Posted on 04/26/2010 10:21:49 AM PDT by rxsid
"Educating The Really Really Confused About “Nbc-gate”
It looks like Nbc-Gate is hitting top volume. I’ve witnessed some very desperate blogging propaganda trying to stop the bleeding as the nation finally wakes up to the fact that President Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth. Having been born with dual nationality, he was born with a recognized allegiance to a foreign nation. I have explained previously in great detail why this disqualifies him from being President.
The historical dam is breaking as more and more evidence surfaces proving Obama is not eligible. A reader of this blog who has asked to remain anonymous recently provided further historical proof that Obama is not eligible to be president. The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) states
The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.That is serious on point historical research. At the time of his birth, Obama owed allegiance to Great Britain. That is not disputed, it is admitted by the President himself. And this admission is the true problem Obama faces should this issue ever make its way to the Supreme Court. Obama owed allegiance to great Britain when he was born."
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
9 posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 12:47:41 PM by Mr Rogers:
I guess my objection is with the idea that Obama OWED the UK allegiance at birth.
He was eligible to claim citizenship in the UK, but foreign law does not obligate him to do so, or divide his natural loyalty.
Given that:
1) His father never seems to have lived with his mother, and he was raised by his mother or her parents, and
2) his father completely abandoned him at a very early age, and
3) his father wasn’t legally married to his mother, since he was already married at the time and bigamy was illegal,
4) he has never in any way acted as though he had allegiance to the UK, and
5) he has deliberately snubbed the British government on multiple occasions,
I find the idea that Obama owed natural allegiance to the UK ridiculous.
Also, the USA does NOT support the ‘once British, always British’ doctrine - we had a war over that in 1812...
11 posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 12:51:33 PM by Mr Rogers:
The following quotes came before the possibility of Obama being elected was raised, so I think they show where legal opinion had settled prior to Obama running:
“NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. A natural-born citizen of the United States is one who is a citizen by reason of his place of birth or the citizenship of his father. The two classes of naturalized and natural born citizens are thus mutually exclusive, and together constitute the entire citizen body of the United States. ”
Andrew C. McLaughlin & Albert Bushnell Hart ( Ed.), CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT Vol. 2 (1914).
“NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. A person whose citizenship derives from the nation where he or she was born.”
Kenneth Robert Redden, Enid Veron, Modern Legal Glossary, pg. 263 (1980)
“Natural-born citizens can acquire that status by being born in the United States, on the basis of jus soli…”
William Carroll, Norman Smith, American Constitutional Rights: cases, documents, and commentary, pg. 130 (1991)
“The requirement that the president be a “natural born” citizen implies that the framers recognized the principle of jus soli. According to this doctrine – literally meaning the “right to land or ground” – citizenship results from birth within a national territory.”
Kermit Hall, The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, pg. 24 (1992)
“Americans are accustomed to the concept of automatic citizenship granted to persons born in the United States, who are called “natural-born citizens…”
Joseph M. Bessette, American Justice, Volume 1 – Page 129 (1996)
“Natural-born citizens are people born in the United States.”
David Heath, the Presidency of the United States, pg. 8 (1999)
“Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, eigth edition (1999)
Great stuff, instead of giving up, we get stronger! It’s what the country needs now.
I love this part from Donofrio:
“There you have a lifelong Democrat politician – who served at a high level of Government service – making the argument that President Obama would not be eligible to the office of President despite his place of birth. Is the former Democrat Secretary of State now to be retroactively attacked as a wing nut birther?”
RATS are really backed into a corner with their ardent worship of the one - who is most probably not qualified to be POTUS as a natural born citizen according to the USC. The only tortured argument in favor of BHO’s NBC, which I’m sure they’ll trot out is retroactive application of the US Citizenship laws toward Ann Dunham, as well as LIBERAL and unconventional interpretation of SCOTUS opinion in rulings like Minor v. Happersett which casts doubt on the ‘natural-born citizen’ status of the class of citizens that are born to one citizen parent, and one non-citizen parent - with even that being a stretch for BHO:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
The only way he could possibly be considered NBC is if he really was born in HI, to a father other than Sr who happens to be a citizen.
“The only way he could possibly be considered NBC is if he really was born in HI, to a father other than Sr who happens to be a citizen.”
That would be the only *unequivocal* way. All other ways are open to interpretation by the SCOTUS however, and it is where they have dropped their responsibility on this basic Constitutional issue! None of these arguments except what you suggest is cut and dried - which is partly what makes them difficult to argue and gain support in the public.
One basic publicly supported position is - how shall we continue the rule of law in this nation - shall it be by abiding by the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land? Yes to that question will still get lot of support from independents and all true conservatives. What is that - still 60 to 65% of us?
We need to argue that ‘We’re Constitutionalists and those against a review and SCOTUS ruling on Nbc (and other matters) are AGAINST the US Constitutional rule of law - as simple as that.’ ‘What in the world does that have to do with being a ‘birfer’ or a ‘tin foil’ conspiracist?’, we might add for our lefty participants in such a debate.
Would be precedent setting though, to allow someone born the subject to a foreign crown (or government) to be eligible to be our Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
“Sure, this court could go against Vattel’s definition, founder Ramsay’s reaffirmation of that definition, 5 earlier SCOTUS cases reaffirmation (in the dicta) of that definition, and author of the 14th Amendment John Bingham reaffirming that same definition. I supposed they could do that.
Would be precedent setting though, to allow someone born the subject to a foreign crown (or government) to be eligible to be our Commander in Chief of the armed forces.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Or they could do nothing and allow this all to go forward unchallenged, as if it’s a minor affair - which course they seem to be following. I’m not saying that’s *not* a SHAME and a horrible state of affairs.
“Would be precedent setting though, to allow someone born the subject to a foreign crown (or government) to be eligible to be our Commander in Chief of the armed forces.”
Half the country seems to know this has already happened. The other half doesn’t care to do anything about it. The SCOTUS and most of the apparatchiks in this country are in that half that doesn’t care to do anything about this. (apathy is bliss.)
Indeed.
Also, if BHO was born to a very single Ann Dunham, then there are a whole different set of rules that Hawaii had established for children of unmarried parents.
The classification of an illegitimate birth can never be changed by any court proceedings. It is fixed at birth for perpetuity
Forensic Examiner Disproves Online COLB
“forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines (pictured) has documented in an associated affidavit (PDF) the following”
“Exhibit C, the expert affidavit of renowned forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, states that the certification of live birth posted by Mr. Obama as verification of his legitimacy cannot be verified as genuine and should be presumed fraudulent. “
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.