Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If Obama has no Natural Born Citizenship problem why did Congress try to fix it?
coachisright.com ^ | Feb. 5, 2012 | Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer

Posted on 02/05/2012 9:33:38 AM PST by jmaroneps37

Congress made eight different attempts to alter our U.S. Constitution concerning the Natural Born Citizenship Clause according to research by Carl Gallups proving they knew Barack Obama lacked presidential eligibility prior to the 2008 election!

If there was no problem for Obama why would these people do this? There had never been a question of Natural Born Citizenship in our lifetimes! Why fix what wasn’t broken?

The youtube ……..reveal a secret, closed door meeting was held with eight Supreme Court Justices just prior to the January 2009 Inauguration sent our other courts an unspoken message to don’t go there. Plaintiff attorneys with cases were pending at the time were not allowed into this meeting! Only Justice Samuel Allito declined…….

“Gallups video, are the eight different attempts to amend our Constitution…. Obama’s eligibility questions: 1 On June 11, 2003: House Joint Resolution # 59, introduced by Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR), failed to obtain a vote; it sought to allow non-natural born U.S. citizens, “but who have been citizens of the U.S. for at least 35 years,” to serve as President or Vice President.

8. On Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-MO) attempted to add language onto SB 2678, Children of the Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, to again weaken the NBC clause.

Co-sponsors of the failed legislation were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama!. By the way, was not the John McCain eligibility hearing really a head fake to draw attention away from the Democrats’ elephant in the room?

“This is (a) 100 times worse situation (than Watergate); this is a crime against the Constitution and all the people of the U.S. Obama is not who he says he is, ” says Charles Kerckner whose eligibility lawsuit was turned down by our Supreme Court.

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: congress; eligibility; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; nbc; obamasbirth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-199 next last
To: Kansas58

I see you are still espousing commie filth...your entire post is commie excrement. Congress cannot interpret the Constitution, to make legislative changes to the Constitution, as you suggest. The USSC interprets the Constitution. Failed civics class, did ya?

Congress can make amendments to the Constitution. It takes a two thirds majority, and then it must be voted upon, and adopted by the states.

The NBC clause was placed in our Constitution to prevent anyone, with any remote possibility of divided allegiance, from becoming POTUS. “Natural Born Citizen” only appears in this one clause, which sets the Constitutional standard to be eligible to serve as Pres, and Vice Pres. Otherwise, the term citizen would have sufficed.

A natural born citizen has two parents, who are both citizens, at the time of birth. Some, like yourself, have sought to pervert the meaning of NBC. Seeking to make anyone born on our soil, even of illegal immigrants, a citizen eligible to become POTUS.

In his letter to Washington, John Jay wrote:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Now come the commies and the socialists, who seek to redefine the intent of this clause, and the meaning of NBC, to make even an anchor baby eligible to become POTUS.

I will agree, a serious violation of the NBC clause has already occured. Since Obama illegally occupies our Whitehouse. A man of divided loyalties. Obama wholly represents what our founders, with the NBC clause, sought to prevent.

It is a grievous violation that most courts won’t even bother to hear it. And when one does, like the recent Georgia case, the court finds for the defendant, Obama. Even when Obama and his lawyer, under court order, refuse to appear, failing to offer any evidence to rebut the testimony of the plaintiffs, the court finds for the defendant, Obama.

Who gives these judges their marching orders? Under what threats are they failing to honor their lawful duty?


61 posted on 02/05/2012 11:49:26 AM PST by takenoprisoner (Constitutional Conservatism is Americanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: basil

That program by Sean Hannity was broadcast in 2009, if memory serves, and was repeated several times. It is not nearly as earth-shaking as the promo pumps it up to be.

And as you can see simply by what happened in that courtroom in Atlanta on Friday; the effect it has had on the law and order climate in our Country is somewhat less than a fart in a hurricane!

Also, that notice has been FALSELY making the rounds again for weeks now. I think Fox is done airing that one.


62 posted on 02/05/2012 11:54:24 AM PST by Tucker39
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; Windflier

Windflier is correct.

You, madam/sir are an idiot.

You have no knowledge about what you are yammering.

I am a U.S. citizen born outside the U.S. and still live outside the U.S. I have been through all those different rules of citizenship throughout my life. You have not.

Do your homework and learn something.

This is one of many reasons I don’t want to live in the U.S. because of misinformed idiots like you...which are many...you are not alone.


