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

To: djf
You put in a lot of work so I am not going to try to insult you or your beliefs, but it may be time to come out of the rain. Very intelligent people with law degrees who are ON OUR SIDE have repeatedly shot all these arguments down.

at the very least born on the soil OF A FATHER who IS A CITIZEN!

FATHER... please. We no longer live in a patriarchy. Women's rights abolished legal patriarchal responsibility.

In an age of artificial insemination do you honestly under the wildest imaginations of the cosmos believe that Obama will be impeached because his father was foreign which was known to everyone before he was elected and known to the Congress and Supreme Court who put him in office.

If you are trying to win some philosophical question about the Founding Fathers intention or their "heart of hearts" on the nbc clause, well you MIGHT be right. If you have any other expectation, you are only hurting yourself.

Does Obama "Belong to the Country?"

Unfortunately yes. And the more distracted we are the more likely he will reside in 1600 Penn Ave. for another 4 years. Just tonight Mark Levin took a caller who was frantic saying we can't wait 18 months. He begged Mark, is there anything we can do to get him out before then.. Mark said, "No." 1961 does not matter. 2012 matters.

8 posted on 04/30/2011 1:19:07 AM PDT by douginthearmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: douginthearmy

Well, the founders knew what they meant and they said what they wrote.

I’m just putting some historical and literal context around it.

People are free to ignore it.


9 posted on 04/30/2011 1:24:50 AM PDT by djf (Dems and liberals: Let's redefine "marriage". We already redefined "natural born citizen".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: douginthearmy
In an age of artificial insemination do you honestly under the wildest imaginations of the cosmos believe that Obama will be impeached because his father was foreign which was known to everyone before he was elected and known to the Congress and Supreme Court who put him in office.

What you are proposing is nothing less than the overt overthrow of the literal and the figurative intent of the Constitution and its authors when they denied the Office of the President and the Office of the President to any person whosoever owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth or after birth once the Constitution was adopted in 1797.

If you cannot and will not respect the Constitution and its requirement for Amendment even in this matter, then what do we have left but mob rule by force of arms in the hands of the Democrat Party who is overthrowing it without Amendment or ratification by the sovereign States? If the subversion of the Constitution is not stopped here and now, then when and where? What will be the issue, the Commerce clause, the War Poweers Act, something else? How bad does it have to get? How many Americans must die before the Constitution and its most obscure provisions become important enough to you?

What is next, an alien citizen such as Roger Calero will be allowed to run on the ballots for President in a third Presidential electon without so much as a peep from people like you?

17 posted on 04/30/2011 1:51:35 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: douginthearmy

Doug, WhiskeyX has a legitimate point. The Founders put “natural born citizen” and “citizen” in the same sentence so they clearly meant to differentiate between the two. Your point that the United States is no longer a patriarchy is incontestable, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is whether Obama is eligible for the Presidency under the Constitution as it currently stands.

You can make the point that the clause is obsolete and should be changed. Fine, the Constitution has an amendment process that can, and maybe even should, be used to do just that. However, until that happens, the Constitution as written remains the supreme law of the land.

We are in deep peril here. If any part of the Constitution can be considered a “dead letter”, the entire edifice becomes as shaky as a house of cards in a windstorm. If Obama’s “presidency” is illegitimate — and I believe it is — and yet is allowed to stand, we are definitely in the final days of the American Republic.

This is deadly serious.


23 posted on 04/30/2011 2:58:56 AM PDT by Ronin ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves" -- Bertrand de Jouve)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: douginthearmy
Very intelligent people with law degrees who are ON OUR SIDE have repeatedly shot all these arguments down.

When did this happen? I have been participating in this debate for at least three years and I will tell you that it has not happened. I have seen attempts to do so - but I have never seen one that did so without willful intellectual dishonesty, selective citation, ignoring of historical material of the greatest relevance, elevation of nonsense and the application of utter illogic.

FATHER... please. We no longer live in a patriarchy. Women's rights abolished legal patriarchal responsibility.

This comment is truly ignorant. The word that Vattel uses is (in English) PARENTS. Sure, that includes fathers as a necessary subset, and in colonial America fathers were paramount. But the rules never was either parent. It was both. Even if the rule was fathers only, that that would still be true as we don't get to play fast and loose with the meanings and intentions of the Framers just because our sensibilities have changed over the years.

Do I think that Obama will be removed before the end of his term? Of course not. I am a realist. But just because the majority is lazy, cowardly, weak minded or disinterested does not mean that we have to play deaf dumb and blind to the plain meaning of the Constitution.

