Army Calls ‘Birther’ Doc’s Bluff

Military.com ^ | April 9, 2010 | Bryant Jordan

[EveningStar]

It's guts ball time for an Army surgeon who has vowed not to deploy to Afghanistan with his unit unless President Obama provides evidence that he's a "natural born" citizen of the United States.

In response to previously published statements by Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Army presented an official letter of counseling that directs him to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., on April 12 to begin deployment preparations with his unit.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I don’t know, LJ but I don’t belive our Military is subject to any ICC or can be held accountable by anyone but the US gov.

Of course now that bammie is in charge....

[little jeremiah]

I mean if/when 0bama is pulled off the stage due to ineligibility, then our military might be fair game for accusing of war crimes, since their CiC wasn’t a real CiC. So they were acting on their own (so to speak). Kind of like not wearing a uniform.

[little jeremiah]

But the “buck stops” with the CiC.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I see you point but who would prosecute?

So far, we are still a sovereign nation so the UN or the ICC would not have jurisdiction, plus the American people would tell them to kiss off.

Maybe the ACLU?

LOL

[Las Vegas Ron]

But these order are a result of bammies “surge”

Aren't the orders in that regard coming from him then?

[bushpilot1]

“It is true that the chief interest of the people in giving permanence and security to citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment was the desire to protect Negroes.”

LACK, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

387 U.S. 253
Afroyim v. Rusk

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0387_0253_ZO.html

[Exmil_UK]

The constitution says “natural born citizen.”

Only the English translation of Vattel’s “law of Nations” uses that exact phrase word for word.

Vattel’s definition of NBC excludes dual citizens like Obama.

Obama has aditted to being a dual citizen at birth.

Whatever the politics of the issue, the constitution as originally written makes Obama ineligible.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Thanks BP1

The 14th has been the most ill applied Amendment ever.

[bushpilot1]

“[The naturalized citizen] becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution,”

note the USC ruling does not say a naturalized citizen has the same rights as a natural born citizen. We know a naturalized citizen cannot be president.

There must be a difference between a natural born citizen and a native citizen e.g. citizen.

BLACK, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

387 U.S. 253
Afroyim v. Rusk
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 456 Argued: February 20, 1967 -— Decided: May 29, 1967

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0387_0253_ZO.html

[William Tell]

Non-Sequitur said: "And what clause of the Constitution do you base that on?"

Oops. Can I have a do-over?

The Twentieth Amendment appears to address the issue: " [...], or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; "

So, Biden it is.

[BP2]

I thought that looked like a state naturalization document.

It may well be. I would need to know its source, but I think I have an explanation at the bottom of this post.

Each state maintained the right to bestow citizenship until it ratified the US Constitution;
Maryland was #7 on April 26, 1788.

This document (Post 378) seems to show February 1, 1794.

However — and few people know this — it wasn't until the Immigration Act of 1795 that new citizens swore allegiance to the United States and its Constitution ... at least at the FEDERAL level.

Each state had slightly different rules on the issue of an Oath of Allegiance. Massachusetts (which barely passed ratification of the US Constitution by a vote of 187 to 168) was generally regarded to be the strictest state in regards to immigration. On the other hand, Pennsylvania was generally perceived as the most liberal state when it came to receiving foreigners as citizens.

James Madison, the sponsor of the revisions of the Immigration Act of 1795 that were introduced in December 1794, thought that the 1790 Immigration Act had not duly guarded against "intrusions and evasions" and that "the progress of things in Europe" was exposing the United States to "very serious inconveniences." Part of the Immigration Act of 1795 was a requirement that new citizens abjure prior allegiances — and it is still the law of the land today. As I showed in Post 323 above, Madison's fears would turn out to be justified.

However, as the document in bushpilot1's Post 378 is AFTER the Constitution was FULLY ratified in 1789 yet BEFORE the 1795 Immigration Act, I suspect bushpilot1's document a type of state-level
Oath of Abjuration and Allegiance ... in this case, from the state of Maryland.

[Mr Rogers]

“Only the English translation of Vattel’s “law of Nations” uses that exact phrase word for word.”

There is no sign, based off of correspondence and writings about the Constitution by the framers, that they had “Vattel’s law of Nations” in mind. In essence, it meant someone whose natural allegiance was to the USA, not a foreign country. And a man born in the USA whose foreigner father abandoned him would not owe natural allegiance to the country of the father who abandoned him, who only saw him once after about 2-3 years of age, and who had zero influence on his upbringing.

If a court DID address the question, they would probably follow those lines of thought - where would Obama’s natural allegiance be? And if Obama hadn’t turned into a racist, his natural allegiance would be to the USA, and he would claim to be either white or mixed, rather than pretend he is a ‘black man’.

However, since he was allowed on the ballot in all 50 states, and ran with the question in the open, and was elected by a comfortable margin, I don’t think any court would consider overturning the election over a concern that Obama was Kenyan, or a ‘dual citizen’.

Further, we have already had a President whose father was not a citizen at his birth. More precedence in Obama’s favor.

Obama is a Marxist racist thoroughly at home with Rev Wright, but he was elected President of the USA with everyone hearing the tapes, and knowing full well what kind of Marxist bastard he is. He didn’t have to hide it - people CHOSE to ignore it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc2FCJ7zWEQ&feature=related

My sister, who I assure you knew ALL about it, voted for him claiming he was a centrist who would unite the country. She regrets her vote, but she cannot claim she didn’t have the facts before her. She just refused to believe ‘her lying eyes’!

[BP2]

Further, we have already had a President whose father was not a citizen
at his birth.

Please, put up or shut up.

We're still waiting for the name of these presidents ... so we can correct you ... again.

[CharlesWayneCT]

The person who would have to decide if the orders came from the rightful President would be the person who received hte orders from the President.

It’s not the job of the grunts to determine that lawful orders they are given originated with the President. They are only supposed to evaluate whether the orders are to do something that would be lawful.

In this case, the argument is whether the President is entitled to be President.

But it’s no different than asking whether the orders you get really started with an order legally signed by the President. And we can’t have hundreds of thousands of troops each of which can refuse to obey an order until a court decides if the President authorized the order.

[BP2]

There is no sign, based off of correspondence and writings about the Constitution by the framers, that they had “Vattel’s law of Nations” in mind.

You're just a glutton for punishment, aren't you?

[Mr Rogers]

I already have. So provide the correction, instead of just mouthing off.

[edge919]

Obama is a US citizen, born of an American mother on US soil, and raised as an American.

One sentence,four claims but the only one that partially stands up is the American mother part - except for when she moved to Indonesia. The rest is tenuous at best.

[Red Steel]

He’s a glutton at ignorance.

[Mr Rogers]

There is no sign they used ‘natural born citizen’ as holding some special legal meaning. It was adopted without discussion or debate.

The phrase was sometimes used in letters and other documents of the time. For example, John Jay wrote:

“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Further, the clause in the Constitution states:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

So someone who was born elsewhere, but was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted, was good to go - assuming he had resided for 14 years in the USA.

Kind of hard on the ‘Anyone with tainted blood’ theory.

No court will be looking for an excuse to overturn a national election.

Any court will be looking for justification to uphold the will of the people. The Constitution, the example of history, the usage of the phrase in letters and common sense all align with saying Obama qualifies as a ‘natural born citizen’.

There is ZERO chance the Supreme Court or any other Court will invalidate the election of 2008. Deal with it!

[Candor7]

Lovely. Finally you are posting some good $hit.LOL.
Good stuff.