[Michael Michael]

If we have the burden, then he shouldn’t be allowed to block access to the evidence that most likely proves our case.

Quite the contrary. Again, the burden is on you, not him. If you don't already have the evidence, then all you have is speculation, and by definition haven't met your burden of proof. That's the whole reason for that statute. So you can't just say you suspect so-and-so might not be a citizen and cause their privacy rights to be infringed.

There is also a provision of 42 USC, Ch 143 which says

C) a declaration by the central authority (or other competent authority) of such other Convention country -
(i) that the child will be permitted to enter and reside permanently, or on the same basis as the adopting parent, in the receiving country; and
(ii) that the central authority (or other competent authority) of such other Convention country consents to the adoption, if such consent is necessary under the laws of such country for the adoption to become final.

Would you care to point where in that statute it says anything about nationality or citizenship? Because I don't see it anywhere. And if you're going to argue that "reside" has something to do with nationality, well, just don't. I still have some doubts as to whether or not you're a complete buffoon. I wouldn't want you to spoil it.

The Act of 1952 doesn’t specifically forbid loss of citizenship by adoption but...

Now you're arguing like a liberal when they're trying to justify the federal government getting involved in things it's not constitutionally empowered to get involved with.

"Duuuhhh, well, it doesn't specifically say it can't. Nope, nope, nope." (in my best Buzzy Buzzard voice).

Look, it's real simple, just like the Constitution.

Constitution says the federal government can only do a, b, and c. You can't argue that it can do d because it doesn't specifically say it can't do d. It can't do d because it's only empowered to do a, b, and c.

Similarly, INA 1952 says you can only lose your US citizenship by way of a, b, and c. You can't argue that you can lose your US citizenship by d because it doesn't specifically say you can't lose it by d. You can't lose it by d because you can only lose it by a, b, and c.

Got it? I hope so. Because I've wasted a lot of time over the years trying to get that seemingly simple concept through some peoples' skulls and I don't wish to waste any more.

You really are afraid of what that BC will reveal, aren’t you????

Afraid? No. To be afraid, I'd first have to care.

[DMZFrank]

“Afraid? No. To be afraid, I’d first have to care.”

Sums up your case nicely. You don’t care that the presidency has probably been usurped by a lying marxist. We do. We plan to do all that we can to prove it and protect the constitution. Chalk this one up to ‘irreconcillable differences.”

“Quite the contrary. Again, the burden is on you, not him. If you don’t already have the evidence, then all you have is speculation, and by definition haven’t met your burden of proof. That’s the whole reason for that statute. So you can’t just say you suspect so-and-so might not be a citizen and cause their privacy rights to be infringed.”

This has to be the most specious and bankrupt of all your arguements. He isn’t a private citizen. He claims to be qualified to be POTUS, a position that has a requirement that he be a natural born citizen. His conduct and actions indicate that he is not or may not be, a natural born citizen. I and thousands of others, are not content to see someone in charge of the awesome power of this country who is subceptible to blackmail by foreign powers and who has no right to hold the office.

All detective or police work involves a certain amount of speculation. By your twisted lights, no arrests could be made unless the arresting agencies had PROOF that the perp did it. That is why police and officers of the court are given supeona power, grand juries, summonses, warrants, probable cause power, etc, etc, so as to ferret out the truth before a proper tribunal. Just think of us as speaking truth to power.

People with your attitude, employing sophistry and the law, will be the death of this republic.

[mojitojoe]

Afraid? No. To be afraid, I’d first have to care.

________________________
You care enough to run over her with your little pre-printed talking points and post non stop. If you didn’t care you would ignore the issue.

[Beckwith]

Re: your statement, "I'd first have to care."

You sure are spending a lot of time banging away on that keyboard for someone who doesn't care.

You may or may not know what you're talking about, but it is quite clear to me that you are investing a lot of time and energy defending the Usurper.

This place is becoming infested with Obots.