Posted on 05/01/2010 1:22:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
lol, because 90% of the birther threads are “you go girl Orly” threads.
~~~
Sorry .. I think that’s factually inaccurate.
Good thing we're not governed by British law and our citizenship status doesn't change depending on what some foreign country says.
we'er really in trouble when they all know this and look the other way.
Orly is not in the news any more and the only people who bring her up are those who ridicule the NBC issue.
The 14th Amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
In the Constitution, you'll find two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. There's nothing that says someone is half American or 3/4 American.
And Genoa, since foreign aid comes from TAX DOLLARS, do we not have a right to know if he did attempt to escape costs at occidental college, or even columbia by FAKING the need for FOREIGN MONEY as a FOREIGN STUDENT?
~~~
Like al-awaki, American-born, al queda terrorist recruiter who lied to get foreign student aid.
Al-Awlaki returned to Colorado in 1991 to attend college. He holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University (1994), which he attended on a foreign student visa and Yemeni government scholarship, reportedly by claiming to be foreign born,[28] and an M.A. in Education Leadership from San Diego State University. He also worked on a Doctorate degree in Human Resource Development at George Washington University Graduate School of Education & Human Development from January to December 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
“I’m not going to debate the issue.”
“Obama’s parentage was a matter of public record on the day when the Republican-appointed Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court swore him into office.”
********************************************************
It is not Chief Justice Roberts’ duty to question Obama’s eligibility....something that he may have to rule on at a later date.... Had he done so, he would have had to recuse himself from any future USSC deliberations/rulings on that issue.....
There are many others in our goverment, and the Fourth Estate that failed to properly vett Obama’s eligibility ...... the responsibility, and the blame for that failure lies in their hands.
As it was it took C.J. Roberts 3 tries, in as many days, to administer the Oath of Office to Obama..... seems like the words just kept choking in his mouth..........Wonder why?/s
I don’t know about you, but I value C.J. Robert’s dedication and service to our Nation....... to infer that he should be some sort of a Republican Party hack because he was nominated by a Republican President is beneath contempt.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.Some argue that there is only one group of citizens about whom there can be no doubt. That group is those born on U.S. soil to citizen parents. The SCOTUS ruling in Minor v. Happersett affirms that opinion.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.The Court in Minor v. Happersett also said that there may possibly be others who can be considered natural born citizens.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.However, for the purposes of the Minor v. Happersett ruling, the Court refrained from resolving any doubts about that second group of possible natural born citizens.
For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.Some argue that the courts have used the terms natural born citizen and native born citizen interchangeably. That is certainly true. The Court does so in Minor v. Happersett when referring to the first group of citizens about which there are no doubts.
These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.It is also important to note that the Court in Minor v. Happersett stipulates that there are only two ways in which one may obtain U.S. citizenship: birth or naturalization.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. (...) Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.So some argue that if one is not naturalized, one is a citizen at birth. And that is certainly true. There are many types of citizens who are granted citizenship by birth, such as those born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents. However, the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs manual stipulates that being a natural born citizen by statute does not guarantee that one is such for Constitutional purposes.
It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency. (...) In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.So while the Courts have used native born and natural born interchangeably and citizens are either citizens by birth or naturalized, we don't have a clear definition of natural born citizen from the Courts as it applies to circumstances of Obama's birth.
If there is any justice in this world, we will find a way to present a proper case to the SCOTUS who will then have to interpret what the Founding Fathers intended when they stipulated natural born citizen as a requirement for POTUS.
Until then, IMHO, we're stuck in limbo with a traitor as a sitting POTUS who hates America and is doing everything he and his thugs can to destroy our way of life.
And you know what gets me is that if this was a Republican, we would have gotten every bit of info there was on this indivudual yet, because the Usurper is black and a leftist, all his info is hidden. This my friends is all to keep the Lie alive.
The he!! you say!
Don’t feed the troll.
You got that right, the are all complicit in this cover up and should all be thrown in prison.
