Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition Under Jus Soli, the following is written "The Supreme Court's first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the court held, mean "not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange." Most Indians could not meet the test. "Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102. It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the 'Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.

The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

> And in both cases... we are still eligible to be President
> of the United States per Article II of the US Constitution.

Good to see you acknowledge Obama is still a British Subject to this day — as he sits in the Oval Office. We're making some progress!

As for Obama’s Eligibility — as most After-Birthers — you confuse the inability TO THIS POINT of Plaintiffs to show Legal Standing & Jurisdiction as PROOF that he's eligible. As you know, it doesn't work that way, especially with heady Constitutional matters like this. Again, this does not mean Obama is eligible; the cases have yet to be heard on their merits.

Patience is the key in the Federal Court system, as even a Harvard law professor with no trial experience like Obama would know.

And as this thread has shown, there's a plethora of evidence that the Justices will review at some point that refutes Obama’s eligibility to hold office as President.

“Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” as you state;

A letter of marque is an official warrant or commission from a government authorizing the designated agent to search, seize, or destroy specified assets or personnel belonging to a foreign party that has committed some offense under the laws of nations against the assets or citizens of the issuing nation and has usually been used to authorize private parties to raid and capture merchant shipping of an enemy nation.

Quote; under the laws of nations, not British Common law.

Bill of Attainder; again as you stated.

Bills of attainder were used through the 18th century in England, and were applied to British colonies as well. One of the motivations for the American Revolution was anger at the injustice of attainder—though the Americans themselves used bills of attainder to confiscate the property of British loyalists (called Tories) during the revolution. American dissatisfaction with attainder laws motivated their prohibition in the Constitution (see the case of Parker Wickham).

their prohibition in the Constitution; dening British Law in the United States.

"Good to see you acknowledge Obama is still a British Subject to this day — as he sits in the Oval Office. We're making some progress!"

What a strange comment? SinceI have never denied for a second that Obama is a dual citizen, how can that be "progress?" Exactly?

"As for Obama’s Eligibility — as most After-Birthers — you confuse the inability TO THIS POINT of Plaintiffs to show Legal Standing & Jurisdiction as PROOF that he's eligible."

I do no such thing. I instead argue that since he meets the definition of natural born citizen, he is older than 35 and he has lived in the US for more than 14 years... that is what makes him eligible.

This hasn't dragged on for almost two years because you guys don't have standing. It has dragged on because he actually is eligible and you haven't been able to come with a shred of evidence otherwise.

"As you know, it doesn't work that way, especially with heady Constitutional matters like this. Again, this does not mean Obama is eligible; the cases have yet to be heard on their merits."

Actually, standing is the first merit in any civil case to be decided. This is another reason why Birthers embarrass me. Conservative jurists have worked their butts off for the last 50 years finally putting in place a strong set of criteria for standing that would keep the trial lawyers down. And yet Birthers want to throw out all that hard work and devalue it to a mere technicality because of a single election. It is nuts... the proverbial cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

Look... the whole NBC redefinition issue is already dead. That one already got to the Supreme Court and was refused consideration on its merits. The original Donofrio case was not dismissed for standing at the lower court level. It was a request for a TRO, and that request was denied on its merits. His appeal to the US Supreme Court was not an appeal of standing. It was an appeal of the case's denial on its merits. The Supreme Court actually got to consider the substance of his demand for a TRO, and that substance was the whole definition of NBC issue. It was denied by SCOTUS without comment.

I have been telling people for almost two years (first Phil Berg, then Leo Donofrio, then Orly Taitz, then Mario Apuzzo) that if any genuine evidence existed that the Obama COLB was a forgery, then a criminal complaint against the Hawaii DOH for fraud was the swiftest and surest way to get access to Obama's records. The DOH knows there is a COLB circulating with their stamp and seal on it. They know whether or not it is forged. If it is forged and they have not exposed the fraud, then they are complicit. And if there is any evidence that it actually is forged, they would have to prove otherwise in any criminal proceeding against them by opening up the records and showing so.

"Patience is the key in the Federal Court system, as even a Harvard law professor with no trial experience like Obama would know."

Actually, no. Having a real case is the key in the Federal Court system. Having competent lawyers also would help. Birthers appear to have neither.

"And as this thread has shown, there's a plethora of evidence that the Justices will review at some point that refutes Obama’s eligibility to hold office as President."

You keep believing that if it makes you feel better. I still haven't seen 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.