All your citations related to Wong are meaningless when they don’t specifically address natural born citizenship, particularly in terms of Constitutional eligibility. We already know the 14th amendment created native born citizenship and did not redefine natural born citizenship.
As I already posted and as Justices Scalia and Thomas have said: “The Constitution ‘contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’”
What part of “...AND ONLY TWO...” don’t you understand?
As much as you hate it but can’t admit it because it destroys your argument, there are only two categories of citizenship for all American citizens: “citizenship at birth” and “naturalized” citizenship. “Citizens at birth” are “natural born citizens” and they can be elected president and vice president and “naturalized citizens” are created by statute law and they cannot be elected president or vice president.
Under the laws of the land, specifically Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401, point “a” of the US Code entitled “Nationals and US Citizens at birth”:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;” Now if you can find a different section of the US Code that defines natural born citizen differently from the above, have at it!
THERE IS NO UNITED STATES STATUTE THAT DEFINES THE TERM “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,” NOR HAS THERE EVER BEEN, FROM THE TIME OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. THERE IS NO COURT DECISION OR LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS THAT SEPARATES “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS” from “CITIZENS AT BIRTH.”
If it isn’t codified in the “U.S. Code” or in the “U.S. Statutes At Large,” it is NOT the law of the land. PERIOD.
This is false. You're misconstruing your citations as saying something they don't.
THERE IS NO UNITED STATES STATUTE THAT DEFINES THE TERM “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,” ....
Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself. You go from saying that it's been folded into the 14th amendment, to saying that it's not defined. You can't have it both ways. I've already explained that Minor (and WKA) have said the definition is extraconsitutional. It CAN'T be defined by statute, but instead only by a specific Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, we are still bound by the same common law definition found in six different Supreme Court cases. Obama is not a natural born citizen ... period.
No James, I for one do not understand.
Here’s the problem: If BHO II were born in the USSR in 1961 to a Soviet father serving in the govt of the USSR and an American Citizen mother AND BHO II resided in the USSR for all but 14 years of his life, he would still be a US “Citizen at Birth” simply because his mother was a US citizen.
Obama, in this situation, would NOT be a “naturalized citizen.” He would not require “naturalization” b/c he was born to an American citizen mother and thus is/was automatically a US Citizen at Birth.
Therefore, IF there are only 2 citizenship classifications — citizen at birth and naturalized citizen — then there must be classifications within “citizen at birth”, ie., NBC and some other type(s) of “citizen at birth” which is defined. . .and in fact, “citizen at birth” is defined as several different citizenships some including birth on foreign soil.
Per the authors of the 14th Amendment, Article II was not touched nor changed, in any way, by the 14th Amendment.
Obviously, the kid born to a Soviet Father & an American mother, even if he were trained as a communist/soviet most of his life, would STILL be a “Citizen of the US at Birth.”
Clearly, it would be a serious “national security” risk for the US to have a President (even if a US Citizen at birth) who was trained as a communist by a Soviet communist system whose father worked in the govt of the USSR regardless. The fact that one of his parents, ie., mother was a US citizen (born or naturalized) when the child was born, i.e., Obama, is irrelevant. He had ONE parent who was not a US Citizen. That’s a very significant fact that has been lost in this discussion.
Obama’s father did, in fact, work or the Kenyan Govt and was exclusively loyal only to Kenya.
Therefore, based on your reasoning, wouldn’t Obama technically be a NBC of BOTH the US & GB? People seem to ignore Obama’s other citizenship statuses. I’m wondering WHY that is?
Here’s what the American people do NOT know about Obama even now: We do NOT KNOW Obama’s CURRENT citizenship status.
IS Obama CURRENTLY still a British Citizen/Subject? Did he EVER lose his British citizenship? Yours and others reasoning is that Obama never lost his US Citizenship even if adopted in Indonesia. Okay, fine. How about his BRITISH citizenship. Did he ever lose his British citizenship?
We know he lost his Kenyan citizenship in the 1980s b/c he admitted it. But he NEVER said a word about his BRITISH citizenship.
IS Obama STILL a British Subject/citizen, NOW as POTUS? The American people do not KNOW the answer to that question. Why not?
