Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Canadian Outrage

I agree that born in the United States citizens can be President. Naturalized ones, cannot. Simple. You have to agree that anybody who will not reveal WHO they are or where they CAME FROM, is not really eligible for the highest office in the land. What country frankly anywhere, would elect or place in office a “complete Blank Slate?” Kind of dangerous dontchya think?”. It is really very simple. The fact that Obama will NOT release any information about himself tells the ENTIRE story. End of story. America has been completely hoodwinked and deceived and there is defintely more than Obama involved. I’m just wondering tho about the electorate. I guess they didn’t care as long the name wasn’t Bush. A very sad mistake as you are about to see and experience. CO


But the state of Hawaii has confirmed Obama’s birth there and he is over 35 years of age and has been a resident of the US for at least 14 years. That’s what the Constitution requires.
Anyone not satisfied with Obama’s level of personal disclosure probably voted against him in 2008 and can do so again in 2012.
“Hawaii: Obama Birth Certificate is Real:”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm


392 posted on 03/02/2010 10:11:10 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies ]


To: jamese777

Zimmer et al. v. Acheson, Secretary of State United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. – 191 F.2d 209, 1951

A case which outlines that there are only two classes of citizens of the US, native born and naturalized citizens. The former refers to citizenship by birth (Jus Soli), the latter refers to birth through statute. The Court referenced “Elk v Wilkins” and “US v Wong Kim Ark.”

“There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens. [1] and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen.” [2]

[1] Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702, 18 S.Ct.

[2] United States v. Wong Kim Arm, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890; Johansen v. Staten Island Shipbuilding Co., 272 N.Y. 140, 5 N.E.2d 68, 70; United States v. Kellar, C.C.Ill., 13 F. 82, 85; Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 45 F.Supp. 61, 67


395 posted on 03/02/2010 10:27:54 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson