Posted on 09/21/2010 8:59:08 AM PDT by wintertime
Mr. Limbaugh,
You have FAILED to defend the Constitution in the important matter of Obama's very questionable natural born status! On those rare occasions that you have mentioned the topic ( less than 5 total minutes) you have treated it like a joke. I am mystified that you have done this.
The only consequence, Mr. Limbaugh, for directing attention to Obama's eligibility as a natural born citizen would have been a little ridicule from the mainstream Marxist media. If you fail to defend the Constitution in time of relative peace and security, only a FOOL would expect you to defend the Constitution in the face of real tyranny, tanks in the streets, and cattle cars filled to the brim? Only a fool would expect you to do what is right and brave.
Personally, I will never fully trust you and your opinions again. Some things are deal breakers. That you have failed to cover the important question of having a constitutionally eligible president is a deal breaker for me.
By the way, LTC Lakin is facing court martial for having dared Obama to prove his natural born citizenship. LTC Lakin is brave and honorable man. Hopefully, you, Mr. Limbaugh, you will have one thousandth of the courage of this military officer, and you will do what is right. You will give LTC Lakin the generous time on your program that his legal case deserves.
Mr. Limbaugh, that little itty bitty phrase in the Constitution about having a natural born citizen for a president is **not** a JOKE!
Respectfully,
Wintertime
“President Woodrow Wilson’s mother was a British subject when he was born. Was Woodrow Wilson not a natural born citizen of these United States? “
In the 1800s when WW was born, the wife automatically took on the citizenship of the Husband. By marrying an American husband, Mrs. Wilson became an American Citizen. WW was born to 2 citizen parents....One an NBC and one a Naturalized Citizen by marriage.....WW was therefore an NBC and met the minimal requirements of eligibility to be POTUS...
Since then the laws have evolved so that women can not only vote but also hold citizenship separate from their husband’s citizenship.
If that were not the case Obama would have been born to two Kenyan parents.
And may..doubtful but.....may have been a mere citizen al la KWA. The question there would revolve on whether Oboma held allegiance to the USA.....As it stands Obama is not an NBC by virtue of a foriegn citizen parent, and there is some question as to whether, by declaring his Indonesian Citizenship in order to receive a Fulbright Scholarship, he legally accepted Loto Soetero’s adoptive Indonesian Citizenship and in doing so renounced his American citizenship.....
Your INTERPRETATION is that 0bama is not a NBC because of his foreign citizen parent, based upon nothing shown. It is the decision of Kim Wong Ark that he, or the child of TWO foreign parents, if born in the USA , would be “as much a citizen” as the natural born child of citizens, and according to the precedent cited a “natural born subject” of these United States.
How do we know that Obama’s original birth certificate lists BHO Sr. as the father? How do we know that BHO Sr. is Obama’s father? What if his mother did not list a father on the original birth certificate?
“Via the passage above it seems one is EITHER born a “natural-born citizen(s)” or one is born an “alien(s) or foreigner(s)”. If one is born an alien or foreigner one may be NATURALIZED as a US citizen. Thus the two types of US citizen clearly recognized by US law, natural born or naturalized.”
The passage you quote is taken from Vittals Work “Law of Nations” not from US law as you imply. If you had quoted the whole Paragraph we would see that Vittal defined Natural Born or Indiginious Citizens as being born on the soil to 2 citizen parents. All others are aliens or foreigners.... Why did you leave that part out? Shame on you!
The only area that being an NBC matters in US Law is as an eligibility factor for becoming President. Serving as President is not a right a citizenship...as stated in the Constitution there are eligibility requirements, one of which is being born in country to two citizen parents ie a Natural Born Citizen.....
It should be noted that no matter how one obtains US citizenship, all citizens assume the same rights and responsibilities.....but not all are eligible to become President......Obama is one such person not eligible, but mistakenly sworn in as POTUS nonetheless.....On that fact there is no doubt......the real question confronting us now is what to do about it........
The Constitution does not say that the eligibility requirements include being born in country to two citizen parents, it says natural born citizen.
“As much a citizen” as cited in Kim Wong Ark doesn't mean “a citizen but not natural born”. They found according to English precedent that he would be a “natural born subject” and applying the same principle to an American “as much a citizen” as the natural born child of citizens.
“yet will never be a natural born citizen, who - via the natural act of being born - had US citizenship.”
Nice try!
An NBC is one whose citizenship flows Naturally from the citizenship of his two parents. Not from the mere act of being born on US soil.
A persons that receives status by being born on and thus tied to the land is normally called a serf. There are no serfs under US Law. And while they may or may not be citizens, they are most certaintly not Natural Born Citizens as yoou suggest, nor are they eligible to become President.
You seem to believe that the “serfs” are eligible to become POTUS..........LOLOLOLOLOL
LOL! LOL! LOL!