63 posted on 02/05/2012 12:03:23 PM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

Was Hussein and the rest of Congress just joking when they signed their names to SR 511 stating they agreed to the TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS meaning?


64 posted on 02/05/2012 12:05:36 PM PST by bgill (The Obama administration is staging a coup. Wake up, America, before it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

P.S.

“I am a supporter of Jay Sekulow, and have worked with his legal team and with Free Speech Advocates, in the past.”

I wouldn’t hire your dumb friends on a bet either.


65 posted on 02/05/2012 12:12:40 PM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
In 2003 Obama for president was no more than a twinkling in Valerie Jarrett's eye or a twitch in David Axelrod's moustache. Barack Obama was just a small-time state senator with a high total of dodged votes.

Or did the Democrats really foresee that he'd become a presidential candidate with all the amazing foresight that his grandparents showed when they got his birth certificate faked? Did they foresee everything from Senator Fitzgerald's retirement to Blair Hull's restraining order, to other candidates dropping out, to Jeri Ryan's divorce papers going public, to Alan Keyes disastrous candidacy, to Hillary's fizzling, to the stock market collapse? Some of these things may have been orchestrated, but no one could have predicted that they'd all come together as they did to put Obama in the White House.

In 2008 there was more yammering about McCain's eligibility than Obama's, so efforts to change or clarify citizenship questions would have been bipartisan. But why would an Arkansas congressman, presumably a Clintonite want to open the way to Hillary's potential challengers, whether Obama or McCain?

Also, I'd want to see the text of these resolutions. How many of them were proposed constitutional amendments, and how many were simple drafts for laws? How many of them even mentioned the "natural born citizen" provision? How many understood that in the way that birthers do and how many understood it differently?

66 posted on 02/05/2012 12:14:06 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: charlie72

McCaskill was also on the SR 511 committee, with Obama and Clinton, which “vetted” McCain and agreed to the TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS.


67 posted on 02/05/2012 12:21:04 PM PST by bgill (The Obama administration is staging a coup. Wake up, America, before it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

The United States Constitution is quite clear about who is eligible to be President of the United States and who is not.

Section 1 of the United States Constitution, clearly states;

QUOTE 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 President; UNQUOTE

In Minor v. Happersett, the undisputed federal court case clearly states;

QUOTE ...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. UNQUOTE

Barack Obama Jr. claimed the birthplace of his father and repeated the birthplace claim in his book; Dreams From My Father;

QUOTE FROM Wikipedia: Barack Obama Sr. was born in Rachuonyo District on the shores of Lake Victoria just outside Kendu Bay, Kenya Colony, at the time a colony of the British Empire. UNQUOTE from Wikipedia.

Barack Obama Sr. never became a US citizen.

That would mean that Barack Obama Jr. is NOT a natural born Citizen of the US and therefore Barack Obama Jr. does not meet a key US Constitutional requirement to be President of the US.

Any discussions about Barack Obama Jr.'s poltical leanings or where he was born is moot and a distraction of this point.

Based solely on the point and the point alone that Barack Obama Jr. is NOT a natural born Citizen he is therefore NOT eligible to be President of the United States according to the requirements of the United States Constitution. All United States Citizens must confront this affront to the United States Constitution.

68 posted on 02/05/2012 12:25:28 PM PST by pyx (Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Kansas58 said:

Yes, in the case of McCain, he is a Natural Born Citizen as he was born out of the country to two Citizen parents.

Yet, those who agree with this statement appear to misunderstand the answer to the question "Why?" If one did, one would know the very reason why the president can not have divided allegiance as it would be a military threat to the nation's sovereignty and its people.

The president commands our military, a fact this ignorant nation keeps forgetting. Are we saying we want someone owing allegiance to another nation to have control over our armed forces?? Do we want our enemies to have an inside track to controlling this force? That would never happen in in this nation, correct? After all, presidents are saints and they never ever break the laws of the Constitution.

69 posted on 02/05/2012 12:27:40 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; devattel

Wrong again as usual, Kansas58.

“Yes, in the case of McCain, he is a Natural Born Citizen as he was born out of the country to two Citizen parents.”

Panama Juan was born in Colon, Rep of Panama. He needed to have been born within the jurisdiction of the United States and not in a foreign country although both parents were U.S. citizens.

You are really misinformed.


70 posted on 02/05/2012 12:44:25 PM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Here you go, for the 540,205,101st time on this topic:

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 President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

They excepted Citizens of the United States at the time of adoption of the Constitution because otherwise there would have been no one to be president.
We had just finished winning our independence from a country called England—The War for Independence/The Damned Rebellion—and many of the new Americans were either former British subjects or born in England.

