Is that all you have? False accusations?
Apparently so. Because your claims regarding the Constitution and the law certainly haven’t panned out, have they?
But you needn’t even bother. I’m used to the false accusations by now.
You know, when I started out thinking about this whole thing, and posting about it, I actually thought the main reaction to someone doing some genuine, level-headed research to find out what the Founding Fathers really said, and to find out what the law actually was, and then honestly reporting that, would be thanks.
You see, I was under the idea that others were like I was. Conservative... which meant, honoring the Constitution. Respecting the Founding Fathers. Regarding the document they wrote as sacred in our national history, and not rewritable at my whim or anybody else’s.
So I don’t think it even occurred to me that others who claimed to be conservatives would want to misrepresent our Constitution, misrepresent our laws, twist our history, and then viciously attack anyone who didn’t particularly like them doing that to our Constitution, our laws, and our history.
Boy, was THAT ever a misguided notion.
I am far less naive now.
You really hand me a laugh.
The holding of the United State Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.Get that? A permanent domicil and residence
Since Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the United States, was always in the country on a temporary basis, and his "Application to Extend Time of Temporary Stay" is public, WKA does not apply to BHO II.
WKA does not apply to BHO II
In Post 422 you say:
I actually think that IF both of Obama's parents had been in that situation, here on temporary student visas, then there would be at least some argument in favor of that.Not a chance? He's not covered by WKA or statute, I'd say that's a good chance.But with one of his parents an American citizen? Not a chance.
In 434 you continue your now obvious quest of legitimizing Obama, saying:
Since his mother was an American citizen, whether his father was permanently resident or not simply doesn't matter.I point out to you in 440 that your claim is not supported by law and then show you the law governing citizenship:
8 USC § 1401The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
None of those situations apply.
In post 442 you say, "He has a citizen mother. Even if WKA doesn't cover children of temporary residents (and it's debatable whether it does or not), he's covered."
There's nothing to debate. WKA covering temporary residents is not the law. It would be de novo. Your claim "he's covered" is wishful thinking.
What makes this so hilarious is your incessant accusations toward others when your accusations apply to you!
Here's a few:
"people who behave like real conservatives don't try to "change" the law by misrepresenting it" (442)The actual facts and truth have been placed before you and what is your reaction? Bluster and ad hominem comments:I don't know about your politics, but your BEHAVIOR is not that of a conservative. Because conservatives CONSERVE the Constitution that our Founders gave us. They don't misrepresent it and attempt to rewrite it according to whatever they want it to say. (you to me @ 353. I ignored your ad hominem comments.)
That's not a conservative approach. A conservative approach respects the Constitution and accurately understands what it means. (274. You wear this one out by the way)
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. (245)
But what you and I prefer doesn't change what US law is. And people who behave like real conservatives don't try to "change" the law by misrepresenting it or rewriting it based on the whim of the day. That's a tactic of some liberals who like to say we have a "living" Constitution. (you to me @ 442)What is truly laughable is that now you claim I "viciously attack" you.
Jeff it is you who is doesn't care about the facts, doesn't care about the truth, and routinely and demonize those of us who put forth the actual facts and truth or those you disagree with. I suggest you consider examining your behavior.
All this twisting and reaching just to make Obama a citizen! I expect you will insist that he is a "natural born citizen"
It's truly laughable the lengths you go to in your quest.