Posted on 12/16/2022 4:02:55 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
No, the interviewer assumed that and jumped into conversation with it. It's by no means clear that she actually said that.
That begs the question of how it was construed when wrutten. And as much as we may want clear-cut answers, the answer to that question may be "inconsistently."
I heard a copy of the recording and thought that her claiming to have been present was a reasonable understanding of was said.
Many Kenyans affirm Barry's birth there.
Michelle said Kenya was Barry's homeland. Barry had to have been the source for essentially the same thing he had put in his Acton & Dystel writer's bio.
Barry admitted the same to Alan Keyes.
The preponderance of evidence goes against what you're trying to suggest.
Ping
Joseph Robinette Biden is a natural born citizen of these United States.
My point was not diminished by your post.
Also, Obama didn't tell Keyes he was born in Kenya. He deflected the question during a debate and Keyes took that as an admission. It wasn't. And Kenya got a lot of attention as the birthplace of Obama whether it was or not.
It was difficult and expensive to get to Kenya from Hawaii in 1961. So difficult and so expensive that it was highly unlikely that Obama's parents could have afforded it or done it.
And there were a lot more people including Obama himself over the decades saying things. Kenyan Gov Officials, African Newspapers, Obama 1991 Bio, Barry Obama, Obama Family Mbrs, and other Accounts Reporting Obama is Kenyan Born: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3248475/Kenyan-Gov-Officials-African-Newspapers-Obama-1991-Bio-Barry-Obama-Obama-Family-Mbrs-and-other-Accounts-Reporting-Obama-is-Kenyan-Born
"neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have ... been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
...which conveys the clear expectation - especially in the context of a time when international travel for any other purpose than war, diplomacy, or major commerce was infeasible, and therefore largely un-imaginable for most Americans - that persons eligible to the Office would not only be persons born in the country, of citizen parents, but also to have lived within the country from birth to the age of maturity, i.e., till at least 14 years of age.
Although the Constitution does not specify anything other than that a President must have been resident within the United States "fourteen Years," the specified time period would be effectively arbitrary and meaningless if applied to other periods with a person's life, or worse, split up into a segmented total of 14 years, with separated segments distributed randomly within a person's life, for any such trivialization of the qualification, if realized in an actual candidate for the office, would more likely suggest a lesser loyalty to the country than the greater loyalty that would be suggested by, and expected of a candidate who had known no other country than the United States from birth till maturity, such an expectation of greater loyalty being the clear intent of the clause.
As a general matter, I'd agree. I'm simply pointing that that the question of how the Constitution was construed when written begs the question of "construed by whom?"
Scalia, for example would say "construed by those who ratified it", which I think is correct. The subjective intent of those who drafted it doesn't matter because drafting alone has no legal significance.
Yes, but that middle name screams "future perv".
The lies are a constant and come from some of the most thought-to-be authoritative sources in our world, e.g., the media, CIA, FBI, government agencies.
With Biden Administration, which is equivalent to saying the Third Term of the Barry Administration, we can see the extremely deleterious effects of unconstitutional (not-NBC), foreign influence into the US government.
We should perceive this through the wiretapping of the PDJT Administration, Russian collusion hoax, the 1/6 hoaxed insurrection, the destruction of LTG Flynn's career and livelihood, frontal attacks on the First, Second and Fourth Amendments, the plandemic, death jabs, the open borders and flood of immigrants, Ukraine and its money laundering to the likes of McConnell, FTX, the fraud through mail-in voting and machine manipulation, mules, candidates being installed by fake ballots and bought-off ballot processors.
Through his forged LFBC, Selective Service Application, and Analysis Corp. (Brennan) passport shenanigans (a murdered Lt. Quarles), we should have seen what a total fraud Barry's life has been. Yet the three-letter agencies still have covered for him at every turn! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Keep fooling us and the shame is truly on us that we let this fraud keep manifesting everywhere Barry goes.
We should have recognized Barry's foreign influence fraud via three-letter agencies, as embodied in:
>>> THIS... post,
and, by the way- TY!
Persons born outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States may be aliens or citizens at birth. Their eligibility for United States citizenship at birth is determined by the applicable United States statute law at the time of their birth. The currect applicable law is the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, as amended.
