Posted on 02/19/2012 3:57:01 AM PST by Chance Hart
Because they needed not be explicit!
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
In other words is was common knowledge
With people of the same sex now getting married, 100 years from now some idiot in a forum is going to claim that the founders didn't define parents!
Here is a Birth lawyer who agrees with me:
“VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE II, SECTION I
>Plaintiff hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 45 as if fully set forth herein.
>
>The United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 4, Qualifications, Office of President, states: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of
>thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2066207/posts
How fitting. You and Berg agree on something.
No - were were talking about the protocol for numbering sections of the Constitution.
It would appear the Arkeny judge was not alone.
Every Republican candidate for President certified that they were eligible for the office of President
“pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;”
Every one signed that piece of paper. Even Orly didn’t question it in her suit. If it is OK for Orly, surely it is OK with you?
So your “error” in the Arkeny case was not an error.
Yet when I challenged @you this was the answer I received...
@It makes more sense then your idea that the State of Indiana doesn’t understand the Constitution.
And you have yet to prove your claim and you have even tried to brush it off with this inanity...
@New Hampshire renumbered.
And that in no manner addresses your initial claim.
Berg is in interesting guy - a 911 Truther and a Birther. I would love to have a beer with the guy.
LOL bttt
“The United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 4, Qualifications, Office of President, states: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
Do you agree with that statement?
Well here ya go...
@http://obamacrimes.com/ has his pertinent information.
Law Offices of Philip J. Berg
http://philjberg.com
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
Why don't you give him a call and let him know your internal desires?
That bill doesn't say that. That was simply a common law practice of the time. It may have been codified at some point, but I have not bothered to find it. I believe it is referred to as a fact of law in the Women's citizenship act of 1934, or perhaps the Cable act of 1922, but I don't recall a mention of if or when it was codified. It is certainly referred to as the law by the women who fought to get it repealed during this era. I am not going to spend a lot of time looking for it. Since *I* have already read of it from numerous sources, I don't need convincing. A quick perusal around the internet did not turn up as much as I expected. A year ago I could find many articles on this subject. (I probably have some of them cached among my bookmarks) In any case, I did find this link which refers to American Women losing their citizenship upon marriage to a foreign male.
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-2.html
Your bill still allows split citizenship parents.
How do you figure this?
And can you show that this bill was actually passed into law? Where is the partner Senate Bill?
You really are NOT reading the stuff I am sending you. I believe it says "IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES" at the very top of the bill. As for it being passed into law, I believe that question is answered here.
No problem. This stuff is complex enough that we all need to keep each other on our toes. :)
This is how YOU introduced the issue to this thread:
“How could the court make such an error? They made the same error many times over.”
In another thread on the same subject you wrote”
“And just to show how even the court in Ankeny can get things wrong I give you this...”
Now we know that the judge made no error. That in fact there are inconsistencies in how portions of the Constitution are labeled. There are Birther lawyers that agree with the Arkney judge. There are other states that use the same wording.
You are very welcome. I believe it is in the best interest of our Nation to try to bring as much clarity to this issue as is possible. Nowadays, the attention of the American populace is such that if you can't sum it up in a 5 second jingle, they turn their attention elsewhere.
Your point about possible adoption and issuance of a replacement certificate is interesting and credible.
It has the advantage of explaining a LOT of what we are seeing. It might not be the case, but it has an inherent consistency with the available facts.
Sadly, there is way too much that we don't know about this White House occupier.
Amen, and the Fourth Estate (Fifth Column) rather than doing their job in exposing corruption, is doing their best to quiet it down and cover it up.
I posted this video awhile back on this thread, but wanted to again remind people of what Levin thinks about the large number of his audio listeners and book buyers that have the audacity to even ask the question regarding Constitutional Eligibility requirements for POTUS. Does he consider those of us who DARE ASK the forbidden question, but continue to support his show and purchase his brilliant Constitutional writings as - Get ready for it -——AmeriDopians?
Wonder how long until this Video is scrubbed along with the Audio Rewind!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY_XYBlq3gQ
No, the case was about a White man claiming to be an Indian. It was about him NOT HAVING INDIAN CITIZENSHIP. Indian Citizenship would have protected him. The Judge ruled he didn't have it.
Go read Sloan v U.S.
I've already got it up. Trying to read it between answering messages. The syllabus doesn't look very promising for you though.
“but I have not bothered to find it.”
You will have to try a little harder then that - hand waving is not a legal argument.
It allows split citizenship because if an American women married a foreign national, she doesn’t lose her citizenship like the 1907 bill required. Nothing you have posted challenges this.
4:26 - 4:34 in the linked Video is the Levin statement regarding his thoughts about We the GOOFBALLS.
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.