Posted on 03/01/2010 3:51:30 AM PST by patlin
There are many in the press today caricaturing me as a "conspiracy theorist" simply because I, like millions of other Americans, insist on actually seeing proof of Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility.
I've never alleged a conspiracy. Obama was given a free pass by an opponent who had his own eligibility issues. Not much of a conspiracy necessary – especially with Obama accountable only to a fawning press and scared-of-their-shadows Republicans.
But "conspiracy theorist" is an easy epithet to hurl.
One good question to ask, the next time you hear someone call me that name, is this: "Who is Joseph Farah conspiring with?"
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Oh, come on. If that's “guns a blazing,” a cute and fuzzy bunny is a terrifying man-eater.
Not my claim. If you have actually read anything on this thread you'll find it's the Founders intentions, not any ones claim.
If this thread isn't enough, check this one out, that is if you want to learn about it and not look silly here spouting ignorant inanities.”
Well, a real-live court did disagree with your iron-clad certainty about the Founders intentions as recently as November. But what do actual judges know compared to some blowhards on a Free Republic thread?
If they did they over threw several other cases plus all of the other writings of the Founders in one fell swoop.
Where’s the link, troll?
McCain had no eligibility issue?
Then why did congress pass a resolution that he was a NBC by virtue of the fact he had two parents with American citizenship? Why bother?
What I find interesting is that after such an expensive education and becoming a millionaire, he thinks America sucks and needs to be destroyed. How ironic.
If they did they over threw several other cases plus all of the other writings of the Founders in one fell swoop.”
Uh, no they didn't do any such thing. You guys have created an alternate reality in your heads that, while it may appeal to you, isn't real. You pretend existing Supreme Court documentation says the opposite of what it actually does, ignore whole wide swaths of legal history, and merrily (or grumpily, depending on the latest setback) march on to nowhere.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
It's totally conventional and what you can expect if another court addresses this issue, which the Supreme Court has declined to do on multiple occasions so far. They don't waste time on the obvious. The most salient passages are as follows:
Previous Supreme Court Documentation
"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."
Decision
"Based upon the language of Article 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 Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
“Where’s the link, troll?”
Patience. it’s a virtue.
Like Obama, Admiral Yamamoto from Japan attended Harvard and then went on to bomb pearl Harbor later in his career. Obama, from Indonesia, had similar aspirations of destroying the US, so Harvard was a natural fit.
Then why did congress pass a resolution that he was a NBC by virtue of the fact he had two parents with American citizenship? Why bother?
They were stupid? Over cautious? Doesn't matter, the resolution was not legally binding. However the idea that the child of two Americans is not a natural born American is absurd.
And hats off to GW who had the wisdom to try to prevent a man with foreign citizenship and allegiances from attaining the office.
If Fidel Castro had a son born on US territory would you believe his loyalties might serve the US? Would he be fit to run for President if elevated for that position by attending Harvard, and then being endorsed by the Democrat party?
The constitution now allows foreign citizens to birth their sons on our land and give them rights to the presidency.
You win, Obama is the proof. The NBC clause is trash by virtue of the fact that Obama is in the oval office.
Initially, we note that the Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority recognizing that the Governor has a duty to determine the eligibility of a party‟s nominee for the presidency
To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, 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
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 theWe 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 The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, 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.
We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen. See THOMAS C. REEVES, GENTLEMAN BOSS, THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR 3-4 (1975). During the election of 1880, there arose a rumor "that [Arthur] had been born in Canada, rather than in Vermont as he claimed, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to become the Chief Executive." Id. at 3. Although President Arthur‟s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur‟s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.
Sorry, but there is no there there and certainly not the conclusion you mad up.
As far as I can tell - nothing removes his Bristish citizenship automatically. I’m all ears.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
I’ll keep posting all this until someone can categorically refute it.
If born in Hawaii, per the US Constitution, Obama is a natural born American and no power on Earth can take a natural born American's citizenship from him, unless he voluntarily relinquishes it, and even then you have to work to prove it.
As far as his British/Kenyan citizenship is concerned:
He may have gained UK citizenship at Birth (under the British Nationality Act of 1948), if his parents marriage was legal. Since Obama Sr. was already married at the time in Kenya, the marriage was bigamous and void in the US and probably the UK. However since Obama Sr. was never charged and Stanley Dunham just chose to get a divorce, the point is probably moot.
Assuming Obama had UK citizenship, the Constitution of Kenya granted Obama Kenyan citizenship through his father.
The Kenya Independence Act revoked the UK citizenship of any person claiming Kenyan citizenship at independence.
Kenya stripped Obama of his (believed) Kenyan citizenship at his age of majority when he did not renounce his American citizenship.
Uh, huh..the Founding Fathers fought wars, sacrificed everything, pledged their lives and sacred honor just so a foreigner could some day become POTUS.
Do you have any Idea how ridiculous that sounds? And even more so that you defend it?
Yes, he would be allowed to run for President.
No he would not, he would not be a NBC
Any citizen from any country can make arrangements, if he desires, to have his son eligible for the US presidency by arraigning for the birth to take place here.
If only there was a clause in the constitution that could forbid this, I wonder how Washington would word it.....
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.