bump for later
P4L
Good info with mid-terms coming up.
Well?....There are two ways to pluck a duck: In the courts and Public Pressure.
Since I am not an attorney, I can't comment on whether or not there will be legal success in getting Obama to disclose documents.
However...If it weren't for the publicity generated by Taitz, Berg, and the other lawsuits, few in our nation would even know that Obama had a problem with natural born citizenship.
In the best case scenario, Obama will be revealed. He will be arrested for massive fraud, and be put in prison for a long time. I doubt that he would be turned over to a military tribunal and tried and executed for treason.
A likely scenario is that he will not run in 2012, and for evermore all candidates for president and vice president will be under state law and public pressure to prove their natural born citizenship.
Bookmark
"...and may not be islamic, a fraud, a Chicago street thug and bagman for a criminal political entity, a drunk, a user of crack, a liar, a Marxist, a socialist, a communist, a fascist, a mulatto, a punk, an arrogant son-of-a-bitch, a racist, and a person bent on the destruction of the United states of America."
Seems to me that this whole game of hiding all his information and obama not settling this is just a game of “In your face, we won. What are you going to do about it?” So judges have blocked the lawsuits to reveal who this guy is, but at some point the truth will leak out. Maybe at some point the dimrat party will have enough of this joker and start undermining him. If they get their butts handed to them in November, there is a possibility.
Train loads of popcorn.
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.
Title 8 and the 14th Amendment both state; 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.
So explain how “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.”
So to ‘what’ degree was Barack Hussein Obama under US Jurisdiction at birth? Knowing that he was already under British jurisdiction, and how that being only partial or to whatever degree you impose not being in conflict with “completely subject to”?
Mind you this is The Supreme Court that has stated complete and not partial to any degree jurisdiction.
Just to make it crystal clear;
Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group who inhabit a geographic region with which they have the earliest known historical connection
ethnic; An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed
common heritage; Common Heritage of Mankind (also termed the common heritage of humanity,common heritage of humankind or common heritage principle) is a principle of international law which holds that defined territorial areas and elements of humanity’s common heritage (cultural and natural) should be held of trust for future generations and be protected from exploitation by individual nation states or corporations.
So how can a foreigner be part of a native/Indigenous people, that are part of a ethnic bond with a common heritage?
ping
It's clear that there has never been any doubt about the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" by past Supreme Courts. If the words of Article II and these Courts throughout history are not definitive, then what is??? Precedence is precedence -- unless, I guess, one is dealing with lawless prefabricators.
In the translations, yes. But the early translation was pretty bad. The French used was "Les Naturels, ou indigenes" which translated means "The natural ones, or natives. The full sentence in French, absent the accent marks, is:
"Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens."
obumpa
bump
Professional trolls like the fool in post 14 will just change their name and continue being professional trolls.