“Did you notice that Lynch v. Clarke which you quote goes on for pages and pages and pages past that? Your quote is from p. 246.”
Why, yes - as I’ve pointed out to others elsewhere, it runs nearly 30 pages. That is why I gave the page numbers of my selections, which I chose because they were very explicit.
Dual allegiance:
“We recognize its existence, because we adopt them as citizens, with full knowledge that by the law of their native country, they never can put off the allegiance which they owe to its government.”
Correct. We acknowledge that. He admits fully that Julia Lynch is a full citizen of England. She had lived there since just a few months old - yet he also found she met the qualifications for a natural born citizen.
The Founders didn’t say someone had to live in America to be a NBC. Suppose my parents, after giving birth to me in the USA, and moved to Spain and raised me there, and at 18 I elected to return to the USA. Could I have run for President? Could Elg, in Perkins v Elg have done so?
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
What about Steinkauler, mentioned in P v E:
“”Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages.”
“Hmmm, there’s that dual-allegiance idea, right in your own pet case. Which is by definition relevant to the Presidency.”
Really? What part of the Constitution addresses dual allegiance? How is it defined?
Do you think the Rev Wright, or Bill Ayers feels allegiance to the USA? The term NBC does not address dual allegiance. IN fact, why don’t you describe how Obama has shown any sign of allegiance to the UK...
“The Lynch case concerned property rights, not eligibility for the Presidency...”
Yes, and he based his decision on Julia Lynch meeting the criteria for a NBC. There were a number of cases involving property rights heard in the states in the early 1800s, and they all fell the same way as Lynch.
“Recall that Barack’s dad was an illegal alien...”
No, he entered on a valid visa and at the time of Obama’s birth was undoubtedly here legally.
“But wait...there’s MORE:”
Yes. The judge even addresses Vattel on page 256. He reviews a number of possible arguments against his decision, and deals with them.
The Constitution used the term NBC. There is no doubt but that NBC came from natural born subject, with the only change being in wording to reflect the fact that we have no king. It had an established legal meaning. If the Founders and the states didn’t want that meaning, they should have chosen different words.
No law or provision of the Constitution can prevent the American public from electing someone who hates America. Rev Wright is undoubtedly constitutionally qualified, yet he hates America with a passion. John Kerry ran for President, and there is no reasonable doubt but that he hates America - yet he was also a NBC.
At some point, the Founders had to trust the people not to elect someone who hates America. Obama’s election was a failure of the American people, not the Constitution.
But you left out the quotes which I supplied, where the issues of dual allegiance -- which are germane in the Obama situation, but not to a property-rights discussion.
For that reason, the arguments in Lynch are flawed.
One who was not only subject to deportation, but was apparently committing bigamy by marrying Obama's mother.
The Founders didn’t say someone had to live in America to be a NBC. Suppose my parents, after giving birth to me in the USA, and moved to Spain and raised me there, and at 18 I elected to return to the USA. Could I have run for President? Could Elg, in Perkins v Elg have done so?
Red herring.
We're talking about Obama.
Everyone agrees that the President MUST NOT have dual loyalties: and Obama is literally a TEXTBOOK example of the case of an American mother and wayfaring, itinerant, foreign father.
“”Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright.
Irrelevant. According to your quote, Steinkauler was born of a US father. Obama wasn't.
The Constitution used the term NBC. There is no doubt but that NBC came from natural born subject, with the only change being in wording to reflect the fact that we have no king. It had an established legal meaning. If the Founders and the states didn’t want that meaning, they should have chosen different words.
That's another red herring, as has been shown repeatedly. Even within Lynch v. Clarke.
Otherwise, the decision wouldn't have quoted Vattel and others ABOUT "dual allegiances".
The only reason he didn't make more of it back then, is nobody thought there would be traitorous or usurping vermin like Ayers and Soros to put up a non-NBC as President; still less that the press and other organs -- hell, even a major party (party ~ "factions" which the Founding Fathers warned against) which would usurp the safeguards of the entire Republic for short-term political/personal gain.
No law or provision of the Constitution can prevent the American public from electing someone who hates America. Rev Wright is undoubtedly constitutionally qualified, yet he hates America with a passion. John Kerry ran for President, and there is no reasonable doubt but that he hates America - yet he was also a NBC.
No, this is another lie. Obaama was never constitutionally eligible in the FIRST place, because his father is a foreigner who was just here temporarily, and committed bigamy. His hatred of America justifies the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
As for J F'ing K, he should have been summarily shot in the 70's, along with Jane Fonda.
Cheers!
lso, if you read the link to the Lynch case, the judge gives a detailed review of the law concerning natural born subjects and natural born citizens, and concludes:
But in your later reply to me you wrote:
Why, yes - as I’ve pointed out to others elsewhere, it runs nearly 30 pages. That is why I gave the page numbers of my selections, which I chose because they were very explicit.
So, like a typical troll, you're trying to have it both ways.
You were lying through your foul TEETH about "...and concludes" -- since the quote which you said "concludes" is in page 246, but I posted arguments 11 pages LATER which refuted your supposed "conclusion".
When I pointed that out, you tried to paint me as the liar, by ostentatiously declaiming "it runs nearly 30 pages".
The issue isn't the total number of pages: it is that you lied by taking your out-of-context quote from near the middle and knowingly, damnably, falsely insinuating that it was the culmination of the article.
Typical of a leftist troll.
Looking forward to when JR allows the vermin on the BC threads to be banned: ("Enemies foreign and domestic" and all that.)
Cheers!