Posted on 07/19/2009 6:49:59 AM PDT by PurpleMountains
Fair-minded people are still baffled by Obamas refusal to clear up the continuing controversy over his birthplace, and by his determination to stop every attempt to delve into this matter through harassment and costly litigation. He is reported to have spent over a million dollars in legal fees fighting the determination of this issue.
His relatives have testified that he was born in Kenya, but not under oath. His original birth certificate has been withheld; what are we to believe? Our Constitution clearly states that a person born on foreign soil when only one parent is a USA citizen cannot become President.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
If the above doesn't happen there may be hell to pay.
Under Happersett, a natural born citizen is clarified to mean born citizen without a doubt. Doubt entered the picture due to Obama being born a British citizen under The British Nationality Act of 1948, in effect at the time of his birth. He cannot be, as a state of nature, considered a born citizen of the United States, when he was born British.
The difference between the birth certificate issue and File Gate is that this controversy has an easy and definitive solution. It does not have to be a matter of who you believe. The birth certificate will resolve the issue.
That's a very well-trodden step. Searching FR alone would provide a mountain of set legal precedent, the John Jay letters, the Law of Nations, etcetera. You've got some catching up to do.
ping
The hidden long form, college records, college finance records, college application, selective service records, travel documents (passport used for travel during his college years), application for the Illinois Bar, his entire Illinois State Senate records, peripheral relationships regarding the unsolved murder of the TUCC choir director, etc.
This needs to be taken on by a well-known, objective, and authoritative entity.
The reset button needs to be built, tested, and PUSHED! Who will it be?
.
Don’t miss ‘Do you fear Obama?’. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
Powerful stuff. This author answers the question, ‘why isn’t anybody doing anything’.
.
.
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that
"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,"
and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
very good statement of the case.....in fact one of the best I’ve seen, since it doesn’t ramble afield.
.
Dr. Orly website and PayPal:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
Stephen Pidgeon information (Dr. Orly’s new assistant)
http://stephenpidgeon.com/
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2816
.
The “rambling afield” as you so aptly put it, is being deliberately interjected, imho. Muddy the waters, keep ‘em chasing their tails.
If she really is on to something she should be getting help right and left and where is Berg these days?
Bergs busy cuttin a deal with the Obama people.
THANKS FOR link, i made paypal donation.
How ironic that we can investigate Cheney for defending the country but can’t see Obama’s requirements. I swear this is like Alice in Wonderland only I would call in Alice in Obamaland
Tell me more please i can’t believe it.
Pray that Judge Carter will uphold the law, and hold BO to the Constitutional Requirements to be President.
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.