Wiggy ??? West Point ??? Not according to this learned professor who awarded him PHD (Pompous Hypocritical Doofus) from Whatsamatta U ...
Posted on 02/12/2010 12:35:44 PM PST by syc1959
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.
Barack Hussein Obama did not have sole jurisdiction under the United States.
Title 8 and the 14th Amendment clearlt state the following;
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
Note: 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'
Which friend? I only see the lavender screen of bandom.
Our play-pal WiggOut is alive and kicking as far as I know. The unfortunate poster was a fellow traveler who haunted other eligibility threads who called himself "another normal person".
I agree completely with your technical argument and I would love to make the argument to the Supreme Court but it is a loser and in fact, it may turn counterproductive on us.
The Political Establishment, including the press, has agreed that the "natural born" Constitutional requirement has no place in the modern political environment and should be ignored. The "Modern" view was pretty well expressed by George Bush II that the Constitution is just another irrelevant piece of paper.
Although the establishment is not yet ready to state that position in a Supreme Court opinion or on the front pages of the New York times, that is where they are coming from.
Four of the current nine members of the Court have expressed variations of this view (controlling international law over the Constitution) and I believe at one point, Kennedy has said something like this.
To date, none of the litigation that I am aware of has been procedurally well founded so the Court has never had a problem that forced it to the real answer. What would happen if a real case came to the court is uncertain.
However at present, another set of concerns has reached the attention of Presidential advisers that is motivating possible action.
The true Constitutional power is in the states, not the Court. That is the argument Constitutional scholars think should have prevented the decision in Marbury v. Madison.
Where it comes up now is in a number of states where pending legislation would prohibit ballot access in either a primary or final Presidential election unless the candidate satisfied the relevant state official of his eligibility. That is why Obama is referring to himself as a possible one-term President.
There is now discussion about a pending fix which would work like this. We get one of these actions founded solely on the line of reasoning BP2 advances here--nothing about the fact that Obama was born in Kenya.
They let the argument get to the Court on this theory; the Court holds it doesn't make any difference because he was born in Hawaii and the 14th Amendment overrides other elements of the "natural born" rule; Obama is ok.
Then they turn around and hand this decision to the state officer charged with enforcement of state legislation requiring proof of eligibility as res judicata; when the state officer refuses to accept the decision without proof he was born in the US, they sue to overrule on equal protection grounds (Bush v. Gore) and if the state wants to get ballots counted in the general election, it must put Obama on the ballot.
The lavender represents the wanker “another normal person” from the after-birther brigade.
Very good. The two passages you quote at the end from 1765 and 1864 are identical, word for word, with the sole exception of that clause at the end:
“ought also to extend to its colonies.”
“must also extend to its colonies.”
It seems to me that the two different phrasings mean essentially the same thing, except that the later phrasing perhaps strengthens the point, from ought to must. I don’t think you could get such identical language, with just one deliberate change, if the second did not copy from the first, rather than coincidentally arriving at the identical wording from two independent translations from the French.
Of course there could have been an intermediate English version, or versions, somewhere between them, to transmit the wording from one to the other.
Oh yea, I remember that one. Not too bright. Made a bat look like a sharpened weapon....
GMTA...I almost included a similar pic with my post!
Now that's cold!!
Great post, BTW.
Ah, I think I saw “another [ab]normal person” a couple of times.
Need a lot more of those lavender screens. But with mod support of weirdness, not likely to get them.
A total new twist for the paid “Obama 2.0” brigade to run with???
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2452018/posts?page=27#27
And he graduated from West Point, is that possible???
Hmmmm ..
Wiggy ??? West Point ??? Not according to this learned professor who awarded him PHD (Pompous Hypocritical Doofus) from Whatsamatta U ...
Then on top of that, how can a real woman face such “stubborn” (knowing it all) husband for 30 years. She must be dressed in a Burka wow???
Okay... I surrender you to your idiotic analysis. You are beyond help.
Alexander Porter Morse wrote that by drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing “the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance.” In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children “whose fathers were natural-born subjects,” regardless of where the children were born.
In ‘The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentenial Year; The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement’ by
J Michael Medina writes that “Professor Morse, in a ground-breaking article on the issue, defined the natural born citizen as: “One whose citizen-ship is established by the jurisdiction of which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acqired by choice of residencein this country.”
In the closing statement the writer, J Michael Medina states “In any event, the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the absolute requirement that the President be a natural born citizen.”
Again in 2006, AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE by SARAH P. HERLIHY
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,1 “undecidedly un-American,”2 “blatantly discriminatory,”3 and the “Consti-tution’s worst provision.”4 Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligi-ble for the presidency.5 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Of-fice who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.6
Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.
J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 5 (Claytor’s Pub. Unabridged Ed. 1827). Thus, a person born to parents whose covenant allegiance to a nation had previously been established was a “natural born citizen,” born into the civil covenant, just like a child born into the marriage covenant of his father and mother. Such a person need not swear allegiance to become a citizen, for his allegiance is determined by birth.
Note again, amending the Constitution. As I have stated there has been no Constitutional amendment allowing for anyone other then a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ to be eligible for the Presidency of the United States.
So regardless of what ever case law, you can attempt to pawn off, nothing in the Constitution has changed.
Yea, its possible. My brother graduated from NS Naval Academy. He is a stark raving liberal. Go figure.
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.