A few good men.....where the heck are they?
Come on. I don’t believe he actually won fair and square. I believe the ‘rats padded the voting. Maybe it was close, but BHO was so cocky, I think he *knew* a win was in the bag. His friends in high places kept reassuring him.
Jim,
Check this out. The Founders intent is important.
Foreign Influence and Presidential Eligibility
Evidence from the period right after the Constitutional Convention also supports the notion that the Founding Fathers were very concerned about foreign influence on the federal government, and in particular on the President.
The most direct evidence comes from a statement made by Charles Pinckney to the U.S. Senate in 1800. Pinckney had been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and, on July 26, 1787, had been the first delegate to raise the issue of presidential qualifications in the debate. On March 25, 1800, the Senate was debating a bill “prescribing the mode of deciding disputed elections of President and Vice President of the United States.”(54) Pinckney gave a detailed explanation for the Electoral College, emphasizing that the rules governing the Electoral College were designed so “as to make it impossible ... for improper domestic, or, what is of much more consequence, foreign influence and gold to interfere.”(55) Pinckney then made the only documented statement by one of the Founders connecting the Electoral College and the presidential eligibility clause. The Founders “knew well,” he said that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible....(56)
This statement by one of the Founders, thirteen years after the Constitutional Convention, therefore supports the interpretation, given earlier, that the Electoral College and the presidential eligibility clause were intended primarily as the two sides of a plan to protect the President from foreign influence.
Much more very worthwhile info continues here
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2499410/posts?page=190#190
Obama is the First popularly elected (non NBC eligible) Communist President promoted under the quise of being “Black” to cover those salient facts up.... accomplished in spite of our Laws disqualifying his nomination much less election, and with the full complicity of the Fourth Estate, the political parties, and other government officials...The whole matter is a disgusting perversion of the American Ideal/Idea......
geeeeeeeeeeeeez. Our money has been so abused I am about to start a movement to encourage ALL AMERICANS to change w-2’s to no withholding and to protest by NOT PAYING TAXES for one year. Oh yeah...we SHOULD have enough reserve to cover emergency measures for one year, at least, and instead we have overwhelming debt. SCREW UM ALL!
Neither do I .. that wasn’t my statement.
“Well, Obama is not. He was born a half-African and Muslem and was taken to live and be raised in a foreign nation as a citizen of another country. He was not intended to be an American citizen.”
Bill Ayers is a natural born citizen beyond anyone’s doubt, and an America hating socialist. Rev Wright is a natural born citizen by anyone’s standard, and an America hating social/racist hateful ass.
Obama is disqualified from the Presidency by his views, but the voters disagreed. But by the legal standards in place years before anyone heard of Obama, his being the son of a British and later Kenyan citizen doesn’t disqualify him.
The dissent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) noted what the decision was doing:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
The Indiana courts were following the years of legal tradition that followed WKA when they wrote:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.””
Unless the Supreme Court overturns the reasoning used in WKA, Obama’s father has nothing to do with Obama being or not being a natural born citizen. And if the Supreme Court had the stomach to overturn WKA, they would have done so in Dec 2008 - BEFORE Obama was certified as President. I don’t think there is ANY chance the SCOTUS will decide part way thru Obama’s term that information known to them PRIOR to his election has suddenly disqualified him from holding office.
Even if they did, the public outcry would be against the Court, not Obama. It wouldn’t take Congress a week to pass an amendment to the Constitution, and not much longer for the states to ratify it.
The people of America ultimately get what they want. Obama needs to be beaten at the ballot box, and on individual laws that go outside the government’s authority...which would be most of what has passed, unfortunately.
But no Court is going to overturn the reasoning of WKA and try to insist that Congress throw Obama out of office. Won’t happen. Not unless he was born outside of Hawaii.
I cannot stop folks from giving cash to birther cases, but the money would be better spent going to conservative candidates, and in educating people what America is really about. The Court had a chance to stop Obama’s election, and they punted. They won’t change now.
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.