Posted on 09/29/2009 4:09:26 AM PDT by Man50D
.. and the fruitloops just keep getting jucier and jucier!
Of course this was posted on an Obot’s website. You can google it if you want. I will not give credence to this website but I will darn sure explain that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is wrong!
Justice Ginsburg:
My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents. I had never considered him a naturalized citizen of the United States.
Justice Ginsburg again:
There is a debate over whether my grandson is a natural born citizen. I think he is.
Ruth, grow up and take your collective head out of you know where! Your grandson was born in Paris, France, not the USA. I am now thinking, how long have the parents lived in France? How old is the child? Does the child consider France home too? Does the child speak French, go to French schools, believe Europe is a nice cushy place to practice the NWO. Just where do the child’s loyalties lie?
I will bet you one thing is for sure. As soon as practical after the child was born Ginsburg’s children (parents of the grandson) ran down to the US Consulate in France to submit the paperwork for US citizenship. Just because the law says the child is a US citizen at birth, that doesn’t mean the US is going to let the child inside the Country legally without a US Passport or formal paperwork.
(Excerpt) Read more at americangrandjury.org ...
Ruthie is the same diseased leftist who stated proudly that she thought the age of sxual consent should be lowered to twelve, also.
>>>My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents
She’s correct. American parents was all that was necessary. Children of citizens born outside the continent aren’t second class citizens.
This argument is embarrassingly vapid.
>>>Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg is way off base here, typical far leftist. Here’s a good analysis of NBC: http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2009/08/defining-natural-born-citizen.html
A site telling you it’s the plain truth is a good warning to not take them seriously. It’s like a used car dealer called Honest John.
Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg is wrong about a whole lot of things, this being one of them.
Time to put that old mare out to pasture.
The effort to conflate citizen with natural born citizen is heating up. Obamanoids are coming out of the owoodwork today on the topic ... new talking points for fear that the actual location of the obamessiah’s birth will get revealed soon and it isn’t Hawaii? Bwahahahaha, I love the smell of obamanoid fear in the morning. [ That’s your cue to claim you’re not an obamanoid with your sudden interest in the issue of NBC conflation with citizen. Perhaps you can get one of your team to make the plea for you so your stealth is not overexposed. ]
Being born on a military base doesn’t constitute U.S. soil, either. Unfair as it sounds, children born abroad, even to U.S. citizen parents serving in the military, are not natural born.
There have been numerous bills put forth for Constitutional Amendment to “make” such children born abroad eligible for the Presidency, but none have been ratified. The most recent was in 2004, sponsored by former Senator Nickles (R-OK) and co-sponsored by Senators Inhofe (R-OK) and Landrieu (D-LA), known as the “Natural Born Citizen Act.”
There are problems with such a scheme, admirable though the sentiment might be. Persons born abroad may be subject to claims of citizenship at birth by the country in which they were born, under jus soli.
Such claims upon a President could severely complicate international dealings in the capacity of President, and as Commander In Chief of the military. Outside of the United States, such individuals are subject to the laws of countries with which they possess citizenship. This would be untenable for any President, who certainly does not only deal with domestic matters, and does not remain solely in the United States for the duration of his or her term of office.
>>>The effort to conflate citizen with natural born citizen is heating up. Obamanoids are coming out of the owoodwork today on the topic ... new talking points for fear that the actual location of the obamessiah’s birth will get revealed soon and it isn’t Hawaii?
Yes it’s all a conspiracy, and only you hold the true wisdom. Aren’t you special. Honestly I don’t see anything that would more buy Obama the sympathy of the country then that sort of deranged dumbass paranoia.
If proof can be found that Obama had other then US citizenship, that’s significant. But that isn’t the issue with Ginsberg’s grandchildren. This parsing is a pretty strong sign that the main argument has and will continue to fail. It’s moving the goalposts and will not be taken seriously outside the fruitloops wing.
Apply extra tinfoil and carry on.
BTW, the only thing I can find that I would agree with your posting history is the assessment of the specious Drake Equation. ... Consummate arrogance to formulate an equation as if relevant/remotely valid while so many variables are ignored to construct the equation.
Yes, any statutory citizenship can be revoked. Only Natural Born citizenship is entirely free of risk of revocation since it does not depend on statute law.
I think it would be extraordinarily hard to revoke any form of citizenship short of Natural Born that attached at birth, especially if the birth took place in the Unties States itself, due to the misapplication of the 14th Amendment that has fossilised now. But there used to be some defined ways that birthright citizenship for children born abroad could be lost. Some of them might have been repealed, but what can be repealed can be re-enacted.
Of course, traditional naturalizations can be revoked for any number of causes, including fraudulent acquiring.
I don’t have time to research the legal references. Why don’t you try the link in one of the posts above which leads to some very interesting discussion at the Supreme Court about just these issues. I will tell you that even Supreme Court justices evidence considerable confusion on these issues.
For the purpose of my part of the discussion, I really don't care whether Ruth Buzzy's grandson is a NBC, but from RC's discussion, it seems highly likely that dependence upon US law for citizenship is ipso facto not naturally born citizenship, nor would it be Congress' jurisdiction, as such is not enumerated to them.
Contrary to what you said, Barry Soetero's citizenship and potential NBC status would be judged entirely without regard to Buzzy's progeny being any kind of citizen, except perhaps in Buzzy's mind.
Condor51 is saying BHO qualifies as a citizen at birth under US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, paragraph g, but that would inherently mean not a NBC, as it is dependent on statute, not NBC defintion.
From all the publicly known information in combination with the above citation, BHO seems to have been born a US citizen, even if he was born in Kenya, and so long as Indonesia's adoption procedures can't nullify Zero's access to prior US citizenship, which I'm reasonably confident must be the case, but perhaps only if he availed himself of the proper US paperwork once he became of age.
Though I'd read of the five-year requirement on Stanley Ann, I hadn't seen before that only two years of those needed to be as of the age of fourteen, which she seems to have met.
With this distraction in his hip pocket, I believe the info on his Hawaiian COLB will show Barry to have been lying fraud for many years prior to his presidency, most likely as to his having been born in Kenya, but certainly not to a degree that will get him impeached in this session of Congress. That said, it would be important to note that his having been truthful on that point would certainly have kept him from getting elected president.
HF
US Code CANNOT define a Constitutional term, such as “Natural Born Citizen”.
If it could, then we could simply redefine words in the Constitution to mean whatwever we wish and to hell with the Amendment process.
And, NO, her grandson is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” and neither is my son, born in Jakarta, Indonesia to US citizen parents. Sorry, but both you and Ruthie are wrong on this - in her case guilty of wishful thinking. In your case, well I just don’t know.
so according to your theory, a foundling of unknown parentage and uncertain place of birth is a Natural Born Citizen..yeah that’s the ticket/s
You are wrong on this, Ann did NOT meet the five year requirement. This two year requirement that you are referring to is (I beleive) a later revision of the statute that was NOT, repeat, not, retroactive. Ann Dunham was legally incapable of transmitting US citizenship to Barry outside the United States in 1961.
Impeached?
You can only impeach an office holder. If the man is Constitutionally disqualified, he isn’t an office holder at all. He is little more than a trespasser.
Sorry, but all Americans born abroad have statute law to thank for their citizenship status, and to that extent they are not and cannot be “natural born citizens” despite being US citizens by birth. This may be a distinction that is hard to grasp, but it is graspable.
Please see my post 7 above for a brief explanation of the law on this subject.
Obot trolls hard at work here I see...
Please cite the revision history to which you make reference.
HF
What a dis-incentive for anyone to sign up for the military! “We’re going to station you overseas and any kids you have there won’t be natural born citizens. Thanks!”
So you believe neither presidential candidate was a natural born citizen?
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.