Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
What did she use ???
Her own passport. Infants travel on their parents passport.
______________________________________________________
Yes, but she would have to provide the US Embassy some type of document in order to have him added to her passport...
Thus a Kenyan BC
When we were sent overseas in the early 1970s our 9 month old son had to have his own passport...
What about Obama Jr being listed on his Dad’s passport ???
Also Ann as the wife was probably just added to Obama Srs passport...
He already had one so it wouild have been easy to do if they got married in Hawaii...
Would they put an American wife onto a Kenyans passport ??? maybe not..
Otherwise she would have to have her own US passport..
I think Jr may have been on Dads passport...
Ah, the Queen...
I’m eligible to be president...
:)
Wong Kim is not about “naturalized” citizens, it is about the status of children born of aliens on U.S. soil. Here is the quotation:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
The statement is differentiating citizens from natural born citizens, but asserting that the child born of aliens on U.S. soil is a much a citizen as natural born citizens are citizen. That natural born citizens are citizens is a tautology. The statement says nothing about naturalized citizens.
Again, this is an issue both Donofrio and Appuzo have analyzed extensively, though I find a disturbing number of statements by academics which misstate the point. I supposed we are seeing the difference between original interpretation and the constitution as a living document. But if precedence ceases to have meaning, so does The Constitution.
One of the more shocking examples is in an otherwise informative article in WorldandI referred to by Donofrio
where Nancy Salvato, claims that Title 8, Section 1401 defines natural born citizenship. What is insidious is that she quotes a number excellent sources, properly, and then arrives at what I suspect was her intended conclusion by misquoting just the title of 1401, which is “§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth” . Her statement is “Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen.” which conveniently makes Barack a natural born citizen.
In effect, without further clarification, a BORN citizen is identical to a Natural Born Citizen and is distinguished from a “naturalized citizen.”
Not at all true, in fact, quite the opposite.
According to the 14th Amendment, a naturalized citizen is identical to a “person born” citizen:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
So, if “persons born” or “naturalized”, are citizens enjoying all “privileges or immunities” alike, BUT naturalized citizens CANNOT become President, then it stands to reason that being that “person born” citizen is not sufficient qualification on its own to meet the Constitutional standard for the Presidency, and there is a third, and higher class of citizen who attains citizenship via something other than being born in the United States. That is the “natural born citizen”...a person who attains citizenship as a birthright, rather than as an effect of simple geography.
That citizen’s birthright comes to him or her as a legacy from citizen parents (plural).
That fits perfectly well in with Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born citizen” is.
The debate over Obama’s birth certificate is a distraction, and a smoke screen designed to hide the real issue...Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen” because his father was not a citizen.
The answer is clear and unquestionable...he is NOT Constitutionally qualified to be President by virtue of his father’s lack of American citizenship, birth certificate be damned.
Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.
Chester A. Arthur, the 22nd President of the United States who became president in 1881 following the assassination of James Garfield, faced claims that he was born in Canada or Ireland, from where his Baptist preacher father had emigrated.
During the 1880 election campaign, when Arthur ran as Garfield’s vice-presidential running mate, Democrats hired a man called AP Hinman to explore Arthur’s origins. Hinman claimed that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not move to the US until he was 14. Arthur denied the charge, defending himself in an interview with the Brooklyn Eagle on August 13th, 1880: “My father, the late Rev William Arthur DD, was of Scotch blood and was a native of the north of Ireland. He came to this country when he was 18 years of age, and resided here several years before his marriage,” Arthur said.
“I keep trying to get out but they keep draggin’ me back in!”
/bad Al Pacino impersonation
:)
Both are not possible, as the one precludes the other, under the plain meaning of the legal term as evidenced in writing, before ratification of the Constitution, from John Jay and others now known as Founders.
Additionally, this plain meaning of the legal term is either supported, or left intact, in decision after decision, right up to and past the 14th Amendment, tortured modern-day interpretations of said Amendment notwithstanding.
It's intact in the early 20th century, with Elg, and in fact there is no statute to this day that contravenes the original intent of including the legal term of art "natural born citizen" in the Constitutional eligibility clause for the office of President.
And, this is no accident of history, nor is it some sort of oversight. The legal term "natural born citizen" only has bearing upon those candidates who, having won election, are put forth for consideration to be certified and, once certified, duly sworn into office.
There is no Constitutional remedy for an ineligible President. The possibility does not appear to have been countenanced. But, neither is there any provision for accepting an ineligible President. Once ineligible, always ineligible, as a result of having not been born into complete allegiance as required.
What?
Posted a crappy image enhancement that will dog you for the rest of your life?....;-D
Obama is probably a Title 8 citizen
____________________________________________
Whats that ???
My parents were in Germany in the early sixites(Dad stationed there in the Army). My sister was born there and all my mom used was my sister’s Birth Certiicate to fly her back to the States. She was not on her passport at that time.
________________________________________________
I wonder if being a military family would make a difference ???
If not then Stanley Ann wouldf have not trouble just using Obama Jrs Kenyan BC to bring him back to the states...
a BORN citizen is identical to a Natural Born Citizen and is distinguished from a “naturalized citizen.”
NONSENSE. Did the 14th amendment REPEAL article II? NO. Does the 14th amendment address “natural born” NO. so Article II STANDS unchanged.
Well, by all means, provide evidence of these legal interpretations in the form of statutory law. Let's see what precedent there might be, to support such a contention.
Surely you want to set us all straight, right?
Let's see it, jamese777.
It’s one thing to be an obamanoid sycophant refusing to believe what is posted because you don;t want it to be true. It is quite another thing to be so stupid that you cannot comprehend just how wrong you are and how flawed your repeated assertion when the refutations are posted so often to you. For yet another time, troll, read post #7955 above.
Hes not paid to think...
8,000
8,000
8,000
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.