March on Washington to tell president to quit

WND ^ | February 20, 2010 | Bob Unruh

[Lancelot Jones]

"I don't see "Person born citizen" anywhere in the Constitution."

Amendment XIV - Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

"There are only two classes of citizenship: native and naturalized."

• Article II, Section 1 - Natural born citizen (can become President)
• Article II, Section 1 - Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (Born a foreign subject, but naturalized by adoption of the Constitution, could be President by virtue of Constitutional clause)
• XIV Amendment - Persons born citizens
• XIV Amendment - Naturalized citizens

By the text of the XIV Amendment, both the "person born" and "naturalized" citizen enjoy all "privileges and immunities" of citizens of the United States, and the States are enjoined to afford the both the "equal protection of the laws."

Yet...they CAN'T be equal because we KNOW that naturalized citizens are restricted by Article II, Section 1 from being President.

So it stands to reason that being born a citizen does not by itself satisfy the natural born requirement.

What qualities could "persons born" and "naturalized" share?

Both could have foreign-born parents who owed allegiance to another country at the time of the child's birth, which is why they are equal in citizenship status in every aspect OTHER THAN the ability to become President.

A natural born citizen is born of citizen parents, his citizenship being strictly a birthright, and not an accident of geographical location.

A natural born citizen cannot have dual nationalities at the time of birth.

Barack Hussein Obama was a citizen of both The United States, and Kenya, until 1984.

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.

Beauseant!

[BuckeyeTexan]

So it stands to reason that being born a citizen does not by itself satisfy the natural born requirement.

I've argued that point all night. Are you on dope?

[American Constitutionalist]

What is your definition of a saint ?
Those who are " Born again " are GOD's children who are bought by the blood of Jesus Christ.... it is not how many times you go to church ever Sunday, nor how many tithes you pay, or good deeds have done...

[Jim from C-Town]

All I have is the original copy, My son has a certification. I was born in MI he was born in OH. I am not sure if their is a difference due to the state or if all they give in OH is a certification.

[American Constitutionalist]

You have a warped sense and false sense of what true humility is.
What one may think that it is arrogance, could be view as boldness.
True Godly biblical humility is that your brought to the revelation of your own weaknesses, and your true need of Christ's redeeming salvation, nothing, nothing but the blood of Jesus Christ can save you
True humility is the realization that your own self righteousness does not meet up or stand up to GOD's standard of righteousness for salvation, that which is in Christ Jesus.
True arrogance is relying on, and believe in your own deeds and good works can earn your way to GOD.

[Lancelot Jones]

Are you on dope?

I'm not the one that missed the first words of the XIV Amendment...I thought maybe YOU were hitting it.

:-)

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.

Beauseant!

[BuckeyeTexan]

I'm not the one that missed the first words of the XIV Amendment...I thought maybe YOU were hitting it.

I wish I were hittin' something but it ain't dope. ;p

[tired_old_conservative]

So I guess invoking the Lord’s wrath on someone over a silly political dispute is part of that true humility recognizing that your own self-righteousness does not meet up to God’s standards for salvation? Sounded more to me like someone invoking God’s name to cater to their own enraged sense of self (i.e., the individual ego at war with any and all sense of humility). That’s not bold. It’s self-absorbed pettiness using religion as an excuse.

I’ve managed to make it through a whole lot of life without saying “The Lord Rebuke You” to anyone over mundane secular disagreements. I certainly don’t think doing so meets God’s standards of righteousness for salvation, and I believe Christ Jesus had a few things to say about that as well. But I also most certainly do not wish you any harm.

[American Constitutionalist]

" I’ve managed to make it through a whole lot of life without saying “The Lord Rebuke You” to anyone over mundane secular disagreements. I certainly don’t think doing so meets God’s standards of righteousness for salvation, and I believe Christ Jesus had a few things to say about that as well. But I also most certainly do not wish you any harm. "

God's standard of righteousness is Jesus Christ alone.
God does not take lightly of those in whom who want to do his people ( his saints , his church ) harm.
God's protects his church, his children, his own people like a father would protect his own children.
God does not take lightly when those who want to oppress his people, thou shall not touch thy lord's anointed ones.
Those who want to warm and oppress God's people, his church , God takes a personal offense to it.
Those who want to harm Israel, God takes a personal offense to it.

I want to ask you ?

