So, Parsley, why do you have confidence with the Chain of Evidence for Obama’s “Birth Certificate”? From
Which, again, had custody of a "birth certificate" which has NEVER actually appeared in Court.
|
Posted on 02/23/2010 8:02:16 AM PST by butterdezillion
I have tried to explain to people here regarding “standing” and I have actually cited Jones V Bush as an example, but to no avail.
This is just an emotional issue that people have their minds made up already and nothing is going to change.
I have been opposed to 0bama since day 1, and I will rejoice the day he leaves office, but people will call you an 0bamatard or a RINO if you don’t agree with them on this issue.
There was actually one thread on this issue that claimed that if 0bama is removed then Biden would not be President, and this has gone beyond the birth certificate issue.
Jermone Corsi of WND has claimed that even if zero’s BC confirms a Hawaian birth he is still not a citizen.
Here, digest this while I go back to WKA. Persuasive state case only, but they must have my mind....
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
parsy, who says skip down to the Natural Born Citizen part
Here, digest this while I go back to WKA. Persuasive state case only, but they must have my mind....
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
parsy, who says skip down to the Natural Born Citizen part
Here, digest this while I go back to WKA. Persuasive state case only, but they must have my mind....
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
parsy, who says skip down to the Natural Born Citizen part
So, Parsley, why do you have confidence with the Chain of Evidence for Obama’s “Birth Certificate”? From
Which, again, had custody of a "birth certificate" which has NEVER actually appeared in Court.
|
Posting it thrice only makes you look three times as dumb.
Found it .. reposting what EdinVA researched
and posted and I previously re-posted:
~~~~
OBAMA Traceable legal expenses:
Thanks to edinva, that info’s posted on FR .. and is available to those who care to look:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following is information I was able to cull readily from the official Federal Elections Commission website for disbursements from the Obama campaign to the law firm of Perkins Coie, which is or did represent Obama in various eligibility suits. The FEC links follow the entries.
October 2009 quarterly:
Perkins Coie 314,018.06
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q3/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html
July 2009 quarterly:
Perkins Coie 270,754.18
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q2/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html
April quarterly
Perkins Coie 688,316.42
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q1/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html
Year-End 2008
Perkins Coie 173,052.52
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/YE/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html
Amended post-general election:
Perkins Coie 205,323.00
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/30G/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html
That adds up to $1,651,464.18
Perkins Coie does not appear in the pre-general election filing or a few others I checked randomly. You are free to pursue any further information that is of interest. But one would assume that the official FEC website to which the Obama and other campaigns must report their financial activity would be taken by even the most skeptical among us as valid documentation of the reported $1.4 or $1.8, or anything in between, figure expended to defend the eligibility suits.
This information is about the legal fees only of that one law firm, not the DOJ attorneys, court time, or other related costs.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2395463/posts?page=42#42
~~~~
**The addition of Year End 2009:
Obama: http://query.nictusa.com/pdf/733/10990227733/10990227733.pdf#navpanes=0
Total to Perkins Coie for Oct-Dec 2009: $918,778.95
So, it’s well over $2M.
I believe this is the 2008 Report, but the page and
print’s too small for me to clearly see. I can’t tell
what, if any, disbursements to them:
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_28930533851+0
Maybe someone else can see it clearer than I can.
~~~~
There are other law firms in addition to the Mao-loving
Anita Dunn’s husband, Robt Bauer, who provided legal
services, in addition to the DOJ’s obvious expenses we
bear, that aren’t included in the above.
No. (Dang I’m fast!)
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.
And later on:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
And for guidance on whether a native or natural born subject was the same as a natural born citizen, we go back up above where this reasoning is looked upon with favor, or arguably adopted, by the court;
Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the “general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,” says:
Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.
2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.
2 Kent Com. 258, note.
The language so it is easier to argue. Look at the holding first. Reaffirms the basis in common law as what the Framers meant. So natural born subject = natural born citizen.
Interprets the 14th as saying only two kinds of citizens. Obama sure ain’t a naturalized one. SOOO, he must be a citizen, who by place of birthis a natural born subject aka a natural born citizen.
There is simply not a third, hermaphrodite type of citizen in the holding, or the reasoning. I think that is the way a modern court would view it. Thats my LEGAL THEORY.
parsy, who possesses keen insight....(and yet is still humble)
That’s the second time today that has happened! Now, what did you think about how I demolished your “rebuttal” evidence stuff?
Are you ready to admit that you have no rebuttal evidence? If so, then you can get on with your life...
parsy, who is hitting post ONE time
Yes, there is alot in Wong Kim Ark.
Have you read the Lynch v. Clark ruling from the State of New York?
Naughty girl!
parsy, who will remember to count next time
Parsy, who like a broken clock, might be right once in a while........
Re-treading Politijab posts, which aren't even relevant, does
nothing but weaken your position.
Ping to #1087
I guess not. I thought it might be in this screed pro-birtherish piece I found, but it wasn’t.
Also, a state case out of Indiana, but the NBC language and reasoning is what I suspect would unfold with any court that gets it:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
parsy, who is off to Lynch v. Clark
Mis-spoke-—saw the cite in Wong:
That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.
parsy, who wonders if Gray invented “string citations”
It's not too often even then you have check.
I have no idea what you are talking about. AND WHERE’S YOUR REBUTTAL EVIDENCE?
parsy who is going to stay on you like that kid on his bike who wanted his $2.00 newspaper money!
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.
to 
to 
to 