26 posted on 04/30/2011 4:28:31 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: djf; douginthearmy
djf,

Excellent post; consider yourself highly commended.

The trolls like to cite Lynch v. Clarke

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf

But what's fun, is that they ignore certain quotes in it which blow them out of the water.

(p. 248) “The inconsistency of holding that Julia Lynch is a citizen here, when it is conceded on all hands that by reason of her parents being British subjects she is aIao a British subject; was strongly urged. The incon- sistency, however, IS nothing but the occurrence of a double allegiance, which ex- ists in the tens of thousands of our naturalized citizens, who were once subjects of the crown of Great Britain. 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. “

Hmmm, there's that dual-allegiance idea, right in the trolls' own pet case.

(p. 249)

“In this state, naturalized citizens are eligible to every public office, except that of governor. In most of the states, laws have been enacted to give aliens all or most of the rights of citizens, in respect of ,the acquiring, holding and transmission of property; and I believe in all of the states, there are frequent instances of such laws for the benefit of particular aliens and classes of aliens; while in several of them, the disability to inherit lands is entirely done away.”

The Lynch case concerned property rights, not eligibility for the Presidency...and running for political office is a privilege, not a right. (One is not "eligible" for redress of petitions, or free speech.)

(p. 255)

“I do not find that the rule derived from the public law, is so clearly in favor of the complainant, as was contended by him. Mr. Justice Story, who is familiar with the Continental writers upon public law, says ‘that certain principles (relative to national domicil) have been generally recognized by tribunals administering the public law or the law of nations, as of unquestionable authority. First; Persons who are born in a country, are generally deemed to be citizens and subjects of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be, that it should not apply to the children of parents, who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health, or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert, that in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.”

(Story’s "Conflict of Law” 47, § 48.)

Recall that Barack’s dad was an illegal alien, subject to deportation who went back to Kenya, after Harvard and the govt. forced him to leave.

Game, Set, Match.

(I'm losing all respect whatsoever for Harvard, by the way.)

But wait...there’s MORE:

(p. 257)

“In 4 Dane’s Abridgement, 701, ch. 131 ; art. 2, § 8, he says: ‘And now, if an American citizen goes abroad and marries an alien wife, and have a child by her in a foreign country, that child is not alien, but may inherit his estate in the United States. But if an American woman, a citizen, go abroad and marry an alien husband, and have a child by him so born, that child is an alien, and cannot inherit her estate in the United States. And upon the same principle, if an English subject comes into the United States, and marries an American wife, and has a child by her *born here, it cannot inherit her estate here, because this child follows the allegiance of its father, and may inherit his estate in England.”* Manifestly a non sequitur, because in the case first put, the child, if born in England of an American father, unquestionably owes allegiance in England, is a subject of that country, and may inherit there. Yet he is, as the author says, a citizen of the United States also. And by the same rule, the child born here of the English father, is a citizen here, and may inherit here as well as in England. In short, both are cases of that double allegiance, which is effected by the rule of the common law, and which Mr. Reeves says is not a novelty, nor peculiar to that law.

Slam DUNK! Trolls are TOAST. And so should be OBAAMA.

doug,

Go ***** a camel, troll-boy.

There's such a thing as following the Constitution.

And "dual allegiance" and all that was and remains a concern, as illustrated above.

You know, bowing to the Saudi king (Americans Do NOT bowTM); telling the Russians even the serial numbers of the Trident nuclear warheads sent to Great Britain; telling in public the exact number of active nuclear warheads in the US arsenal; and so many more that...just to save time, go read this, it summarizes it nicely:

The Declaration of Dependence

Cheers!

27 posted on 04/30/2011 5:13:20 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: douginthearmy

So, in your opinion, legal authority and precedent are not material and neither is the intent of the Framers in choosing the phrase? Do we understand that correctly? In your opinion then, how is the meaning of a phrase in the Constitution determined? By blogging and twittering on the Internet? Or perhaps by polling? Just how?


100 posted on 04/30/2011 8:47:27 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: douginthearmy

It seems what we need in light of all the possible birth scenarios you note is just a widly casted notice that if you (father and/or mother) want your child to grow up and be POTUSA you should/must make certain there is no doubt as to parentage. Perhaps this is what the Founding Fathers were wanting to say along with the child being bedrock naturally born. Just another way of looking at the situation.


151 posted on 05/01/2011 2:35:46 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

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