Posted on 04/20/2010 1:35:31 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Members from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. National leaders, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, and therefore, is ineligible for the office he currently holds.
What they don’t know is how long it will take for most Americans to figure it out, or what to do about it.
The diversionary search for an authentic birth certificate is ongoing and Obama has now spent in excess of $2 million in legal fees to keep that search alive.
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice continues to deploy taxpayer funded attorneys around the country to file dismissals on behalf of Obama, denying all American citizens access to the courts as a peaceful remedy, which only fuels the fire of discontent and the questions about Obama persist.
Michelle Obama states that Kenya is Barack’s “home country.” She knows, after twenty years with Barack. The Ambassador or Kenya has confirmed the same His family friends all know it, and are in fact quite proud of the fact that Americans had no hesitation in electing a “black man from Kenya” as President of the United States.
The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of “natural born citizen” means. Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens.
Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the office of president, which is why she refused to certify the following language when certifying Obama as the DNC candidate for president in 2008.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
The answer is a simple one. It still takes one generation of naturalized US citizen parents who pass on their US citizenship to their offspring who would be then an NBC to fullfill the Constitional requirement to be president.
In other words, If some foreign state like Italy wants to make multi-generations of Italian descendant citizens they can do that, but the 2nd generation US citizen was what the Founders sought as the threshold and Italy’s citizenship laws do not come into play.
Do you think that if this were to be considered in a modern courtroom, the emphasis on the bloodline of the father would be as important as it was when the Constitution was written? I do not believe it would be so.
As we have all seen, priority is often given to the mother in child custody issues, when it certainly would have been almost unthinkable a) for a woman to instigate a divorce in the 1770’s, and b) get custody of the children if the father didn’t want her to.
I really do not think that “the natural order of things” placing so much importance on the citizenship of the father as opposed to the mother (since we know at this time, the wife would have automatically gone with the husband in terms of naturalization)? Nowadays, we think more in terms of equality of the parents contribution and the mother certainly doesn’t have to share citizenship with the father.
Also, I wonder if any country automatically finds a baby and extends dual citizenship to the child if a parent is from another country than where the baby was born. I know in the instance of my half-Swedish child, she lived in Sweden for four years as an American whose father was Swedish before her dad applied for her to have dual citizenship. Would that qualify for “at birth” do you think, as she could have applied for it (whether we lived or travelled to Sweden or not) from birth?
Obviously, people on the web who aren’t lawyers can’t be sure of their answers being legally correct, but it is an entertaining debate! Thanks!
To add on to my previous post, as long as the duel citizen's children were born in the US, they can pass on a natural born US citizenship to their offspring.
That is my best guess, but we have no on-point SCOTUS ruling to that effect. Given that several NBC definition cases, including Donofrio’s, tried to gain a hearing but failed to get even four justices to hear the case, it is not clear that five justices would support our view. And now we have Thomas appearing to state the the Court is “evading” providing a definition of NBC!
There would be extremely divisive responses to any NBC ruling as there has been with attempts at legislating clarification of NBC.
The current SCOTUS runs from Ginsberg with her “make up a living law ruling” approach on the left to Scalia on the right who is a proud orignialist. Any ruling on NBC would depend on the mix and ultimate majority of judges falling on that continuum.
Justices are frequently eager to rule on certain matters, but this NBC question is one that they would appear to prefer to “evade” as Thomas said.
Some matters are best addressed via a constitutional amendment rather than ad hoc SCOTUS rulings and a clarification of NBC is exactly that sort of issue. But so far numerous efforts to get an amendment that would define NBC for our 21st century culture have failed to pass as well as non-amendment congressional clarifications.
Just look at the pending AZ statute regarding how to identify, arrest and deport illegal immigrants as well as the 2006 “amnesty” fight. Defining NBC to exclude anchor babies and those with a non-citizen parent would produce a firestorm of controversy.
Consider the irony that if Obama’s parents were non-bigamously married he could be ruled by SCOTUS to be ineligible, but if his mother was legally single and delivered BHO II in HI, he could be POTUS! Would conservatives who trumpet family values get behind this possibility?
I am assuming that your daughter was born in the US, but her dad was a Swedish citizen and then he father obtained Swedish citizenship for her while she was in Sweden.
In that case your daughter would not be NBC at birth, in my opinion. But others (including a dubious IN appeals court decision) and several FReepers would say that she is NBC per the Wong Kim Ark ruling. I strongly disagree with that interpretation of Wong.
If you haven't seen the Perkins v. Elg case you might find that interesting. A girl with two naturalized US citizen parents who had immigrated to the US from Sweden was taken back to Sweden by the parents who then renounced their US citizenship and obtained Swedish citizenship for their daughter. She was blocked from reentering the US as an adult and she appealed.
