| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/24/2008 2:47:48 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Locked - civility suffering here. Personal attacks, calling people names, insulting them just isn’t nice - and it can easily result in being banned - just a word to the wise. |
Posted on 12/23/2008 12:42:44 PM PST by BP2
Ding! we have a winner!
The framers didn't consider themselves natural born citizens of the United States because when they were born there was no United States. That's why they included the extra language, otherwise *nobody* could have been president.
The language does not exclude anyone that has British citizenship. It only requires that a president be someone that is a citizen by birth.
Those are links to someone’s essays, not legal citations.
“How would the case’s failure equate to the death of the constitution?”
If Barry Obama is not a natural born citizen then he can constitutionsally never serve as POTUS. He can only be an imposter, and all of his pseudo-official actions would be null and void. If the courts conspire to ignore this inconvenient fact, then what other part of the U.S. Constitution are we or they bound to respect? If Barry’s inconvenient status can simply be ignored with a wink and a nod, then the Constitution is, in the memorable language of Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg, “just a scrap of paper”.
At any point if it is determined he can’t serve due to COLB it is over. He is out of office.
Read the law moroon.
If you at this point do not know what constitutes a natural born citizen you should not be posting on this thread if you are not for exposing O.
Moroon. They may have to wait until he is certified before they can hear the case.
Maybe you should go back to your Obamahole.
Thanks, I remember when that was first posted.
And it is still right on, and trumandogz is a part of that group.
“The framers didn’t consider themselves natural born citizens of the United States because when they were born there was no United States. That’s why they included the extra language, otherwise *nobody* could have been president.
“
It is not about: “when they were born there was no United States”, but: On the time, the United States DID come to existence, the framers didn’t consider themselves natural born citizens in a retrogressive way...
(sorry for my english... am from Europe)
A marmot that drinks Bud?
I thought that they had better taste than that.
The way the law would work is that what was in force at that relevant time would be the law one would be tried under.
So, with Plyler v. Doe, that came 21 years after his birth, so it wouldn’t apply to his status at birth.
For those interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
That's a big "if", and the faiure of Berg's case doesn't make it true.
If Obama was born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen, regardless of any claims in Berg's suit.
How about the 20th amendment of the US Constitution:
“Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
There is abundant evidence that O’bummer is not a natural born citizen, and zero evidence to the contrary.
Very good. You know, I actually knew that, because *I posted them*. And "somebody" is an Ill. Law Professor. Do you think that's reasonably appropriate, that he has a somewhat valid train of thought described there? Did you read them?
The definition is precise where it appears in a previous form, ie "natural born subject", as I asserted. "Natural Born Citizen" is an obvious transposition with the term "Subject" because the monarchy's colonial subjects just redefined their relationship to the crown and each other. No more "subjects", only "citizens".
Your next assignment is to understand the terms "original intent" and "common usage". There will be a test.
Is Roberts Doufus (turd) enough to swear this guy in, with a straight face after all we’ve seen about 0’b up till now?
“If Obama was born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen”
There’s no rational reason to believe that Barry was born in Hawaii. His original birth certifcate there, which I believe is a report by a citizen of Hawaii ( his mom ) of a foreign birth, has been sealed at Barry’s own request.
Barry would take off the seal if he could, but he naturally prefers living in the White House to a federal prison.
Not according to the laws of this country.
I'm sure his parents are proud, but he doesn't decide what the law is. He has an opinion, like everyone else. I bet if we go take a poll of law professors about what "natural born citizen" means, he'd lose out.
But the question at hand was, where is "natural born citizen" clearly defined? We are talking about a legal definition, not someone's unofficial opinion. An essay doesn't qualify. You need a legal citation. A constitutional provision, statute, court decision, something that has legal weight.
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.