De Vattel wrote a book entitled The Law of Nations. De Vattel died before the colonies declared independence. Unsurprisingly, his book was about the law of nations. That is the archaic term for International Law. United States citizenship is a purely domestic concern and International Law has no applicability whatever.
The citizenship law of the United States, before and after independence, followed English common law. All 13 original states adopted the English common law so far as it did not conflict with the Constitution. Each did so explicitly either in their state constitution or in their state statute law. The children of persons born in the United States have always been considered United States citizens at birth, including the children of aliens, with the exception of those born to a parent holding immunity from United States laws, such as accredited diplomats or visiting royalty.
The people did not adopt a letter by John Jay to David Brearly of August 29, 1787. In addition, the people did not adopt the previous letter from John Jay to George Washington of July 25, 1787 which referred to "natural born Citizen." Emphasis on the word "born" by John Jay as in the original handwritten document.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mgw4.097_0189_0190/
A natural born citizen is one who acquired United States citizenship at birth due to the circumstances of his birth, in accordance with United States law. The 14th Amendment controls citizenship at birth of all born within the territory of the United States. Federal statute law controls the citizenship at birth of all those born outside the territory of the United States.
International law pertains to disputes between two or more nations. As citizenship determinations are strictly a domestic affair, international law does not determine the citizenship of anyone, anywhere.
In the case of Minor v. Happersett, there was no question of citizenship before the Court, and the Court decided no issue of citizenship. The Transcript of Record at 8-9 contains an agreed statement of facts by the parties which states in relevant part, "It is admitted by the pleadings that the plaintiff is a native-born, free white citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri; that the defendant is a registrar, qualified and acting as such; that the plaintiff, in proper time and in proper form, made application to him to be registered, and that thje defendant refused to register the plaintiff solely for the reason that she is a female, (and that she possesses the qualifications of an elector in all respects, except as to the matter of sex, as before stated.)
Any claim that the Court decided anything about citizenship has no merit.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S 167-68:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
In dictum, the Chief Justice (not the Court) observed that some authorities had doubts about citizenship without reference to parents, but noted that for purposes of the case in Minor in was not necessary to resolve those doubts. The issue was not argued before the Court and was not decided by the Court in Minor.
The issue was decided in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898):
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
A natural born citizen, to use Jay's emphasis, is one who is born a citizen, as opposed to one who is born an alien and later naturalized.
Prior to independence, the colonists were natural born subjects of the king pursuant to English common law. After independence they ceased to be subjects and became citizens. The term from English common law was adapted to be natural born citizen. As noted by the Court in Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 654, "The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274."
The attempt by a majority of the Members of Congress to thwart the Constitutionally-required investigation at the 2021 Electoral College meeting is the subject of a suit presently before SCOTUS in Brunson v Adams. The remedy contemplated, requested and demanded by Brunson is the removal from office of all that participated in the anti-constitutional actions of that day, including some 400+ Members of Congress, Biden and Harris.
There is no constitutionally required investigation.
Brunson v. Adams has not been accepted by the Court. A petition for writ of cert has been filed. The case has about a zero chance of being accepted. The petition, as with the legal filings in the courts below, is a frivolous waste of time.
Brunson is joke which was dismissed on pretrial motion by the District Court, which dismissal was upheld by the Circuit Court.
For an example of a joke, see the petition at 3:
Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy, as stated below, seeking to destroy the Constitution and the United States, purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate this, whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy. Because of Respondents intentional refusal to investigate this enemy, Petitioner Raland J Brunson (“Brunson”) brought this action against Respondents because he was seriously personally damaged and violated by this action of Respondents, and consequently this action unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law.
Brunson states the alleged action "unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law." He can not claim a particularized injury shared by a few billion others.
Lujan, Secretary of the Interior v. Defenders of Wildlife et al., 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992)
Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972);1 and (b) "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical,"' Whitmore, supra,at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95,102 (1983)).1 By particularized, we mean that the injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.
10th Circuit:
BOBBY R. BALDOCK CIRCUIT JUDGERaland Brunson appeals the district court's dismissal of his action for lack of jurisdiction. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
[...]
