Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nuke rocketeer

That is not the same as a constitutionally required Natural Born Citizen. We will give up when Nobama produces a real birth certificate.


9 posted on 04/16/2010 5:01:28 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: ilovesarah2012
It must be too early in the morning for trolls since the majority of comments in this thread are on point. Your comment however is not, though perhaps you don't understand the definition used as late as 2008 by the entire senate in Senate Res. 511. A natural born citizen is “born in the country of parents who are its citizens.” Since Obama told us that his father was never a citizen, and was in fact a British subject, making Junior a British Subject, no birth certificate, and no other document is necessary or relevant. Obama is not a natural born citizen. He does not believe the Constitution is inviolate, even though he swore an oath to uphold it. He knows it, but is clearly confident that he has the power to shield himself from having to answer any questions. He clearly believes no one in government will dare to challenge him. What is missing is a judicial system with the courage to uphold the Constitution, or legislators with the courage, since they signed a similar oath, or enough military officers, since only a few have have challenged Obama’s eligibility, Dr. Lakin the latest.

Read about Breckenridge Long in the Post and eMail. Long was later AG for FDR. Woodrow Wilson's opponent in 1916, Charles Evans Hughes, had a British father. Breckenridge wrote a perfectly clear essay for the Chicago Law Journal explaining that Hughes, later chief justice of the supreme court, was ineligible because he was born of British parents. Read about Dr. David Ramsay, President of the Congress United (Continental Congress) in 1785, before the Constitution. Ramsay was the author of History of the U.S. Before the Revolution. He wrote an essay about citizenship, restating and explaining the history of the definition “born in the country of citizen parents.” You can find the Ramsay essay in the appendix to the Kerchner Appuzo suit at http://puzo1.blogspot.com.

If the house is returned to conservative majority in November, there may be the will to raise the issue. The supreme court will need to confirm the historical - common law - definition. Obama appointees will probably need to recuse themselves. Turmoil will follow, but no worse than the the impending failure of our economic system. Then there will be another election, since every senator refused to investigate Obama’s eligibility and both Hillary and Joe Biden were among them. Nancy Pelosi signed at least two vouchers stating that Obama was a natural born citizen. This is not about birth certificates, it is about dereliction of duty by our representatives. Obama is patently ineligible because of a definition confirmed by three supreme court chief justices, Marshall, Waite, and, ironically, Charles Evans Hughes in Perkin v. Elg in 1936, even though he tried to ignore Article II Section 1 when he ran for president. It was also clearly stated by the remarkable author of the 14th Amendment John Bingam, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins.

18 posted on 04/16/2010 5:50:53 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson