Posted on 12/04/2008 2:50:11 PM PST by pissant
Whatever you say, bloss.
“All this could be settled if Hussein produced his birth certificate. Why does he refuse to do so?”
He doesn’t have one, it does NOT exist...
He has defrauded this nation and its people.
***
Donofrio’s argument goes even further ...
He concedes that Obama may very well have been born in Hawaii - but that he had dual nationality at birth.
As such, Donofrio contends that Obama is NOT a “natural born” citizen.
The U.S. courts have ruled that a citizen may have dual nationality based upon the circumstances of his birth. While on U.S. soil the citizen is a citizen of the U.S., however, once he steps off U.S. soil, he is a citizen of his foreign country.
Dual nationality is, thus, at odds with “natural born” nationality which assumes allegiance and loyalty to the U.S. at all times ...
But wasn’t he born in the U.S.? Isn’t it the same as Mexican pregnant mothers sneaking into the U.S. so their kid can be natural born U.S. citizens.
I did and could find no reference to the number of justices and how that number could be changed. Please provide me with specific references (chapeter and verse). I am very worried about this potentiality with this new crowd coming to power. I would like some level of assurance that it will not easily happen.
Thanks
Why would we care about the Nationality Act of 1940? It was superseded by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
You said, "the Supreme Court can change the Constitution." What's the number of Justices got to do with that?
Please provide me with specific references (chapeter and verse).
Uh - no. Mac, it's your responsibility to study the Constitution for yourself.
I am very worried about this potentiality with this new crowd coming to power. I would like some level of assurance that it will not easily happen.
I hear you. I'm worried too. In the end, our only real security is in ourselves. The social contract between The People and their government is obviously broken. We must confront the fact that the day may have finally arrived where it's up to us to restore the Republic.
Your the one that told me that my study of the Constitution was wrong. nope nope nope was your terms. I am just asking for you to support your statements that I am wrong. You may not believe my statements, which is your prerogative. However, your statement needs support not mine.
The current mix of the SCOTUS has already demonstrated that they are willing to go well beyond the Constitution for justification for their actions; citing an unratified treaty as their source material and ignoring the Constitutional provisions.
Yes this a time for great concern about the future of this country.
yes there is time to amend the Constitution, legislatively. The legislature has the power to establish the number of supreme court justices. Expand it by 6, all super liberals with an agenda. declare the Constitution and archaic document and is not relevant to today's society. Legislature and Executive can then do whatever it wants.
If you study the Constitution, you'll find that the only way to amend the Constitution is by a two thirds majority in Congress. The new amendment then needs to be ratified by three quarters of the states. US Constitution Article V.
You're suggesting that the Supreme Court, with the complicity of the Legislature could simply abolish the Constitution through acclamation, and not bother with adhering to Article V of the Constitution.
I'll chuckle quietly to myself here.
Before you keep harping on me to read the Constitution you need to know what you are talking about and engage in interpretive reading skill enhancement.
Apparently, I'm the only one between us who actually knew the Constitutional reference that applies here. So, which of us doesn't know what they're talking about? That's also the best BS retort I've seen in a long time. It was truly spoken like a liberal politician.
By ignoring what is coming at us is idiotic. Hitler came to power in a completely Constitutional manner until they put it aside. To sit here and continually tell me that we are protected by the Constitution is like ignoring intruders in your house expecting the police to protect you.
I'm not ignoring the danger that confronts us, and I'm fully cognizant of the fact that our so-called leadership has been in treason to the Constitution for some time now.
Obama may turn out to be all that we have feared, and is coming to power through deception and illegality. We're looking on in horror at this very moment, as he arrogantly attempts to sidestep the Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President.
You don't have to tell me that our Constitution may not protect us. It only will protect us, inasmuch as those entrusted to run our government adhere to it, which is plainly in question.
No, we have possibly arrived at a point that few could imagine a short time ago, and what this portends will test the very best of us beyond anything we ever have faced.
I sincerely hope that enough Americans see and act before it's too late.
He’d have been certified by the EC and inaugurated, without the challenge about his natural born citizen status having been made.
Once he signs a law and someone is prosecuted under it, THEN the challenge is put front and center.
“But wasn’t he born in the U.S.?”
The whole thrust of Donofrio’s case is that even if Obama was born in the U.S., he still is not eligible to serve as POTUS because at least one of his parents lacked U.S. citizenship.
That would be the case for Bobby Jindahl as well, despite the fact that he was born on U.S. soil, since his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.
Donofrio is contending that simply being born on U.S. soil is not enough to be constitutionally eligible to serve as president. He is claiming that the constitution also requires that to serve as POTUS, you must be born of parents who were under “U.S. jurisdiction” at the time of your birth.
After reading Donofrio’s blog, I came to understand that. However, if the Supremes refuse to hear his case, the inference is that “it doesn’t matter anymore” just as the inference that Hillary isn’t violating the Constitution by being appointed as SecState and that we shrug our shoulders at the violation of the government taking equity positions in private companies, e.g. banks and possibly auto companies as that Greek comedy unfolds.
I believe the act in 1952 built on top of the Nationality Act of 1940, adding to and changing certain parts but leaving others intact. I can’t find anything in it that says it repeals and replaces the whole thing. That is why I was looking for it so I could see which items were repealed and which were still in effect. Mr. Berg states in his filing that the Nationailty Act of 1940 is the central issue in the whole question about Obama’s adoption issue, yet he doesn’t quote it. I found on the Cornell website an area that says sections 15-18 of that act deal with these conditions.
Our immigration and nationality law is pretty complex simply because it is a product of many different pieces of legislation over a period of several decades. This probably why such a controversey over Obama’s legal status exists.
In the end, there is nothing wrong with educating ones self on the issue at hand, or attemting to do so and provide that info to others so they can make up their own minds about what is reasonable.
Personally, I only care about whether the law and our constitution is being followed. I don’t like the idea of President Obama because of his politics, but I’d like it even less if the latest embodiment of the highest law enforcement office in the land is established on shaky legal and/or unconstitutional grounds. I can deal the politics if he won fair and square, but if he didn’t it’s a complete travesty to justice and the very basics of our republic.
Check this out:Title III--Nationality and Naturalization
It's the 1952 act, published in a 1953 book, and it reads the same as the current law. There can be little doubt that this was the law in effect at the time of Obama's birth.
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.