Posted on 07/23/2009 8:07:18 PM PDT by DavidFarrar
Well first, what exactly are you arguing about the subject if not what the LAW says? That's the only thing that counts. Further you and others profess to know what the founders would have believe though you obviously have never read anything about what they believe.
If we are talking about what your opinion is on "natural born" then you are right I'm dense. I'm far from a liberal, but I'm not an arrogant blow-hart who doesn't have a point as you appear to be. You are either arguing law on the matter, which you obviously know little to nothing about, or you are arguing a worthless, meaningless opinion. The second is a total waste of time.
I'm sorry you don't like the law as it stands. I'm sorry it doesn't seem to fit with your world view, or your view of justice. If you want to say that, I'm all with you. But don't harangue me with your BS about how we aren't talking about law when you run out of anything brilliant to say. The definition of Natural Born is NOTHING BUT LAW. What an idiotic thing to say.
I think your would be the minority perspective. But, until it is litigated and there is a case on the books, folks can and will differ.
If I remember correctly jus solis has been before the USSC in the early 1800's over just such a matter but not in the context of Presidential eligibility. If you are really interested in the long dry and legally technical treatise on this matter I'll try to find it.
Thanks for your kind discussion
If you care about the legal and historical arguments I would be happy to forward it to you. I doubt you are interested in the facts since you seem to be happy with your version of the truth.
Good luck with your assumptions but they aren't legally correct. I'm sorry but while your arguments sound good they are simply not what the settled law is at this time.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you, but if you are born here you are NATURAL Born unless you are born to the parents of an occupying force or to diplomats. Its the jus soli vs jus sanguinis arguments. This isn't anything new its been established law since 1066 or so.
If you don't have the cite of the USSC case, please don't bother. I will run across it, I am sure.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Thanks for your kind discussion.
Children of illegal immigrants are natural-born US citizens.
The children of illegal immigrants have no right to claim citizenship, their very existence here is breaking our laws, in essence we are rewarding them for breaking our laws with the most precious thing our country has to offer.
Any one that believes they should be granted natural born status and full citizenship for being here illegally should be horsewhipped.
Let me rephrase. Children if illegal immigrants born in the USA are citizens.
I read Michelle Obama's comment yesterday that O's mother was single when she gave birth to him. If so, maybe that's the reason Obama doesn't want to release his birth certificate. Maybe he feels embarrassed about that.
They have no right to be citizens, their parents did not legally immigrate here therefore they exist here outside our laws or jurisdiction purposefully and illegally.
They are no different then a burglar that moves into your house with his family, assumes your name and starts emptying your bank account and claiming your property.
Your #15: “Yes, that would certainly be considered on its face, good, strong corroborative evidence”.
My response in #64: “Evidence of what? Does the announcement say where the infant was born?”
Your rebuttal #109: “It is corroborative evidence on its face, as I said, of Barack Obama being born in Hawaii.”
I will now cordially demonstrate how you are wrong.
To have corroborative value the evidence must add to, strengthen or further support other evidence. What evidence is it that you contend the announcement corroborates?
The answer must be “none” because no other evidence has been offered in support of the place of birth.
If you point to Hawaii’s form document COLB, you must recognize that document does not benefit from any strengthening by corroborative evidence because the issuer states, in essence, that in its highest, purest form the document is not conclusive evidence of citizenship.
On its face the announcement has no probative or corroborative value whatsoever regarding the determination of a place of birth.
In passing, the announcement supports only three principle interpretations:
1) Someone believed, or wanted others to believe, Stanley and sr. were married. (The best evidence of marriage is a marriage license.)
2) Someone believed, or wanted others to believe, Stanley and or sr. may have in some way been associated with the 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy. address. (There are much better ways to prove actual residence at any specific location.)
3) An infant named Obama may have been born to one or both of the named adults on the indicated date. (U.S. jurisdictions have an effective way of proving such a fact.)
I was born in Hawaii. I have my Long form Birth Certificate and my COLB. When Obama shows HIS long form, then I will believe it. Otherwise he has not proven his eligibility for POTUS and is an Usurper.
His paternal grandmother says she was in the room when he was born...in Nairobi, Kenya.
I completely agree that McCain was a dual citizen. This is why it became an issue, the issue would have been hit like a gong if he had won, the resolution that passed Congress was not law, but the reason it came up is that people knew it was a serious problem. This was very extensively researched and covered and the controversy was open and unresolved at the time of the election. But, one candidate running in several states was openly not even an American citizen and on the ballots just the same.
As for the rest, you are just wrong. You can acquire citizenship by birth on US soil, but this doesn't make you a natural born citizen per Article II, all of what you are arguing is based on the 14th Amendment and enabling legislation about who requires naturalization. It is just beside the point. This is why in Article II they had to deal with the status of people who were British subjects prior to the Revolution and Establishment of the Constitution.
People used to give a care about who could be trusted. Now that is just a side issue. Don't get lost in citizen by birth vs. natural born that is a term of specific meaning to the Constitution. If you care about the legal and historical arguments I would be happy to forward it to you. I doubt you are interested in the facts since you seem to be happy with your version of the truth.
LOL no, most likely his REAL COLB and Birth certificate list his race as Caucasian! LOL
That may be, but my read on that statement is that it is a mistranslation of her words in her tribal tongue, or a her own misunderstanding or confusion of memory.
That’s some confusion! LOL.
Yes. But at this point, who knows!
And even does it matter? The fact that Obama’s Dad was not a citizen makes Obama NOT a “natural born citizen” in the best understanding of that legal term of art at the time of ratification of the Constitution.
This issue is sure gaining legs. A fortune awaits a journalist or publication with enough guts to get at the truth.
The fact is that regardless of where Obama was born, he is ineligible 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.