Posted on 05/01/2011 7:36:43 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
Did Barack Obama just stop his own possible bloodless coup d’etat in its tracks when he released his long form birth certificate? He now clearly reveals his father was a subject of the British Royal Crown rendering him, Barack Obama II, ineligible to assume the U.S. Presidency!
“Obama Sr. was a member of the Luo tribe from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, which at the time was still a British colony,” writes Aaron Klein with researcher Brenda J. Elliott, for World Net Daily. Our U.S. Constitution states: Article. II. Section. 1. “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President. . .”
”The Manchurian President” authors cite the theory of Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel who was read by our Founding Fathers. “De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who were citizens. . .In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The fact that Barack Obama does not meet the natural born requirement was a key argument in the Kerchner v. Obama….
Now, Jerome Corsi, …..revealing an inconvenient truth posed by the birth of the Nordyke twin girls. He says, “As WND reported, the long-form birth certificates issued by Kapi’olani to the Nordyke twins have certificate numbers lower than the number given Obama, even though the president purportedly was born at the same hospital a day earlier than the Nordykes…
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
You asked why the phrase was in the amendment. You won't see the reasoning in the document itself, because the Constitution does not have footnotes.
Scenario: Hospitals deliver batches of birth certificates to the Bureau of Vital Statistics, or whatever they call it. Batches get tossed in the in-boxes of one registrar or the other in the office. Registrars process the forms in the order they pull them out of the in-box. Mr. Lee was one of the registrars in the office, and would have signed papers from all over the state/island/county.
I have no idea if that's how it was done or not, but it's as plausible as any of the other WAGs being thrown around.
That’s for simple citizenship, not for natural-born citizenship. Nice try, though.
This has been my feeling on the numbering issue too. Sequential or not doesn't matter because pre-numbered documents in this sort of process are used to prevent duplication, not ensure that the forms are used in sequence. If birthers produced a BC with the same number as Obama's, THEN we'd have something.
Out-of-order pre-numbered forms just indicate that there were probably more than one typewriter used at the hospital. Forms numbered at the time of use doesn't really make sense at all, except for selling more Corsi books.
This WAG guess is supported by Government requirements and ties back to the Birth announcements published in the newspapers.
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/04/out-of-order-obamas-non-sequential.html
The 0bama narrative is not supported by the paper evidence, to date.
If we had of all medical records, receipts, Hospital logs etc., we would not need to make a WAG
So you assume that, nothing else. It does not say what you assert.
The two classes of people physically present in the United States and not subject to its jurisdiction were diplomats (a term I use broadly to include any consular officials covered today by the Vienna Convention) and Indians. If you know of other classes of people that describes, feel free to elaborate.
The two classes of people physically present in the United States and not subject to its jurisdiction were diplomats (a term I use broadly to include any consular officials covered today by the Vienna Convention) and Indians. If you know of other classes of people that describes, feel free to elaborate.
That’s the way it reads to me too, dear xzins!
Well, then, obviously it means nothing. Furthermore, the “freedom of the press” clause of the 1st Amendment doesn’t mean anything because it doesn’t enumerate all the newspapers published in the US, and all the clauses referring to “the several states” don’t mean anything because they don’t list them by name.
The point being, who says illegals are “under the jurisdiction”?
A government is assumed to have jurisdiction over its territory and the people in it -- that is what makes it a government. Diplomats and Indians were exempted from that jurisdiction by specific laws and treaties. There is no such law exempting illegal aliens from US jurisdiction.
If you're trying to rgue that illegals aren't subject to US jurisdiction, that would lead to a hell of a lot of prison doors being thrown open.
Someone pinch me...but isn't the Constitution itself drawing a distinction between "natural born" and "citizen"?
It seems so to me, dear xzins. In this passage, "natural born citizen" refers to persons born of American parents whose families had long resided here, and "citizen" to immigrants from other nations who became naturalized citizens "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." That was a one-time event, pertaining to a single class of (foreign-born) persons then living in the country. Members of that single class were eligible to the Office of POTUS. However, in generations subsequent to the adoption of the Constitution, such a naturalized citizen was not eligible to hold the Office of POTUS (he did not "naturalize" at the time the Constitution was adopted). Only a person of genuine American descent, only an American by actual heritage, could do so — that is, only a "natural born" American citizen.
Unfortunately, English usage up to and around the time of the Founding Period was "comma happy." (One has only to read anything written by David Hume or John Locke to appreciate what I mean.) Had the above quote read in the following way, perhaps it would be easier for modern-day Americans to understand its logic as the Framers intended:
Article. II. Section. 1. “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President.Note all I had to do was delete a single comma to improve clarity for the modern-day reader.
I'm pretty sure folks can be found to quibble about the significance of that deleted comma. We call them "constitutional lawyers." They emanate from such places as Harvard and Yale....
Just my two-cents worth, FWIW.
Nonsense. Treat them as what they are, illegal foreign invaders. Let guard troops detain them. Make it harsh so they stop coming. Do you think an Indian who brakes a state law would not be arrested and detained? Is he suddenly subject to US jurisdiction? How does that work if he is not subject to US jurisdiction?
Excellent catch and clarity. Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ!
If someone is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, they are not subject to the criminal justice system. That is what jurisdiction means. The most the government can to is expel them.
Treating illegal aliens as enemy invaders would require treating the situation as a de facto state of war, a military matter instead of a criminal justice one. In shorter words, martial law. It would also require that detained illegals be treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, to be returned to their homes when hostilities end.
American Indians are US citizens, and are treated like anyone else. That was not the case in 1867 when the 14th amendment was adopted. While on Indian lands, they were subject to the appropriate laws of the tribe that had jurisdiction. Outside of Indian lands, they were like any other foreiign nationals. Of course, the sovereignty of those Indian nations and the treaties with them were routinely ignored.
Of course that is what my hypothetical was directed at, but you sort of whistled right past the question.
Because illegals might be arrested makes them subject to the jurisdiction? I am subject to the jurisdiction. I pay taxes, can be summoned for jury or military duty, I can vote.
Treating illegal aliens as enemy invaders would require treating the situation as a de facto state of war, a military matter instead of a criminal justice one.
That is how it should be treated. Instead we give them free healthcare and education. And for that we need to gain a few extra IQ points so we can call ourselves stupid.
Mao could be president, in fact he already is by proxie.
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.