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'
“What I have said is that no-Birther or Birther lawyer has ever brought a criminal complaint against the Hawaii DOH.”
In several places you have said that “no-Birther or Birther lawyer has ever brought a criminal complaint against the Hawaii DOH” ... but when I direct you to a concerned citizen who has contacted law enforcement — per your complaint — you attack that person.”
RED FLAGS:
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
Oh yah, here’s a ‘bonus’ link:
Obama Says: Constitution “Flawed.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4&feature=related
STE=Q
“I am comfortable that the State Department’s declaration in court that the COLB is valid, that it is proof of Obama’s citizenship, and that Obama is a natural born American citizen is significantly stronger testimony than the Hawaii State Attorney General’s complete silence on the issue.”
However, it can’t be denied that:
The Hawaii Attorney General’s office REFUSES to corroborate Obama’s Hawaii Birth and WON’T DEFEND Fukino’s statement that he {Obama} is a Natural Born Citizen.
Here’s a bonus link:
Lady shows Hawaii long form:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124656
Excerpt:
The woman, Miki Booth, originally from Hawaii, is running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Oklahoma’s second district as an independent constitutional conservative. She had presented original long-form birth certificates belonging to her son and husband, dated 1981 and 1949.
“If he claims he was born at Kapi’olani, I want him to show proof”
“If he is going to claim he was born in Kapi’olani like my husband and my son, then I want him to show proof,” Booth said, explaining that a certification of live birth only shows that a live baby was born — and not necessarily in Hawaii.
STE=Q
In a translaltion about the Roman Republic. You have just highlighted why the term was not used in legal discussion and why it was used by Vattel and others who were read by the founders in relation to republics. The word uused in law cases and treatises was “subject.” In fact the founders were not unaware of the Roman Republic and what had happned to it.
Actually:
1. It proves that the word was used, so your claim that it was not is false.
2. The Supreme Court says that “citizen” and “Subject” mean exactly the same thing.
So, your point here appears to be well, pointless.
The citizens are membes of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. Thenatves,orindigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subssit and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. You may recall tha the French word at issue was actually citoyen and that it became particularly prominent in use, after the fall of the French monarchy and the rise of the French Repuublic. In the use of this term the French revolutionaries reflected precisely its use here by our own revolutionaries
Are there trolls who do not misinform as badly as you do or are you the best they've got? I think your hopes of destroing our Constitution that you once swore to protect and defend are fading and you will not be able to keep the assault upon it going despite your clear desire to do so.
Somehow, I think that John Marshall, perhaps our greatest and most influential Chief Justice, was a bit better informed than yourself, writing from the bench in 1814.
“Butterdezillion has brought no criminal complaint against the Hawaii DOH.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Be that as it may... I sent you a link to an article written by a concerned citizen... a citizen (and fellow Freeper) that HAS contacted law enforcement and been given the run around.
Red Flags:
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
Butterdezillion wrote:
“This information has been given to every lawmaker in Hawaii, the OIP, DOH, Ombudsman’s office, HI lieutenant governor’ and governor’s offices, Nebraska’s US attorney (who says they won’t take reports from citizens), and Hawaii’s director of the Department of Public Safety, as well as to multiple news organizations. The FBI thrice said they don’t investigate document fraud. All refused to act.”
END
So what do YOU do?
You immediately — and without a moments hesitation — go on the attack!
All pigs are equal but (God forbid) if one of us “little pigs” has the nerve to question a “big pig”... the man from west-point is on his/her case — and pronto!
Oh yah!!
STE=Q
“what a great way to invent meaningless arguments”
However, that doesn’t change the inescapable fact that:
The Hawaii Attorney General’s office has refused to corroborate Obama’s Hawaii Birth and won’t DEFEND Fukino’s {PUBLIC} STATEMENT THAT HE {OBAMA} IS a “Natural Born American Citizen.
If you don’t like the Attorney General’s position you should take it up with him.
STE=Q
Somebody tell me how to bring a criminal complaint against the DOH and I’ll do it.
I contacted the director of the Hawaii Department of Public Safety. No response.
I contacted my own sheriff. He said it was interesting and he’d pass it on to the County Attorney, but that they don’t have money to investigate that.
I contacted my US Attorney’s office. They said they only take complaints from law enforcement offices or from the FBI.
I contacted the FBI earlier on to report forgery and they told me 3 times that the FBI doesn’t investigate forgery.
I contacted the Hawaii Ombudsman’s Office and they said they couldn’t investigate because there were crimes involved.
I contacted the Hawaii AG early on to ask him to investigate the communications that led to Fukino’s JUly 27 statement that contradicted the legal reason she has given all along for not saying what’s on Obama’s BC. No response.
I contacted every member of Hawaii’s House and Senate. So Espero filed a bill to label me a “vexatious requestor”.
People really, really need to know how seriously bad our law enforcement system is. We knew it when the Durham DA used the Duke lacrosse team rape charges to get elected by inciting black-white tensions. We knew it when Eric Holder’s DOH dropped voter intimidation charges against the NBPP members. WE knew it when Nidal Hasan was promoted rather than being disciplined or canned for being a terrorist.
People still think that the FBI and/or CIA does a background check on elected officials. I contacted my SOS and was told that the election process is the background check. I asked how we’re supposed to do a background check when we can’t have access to official documents. He said the media does it for us and they would never play politics - and besides, every politician has to sign a statement saying they’re fine, and a politician would never lie. (Can you believe somebody this dumb is SOS?)
I contacted my governor and he said he trusted that the people who were supposed to check Obama’s eligibility did their job. (Like Nancy Pelosi - the one who signed a single, special statement of Obama’s eligibility for Hawaii because Hawaii officials refused to do their normal protocol and certify eligibility?)
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Unless we wake up quick, America is so screwed.
What “conflict of interest” would be created if Nagamine said whether or not the AG approved Fukino’s July 27th statement, as Okubo had stated in an official UIPA response?
Nagamine specifically stated there would be a conflict of interest. Why did she do that?
You weren’t a participant in the conversations with the Founding Fathers, the 14th amendment, or Orly’s case either.
And true to form, you have no idea about them either. lol.
But it doesn’t stop you from commenting on them, does it?
Hmmm... I have a question....
Can you show me where Nagamine “specifically stated there would be a conflict of interest?”
I’m not familiar with that particular statement.
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.