Posted on 01/21/2011 8:08:39 AM PST by PilotDave
He wasn’t. So maybe he was born in one of their territories.
The facts as they stand today mean that he was born a bastard and therefore no British citizenship was conferred to him at birth as per the law of England at the time.
The facts as they stand today mean that he was born a bastard and therefore no British citizenship was conferred to him at birth as per the law of England at the time.
Then he committed fraud by distributing a falsified COLB over the internet and sold books based on a lie and attained public office and acquired campaign donations based on a lie and false statements. So can we arrest him now?
If he was legally adopted by Sotoroe, would his original BC been destroyed?
Sealed I assume.
Give me a break. The same thing is “true” for every single dollar anybody has in his possession on January 1st of whatever year the FAIR Tax goes into effect. If I have $5, and go to the store for food, I could complain that the $5 was taxed already, and is being taxed again as I spend it.
Retirees, and everyone else, would benefit from the economic growth, greater productivity, and lower prices of everything.
I don't understand the reluctance to address this important, to many, issue. Taxation is still theft, so the FT is just another method of highway robbery.
Not good enough. BOTH parents have to be U.S. citizens in order to qualify as a natural born citizen.
“Not good enough. BOTH parents have to be U.S. citizens in order to qualify as a natural born citizen.”
You are incorrect. That is your subjective opinion.
No one knows the definitive answer on what does and does not constitute an NBC.
Do you realize that the Chief Justice DECLINED to discuss the exact thing that you are indicating he decided.
To wit:
“These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their
Page 88 U. S. 168
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. “
Btw, for those of you that keep quoting Wong..that case is a mess.
The court did not want to look to the legislative intent. They wanted to make their own version of the law to fit their agenda and assumed the intent of Congress.
“Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”
The Supreme Court is to base their decision on current laws unless they deem the Unconstitutional.
Compare Gray in the Elk Case to Gray in the Wong case.
It is interesting to note that Chester Arthur - the man many say shouldn’t have been President due to his own birth issues - appointed Gray to the court.
The founding fathers knew exactly the definition of natural born citizen. One of them even defined it.
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789
Gimme a break. Try looking at the rest of the supreme court decisions...as in all the ones AFTER 1900. sheesh.
Lord have mercy..do you not get that Gray was involved with Elk and Wong??? Did you actually read those two cases?
And that the Chief Justice in Happersett refused to address it?
that article just slapped a bunch of crap together without really understanding the rulings.
Oh, and just because a Founding Father wrote some article with a definition MEANS NOTHING.
It doesn’t mean that is what they all meant. It doesn’t even mean that a current court would use his opinion from some article.
You had a Court that you quote that wouldn’t even look at the intent of Congress when they passed a law.
Every Tom Dick and Harry thinks they know..but the reality is NO ONE DOES.
These clown lawyers who go around spouting to the Supreme Court that Obama is a British citizen didn’t even bother to read the British law. - or they are just ignoring it.
It seems I remember that there had been a reference or a definition in a subsequent law (after the Constitution) but then it was later taken out. I can’t remember the details. It seems like it was just there for a short time. Or maybe it was a proposed law that didn’t make it into a final draft.
I am going to have to look that up.
There isn’t one particular person on this planet who knows for sure how the full Court would rule on this topic. They might even punt it back to Congress.
1790 act addresses natural born citizen.
repealed in 1795
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=537
Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: . . .
Emphasis on jus sanguinis. Why was it repealed?????
I don’t know. Maybe they felt they didn’t have the power to define it within the powers to enact naturalization laws.
Chester Arthur , a Republican, had one parent born in Ireland who was naturalized but NOT AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH and one parent born in the US. Arthur claimed he was born in the US.
Under these facts-He was elected President.
Did anyone come forward to define NBC or send it to SCOTUS or do anything????
They might have had he been born elsewhere.
Obama is in a similar situation - except he was born a bastard.
The meaning of natural born citizen is quite clear. There was but one definition of the term at the time, and that was Vattel's. The grandfather clause in Article II is unnecessary if the term 'natural born citizen' is defined otherwise. It is clear that the natural born citizen clause was added soon after Washington received the letter from John Jay warning of foreign influence.
What evidence do you have that those "facts" were known when he was elected?
No it isn’t LEGALLY clear.
And if you don’t get it..then you better start to ponder why no one did anything about Chester Arthur - who had one parent that was not a US citizen by birth ..
And you had better well keep in mind the precarious position of the court right now ..and the fact that some are seeking an investigation in to Scalia and thomas.
Anyone who believes they know how SCOTUS would rule on this doesn’t have a clue. You may have your own opinion..but all you have to do is read Elk and then Wong to see what happens in the Supreme Court when they are making their decisions. And yes, Gray was involved with both decisions. Wong is a mess.
But it doesnt really matter. Obama’s mother was involved with the Spooks. Nothing is ever going to come of this.
He will resign due to health reasons before this case would make it before SCOTUS.
read your history.
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.