Phone home, Syc. Your' new underwear has arrived.
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'
“Might I suggest that take up reading and stop playing with the crayons.”
You have to keep it REALLY simple for ‘wig’ or he won’t grasp it.
He may be a little punch drunk from getting knocked around on forums like this.
Someone needs to step in and stop the fight before he incurs more damage to his brain.
Wiggie, the palooka.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/palooka.htm
STE=Q
You are nothing but a liar who cannot accept the fact that you are wrong.
Here is the link for the digital copy of Dicey's book for all to see:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Gz0yAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=digest+of+the+law+of+england+dicey&source=bl&ots=DVXRWTsEzi&sig=Y755-yMwEW7h8iV5vfUYXV6-n_I&hl=en&ei=_Jp9S6eUKtXSlAeHr8jTBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Punch in page 168 in the window above the cover. Pages 168-170 contain the relevent information about children born abroad being natural born subjects.
And, since you are SO enamored with the Ark decision, here is what Ark said:
" ... By the statute of 7 Anne (1708) c. 5, 3, 'the children of all natural-born subjects, born out of the ligeance of her majesty, her heirs and successors,'-explained by the statute of 4 Geo. II. (1731) c. 21, to mean all children born out of the ligeance of the crown of England, 'whose fathers were or shall be natural-born subjects of the crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively,'-'shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever."
I normally never use the O-name, but only (most mostly) addresses him as B.S., and that was why Rush surprised me by using it today, the first time I've ever heard him use, except in the beginning before the B.C. issue became really obvious, when he then often used Barry!!
He also have joked about comparing God & Obama regarding the B.C. I think Rush is aware of the faked B.C., but he has gag order from Clear Channel not to address the issue and once in a while sneak in pointers to let us know!!!
First admission that is actually worth repeating
Wiggie says ‘Don’t know, don’t care.’
self realization of the crap you been saying, means nothing.
dit dit dit...da da da...dit dit dit!!!
New York 25 July 1787
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
~~~~
Some strident and blockheaded posters, therefore, are apparently basing their entire position ... via reams of split hairs, blatant disingenuousness, obfuscations and circular and diversionary argumentation ... on blind acceptance of the Annenberg Foundation/FactCheck birth certificate, and total disregard of Obama's stated alien paternity.
Annenberg Foundation, founded by a conservative, but whose foundation management and goals descended into the hands of flaming leftists who skewed and shifted the original intent, as so many philanthropic/think tank foundations do over succeeding generations away from the principals.
That's really comical.
What a relief to know that millions of thinking and reasoning Americans, who bear unfettered allegiance to the intent of the Framers and America, and with a sense of core protectiveness toward her, reasonable curiosity, well-founded skepticism, and perspective aren't that naive, accepting and easily duped.
The truth will come out eventually .. it always does.
God bless and preserve our America, the blessed gift from our awesome Founding Fathers, and those with open eyes who defend her! We fight on.
I'd be proud and honored to share a foxhole with all of ya.
If the framers wanted an expansive doctrine of the executive operating as commander in chief, left unchecked by other branches, they could have adopted the political models fashioned by John Locke and Sir William Blackstone.
In 1690, in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke placed the “federative” power (what we call foreign policy) with the executive. The federative power consisted of “the power of war and peace, leagues and alliances, and all the transactions with all persons and communities without the commonwealth.”2
To Locke, this power was “always almost united” with the executive.3
To separate the executive and federative powers, he warned, would invite “disorder and ruin.”4
Similarly, in his Commentaries, Blackstone defined the king’s prerogative in sweeping terms to include the right to declare war, send and receive ambassadors, make war or peace, make treaties, issue letters of marque and reprisal (authorizing private citizens to undertake military actions), and raise and regulate fleets and armies.
Blackstone defined the king’s prerogative as “those rights and capacities which the king enjoys alone.”5
The power was therefore not subject to checks from any other political institution (or from the public).