SCOTUS found that on returning to to the US as an adult she was still a US NBC because her parents could not expatriate her from her NBC status while she was a child. Only she, by her own action as an adult, could expatriate herself.
http://www.loislaw.com/advsrny/doclink.htp?alias=FDCCASE&cite=99+F.2d+408
LOLOLOLOLOL. What the hell is a matter with you...LOLOOLOLLLOLLOLL. Is everything funny to you...LOLLOLLLOLLOLOLOL! Last I checked you're not a Founding member of the First Congress...LOLOLOLOLOL! And apparently you are a piss poor lawyer......LOLOLOLOLOL! Is that enough laughing or do you another laugh-a-thon?
“But...what about the announcements in two local Hawaiian news papers in the ‘births’ section which announce Obama’s birth?”
What of them? They mean nothing of significance. Why are you in this discussion, if you do not grasp the factual basis?
The listings in the paper were simply triggered by a filing at the state - which reported them to the paper - or by a relative wanting to announce. We still have no idea if the record HI has on record even shows him born in HI. Nor how it was reported. Only the original BC shows that. Until then, his birth circumstances are merely a matter of speculation and not much else.
Now that we are all done LOLing, laughing boy, perhaps you would like to offer your razor sharp legal analysis of why Lafayette was gifted with land and and monies from the first Continental Congress. And why his Natural Born status from Maryland didn't actually mean Natural Born. Take your time.....
LaFayette served in the Revolution and could avail himself of Bounty Land Grants just as any other soldier in the Revolution. He was also paid for his service. That takes care of the land and the money.
As far as his being an “honorary natural born citizen” of the State of Maryland during the time of the Articles of Confederation, his being afforded state citizenship extended certain privileges and rights to LaFayette within the state, including the right to vote and land ownership.
However, somebody is pulling your leg about the “natural born” thing, since he was made honorary citizen of Maryland in 1784.. The Constitution was ratified in 1789. The Constitutional Republic did not exist. The eligibility requirement didn’t exist. Even the very term “natural born citizen” did not yet exist, as it appears to have arisen de novo during the course of the Convention, derived from “The Law Of Nations,” which not so coincidentally spelled out the rationale and legalities of a constitutional republic. There wasn’t one in existence at that time, either. The United States was the first since the fall of Rome. It was in so many ways a novel undertaking.
Yes, she was born in the US. We only went to Sweden because we were $25 short in our INS packet. It was supposed to be a trip to Sweden for 6 months that turned into 4 years. I am not sure what would happen to her status, if she was born NBC, I think she would stay. If she wasn’t, then it wouldn’t be an issue. We certainly didn’t get rid of my daughters US citizenship, and she now lives 10 months of the year in the US and spends two months in Europe. We had to go to federal court to discuss the custody arrrangements, but the federal judge considered her a US citizen who just lived abroad for four years, and that the US was always supposed to be her permanent domicile, so who knows?
Thanks for thinking about your answers!
Why am I in this discussion if I do not grasp the factual basis?
You are a snot. From what I have read in this discussion there are NO real facts to grasp, just wishful thinking and speculation.
You come off like the ‘liberal progressives’ who personally smear or slam anyone who does not agree with them...rather than having a civil exchange.
But...what about the announcements in two local Hawaiian news papers in the ‘births’ section which announce Obama’s birth?
For me, that killed the ‘birther’ issue.
The focus should be on defeating his ‘bigger’ gov’t agenda and then making him a one termer.
******************************************
You have a basic misunderstanding of the situation.
1. - The law is the law. If you, as President, are not willing to abide by the law then you should not be in office. Barak Obama has shown NO INCLINATION WHATSOEVER to show that he is compliant with the law. In fact, he is fighting to be forced to prove his eligibility.
2. By his own words (his autobiography), a VERY compelling legal case can be made that he is NOT qualified to be president.
All very nice. Now what stands in the way of clarifying this in the courts and a decision that he is ineligible?
If it is as simple as ‘the law’....what is the problem? Why isn’t Joe Biden president?
You birthers scream and rant....but somehow nothing comes of it. Why?
It seems to me there are many interpretations of the law or the ‘law’ doesn’t exist in the way that you say.
Make the case, take it to the courts....or shut up.
Yeah, I’m a “snot”. I just happen to mock people who get into discussions when they’re clearly out of their intellectual depth. And not becuase they are, but because they have no clue they’re long past it.
You posted that the newspaper announcements “killed” the “birther” issue. How? What they do have to do with ANYTHING? They provide NO evidence concerning Obama, period. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
Events to trigger newspaper posting:
Parents or grandparents notify paper.
State notifies @ time of paper filing.
State notifies @ time of BC filing.
None of these events means ANYTHING about WHERE Obama was born, and even less about his legal status, as it concerns whether he’s Constitutionally eligible. As far as being evidence, they are not evidence of ANYTHING AT ALL.
And, anyone even halfway awake would realize this.
All I know is that usually birth newspapers usually obtain their daily birth’s from hospitals if and when they publish lists such as shown.
Also, you might want to read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2499682/posts
Wishing, my dear ‘intellectual superior’ just isn’t gonna make it so....no matter how smart you think you are.
I’ll be glad when this is settled, one way or another.
National Enquirer, where are you?
BTTT
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.