Will you, or do you confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and was GOD in the flesh ? and Jesus Christ is LORD of all ?

[American Constitutionalist]

Will you ? or do you confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and was God in the flesh, and is LORD ?

[Man50D]

The article doesn’t mention a date for the march.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior many, many years ago. So your attempt to shine a light on evil by demonstrating that I will not claim Jesus Christ is Lord is a complete and total failure.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Climb down from your cross. You’re not worthy to be uyp there. No one’s persecuting you.

[Danae]

Sorry Okie, the US DOES recognize when a person is born with two citizenships.

This is from TODAYS State Department.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

"Dual Nationality

The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country's embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. "

The Founders intene was to eliminate the possiblity of a man (or woman) from having TWO citizenships. The reason being that the person could have a CHOICE about which to CHOOSE. Being 100% American makes that impossible with out renouncing US Citizenship.

For example, look up the Olympic Skier From Jamacia. His name is Kerr, he was born and raised in the United States, lived with his mom (American) but has CHOSEN his fathers country and used THAT INHERITED citizenship in order to go to the olympics which most likely he would not have been able to do as a member of the American team. Kerr did not have to renounce his American Citizenship to do this!!!

Are you beginning to understand that the founders wanted to prevent just that from happening in regards to POTUS?

Obama is breaking the constitution with his presence in the White House, don't wonder for an instant why he and the congress are moving forward on legislation that is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL! They are not BOUND by it! CAUSE MEET EFFECT!!!

[Danae]

Because white people (Cook et al and the British) took their land, culture, heritage and innocence from them. They also brought disease and tremendous hardship. It has left the people and the islands dependent on “Benefactors” such as the United States. Hawaii didn’t become a state so much because they wanted to, they did it because they had to, they were that dependent. They are a very proud people and living under these conditions makes them fear what would happen if they were on their own, and that fear, the realization that they are hooked on Federal Government handouts, makes them VERY VERY angry.

[dforest]

People should be marching this week. March to call attention to the RAT congress using the nuclear option to force a bill that the people do not want. Then telling Obozo outdide our WH that we are are here because we have plenty of time since we are all becoming unemployed due to his traitorus plans.

Made me feel good getting that out!

[dforest]

outdide=outside oops!

[Danae]

Oh and 1961 being before all that welfare stuff? No, that started in 1958 with the strong movement toward Statehood. The reason for becoming a state was money. Hawaii had become a mecca for Asian Immigrants, and they could not afford the influx. They needed help and could not financially sustain the costs of these immigrants. But what are you going to do? Put them into a boat in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? No.

Believe me, it was dollar motivated. By 1960, a year into statehood, the welfare rolls in Hawaii were expanding. There are a lot of reasons the US wanted the territory, Alfred Thayer Mahan’s theories correctly identify the need for refueling stations, and in the pacific, Hawaii is a strategic necessity to US foreign and military policy.

This is a really good article on the pressures inside Hawaii in the Early 70’s when I was still living there:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1973/11/16/immigration-stirs-hawaiian-anger-pbwbhen-hawaii/

[Danae]

Of course you are a citizen if born in the US. THat does not mean you are a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. They are two different things.

Natural Born Citizen = Citizen

Citizen =/= Natural Born Citizen

[okie01]

With all due respect, you're misreading the situation.

You are citing current law and regulation -- which does indeed recognize dual nationality. The reason for this is very simple -- just as the Brits invented dual nationality because their economic empire was global in scope, our interests are now worldwide and the nationality laws were updated to cope with that.

However, in 1961, the prevailing law concerning dual nationality was that we did not officially recognize it. It still existed, of course, and a person with a nationality conferred by his blood was subject to the laws of his "parent" country -- when in that country, as the law you referenced states.

But, in this country, a child born in the U.S. was a citizen of the United States so far as the U.S. was concerned -- subject to our laws and no other. Upon reaching his majority, the child could opt for the citizenship of the "parent" country -- at which time he lost his U.S. citizenship. If he took no such steps, and we're not aware of Obama doing so, he remained a U.S. citizen.

So, by U.S. law, Obama is a U.S. citizen and does not have dual citizenship. Britain might think otherwise, but that's their business.

Now, we no longer require that option and allow people to retain their dual nationality -- if they wish.

One other thing -- let's not conflate "nationality" with "citizenship", they are two different things.