Good work. Time to straighten this out with our braindead judges and Congress.
Wasn’t that blood’n’honour thing what the nazi did ? So everyone without a apache or navajo grand grand grand pa should leave the country ?
I have even come to appreciate those who have cited the case law that is contrary to the original intent and meaning as they show what needs correction.
So much to be repaired when this work is finished: Roe vs Wade, Kelo vs New London, etc....
Anyone who thinks that the mere fact of being born in the United States is automatically an NBC is OKAY with the “Tourist Babies” being born here by foreigners. So they don’t have any problem with those children being raised in other countries coming back here and running for President.
There's the problem. All roads go back to that supposed moment Ayers wrote about when little Barry was snooping in his typical white granny's closet. The usurper doesn't have a race, he doesn't have a father, he doesn't have a mother, he doesn't have a culture and he doesn't have a country to call his own.
I am so glad this is being brought. Hillary and several others sponsored this bill in the Senate to cover for Obama.
Remember they work for the same people and I will bet Obamacare is really Hillarycare with a few tweaks. Look carefully at the Indonesian connections they have. Riadi was kicked out of the country; but Hillary has secretly brought him in.
How people could vote for her; I don’t know.
I remember in researching my great-great-grandfather when he became a citizen he had to disavow allegiance to the Czar of Russia, and also to Napoleon who had overrun most of central Europe. National boundaries were somewhat ill defined in the early 19th century.
“PING” My research is complete. I leave you with what Harvard says the law was at the time of Obama’s birth.
bkmrk
Nice read... but I wonder if the GOP establishment will ever start caring about Obama’s eligibility.
sfl
This is an excellent article.
This is an excellent article.
I have a little nit to pick. You suddenly refer to the “WKA decision” with no prior reference. If you article is to reach a wider audience ( and hopefully gain traction) it might be useful to give a brief explanation of the Wong Kim Ark decision and the relevance to immigration law in general. Otherwise an enlightening and thought provoking article.
When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions and the citizen’s qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship.
After United States v. Wong Kim Ark, there was no question that the native-born are natural-born citizens. The issue is "equating natural born with native born". Equating the two would mean that *only* native-born citizens are natural-born citizens, and to that author of the quote objects.
Linda, Did you review this decision? 916 N.E.2d 678
Steve ANKENY and Bill Kruse, Appellants-Plaintiffs,
v.
GOVERNOR OF the STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent.
No. 49A02-0904-CV-353.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
November 12, 2009.
It rejects the NBC argument providing numerous sources. Does seem that it ignored many of the cases you cited. Only case I’ve seen that got into NBC as most stop at the issue of no standing.
ping