A natural born citizen is one who owes natural allegiance to the nation, flowing from natural law.
Our laws recognize this natural law and natural allegiance by granting, under certain conditions, citizenship at birth.
Someone who is born a citizen is, according to my view of the law, a natural born citizen.
Nobody has yet shown any ruling as to the citizenship of anyone born a citizen that indicates that they would not also be a natural born citizen.
Bluster and invent Fulbright scholarships all you want, what I want is to see any ruling that any individual who was born a citizen was not also a natural born citizen.
“How do we know that Obama’s original birth certificate lists BHO Sr. as the father?”
We don’t! I must say that in his book “Dreams of My Father” he claims BO sr as his father.
We don’t! I must say that the certificate of Live Birth he posted on his campaign website shows BO sr as the birth father......
I’d say something about his Original Birth Certificate but he won’t show it, and fights all attempts to have it produced....sigh!
Who am I to believe Barack jr or you?
“Your INTERPRETATION is that 0bama is not a NBC because of his foreign citizen parent, based upon nothing shown. It is the decision of Kim Wong Ark that he, or the child of TWO foreign parents, if born in the USA , would be “as much a citizen” as the natural born child of citizens, and according to the precedent cited a “natural born subject” of these United States.”
There is no difference as to the rights of citizens in the US. All share equally. I never said anything, but that.
Aren’t we talking about eligibilty to become President? I thought we were. A strawman about citizens rights has no place in this discussion.
The Presidency requires a quality of citizenship above the nere title/status of citizen. It requires that you be born on the soil to two citizen parents. The presidency is the only place that a quality of birth is required....
I couldn't agree more. Nobody but YOU said anything about rights. What I am quoting doesn't say “with the same rights as a citizen” or “with the same rights of a citizen” it says “as much a citizen”. In other words it had everything to do with the type of citizenship (the precedent rendering him a natural born subject) and nothing to do with the rights of citizenship.
So why the strawman?
Because you have nothing else?
But a naturalized citizen cannot be said to be “as much a citizen” as a natural born citizen, they are not.
So you are indeed correct, a strawman argument about rights has no place in this discussion, so quit trying to make the argument about that!
“The child of an alien, 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”
Citizenship is not the requirement for being President....being a Natural Born Citizen ie born in country to 2 citizen parents is.
You;re making circular arguements that are falling in on themselves......
As I said they is no doubt what-so-ever that Obama is ineligible to be President..... the only question that I will address from this post onward is “What do we do about it?” Its is the only thing relevant to the discussion.....
“You got a citation for him declaring Indonesian Citizenship in order to receive a Fulbright Scholarship, or is that just rumor elevated to fact?”
Fulbright Scholarships are granted to foriegn students only. You must certify Foreign citizenship to obtain one. Obama recieved a Fulbright Scholarship. To have done so he would have had to make that certification.
Next question!
Saying it doesn't make it so. The SCOTUS passage previously under discussion that you mistakenly thought was from Vatell made clear that the criteria you outline leave NO DOUBT as to the natural born status, but goes on to say that many authorities go farther and grant such status to the children of aliens born in country.
What you claim is, quite simply, not in evidence.
If it were, then birther delusions about the treason of the entire SCOTUS, Congress, the Electoral College, wouldn't be groundless. The only piece of evidence as to the parentage of 0bambam would indeed show him to be ineligible because of a foreign national father.
But what you claim is, quite simply, not in evidence.
But mevermind the evidence! What are we going to do about our conclusions based upon inventions of Fulbright scholarships, travel bans on Pakistan, massive conspiracies, and a rather strange fetish for foreign essays on law rather than US law.
It is quite amusing!
There is absolutely no evidence that 0bama was a Fulbright scholar.
But once again, you seem to think that you saying it is authoritative enough!
Well not for me. Sorry. I once dated a gal from Missouri. ;)
Fact: It is a very SIMPLE and very INEXPENSIVE matter to promtly prove one’s natural born citizenship with the best evidence.
Fact: Convoluted statements by a physician and medical director, and a governor do not constitute “best” evidence.
Fact: Obama ( or his minions) have gone to considerable effort and expense ( private and tax paid) to prevent the release of common documents unanointed Americans **routinely** produce for many reasons.
Fact: Rather that simply proving his natural born citizenship with the best evidence, a decorated military officer will be court martialed rather than produce these documents.
Fact: It is rational for Americans to doubt Obama’s eligibilty.
Incorrect. As I posted earlier Benjamin Franklin obtained 3 copies of the work in the original French not the English Translation. This was because that was the language of diplomats, of which Franklin was.
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
- December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, Benjamin Franklin
footnote from birther.org:"Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.".
Yep, and that is the question at hand. Everything else is just noise or misdirection.
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.