Posted on 08/09/2011 6:10:13 PM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/09/2011 6:11:45 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
When the White House posted online an image of President Obama's purported long-form birth certificate, it also linked to the previously circulated "Certification of Live Birth," the short-form version that had been presented as the only birth documentation available.
However, the short-form certificate to which the White House linked April 27 was a forgery, claims computer expert Ron Polland, Ph.D., who says he made the image himself.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Are you missing the fact that this law dealt with Naturalization? Not with those born in the US?
Hey rxsid, long time, no snarl. Still as classy as ever, I see.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2302120/posts?page=135#135
I think it started here? I ultimately suggested they both drop it, fault on both sides.
You do realize the colonists did not generally reject English Common Law? Rather they objected that the King did not abide by it in regard to the colonies. "For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies..."[emphasis added]
Here is what Constitution.org has to say about Common Law as a source of the Constitution:
Blackstone's Commentaries (1765) Considered the book that "lost the colonies" for England. This text delineates the legal principles of common law which ensure the fundamental rights of Englishmen. Blackstone was quoted by the colonists twice as often as they quoted Locke. [emphasis added]See also Magna Carta and Its American Legacy on the National Archive site.
You are deliberately misunderstanding (I can't quite credit that you are ignorant enough to be really misunderstanding). Indian tribes were considered akin to separate nations, as indicated in the Treaty of Fort Pitt 1778 "the United States do engage to guarantee to the aforesaid nation of Delawares, and their heirs, all their territorial rights in the fullest and most ample manner, as it hath been bounded by former treaties..." So Indians were considered to be born in their respective Indian nations, not in the United States.
The Military base is incidental, it is the born of two citizen parents that is the salient point.
That is your contention, that because the facts about McCain were included, those facts were the criteria. As if a resolution saying "Mr. Jones, born in Kansas, is an American citizen." Does that mean that American citizens can only be born in Kansas? No. Show me the law where the criteria are explicitly stated for two citizen parents and I might believe you. But you can't.
obviously you don’t know how to tell time yet. So you just flunked first grade.
You are trying to distract, with flimflam and strawmen. I did not claim (nor did Madison) that William Loughton Smith was natural born, as when he was born there was no United States.
Madison made a categorical statement about place of birth being the most important criteria of allegiance. He did not qualify by saying “only for this office” he said, “it is what applies in the United States.”
You have provided no evidence that Polarik has the expertise claimed for him, that of document forensics. You’re not providing it because you can’t.
You have provided no evidence that Polarik has the expertise claimed for him, that of document forensics. You’re not providing it because you can’t.
Sorry for the double post - not my intent.
Wow. Your excellent point here is typical Democrat scheming of the racist variety since the Civil War. And so who do they choose to bring down the country? Who do they choose to trample the Constitution? Who do they choose who will have the worst presidential reputation in history? Reminds me of the despicable line in Godfather I......
Don Zaluchi: "....we would keep the traffic in the dark people, the coloreds. They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls."
If it ever comes out that the Democrats purposely chose a Black to do their dirty work, THEN, my friends, then we'll see riots....and I wouldn't want to be a Democrat when that happens.
???
It’s 8:40 PM in Seattle. 11:40 PM in NYC. 10:40 AM in Bangkok, 9:10 AM in Mumbai, and 5:40 AM in Milan.
Sorry gramps, I think it’s time for your meds and off to bed you shuffle!
Oh yes! Let us quibble that while Madison may not AGREE with Mr. Smith's claim of citizenship by blood, he is none the less advancing Mr. Smith's argument for it!
Pull the other one.
Are you missing the fact that had it dealt with carriage wheels, it would still indicate the mind of the congress? As I have mentioned ad infinitum, an act of congress cannot repeal or modify an article of the constitution. It can only show what the framers thought about something. In that regard it is all too clear. They didn't care about place, they did care about Non-American fathers. Madison included.
Yes. Much of it was adopted as American law. Much of it was rejected. The aspect of English law regarding "subjects" was specifically and explicitly rejected.
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” –George Mason "
Rather they objected that the King did not abide by it in regard to the colonies. "For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies..."[emphasis added]
That was while they were colonies of England. Once the decision had been made to become independent, they eradicated parts of it root and branch. Our Entire Bill of rights was specifically created to reject certain aspects of British law.
Here is what Constitution.org has to say about Common Law as a source of the Constitution:
Blackstone's Commentaries (1765) Considered the book that "lost the colonies" for England. This text delineates the legal principles of common law which ensure the fundamental rights of Englishmen. Blackstone was quoted by the colonists twice as often as they quoted Locke. [emphasis added]
That the colonists were not being given the consideration that ordinary Englishmen had is not in dispute. Protesting their lack of rights as Englishmen was part of what initiated the move to independence, but after having declared Independence and tasked with the creation of a new government, the Now Federalists improved upon English law by creating many new rights and safeguards not part of English law. They created New American law.
Indians sovereign nations? Like Britain or France? What's to understand? They held allegiance to another government, therefore they could not be "natural born citizens" even when they were born here. Again, you reinforce my point.
That is your contention, that because the facts about McCain were included, those facts were the criteria. As if a resolution saying "Mr. Jones, born in Kansas, is an American citizen." Does that mean that American citizens can only be born in Kansas? No. Show me the law where the criteria are explicitly stated for two citizen parents and I might believe you. But you can't.
Using your logic, one would conclude that if a criminal is hanged for killing a man named "peter", we must conclude that only those who kill a "peter" can therefore be hanged. You are confusing a subset with an overall set. Usage of the term "military base" is implicitly understood to count as "American Territory." It is a subset which implies the larger set.
You are likewise having difficulty dealing with something axiomatic. (Understanding is inherent in Context.) The lack of detail in describing what is a "natural born citizen" is somehow being asserted as proof that the term was ambiguous in 1787. This notion overlooks the fact that other than "Treason", few words are defined by the U.S. Constitution. Even so, context can define with sufficient examples of history and usage. Look how Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Citizenship Statute in 1779:
“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”
Should he have wanted to use the theory of jus soli, he could merely have written : "Anyone born here is a citizen." It would certainly have saved him ink and time. That he did not indicates a specific rejection of this principle.
Pretty much after the 10k thread, I pulled way back from posting too... Many others knew much more what they were talking about and I didn’t want to confuse things.. only jumped in if someone needed a pic examined or inverted (negative)..
There are way too many people, that I won’t call trolls because they just don’t see things on the same priority level as some of us.. although, there ARE a couple of known Freeper trolls too.
I am still reading the info as it comes out though (am on a couple of ping lists, and I feel guilty about not thanking the ones that go through the trouble to keep me updated.. but I am trying to stay off the opponent’s radar).. and I also have to admit, there is so much information rolling in at times it is hard to keep up with all of it and the people who want to through us off track :/
Hope that made sense X(
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.