Mr. Brunson filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (Recommendation) that the action be dismissed for two independent reasons: (1) Mr. Brunson lacked constitutional standing because his claimed injury was not concrete and personal to him but only the same as any citizen, and (2) Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred the claims against the defendants, who were sued in their official capacity only, and Mr. Brunson failed to identify any statute or other express provision that unequivocally waives that immunity for his claims.
[...]
Because Mr. Brunson did not assert any objections to the magistrate judge's conclusions that he lacked standing or that the defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity, the district court determined he had "waived any objections to [those] conclusions." Id. The court then adopted the Recommendation in full, dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and entered a separate judgment. This appeal followed.
[...]
Mr. Brunson first argues that the district court's separate judgment is invalid because it fails to set forth the legal basis for the judgment. This argument is frivolous.
[...]
Essentially, he contends that because he alleged the defendants acted fraudulently, and because "'fraud vitiates whatever it touches,'" Aplt. Opening Br. at 5 (quoting Est. of Stonecipher v. Est. of Butts, 591 S.W.2d 806, 809 (Tex. 1979)), he has an "unfettered right to sue the Defendants," id. at 2, and any federal law or case law is inapplicable if it "support[s] treason, acts of war or the violation of Brunson's inherent unalienable (God-given) rights," id. at 8. But none of his supporting authorities suggests that allegations of fraud, acts of war, or the violation of allegedly "inherent unalienable (God-given) rights," id., relieve a plaintiff from demonstrating Article III standing.
[...]
III. Conclusion
The district court's judgment is affirmed.
“Congress got the power under the Constitution of “naturalization””
Yep, that what the Constitution says, sure does. That is why Congress writes Naturalization laws. The term as used in the Constitution has nothing to do with naturalization. It is one of three qualifications to be president, so the framers thought it was significant.
I merely pointed out, in my initial posting, that the term “natural born” was defined, as when the Obama controversy was going on, people would shriek that the Constitution did not define the term. The term natural born was and is a legal distinction in use at that time, and has a separate existence from the Act of 1790, as the term appeared in the Constitution. And the college professors I had in the 70s used the term and said it meant citizens born of citizen parents.
Also, natural law back then referred to the laws of nature and God, considered above the reach of man and the concept is referred to in the Declaration of Independence.
You're happy to use the strength of John Jay's words when he affirms a point you wish to make, but you tell us Jay's words about a natural born citizen needing to have citizen parents--which disagrees with your point--should be disregarded.
That seems rather opportunistic and lacking logic.
This thread ought to bring out and expose the trolls that are over here from thefagblow.com.
I also am happy to see “nbC” as the Constitutional acronym, as that’s the way it’s penned.
Barry himself, White House Counsel Bob Bauer, then-US Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan, HDOH Registrar Alvin Onaka, HDOH Director "Loretta Fuddy" and her Deputy Director Keith Yamamoto (among others), arguably and on the basis of many facts, all must have known that Barry's LFBC was invalid if not--and far more likely--fraudulent and forged, despite the way it was characterized to the public.
The CIA higher-ups knew, for example, that what the guy below claims, is the verified truth:
(Through the Fuddy Hoax of 12/11/2013, "Fuddy's" Estate and her Deputy Yamamoto were compensated through a fraudulent legal settlements of two lawsuits, against a foreign aircraft engine manufacturer, with very substantial sums.)
These government officials were lying to affect the 2012 Presidential election. Thus, this was election fraud, a coup to prevent the US Government reins from passing to the Vice President, then very likely, another candidate in the 2012 election. Truly, if it were known that no official and valid document existed showing Barry's eligibility to be president, a large slice of the likely voters would have abandoned voting for Barry. All that occurred before Barry signed the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which began allowing the media and government agencies to propagandize the American public. How coincidental and convenient, especially given Benghazi and the Fuddy Hoax events!
It has in no way validly been established that Stanley Ann Dunham and/or Barack Obama, Sr. were Barry's biological parents. That invalid LFBC was, we may assume, the "best the CIA could produce" on Barry's behalf, yet it is filled with several indicia of invalidity and criminality. That document cannot be relied upon, even for establishing where Barry was truly born. Nonetheless, those officials were satisfied to thrust that LFBC forward as if it were completely valid.
IMHO, Barry is mightily responsible for bringing in the infiltration of a great deal of foreign influence into the US government, which was greatly responsible for the Presidential election coup of 2020.
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.