Posted on 08/14/2009 4:20:53 PM PDT by South40
They didn't, but the Constitution doesn't keep foreign law from operating on foreign nationals.
-----
Ridiculous. Your argument has a foreign nation claiming citizenship two years after birth.
That's right...because the government of Kenya ITSELF changed, and the citizen's citizenship changed as well.
-----
Do you have any concrete evidence to refute the links posted, or are you one of these FReepers who thinks telling someone how wrong or ridiculous they are constitutes some kind of valid argument?
Are you claiming descent from the Hawaiian royals, of the former Hawaiian monarchy?
Kamehameha IV appears to have been somewhat equivalent to our Tories, here in the 13 former British colonies, but then again, he was the monarch, so he would support his monarchy, and prefer another monarch over a constitutional republic.
“Witness the contention over Barry Goldwater’s eligibility back in 1964, due to having been born in Arizona, when Arizona was a territory and not yet a state.”
******************
Goldwater’s eligibility was contested by Melvin Belli, attorney for the “Reverend” Jim Jones and the People’s Temple (yes, the ones who “drank the Kool-Aid”) and also the inventor of “palimony”. Belli’s lawsuit quickly got circular-filed (lack of standing). This settled the “isssue” for all practical purposes.
For the rest of his life, every time I saw Belli, I thought “Melvin Belli, the bullsh****r.”
Since it is you who is making this argument it is incumbant on you to prove it. So, I'll ask again...when did the US start accepting foreign law over US laws?
We're not talking about an American, we're talking about a foreign national to which the laws of their country fully applies.
-----
Since it is you who is making this argument it is incumbant on you to prove it.
Nice try. The legal adage is 'he who asserts must also prove' and it is Obama who has asserted he's eligible, so it is up to him and his flunkies to prove it.
-----
Your post has answered my previous question. Your one of the FReepers who haunt the board insisting that others are wrong, ignorant, ridiculous, etc, etc, etc. without a single piece of evidence except your own words flapping in the breeze.
Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
A Digest of the International Law of the United States ;
Hoover’s and Wilson’s mothers were foreign-born. Going back to the time of Article II’s adoption, and the meaning of natural born citizenship, as I understand it, one’s nationality was passed through the father, not the mother.
The controversy was quite real, and derived from very real Constitutional questions, regardless of your opinion of an attorney. Belli, like Hollander after him (McCain), and the whole menagerie with Obama, met with a response of “no standing.” I want to see the matter resolved. You, apparently, do not. It’s far from “settled,” as the many attempts to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement attest, as well as that Senate Resolution, SR 511, which is just silly, or would be, if it didn’t have such serious import. And, this coming from politicians claiming not to have studied the matter, such as Jim Inhofe. I’m not particularly interested, in losing my country to the rest of the world. Nations were instituted to protect particular, regional interests, and those interests remain. Some hopped up plenipotentiary from the UN is as likely to be overtly hostile to me and my interests, as not.
To 'prove' your point you cite a rule in the US Revised Statutes of 1885 and apply it to 1961. This is beyond ridiculous.
Anybody with the most basic knowledge of the history of law in this country knows that the US Revised Statutes of 1885 were replaced by the USC which catalogues all codified laws in this country, including those that address immigration, naturalization and citizenship conferred at birth.
One would also know that the USC is updated on a regular basis.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 is law within the USC that set the standard for 'natural born citizen' in 1961. That law, the only one that matters at all (at least in the real world), states that the child of a citizen parent(note singular) born in a US possession (including Hawaii before statehood) would receive citizenship at birth if the parent (again note singular) resided in the US or its possessions for one year prior to the birth.
The INA of 1952 replaced the INA of 1940 which required five years residence after the age of sixteen.
Sorry MT, but if you want to play legal scholar you should really go to school or at least dig a little deeper...if not you run the risk of sounding ridiculous.
see #48. It is the only US law that matters.
I gave you the courtesy of providing links. Until you do the same to show exactly where it bolsters your assertions, your just making noise.
Sorry, the Constitution of the United States is the only law that matters.
The issue is NOT citizenship; it is ‘natural born’ citizen within the meaning of Art. II of the Constitution. This is one of the few specific provisions in the Constitution; it is not flexible nor can it be overridden by statute.
There is no statute that has any effect upon the Constitutional term natural born citizen, at all. Never has been, with the exception of Naturalization Act of 1790, which was repealed and replaced in 1795, with "natural born citizen" removed, and replaced with just "citizen." Reason being, that Congress has no power enumerated under the Constitution, to deal with anything other than naturalization.
Does it not strike you as odd, that you're citing immigration and naturalization statutes, in an ill-advised attempt to contort the Constitution? The Supreme Court has dealt with that as well, in Marbury v. Madison.
What you're proposing as a definition is unconscionable and unconstitutional.
And what do you think brought the lawyer to that conclusion? Norma switched sides and now works against abortion.
um, yeah. that was my point.
Even folks who hope she is right are put off by the fact that she is a gibbering idiot.
.
I’ll just let FReepers view this tape of an interview Dr. Orly did in Israel (without being abused by the U.S.state-controlled media) and they can judge for themselves:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132880
And as for you, go back to Obongo- and don’t forget your kneepads.
.
How nice!
Taitz is a nut. Deal with it.
Go back to Obongo. Your efforts to undermine those patriots who work to bring the usuper down are wasted here.
OK, dipwad.
Please explain how my having a different opinion than you about the Taitz woman makes me an Obama supporter.
Just how did you arrive at that logic-leap, n00bie?
btw...citing a US Statute from 1885 that has been superceded as a governing law in 1961 is akin to trying to close up Jack Daniels because we once had laws prohibiting what they do.
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.