Posted on 04/02/2013 9:04:27 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
The Immigration and Naturalization Service:
“Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”
Interpretation 324.2(a)(7):
“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.
The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”
Interpretation 324.2:
“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status IF NATURALIZED, NATIVE, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.”
(Excerpt) Read more at uscis.gov ...
The common law predated Christianity in England. You are just propagating monarchist propaganda. Take your anti-American lies and shove it.
Sorry, but no one who matters recognizes it as such. We've even had a court specifically say that Minor V. Happersett DOES NOT SAY what you claim it says.
By the way, are you the same SatinDoll who just took me to task for the fact that WKA, after discussing natural-born citzienship for literally dozens of pages, and clearly finding - in the CORE DISCUSSION AND RATIONALE FOR THAT CASE - that almost all persons born on US soil were natural born citizens, didn't specifically include "natural born" in the final paragraph where they restated what they court was asked ("is WKA a citizen?") and said that the answer was "yes?"
So now you come back and insist that a throwaway couple of lines in an earlier case, which had nothing at all to do with the case being decided, and which CERTAINLY was not referenced in more than one place and NOWHERE NEAR the conclusion of the case, is supposedly "precedent?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Once again, you illustrate just how far you and the other Constitution-twisters will go to try and force things that don't say what you claim, into your precious bogus theory.
Minor v Happersett was a women’s suffrage case, not a citizenship case. Trying to use it as precedent in Presidential eligibility lawsuits has been shot down in every attempt.
For example: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
Or:
Pupura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
Or:
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
Hey whackjob, quit posting English quotes and saying that it’s French. It’s not French. It’s English. Stop with the idiotic lies.
Really? The common law in England went all the way back to ROMAN times? 1st century AD? 2nd century AD?
My goodness. Who woulda thunk it?
According to tradition, Christianity arrived in Britain in the 1st or 2nd century. The earliest historical evidence of Christianity among the native Britons is found in the writings of such early Christian Fathers as Tertullian and Origen in the first years of the 3rd century, although the first Christian communities probably were established some decades earlier. Three Romano-British bishops, including Restitutus, metropolitan bishop of London, are known to have been present at the Council of Arles in 314. Others attended the Council of Sardica in 347 and that of Ariminum in 360. A number of references to the church in Roman Britain are also found in the writings of 4th century Christian fathers. Britain was the home of Pelagius, who opposed Augustine of Hippo's doctrine of original sin. The first recorded Christian martyr in Britain, St Alban, is thought to have lived in the early 4th century, and his prominence in Anglican hagiography is reflected in the number of parish churches of which he is patron.
Once again, you display that people who are intent on twisting the Constitution don't care about the facts, don't care about the truth, and are perfectly ready to try and demonize those of us who put forth the actual facts and truth.
As I noted, what I presented has been translated BACK from the French.
My goodness. The folks at the hospital called. They want you to come home.
French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):
“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)
By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. He and Franklin had previously co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America ("Constitutions des Treize Etats-Unis de l'Amérique") in Paris, while Franklin was the American ambassador to France. No mention whatsoever of parentage.
I can come up with the original French, if you can read it. Which, judging by your two previous posts, I doubt.
Some relevant blips:
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
“It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”
Three different courts, three different cases, in three different states. All are in agreement, as are all significant legal experts and other authorities from the early history of the United States.
You are amusing.
“Three different courts, three different cases, in three different states.”
The holding of Minor v. Happersett is precedent, maintaining that a child born in the U.S.A. of citizen parents is a Natural born Citizen. It is therefore Federal law.
It does not matter what a bunch of state courts pose. Slavery was upheld by many state courts. In the end we fought a Civil War over the issue.
That is coming soon, too.
No, I don't equate the two.
There are two kinds of citizens: Those born citizens, and those who have been naturalized.
But it is clear from all early authorities that those BORN citizens IN AMERICA were very clearly considered to be natural born citizens.
There WAS one requirement for that law, though. It only extended Virginia citizenship to WHITE persons born in Virginia.
If what you are trying to prove is correct....that all citizens are Natural born citizens, then what would be the purpose of the Article II requirement for natural born citizenship.....simple citizenship would do.
Once again, not all citizens are natural born citizens. However, those who are BORN citizens, are.
The purpose of the Article II requirement is to prevent people who were not born United States citizens, but were instead naturalized into citizenship, from being elected President.
Actual Court Ruling: "Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise."
You want your opinion to count? Become a judge.
Here are a few more:
Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
Voeltz v Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV
Barnett, Keyes, et. al. v Obama, et. al. US District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution... and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03(1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV)...
So once again, reality is exactly as I've presented it.
By the way, the judge in the case, Richard E. Gordon, is a Republican appointee.
Yes, I know. Some Republicans are RINOs. But there's no support for your claims from any conservatives of any real stature.
Wow, thanks for those.
The wording in several of those is very, very clear on the issue of Constitutional Presidential eligibility.
One of the interesting things is how many different states and courts those statements are from.
None or this is my opinion.
If Minor v. Happersett wasn’t law, there would have been no reason for Tim Stanley, CEO of Justia.com and a rabid supporter of BHO2, to surgically remove “Minor v. Happersett” from 25 Supreme Court opinions in run up to the 2008 election.
You, like Jeff, work for the Democratic Party?
The only case that matters was already decided in 1874-1875.
Read my tagline for a clue.
“The purpose of the Article II requirement is to prevent people who were not born United States citizens, but were instead naturalized into citizenship, from being elected President.”
If that were the case then a simple “born citizen” would have done the job in the writing of Article II. Your logic again fails to impress along with your off topic citations.......Look up the word nomenclature as used in Minor.....
Satin Doll was correct......but then you are a well known troll on FR. Sooner or later you’ll ride the lightening bolt, just like others of your kind before you....for now you’re just a minor (tolerable) disrupter.....someday the kitties will come sniffing around.....
None will morn your ashes.
See ya in advance.....
All that proves is how deep and pervasive the corruption by the Democratic Party has spread throughout the nation.
Whether you think Justia removed Minor v. Happersett from its web site in 2008 or not (I don’t), that case gives no real support at all for the idea that it REQUIRES two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citzien.
It simply stated that in the instance where a person was born on US soil and had citizen parents, there was NO DOUBT, as of the time of that case (1875) that the person was a natural born citizen.
And it did that in a total throwaway line that was completely unrelated to the case at hand.
SO even if they said anything meaningful (which they didn’t), it could not POSSIBLY have been precedent, because the comment was unsupported by any authority whatsoever and was completely unrelated to the case at hand.
That’s why courts all over the country have refused to recognize it as any kind of important precedent regarding the natural born citizenship of children born on US soil to non-citizen parents.
BECAUSE IT ISN’T.
Not in the slightest.
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.