Blackstone considered the king “the generalissimo, or the first in military command,” who had “the sole power of raising and regulating fleets and armies.”6 Whenever the king exercised his lawful prerogative he “is, and ought to be absolute; that is, so far absolute, that there is no legal authority that can either delay or resist him.”7
During the debates at the Philadelphia Convention, the framers vested in Congress many of Locke’s federative powers and Blackstone’s royal prerogatives. The power to go to war was not left to a single executive, but rather to collective decision making through parliamentary deliberations.
American democracy placed the sovereign power in the people and entrusted to them the temporary delegation of that power to elected senators, representatives, and presidents. Members of Congress take an oath of office to defend the Constitution, not the president.
Their primary allegiance is to the people and to the constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of power. The breadth of congressional power is evident simply by looking at the text of the Constitution and comparing Article I to Article II.
Reading the text underscores the degree to which the framers wholly repudiated the models of Locke and Blackstone.
Not a single one of Blackstone’s prerogatives is granted to the president. They are either assigned entirely to Congress (declare war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, raise and regulate fleets and armies)8 or shared between the Senate and the president (appointing ambassadors and making treaties).9
The rejection of the British and monarchical models could not have been more sweeping.
Why bother, you ignore the quotes posted to you.
You have been proven wrong.
Save it for the kindergartners EW.
I am neither buying into your condensation or your bogus argumnets.
You have been proven wrong by no less than 6 people posting differing levels of information including Title 3 of Public Law 414 which I researched and posted myself.
Now, how about you just concede like an adult. I can admit when I am wrong, you apparently aren’t big enough to do so.
That says a lot more about you than it does anyone else.
again attempting for a grain of salt to make a loaf of bread.
The laws of the United states do not take presidence over the laws of a non-domiciled resident alien, in any part of the United States.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr, by his citizenship, governance, and allegiance under his law, not the United States law, by nature and tacit consent, bestowed upon his offspring his condition without any statute or all the rights and privilges of a British subject, as as admitted by BHO.
you do not seem to understand, that that sole jurisdiction of the United States is required, as stated, not merely to some extent, but full and complete.
The 1964 divorce papers establish the parental lineage of his father and as so noted. Legal document, BHO Sr his father.
You are the one showing that your allegiance is to an unknown, undicoumented illegal alien, who refuses to establish his credentials in the basic of forms or required by law, and the Constitution.
Talk about who is un-patriotic, or Un-American, look in the mirror.
Rather your parading around like your redeemer with no clothes.
Do you know what the definition of ‘is’ is?
“The words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ the court held, mean ‘not merely subject 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 allegiance.’ Most Indians could not meet the test.“
The aboriginal peoples of North America — The Great Native Indian tribes — can’t be Natural Born Citizens, however — according to wigout — a foreign national drunk from Kenya can come to America, make a baby with an American woman, and that baby can grow up to become President of the United States!
... An anti-American “President” out to destroy our country — I may add!
GGGRRRR!!! (Censored)
As professor David Yagley joked,(paraphrase)”we already lost this country once to the white man... I don’t want to see us lose it for a second time!”
Professor Yeagley is half Comanche Indian.
Some might like this article by same:
Public Enemy No. 1: Barry “Obama” Soetoro
http://www.badeagle.com/2009/09/22/public-enemy-no-1-barry-obama-soetoro/
STE=Q
Tell hell with your "Declaration." I'm Syc1957, and I've got jurisdiction over Honolulu.
But that is a bad translation. For one thing, it left "Indigènes" untranslated. The founders knew that, since most of them could read and speak French.
The French was "Les Naturels, ou Indigènes". "Indigènes" translates as "natives", "Les naturels" translates as "the natural ones". (try it yourself on bablefish). So we have "The natural ones, or natives..." the later translations changed the order around, and changed "the natural ones", to "natural born citizens". Not a stretch at all.
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.