No worries though...one can always call upon the Obama forgers to create a fake ammunition eligibility cert.
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 ...
If you recall in 2008 on Obama’s own campaign website Fight The Smears,it stated:
‘The truth is,Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961,a native citizen of the United States of America.’
In the above snippet of post #1; Cold case posse supporter is quoting 0’s WEBSITE.
he newspaper ads were clearly shown to be another fabrication.
As your idol Hillary said “What difference does it make?”
It is important to keep pressing on issues that we know are wrong, whether anything ever comes of it. Your notion is to let it pass, since we can’t win it anyway. Disgusting.
Finally I understand! Its just like Global Warming is causing the current Global Cooling! I get it.
lol.
Those granted citizenship at birth under the Constitution are natural-born citizens. Those granted citizenship at birth by federal statute are statutory citizens. Both are citizens and not naturalized. (Of course one could argue that a federal statute granting citizenship is inherently an act of naturalization, but I digress.) As stated in the Foreign Affairs manual, statutory citizens may or may not be natural-born citizens under the Constitution and therefore eligible to the presidency. There is no judicial ruling on the matter.
Mr. Rogers quoted: “”We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
I don’t think this text is definitively defining natural born = native born. I think there is room in that sentence to presume that native born is a superset of the natural born. Certainly the text implies that naturalized persons cannot be president (natural born). But I don’t think it imposes the constraint that ALL native born citizens are natural born.
But there arises an interesting question. Is there a difference between native born person and a native born citizen. In other words, just because a baby is born on US soil does not necessarily make them US Citizens. Perhaps there is a certian presumption in calling someone a native-born citizen that assumes at least one of their parents are US citizens?
No worries though...one can always call upon the Obama forgers to create a fake ammunition eligibility cert.
Or to send out the incompetent, lunatic, attention-whore to destroy the credibility of challengers.
It is a copy of a comment left at the ABC story page.
The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ can not possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’? There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated - “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”. That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!”. Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law? There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship. 1) born in or out of a country. 2) Both parents are citizens. 3) One parent is a citizen. 4) Neither parent is a citizen. The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both side want to ignore this FACT. Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do the decide to ignore next?I am not responsible for the formatting.
They were citizens of France. We can argue about what that meant, but the fact is that they were legally citizens of France, while serving as United States Presidents.
As far as arguing about specifically what their particular citizenship meant, I doubt we would find terribly much in the way of information and precedent.
In fact, I think there is an excellent case to be made that someone who was made a citizen of a foreign country by an act of that nation's legislature AS AN ADULT had quite a bit more "allegiance" to that foreign country than someone who was assigned citizenship at birth as a baby, without ever having lived in the country or had any relationship with the people of that nation at all.
In any event, the Constitution does NOT say that dual citizens are disqualified from serving as President.
If the Constitution says what you claim it says, then North Korea could simply pass a law stating that all American citizens are North Korean citizens as well. Then nobody would be able to be elected President.
You state that I'm a "liar," yet you can't pinpoint a single "lie" I've ever told.
You state that my posts are "idiotic," yet it's YOUR theory that produces absurd results.
Not to mention its being completely against the entirety of our history and law.
Oh. And you call me a "troll," and yet it's YOUR theory that divides conservatives, that results in one group of conservatives calling those of us who accurately represent history and law all sorts of ugly names, and that gives conservatives a bad name among the public at large.
Everything I've said is consistent. Virtually all of history and law (I'd say probably around 99%) is entirely consistent as well.
There are people who argue that the 1% controls the 99%. It simply isn't true.
Although Administrative Due Process has something to do with the Constitution, there also these cracks in the practice of administering laws that somebody has to fill with something ~ which tells you something very important here ~ that INS pulls it out of the old ying/yang on important matters more times than most people can imagine.
Give you a better example ~ Congress passes a law that says A, B, & C, when they occur, must be so and so. The President signs the law. The reg writers in the affected agency write "IF A, do so and so, whereas if B, do so and so, and if C ~ either with A or B, or exclusive there of, do so and so, but in all other cases do something else.'
I"ve had to write hundreds of rules to do exactly that ~ "something else" that wasn't imagined in the original regulatory formulation (From the Postal Rate Commission) or the statutes debated and passed by Congress.
That 'something else' shows up in the absence of the practical reality that D happens as does E and F and G, and even when A, B, and C rarely happen.
The rule gets signed off on, published in the federal register, and now it's law ~ DO D E F G ~ never contemplated, become the gold standard for all decisions in that area.
INS Has done the same with the citizenship clause ~ it was written to turn American slaves into citizens but it's being used for 'something else' ~ and without legislation! This just came into being! There's no emabling legislation. The law cases that seem to impinge on it relate to people who were born here to lawful immigrants!
The opinions of all of the early legal experts in the United States of America, of people who knew the Founders and Framers personally, and of some of those Founders and Framers themselves are "not relevant?"
Again, that really IS what you're arguing.
Technically, a "statutory" citizen is a "naturalized" citizen since Congress (who created the statute) only has the power of naturalization via the Constitution.
7 FAM 1131.1-1 Federal Statutes (a pdf)(CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010) a. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is governed by Federal statutes. Only insofar as Congress has provided in such statutes, does the United States follow the traditionally Roman law principle of ―jus sanguinis‖ under which citizenship is acquired by descent (see 7 FAM 1111 a(2)).
Of course, those statute(s) (naturalization laws) can change with any Congress in session.
As I said you really really don’t.
No my notion is to stop looking stupid, stop beating a dead horse and concentrate on getting a republican into the WH come 2016. The BC issue is a dead one, this should have been an issue in 2007, there isn’t a judge on the planet that will do anything about it, not now, not 20 years from now, not 50 years from now.
The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’.
If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’.
So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’? There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine."
Indeed. Simple logic dictates this.
And, speaking of natural law: Our Declaring Independence, and the founding document itself is based upon natural law principles.
Do you like people insisting that the Constitution says things it doesn’t say?
For example: Do you think it would be a good thing for people here to make reams and reams of posts claiming that women are Constitutionally ineligible to be elected President?
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.