with lies.
Sorry, I dropped out way back when...
Has anyone here yet made the case that legally or by statute it was determined that Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen was what the founders meant when writing the Constitution? Because without that, the rest of this thread is irrelevant.
Other than a showcase to learn that Rush, Coulter, Hannity, and Cheney - at the very least - are Obots! :)
I beg your pardon. I'm not a "Birther", I'm a "passporter".
I'm interested in Obama's missing, suppressed papers certifying his renaturalization when he and his mother returned from Jakarta. I'm also interested in his collegiate and scholarship records.
Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro (I think she spelled it "Sutoro") was a Ph.D.-level sociological anthropologist working in Indonesia, and I've read that she was an Indonesian citizen for much of her life, and still was one when she passed away.
Better info, anyone?
In light of which, it's fair to ask whether Obama was, for a period of several years, an Indonesian citizen, and then a naturalized citizen of the United States.
Do you believe the President of the US should have to qualify as per the Constitution?
> Nuts!
But Mr Rogers, I thought you eschewed personal attacks and wanted to discuss this in a civilized manner.
Gosh ... your name-calling sound so draconian. You’re hurting our little feelings. Maybe we should abandon the Constitution like you seem to have.
How do you expect to change any minds — which you’ve utterly been unable to do — when you’re so acting so mean-spirited?
Beck, Coulter, and OReilly were especially flat-out insulting!
Some things are deal breakers. I will never trust them again.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you, Mr Rogers for bringing this to this to the attention of Freepers again.
Be careful what you ask for. I have it on good authority that he is seeking an answer for your question from the south end of his northbound horse.
“In light of which, it’s fair to ask whether Obama was, for a period of several years, an Indonesian citizen, and then a naturalized citizen of the United States.”
Doesn’t work that way.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2499682/posts
You go on believing that. But you are delusional.
Delusional, coming from YOU, a true defector, hmmmm. I wouldn't say phonies, I will say that when you have close to a half billion dollar$ at stake, most people will sell out their principles and be neutered by the almighty mammon including the rest of the so-called "Conservative" media and there is not much Conservative left after Murdoch and his Saudi MASTERS gave the "silencing" orders!!
Just around the time this was taking place, Rush was suddenly called out of town for ONE day on an emergency call, and he NEVER ever told us anything about that business he had to deal with, which he normally share with us when he runs out of town, again delusional, hmmm. I would call you naive with blind folders on and still dressed in "knee-pads. BTW CFP covered that in some details, you probably missed that up there on the horse farm, right!!!
Michael Medved lost his patience with a listener who called up to talk about the document hunt one day, and he laid it on the line, which was helpful to understanding why he and the rest of conservative talk radio had been avoiding the subject.
Basically, Medved said two things. One, the issue was poisoned at the outset by the involvement of "Troofer" Phil Berg, who proactively scuzzed up everything he touched when he pounded the table about USG "complicity" in the World Trade Center disaster (oh, and I think he bought the "demolition" cock-and-bull story on top of it). Not Ward Churchill malignity, but off-center and definitely contaminated by craziness, and hanging with crazy people.
Too, Berg's being involved was compounded (we learn now -- Medved didn't go into this) by the involvement of a Democrat activist in Texas (Berg was a Hillary! campaign manager in Philadelphia) who was a red-hot 'Rat and Hillary! partisan who liked to do oppo on people, and she may have been the source of the toxic phony memoranda that Mary Mapes and Dan Rather jumped all over and put on the air at CBS.
All of which means that any conservative radio host who took up the issue, originating as it did on the screwball Left (see the current article at The Daily Beast), and being lined with "Troofer"-derived tinfoil, might contract a good case of political leprosy.
Two, said Medved, given its politically champions and litigants like Orly Taitz and Phil Berg, no federal judge is going to take up the matter, and so the issue is unjusticeable. He didn't say it isn't an issue or that it isn't true; rather, he said that if the Democrats have broken the law and run a ringer into the White House, a noncitizen, we and our Constitution are simply screwed and we have no remedy.
Medved concluded by saying that, there being no cure, no solace, nothing but dust and ashes for us, then therefore the issue can only serve as a "Rope-a-Dope" political utility for people like Rahm Emanuel and the President.
Move along, folks, nothing to see here. Back to working for GOP candidates. And hey, how about that Scott Brown?! Booyah!
So that's where Medved was coming from.
> Doesn’t work that way.
Then how does Original Intent work with SCOTUS opinions, Mr Rogers?
Do the Justices use modern law to decide Constitutional issues, or do they cite the writing and laws the Framers had at the time when they penned the Constitution?
I think you’re confused on this ... and as a Conservative that you claim to be, it’s a fatal flaw you possess.
“Then how does Original Intent work with SCOTUS opinions, Mr Rogers?”
It is called common law, and the common law term “natural born subject” that reveals what the original intent was - not a phrase found in a poorly translated philosophy book AFTER the Constitution was written.
Nor do YOU get to define it YOUR way. Not without evidence, which you do not have.
There's only 2 ways to determine this - by amendment or by SCOTUS decision. Statute don't count. And, NO, it has never been determined that it is Vattel's definition - just as NBC being defined as jus soli alone has never been determined ...
Same thing happened in District of Columbia v. Heller. The meaning of the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" had to be interpreted from the Founders' intent.
The phrase was ambiguous in today's vernacular - gun control advocates said it meant that only the militia could bear arms. Gun rights people said it meant that they had a legal right to own a gun.
Gun rights advocates won.
FYI: This CURRENTLY only applies to federal districts - there is another case [about the same issue] coming up before the Court concerning States' authority to ban guns ...
What else is new?
I rather be a nut than a military defector like you and John sKerry!!!
Translation:
1)The weenies Rush, Beck, Coulter and the rest are allowing what the Marxist Media think and say of them to define them and their issues.
2) The weenies Rush, Beck, Coulter, OReilly, Medved are soooooooo incompetent as comentators that they can not take charge of and define for their listeners a CONSTITUTIONAL issue!!!
3) Berg is more powerful than Rush, Beck, Coulter, OReilly, Medved and the rest in defining an issue!
Finally....If Rush, Beck, Coulter, Medved an the rest had been courageous **LEADERS** in the beginning then we would have had competent attorneys litigating these cases rather than Berg or Taitz.
Rush only half-jokingly states:” Talent on loan from God!”
Well...There is truth to that. These weenie yappers have deliberately hidden their talent under a cowardly bushel. There are consequences for doing that! God will raise up others who are more competent, more talented, and braver.
BHO, MMMMM...MMMMM...MMMMM!!!
If you look at the “phrase found in a poorly translated philosophy book” (it's actually a Law Dictionary), you'll note that it references Blackstone's Commentaries.
Are you now saying that you think the SCOTUS should now CEASE using Blackstone's Commentaries in its opinions to derive the Framer's understanding of common law?
Just trying to give you an opportunity to embarrass yourself a little more ...
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the 1975 Minor versus Happersett decision cited Vattel's common law definition as part of the majority opinion, stating accordingly:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."
This paragraph from Justice Waite's majority opinion has never been disputed.
Do you believe the President of the US should have to qualify as per the Constitution?
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.