Posted on 01/30/2011 2:30:08 PM PST by The Comedian
Also I do have some views that are, for lack of a better word, left leaning. However, I find myself agreeing with the right more often than I agree with the left.
I did not vote for Obama, I voted for McCain. I also consider myself a searcher of truth no matter whether I like the answers or not.
If you wish to resort to ad hominum attacks that is your right. I wish to learn, and thanks to other post on this thread now have more research to do which may change my opinion on the NBC controversy.
Yeah.
And Orly Taitz is a serious figure, right?
This is an “eligibility” issue.
It is not a “citizenship” issue.
Do some homework:
http://theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
As does 100% of Congress.
I hold that 100% of Congress is wrong on this point, but make mention so that Congress, which endorsed the vote of the electoral college with not so much as a "wait-a-minute", be held accountable too.
-- We need a court to tell us who is right and who is wrong. --
I wouldn't trust a Court on this matter. A better approach (not one that will work) is to educate the public, and convince them that blood loyalty to the US is worth standing up for.
Many of the evaluators of Taitz aren't as educated and trained as you are. They elevate substance over form.
Then they still have nothing.
I choose my friends, I don't accept them by default. Taitz' zeal may have been acceptable at one time, but she exposed herself as a liar. Taitz has been no friend to birthers ... she has been so much the opposite, I wouldn't be surprised if she was actually in Obama's camp somewhere.
Your excerpt says “citizen” not “natural born citizen”. There is a huge difference. See if you can figure out what that difference is. Check Vattel, the commonly used reference of the founders.
I did not make it. I was given 2-3 troll lists by different people since I joined FR. I did not make the list and the lists were around long before I even knew FR existed. :)
I didn’t make the lists. They were given to me by 2-3 people but they existed long before I joined FR.
Ad hominen by quoting from your profile page?
And the fact that you’ve had almost no presence on FR in more than 6 years?
If you really want to learn, that’s great. Start with Beckwith’s link.
I thought you meant the list of troll names. Yep, I think the list of links and past posts pretty much tells us all we need to know about miss jamey, the Obongo loving, defending, concern troll.
The 14th Amendment says who may be a "citizen." It say's nothing about who may be a "natural born citizen."
In fact, the father of the 14th Amendment clearly knew the difference:
| John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by reiterating Vattel's definition...not once, but TWICE during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment! "All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))" |
No Congressman offered up an opposing view of who a "natural born citizen" was. They all knew exactly what it meant. Born in the territory of the U.S. to citizen parentS (i.e. that don't owe allegiance to a foreign country).
Barry, as you know, was born to a foreign father. Barry inherited his foreign fathers' foreign citizenship...by birthright. The state department discusses the issues/problems with dual nationals.
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
"...Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there."
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
The framers would never have considered someone with multiple allegiances owed from birth, to be a natural born citizen.
Thanks for the ping. Where can I see this list of troll names? I might have one or two to add, depending on how complete it is.
Amen! Your Post is Absolutely Excellent! We are now finding out empirically what the Framers knew so long ago! We have a foreign born Liar who has hidden his entire past and has hidden his true Muslim Radical Beliefs as he demonstrates his true allegiances to the Islamic Republic and it’s 57 Caliphates with Egypt’s overthrow certain to make it the 58th Caliphate!....:-(
He wasn't and he isn't.
This issue has been beat to death over three years.
I'm still confused about Senate Resolution 511 - A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Was there something wrong with SR-511? If it used the argument of both parents being citizens to confirm him, wouldn't that precedent be useful in getting rid of Zero?
He wasn't and he isn't.
This issue has been beat to death over three years.
I'm still confused about Senate Resolution 511 - A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Was there something wrong with SR-511? If it used the argument of both parents being citizens to confirm him, wouldn't that precedent be useful in getting rid of Zero?
------------------------------------------------
Yes, there was something wrong with SR-511. It went only "part" way. It didn't deal with the born in the sovereign territory part. It "only" (but correctly in part) dealt with the two citizen parent portion.
It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790, when they (SR-511) said this: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
The Naturalization Act of 1790 ((An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization)), in relevant part, reads: And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States
The 1790 Act was later repealed by the Act of 1795. Congress, through it's powers of naturalization, does not have the authority (outside being a part of an Amendment process) by themselves to declare who may or may not be a natural born citizen. It's partly why SR-511 is non-binding.
The Act of 1790 attempted to extend NBC status to children born to citizen parentS who were born outside the U.S. (so long as the father was at some time, a resident of the U.S.) The same thing SR-511 attempted to do.
NBC has always been about being born to 2 citizen parents IN the territory of the U.S.
Note: In the 1700's, a father who was temporarily visiting the U.S. on a student visa (if there were such a thing), would NOT have been considered a resident. They would have considered him a sojourner, as he had zero interest or intention in permanently residing in the country.
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.