Also, IS Obama CURRENTLY (or was he ever) a Citizen of Indonesia? The answer to that basic question about candidate Obama and President Obama was (and is still) DENIED to the American people. I’m wondering WHY? And I find that FACT very disturbing. What’s going on in our country. WHY — and who has the power to deny us this very basic information about ANY candidate for the single most powerful position in the US Govt.
If the American people can be denied such basic SIMPLE information, what ELSE is being hidden from us?
Why don’t we even KNOW the answers to these questions and WHY won’t ANYONE talk about it OR PERMIT it to be discussed on the PUBLIC airwaves?
This is one colossal COVER-UP. It makes Watergate look like nothing.
Something is VERY wrong when the American people don’t even know what the CURRENT and FULL citizenship status is of a sitting “president.”
What kind of ELECTIONS are being run in the US today? Seriously. Are the American people SO ignorant and apathetic that we don’t even REQUIRE that our POTUS candidates supply even BASIC information and records that can substantiate WHO they are?
And . . .Yah, I did put “president” in quotes b/c I am not sure IF Obama is legally The President of the United States b/c he’s hiding SO much and simply refuses to answer SIMPLE basic questions about himself. Although, he’s not totally at fault. He’s been PERMITTED to HIDE a great deal by a horrifyingly COMPLICIT media/press (both liberal and conservative). WHY?
What about the Marie Eig SCOTUS case? The court had no trouble identifying Eig as a NBC b/c both of her parents were US citizens at the time of her birth and she was born in the USA.
Wong Kim Ark also stated that the ONLY definition of NBC that ALL recognize as true is: Born on US soil to 2 US citizen parentS. ALL other possible definitions are speculative. The burden of proof is therefore on OBAMA to prove that HE is a NBC of the US. it’s really not on us to prove he is not a NBC. he must prove b/c HE is the one who SAID he was a NBC when there is NO CASE that definitively defines HIS citizenship (mult-citizenship AT BIRTH) as being that of a NBC.
EIG is an important case too and obviously so. Wong Kim Ark is a problem for those who would declare that Obama is a NBC of the US. SCOTUS only declared Ark to be a US Citizen and we can all agree on that identification. It’s pretty easy— Wong Kim was born on US soil. He’s a citizen. IS he a NBC? NO b/c the COURT REFUSED, specifically, to say IN THEIR DECISION ON THE ACTUAL MATTER that Wong Kim was a NBC. The court REFUSED to say so b/c THEY didn’t have the VOTES to say so.
Again, the 14th Amendment did not change, did not define, did not address in any way Article II. And, NO statute can overrule an Article of the US Constitution. It can only be changed by Amendment. . .and there has NEVER been such an amendment.
Its’ TIME for SCOTUS to define clearly the definition of NBC. Obama, however, knows the definition. It is ALREADY PRECEDENT. With the exception of CAArther, ALL prior POTUS’s born after ratification of the US Const. have ALL had 2 US Citizen parents & been born in the US.
Stare Decisis DOES exist in PRACTICE — in that all presidents prior to Obama did know exactly what NBC meant & means. Obama is the FIRST POTUS in US History (born post 1789) to have MULTIPLE citizenships — US and a FOREIGN nation. This SHOULD BE A NO-BRAINER that the POTUS cannot have multiple citizenships. So WHY THE SILENCE on this OVERTLY serious matter? Blows my mind.
This truly is a national security matter. Again, we cannot, obviously, have a POTUS & Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful fighting force this world has ever known . . . who holds currently, or ever held, DUAL or TRI-citizenship — having been or currently a citizen of the US and a FOREIGN country.
VERY serious is this matter re: WHETHER Obama is legally/constitutionally the President of the United States. SOMETHING serious is going on.
This is a serious cover-up. Question is WHY? . .and WHO is behind it? And HOW can every news agency be SILENCED on such a basic and SIMPLE question: Mr. Obama, are you NOW or have you EVER BEEN a Citizen of Indonesia? Mr. Obama, are you NOW still a citizen of Great Britain?
In addition, the American People CANNOT elect whomever we please. We TOO are constricted by the US Constitution. We TOO may only elect a person to be POTUS who is a NBC with 14 yrs residency and 35 yrs of age. PERIOD.
Therefore, it CANNOT BE an unknown re: whether Obama is a NBC. The American people MUST know that information b/c we are forbidden from electing anyone who is not a NBC of the US.