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 ...
Trolls, either stomp 'em or ignore 'em.
Decisions, decisions....
Well, I'm done for the evening, nite DJ
I apologize. I thought I had taught them better than this on other threads.
parsy, who is thinking about remedial reading classes for birthers...hmmmm....I could charge...
I apologize. I thought I had taught them better than this on other threads.
parsy, who is thinking about remedial reading classes for birthers...hmmmm....I could charge...
Night Ron!
| parsy, who is thinking about remedial reading classes for birthers. LOL. You need to go back to school yourself first, Pansley.
NOT "This COPY OF A copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."
Your entire After-Birther kook belief-structure is based upon a "birth certificate,"
|
Assuming I am a monkey, then it means not even a monkey would fall for this birther nonsense.
parsy, who has to go night night for a while
Doesn't even necessarily make him a citizen at birth. Depends on where born, marital status of his mother, and how long she was a resident of the US, at the time, if the birth was outside the US, she was married to an alien, she needed to have lived in the US for at least 10 years, 5 of which needed to be after her 14th birthday. Since she was only 18, she did not satisfy that latter criteria. Even born in the US, with a foreign national father, he'd be a citizen at birth under the 14th amendment, but not a natural born citizen.
| Assuming I am a monkey, then it means not even a monkey would fall for this birther nonsense. LOL. The only nonsense is from you gullible After-Birthers parsy, who has to go night night for a while Yes, get some rest ... it might improve your judgment in your political leaders. Obama makes a lot of promises that he never, EVER keeps. You're an idiot if you believe ANYTHING he said BEFORE the Election is ANY MORE TRUTHFUL than what he's said AFTER the Election! A LIAR LIES — ALWAYS. Besides, Parsnip, you need some time off to heal that mug of yours. I've been doing this long enough to know when I'm kicking the royal dogsh!t out of lying After-Birthers like yourself.
|
What "outlying possession of the US did you have in mind for his birthplace?
Besides that's a statutory definition for one possible way to be a citizen at birth, but it was passed under Congress power to define a uniform rule of naturalization, making such persons "naturalized at birth" for Constitutional purposes, and the Supreme Court has so ruled. (In relation to some of those "citizen at birth" rules not being gender neutral, rather depending on whether it was the mother or father who was the US citizen.)
He's not wrong, although McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone, according to the local paper at the time.
But in reality that didn't matter. He was born "in the armies of the country" of two citizen parents. While being born born on a military base does not count as "born in the US", being born outside the country while a parent is "in the service of the country (including diplomatic service) does make them reputed, "born in the country" for purposes of the NBC definition. This is only common sense, but it is also part of the "natural law" as documented by Vattel in "Law of Nations", specifically Book I, section 217. Section 212 defines NBC, as born in the country of parents who are citizens. If one is to accept the definition, it only seems reasonable to accept the exception or clarification in the very same document, just a few short sections later.
Which ones? Other than those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?
There was of course Chester Arthur, but he was very careful, and successful, in hiding the fact that his father was not naturalized until his 14th birthday.
But at least Chester was raised exclusively in the US, and his father did become a citizen long before Chester became VP (he became President because one of his supporters killed the President). Neither of those is true of the Indonesian Mosque attendee Barry Soetero. Chester's lack of NBC status, due to his non citizen father(at the time he was born), was not proved until just a couple of years ago. BHO Jr admits his father was a Kenyan/British citizen, and that he himself was a British Subject and Kenyan citizen at the time of his birth.
No, but the real criteria is not "no dual citizens", it's "two citizen parents". Thus it does not really matter if the "other" parent's country claims the child as a citizen/subject or not.
For example, if you and your wife were on vacation out of the country and she gave birth, or what if the birth occurred on an air plane in the middle of the Atlantic, or anywhere outside of US air space.
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
§ 216. Children born at sea.
As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
There is no such duty. It's merely custom. In fact there is no requirement to be "sworn in", although there is a require to take the oath of office, but it's not specified if that needs to be oral, and in public, or written. It's just a requirement to be accomplished sometime before entering into the office. Just like being over 35, 14 years a resident of the US, getting a majority of the electoral votes, and being a Natural Born Citizen. The swearing of the oath does not make one President, the clock and calender do, assuming all the other requirements have been met.
Reportedly, he showed his true birth certificate not one of two fakes floating around on the 'net. That would show birth "in the armies", as well as birth on the Coco Solo Naval station in the Canal Zone. it would also show his parents birthplaces. It also showed the name of the doctor that signed the certificate, William Lorne Irvine, who was indeed stationed at Coco Solo at that time.
Unfortunately, Dr. West had stopped delivering babies some years before. Besides which, the only person to allege Dr. West made the delivery, Barbara Nelson, has recanted, and now just says that Dr. West told her about Stanley and the First Black African student at U. Of Hawaii-Manoa, had a baby, but that he did not say he had delivered the baby. (That of course was after multiple sources indicated that by 1961 Dr. West was no longer practicing as an OB)
| The swearing of the oath does not make one President, the clock and calender do, assuming all the other requirements have been met.
Exactly. Governed by the Constitution, not by tradition. Makes you wonder who was the REAL CinC in between the FIRST flubbed Oath of Office on Jan 20th (in quotes and required to be verbatim) and the “precautionary” and private SECOND Oath of Office on Jan 21st. And who is true Constitutional president NOW ...
|
She only needed to be 19, assuming she'd lived the whole time from her 14th to 19th birthdays in the US. (The real requirement was 10 years residency, 5 after the 14th birthday, now it's 5 and 2 respectively.) She of course did not meet that requirement. But it only applies if the birth was outside the US and she was married to an alien. If unwed, the requirement was only 1 year of residency.
IOW, if a foreign national and a service member have a baby born on the installation, or two foreign nationals for that matter, the child is not a statutory US citizen just because of birth on the installation.
But the child of two citizens, at least one of which is serving the country, at the time of birth outside the country, is reputed born in the country. It's the obverse of the "subject to the jurisdiction" criteria in the 14th amendment, which exempts the children of foreign diplomats from being native born citizens, and has been long understood, from Vattel at least, but even he was just documenting the then current (1758) understanding. Service in the diplomatic corps counts too. See "Law of Nations" Book 1 section 217.
IOW, if a foreign national and a service member have a baby born on the installation, or two foreign nationals for that matter, the child is not a statutory US citizen just because of birth on the installation.
But the child of two citizens, at least one of which is serving the country, at the time of birth outside the country, is reputed born in the country. It's the obverse of the "subject to the jurisdiction" criteria in the 14th amendment, which exempts the children of foreign diplomats from being native born citizens, and has been long understood, from Vattel at least, but even he was just documenting the then current (1758) understanding. Service in the diplomatic corps counts too. See "Law of Nations" Book 1 section 217.
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.
