See Seizethecarp's post #67.
See Seizethecarp's post #67.
The 9th Circus DID include compliance with the statutory residency requirement for Stanley Ann a Kenya birth. Note that the statutory requirement for married v. unmarried moms. If Stanley Ann was married under US law she would NOT meet residency. If she was legally unmarried (say due to bigamy rendering her US marriage a nullity), she WOULD meet the residency for her child to be a statutory citizen at birth.
This is just DICTA, but it appears to only NBC definition by a federal appeals court so far that would relate to Barry’s fact pattern at birth (how convenient, coming in the middle of Orly’s case before Judge Carter including a Kenyan BC in an affidavit).
Same logic.
The Constitution should mean what it says all the time not just when it is convenient, or it won't matter because we have became the enemy we are pledged to defeat.
Idiots on the bench can have any opinion we let them get away with.
I did some formatting to make it easier to read. My first thought was that in 2525 when we are all droids someone will say "Well the term of art We The People was not defined."
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.
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 they decide to ignore next?
Isn’t that something? They’re getting around to admitting that BO was born outside of the U.S. “so it really doesn’t matter” does it? We’re getting closer and closer to the truth about this guy and his handlers are scrambling to do preemptive damage control.