Posted on 09/20/2011 8:28:54 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
The critical issue for the 2012 election is whether or not a government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall perish from the earth.
The US Government has been hijacked by a self-serving, permanent political class, which considers itself above the law and elections as bothersome formalities temporarily interrupting their plundering of the nation’s wealth.
Having become comfortable with ignoring the will of the people, American politicians have created a culture of corruption in Washington, D.C., while they steadily whittle away at the Constitution to remove any remaining obstacles in their pursuit of personal power and affluence.
The rule of law has deteriorated to such an extent that it is now possible for Barack Hussein Obama to present a forged Certificate of Live Birth on national television, to use a stolen Social Security Number and forge his Selective Service registration without a single member of Congress raising an objection.
In 2012, these same politicians will ask voters to ignore Obama’s crimes like they have and endorse their endemic corruption.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
You are a damned liar.
Let the blind follow the blind and they shall both end up in the ditch.
You simply do not know what you are talking about. But just to educate you, I will point out to you what was said under "Minor v Happersett."
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. "
If you will note, the term "natives" uses the Vattel Definition of "natural born citizen." In those days, they were regarded as the same thing. You are trying to conflate the MODERN meaning of the word "native" (anyone born here.) with the meaning of the term over a hundred years ago.
When the Court or Congress spoke of "natives" they meant "born in a country of parents who were its citizens".
Learn what you are talking about!
Well, you just blew out Diogene’s Lamp’s flame with fire extinguisher. Tee Hee!!! But, I bet he comes back with some more Vattel Birther dribble to try to pretend the law stuff doesn’t say what it clearly says. I am waiting for the day when Pigs fly and Vattle Birthers admit they are completely wrong. They will be same day.
Pigs will fly first. By a large margin.
A 19 year old born in Britain to unwed parents - one who is German and who had lived in Britain for 20 years .. could not get a British passport because she wasn’t British and could not get a German passport unless she changed her name.
What year did this happen?????
1900’s?????
No...
2010.
Well, under US law, a 19 year old born in the USA to unwed parents...would be a US citizen, and a natural born citizen, at that. The only possible exception is if her parents were here illegally. The rule involving citizenship both as a NBC and under the 14th assume the parents are here legally.
The English Common Law, as modified by two more centuries of American experience, continues to be the law of each of those states.
You are right, you didn't. That is probably because you are so ignorant you aren't even aware of it. You have a steep learning curve just to get UP to pushing Wong Kim Ark. I overestimated your knowledge and intelligence, but thankfully you have set me straight.
On the other matter, who cares what Matthews has to say on anything? So he thinks Obummer is not born here. He has been baiting Birthers for years. As far as anyone is concerned the BC is legit and that is all that matters. You are arguing that Naturalized parents children are ineligible. Not as far as the Constitution is concerned.
Only so far as an ignorant child's understanding of the constitution is concerned. You are obviously unconcerned with anything requiring complex thought. Simple explanations are best for simple minds. You even miss the point about Chris Matthews. He was the FIRST BIRTHER! He was the one alleging Obama was a FOREIGN BORN Presidential candidate!
He is a hypocrite, and you aren't even fit to engage more knowledgeable folk in discussion.
LOL!!! I would just love to do some kind of test to see how many of the Vattle Birthers REALLY TRULY believe the stuff they say because it is hard for me to think that they are really as dumb as they seem to be. Oh Goodness!!!
Birth certificates contain a brief genealogy.
The birth certificate is a false flag, a red herring. A document floated as a deflection. It’s part of the issue but not the complete issue.
The real issue is the citizenship status and allegiance(s) of the parents.
This is consistently demonstrated by the author and narrative of the 14th Amendment and Founders’ intent.
I just wanted to let you know I don’t bother reading quotes from you. You have been caught so many times ignoring historical information that you have no credibility as far as I’m concerned. I will look at quotes from opposition researchers, and I know of four that support their contention, but I put no stock in anything you post.
“you aren’t even fit to engage more knowledgeable folk in discussion.”
YOU should be a lot nicer to people because I remember just a few weeks ago when YOU were quoting the Plaintiff’s lawyer in a case as the holding of the court. Remember???
No doubt it is a sh*t sandwich and you are trying to make the rest of us share in it. You have been trying to feed it to us since you started.
I’ve never been caught ignoring historical information.
As for you: you claim the US adopted Vattel’s notion of citizenship. Please show some sign the the USA, like Vattel & Switzerland, base citizenship on the parents and not the location.
Oh that is right, you cannot.
You post an excerpt from Minor, but not the entire paragraph, since the paragraph shows your side is wrong.
You are a liar.
Oh...and I post links to the entire decision so anyone can read it in full.
Minor:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
What part of the sentence “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” do you not understand?
*********
I hope that Republican Rubio of Florida runs for President or Vice-President.
Then I hope that Democrats challenge his eligibility in court.
Why do I want Rubio's eligibility challenged in court, especially by Democrats?
It is for this reason: Inevitably Democratic Party candidate President Obama's own eligibility will be brought up in court for the world to see by Rubio's lawyers.
And if President Obama's eligibility is brought up in court, then President Obama issues like (1) his Selective Service form, (2) his original Social Security application, (3) his Kapiolani hospital records, and (4) his original birth certificate may finally be presented to the public for the world to see.
So, again, I hope that Democrats rush to challenge candidate Rubio's eligibility, because they will surely open a Pandora's box as the courts will have no choice but to also examine every inch of Democratic candidate President Obama's own life and eligibility.
There was a very brief time when a law was passed that mentioned the words “natural born citizen”
VERY BRIEF.
But there is a trap when reading laws from the past. Many here have fallen into it.
They read an excerpt from a law and because it doesn’t mention the word marriage they think it applies to unwed situations. Many many times that is not the case.
I don’t know about this particular law. It is possible that the word Parents is defined as those that are married.
I would have to look into it further. You cannot assume ON THE FACE OF THE EXCERPT ..that it applied to unwed situations.
Do the birth certificates show if the parents were citizens? No.
There is NO REQUIREMENT FOR CITIZEN PARENTS to someone born in the USA. That is without any doubt.
Yet according to Vattel, only those born of citizen parents are citizens - as Swiss law still practices.
So why do people claim we follow Vattel on citizenship?
OH, I bet somebody’s bottom is smarting after that smackdown!!! This is where a decent honest person would just give up and say, “You’re right and I’m wrong and I am going to change my opinion.” I bet you he doesn’t, though.
And it says nothing about children at all. As far as I can tell, the Cable Act in no way relates to any eligibility question for Rubio or Obama.
God you are dense! If you do not think the citizenship status of women affects the citizenship status of their children then you are beyond help. Likewise you keep ignoring the fact that I have said it is the unintended consequences of both the Cable act AND the Women's Citizenship act of 1934. In these discussions the two acts are normally discussed as a pair. (They are interrelated.)
The Schism, (and that is what it is) was created by congress GRANTING women the right to pass on citizenship by themselves, and REMOVING the right of men to automatically naturalize their wives.
Here is the Act. READ the d@mn thing and learn something!
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/1934Act.pdf
The Above act CREATED a new condition of SPLIT CITIZENSHIP! One which had never existed before!
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.