For example, Alexander Hamilton was born in Barbados. It is unclear where Obama was born, or what his real name is, and his likely father was a British citizen.

In 1860 we fought another war—the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression—and it was fought blah blah blah.

Why do we have to keep re-teaching American history and Con law? Try to keep up!


71 posted on 02/05/2012 12:46:15 PM PST by tumblindice (No Romney, no way, no how)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Do you seriously contend that allowing the courts to interpret the Constitution as they see fit is better than giving such power to Congress?

Giving anyone the final authority on what words mean in the law is extremely dangerous. The courts rightfully have the power to interpret the law, but not to make or change it. That power is reserved to Congress, the States and the people.

The flaw in our system is that we have no effective mechanism to prevent the courts from stepping over the line from resolving ambiguities to actually making or changing law.

But giving Congress the power to make words mean whatever they want (at least as far as the law is concerned) is not the answer.

72 posted on 02/05/2012 12:50:12 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

Nobody is asking the true question. Why would anyone in this nation want a dual citizen to have chief control over our armed forces?

It defies logic. It defies the Law of Nations. It defies everything our soldiers have fought for. I simply do not understand why the Pentagon has not refused to take orders from this dual citizen and demanded an impeachment. What next, Iranian halflings in the White House? Russian halflings? Cubans? Chinese? Pakistani halflings?

It boggles the mind.


73 posted on 02/05/2012 1:05:54 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: devattel
Nobody is asking the true question. Why would anyone in this nation want a dual citizen to have chief control over our armed forces?

It's been asked here many a time. Unfortunately, the question/answer sails over the heads of those who do not wish to hear or think.

I enjoy your posts, BTW ;)

74 posted on 02/05/2012 1:11:07 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Thank you Las Vegas Ron.

I enjoy all of our discussion. It allows us to flush out the details and get down to “brass tacks”.

There is a big difference between morality and ethics. Our Constitution is based on ethics, yet many dissenting opinions cling to morality. The two used to be separate. Now they are the same. How unfortunate for this nation that we have blurred the lines between what is, and what ought to be.


75 posted on 02/05/2012 1:21:52 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth. It has always meant Citizen at Birth.

Utter nonsense.

The Framers wanted the office of president restricted to those with the purest form of citizenship that exists, i.e., those born on US soil, to two US citizen parents.

Call it what you want, but that IS the surest bar against usurpation by someone with divided national loyalties, and the Framers knew it. It doesn't take more than a layman's familiarity with the history of that era to understand why they applied this simple requirement to ONLY that one office in the Constitution.

Your case is very weak. Your attitude, and the nasty attitude of many other Birthers, is why most Conservatives ignore you folks -— it seems a waste of time to point out the flaws in your strategy and argument.

Look in the mirror, friend. It's you who are being nasty in this continuing conversation. I've seen many of your comments to others about this topic, and you are uniformly dismissive and arrogant in your replies.

And my case isn't 'weak', either. It's grounded in the conditions and historical events which formed and birthed this nation. You, on the other hand, seem to be advocating for the right of Congress and the courts to overrule the US Constitution, or to redefine it to mean whatever they want.

That is simply enabling tyranny, and opens the door to revoking the hard-won freedoms that millions have died for. You're not going to find a lot of takers for your viewpoint among a community of staunch believers in the rightness of American values, history, and our beloved Constitution.

76 posted on 02/05/2012 1:28:24 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

It is apparent people are using modern morality instead of timeless ethics.

Here is another salient question with regards to Article II. If citizenship at birth was sufficient to the Natural Born requirement, why did the framers include the residency requirement? Why even require someone to be born here, yet require residency?

Common sense has been greatly diminished in this once great Republic.


77 posted on 02/05/2012 1:34:37 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: devattel
There is a big difference between morality and ethics. Our Constitution is based on ethics, yet many dissenting opinions cling to morality.

That would be a 1,000+ posts thread in it's self.

One could {rightly argue, imo} that the Constitution is based on morality, and it defines ethics...lol....no, I don't want to argue it...right now anyway.

78 posted on 02/05/2012 1:40:25 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

79 posted on 02/05/2012 1:44:10 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: devattel
BTW, what is your take on this. It comes from a copy of a 1770 Britannica Encyclopedia:

Just asking what you might have to say on it....

80 posted on 02/05/2012 1:45:43 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-199 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson