Posted on 05/01/2010 1:22:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
One of the constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency is that he be a "natural born citizen." This was put into place by the founders to keep foreigners or persons who do not bear a non-questionable allegiance to the US Constitution out. Obviously, and admittedly Barack Hussein Obama was born to a foreign citizen and is not 100% American. He's half-American, half-African and all Marxist. He obviously bears no allegiance whatsoever to the US Constitution and is working overtime to destroy it. He's a usurper and should be removed from office. He is exactly the kind of fraud/usurper the founders feared.
Yep, Hawaii state officials are all corrupt and in Obama’s back pocket, including the Republican Gov...
There was no “two parent” rule for natural born. The rule that existed at the time of the Constitution was “zero parent” IAW multiple cases that the Founders were familiar with...sorry to bust your bubble.
Vattel wrote one sentence in a philosophy book, and that sentence did NOT include “natural born citizen”.
Few heard of Ramsay because he was a minor figure.
The Supreme Court cases did NOT define NBC as requiring two citizen parents - the opposite if anything.
When every elected member of the GOP is part of a conspiracy to keep liberal democrats in power, you need to re-think your assumptions. Because it means you are either
1 - a nut, or
2 - outnumbered 99-1 or more in a popular election country.
Being outnumbered 60-40 by the leeches of society is a big enough task to fight.
<>Vattel wrote one sentence in a philosophy book, and that sentence did NOT include “natural born citizen”.<>
The English translation of 1759 did and Ramsay probably read it.
<>Few heard of Ramsay because he was a minor figure.<>
And you know that how??? Were you there, Chucky???
<>The Supreme Court cases did NOT define NBC as requiring two citizen parents - the opposite if anything.<>
The obiter dicta of numerous courts has stated its meaning time after time — with nothing to the contrary.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
And then there is this from somebody who should know:
And then that pesky Leahy and that SR511:
http://theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm#LeahyResolution
I prefer the evidence that we have for the historical traditional meaning of “natural born citizen” to the evidence to the contrary THAT YOU DON’T HAVE.
I highly doubt you can stop it at the ballot box Ron. Looks a lot like to me that Obama and crowd are stacking multiple millions into the democrat voting block right now. This power drunk POS will never leave peacefully neither will he allow all his yes men/women to be voted out. Nope, it is going to take a lot more than the ballot box. CO
“The English translation of 1759 did...”
No, it did not, and I’ve already posted the quote from the 1759 translation on this thread.
I wrote “Few heard of Ramsay because he was a minor figure.” He was. Not a bad guy, but not THE legal authority on the Constitution. Compared to him, we have James Madison’s comment on which is important for citizenship, birth or descent:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)
The link you provide on the Supreme Court is bogus. The cases cited do not show NBC requires 2 citizen parents, nor did they attempt to.
“And then that pesky Leahy and that SR511:”
Except that applies to someone BORN OUTSIDE THE USA - NOT someone born within the jurisdiction of the US...doesn’t it? It is dishonest to post that as evidence that a person born inside the USA needs to have 2 citizens for parents.
Your info is bogus, and that is why no court takes it seriously. When someone pretends one sentence, incorrectly translated AFTER the Constitution was written, is the end all of legal meaning for NBC, it is impossible to take them seriously.
Agreed :(
Wrong, the 14th defines Citizenship, not NBC, a requirement to be eligible for the office.
Birthers are a huge waste of time.
Perhaps you should direct that comment to the person who posted and wrote this thread, you know, the owner of this site.....
You don't know your American history, do you???
Throughout most of the history of American immigration, particularly since 1848, a foreign woman became an American citizen upon marriage to American man.
Therefore, any child of one American parent was automatically the child of two American parents. If the father was an American citizen, then so was the mother. The two-parent requirement was automatically met if the father was a citizen.
In the light of this, let's read the Court in Minor versus Happersett during the height of the immigration movement in 1875:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents." [Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)]
The citizenship of the father was automatically the citizenship of the mother and became the citizenship of the child. "Parents" meant daddies and mommies.
My take on it is a bit different, though we both agree on the election as fixed -- or at least engineered to produce a desired outcome.
McCain was the choice of the left from the get go, precisely because he was beatable. That's why his candidacy was pushed by the media, while other GOP candidates, especially Thompson, Giuliani, were given little attention. At the same time, the collapse on Wall Street was intended and did serve as the final nail in the coffin of the GOP. Lurking behind that is I'm sure G. Soros, who has had prior experience manufacturing financial crises to achieve his ends.
And let's not forget the Senate resolution magnanimously declaring McCain a Natural Born Citizen, [though he is not], and opening the gates for Obama by deflecting attention away from him.
If you believe Rush Limbaugh thinks Obama is disqualified from being President because of his father’s citizenship, post it
You implying that Hayworth or Rush do not think jus sanguinis is not being part of the US Constitutional clause natural born citizen is completely false. They've spoken of the issue in general terms and kept such details to themselves, but by their behavior, they think Obama is likely not a natural born citizen.
And like your behavior here, week after week, day after day, hour after hour, makes it in all likelihood you are a leftist troll.
If Obama was born overseas, I support his IMMEDIATE removal.
Oh really? You're changing your tune to sound like you care.
My argument, as you well know, is that a fact known to the voters, Rush Limbaugh, JD Hayworth, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, his opponents, the states, the Congress and the Supreme Court cannot disqualify Obama after the fact.
Now you are saying he cannot be disqualified from office. You're being hypocritical and you have contradicted yourself in the same breath. You said,
"If Obama was born overseas, I support his IMMEDIATE removal."
If Obama was born overseas, even a Cro-Magnon could see Obama would be 'disqualified' from office before and after the fact. By removing Obama from office there would have to be legal grounds to disqualify him from presidential office. Your talking points are screwed up.
Personally, I think he has hidden his birth certificate because Barack Obama Sr was NOT his father.
LoL. Do you have any credible evidence that Sr. was not Obama's father?
I suspect if we really knew - or if his mother knew, and I doubt she did - who his father was, then Barry would be unchallengeable as a natural born citizen.
Oh there it is... of you wanting it so bad for your guy to be legit in the White House and a natural born citizen. You hoping Obama is "unchallengeable" from an NBC seed will not make it true.
I wrote “My argument, as you well know, is that a fact known to the voters, Rush Limbaugh, JD Hayworth, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, his opponents, the states, the Congress and the Supreme Court cannot disqualify Obama after the fact.”
You replied “Now you are saying he cannot be disqualified from office. You’re being hypocritical and you have contradicted yourself in the same breath.”
If you had the brains God gave a goose, you would see no contradiction. I said a fact known to all prior to the election - Obama’s father - could not disqualify him after the election.
However, a fact deliberately lied about and concealed - which is what it would be IF Obama was born in Kenya - WOULD disqualify him, and I think Congress would agree to remove him.
“You implying that Hayworth or Rush do not think jus sanguinis is not being part of the US Constitutional clause natural born citizen is completely false. They’ve spoken of the issue in general terms and kept such details to themselves”
Ah...so you know they are birthers even if they do NOT believe that Obama’s father’s citizenship disqualifies Obama - and you know it based on secrets they’ve kept to themselves.
Did the black helicopters reveal it to you?
“And like your behavior here, week after week, day after day, hour after hour, makes it in all likelihood you are a leftist troll.”
Make that 11 years, and anyone reading recent posts would see support for legal concealed carry without a permit, strict anti-immigation measures, support for JD Hayworth to remove McCain, anti-abortion, etc...all the marks of a classic leftist troll?
Here’s a link from 2006 supporting Randy Graf:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1706696/posts?page=61#61
A military thread from Aug 2006
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1690959/posts?page=45#45
Sorry, but I don’t have the patience to show samples back to 1998. But I’m a damn odd looking troll...
They said one case - with parents both citizens - was never doubted, and admitted others said “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”.
There was still debate in 1875, but WKA in 1897? put an end to most of the debate. By the 1950s, there wasn’t a debate about those born in the USA. The implications of WKA, and the reasoning that formed its basis, had been accepted.
In 2010, it is a bit late to rewrite the books. Not totally impossible, but there is NO SIGN the SCOTUS will touch this case. NONE!
Here I'll make it easy for you. I'll underline the answer for your convenience:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents." [Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)]
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” [Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)]”
WKA went further...
Also note: “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Hmmm...only two classes in that decision: “natives or natural-born citizens” and “aliens or foreigners” whose citizenship rested on naturalization.
WKA went further...
Yes it did -- but only as citizens -- not natural born citizens.
Right.
At that time and even well after WKA, children born on American soil to foreign fathers were considered foreigners themselves. When the father was naturalized after five years, his children, those born here and those born abroad, became citizens. Until their father's naturalization, his wife and his children were aliens.
Check immigration history. The citizenship status of the father determined that of the wife and the children.
obumpa
"... the states, the Congress and the Supreme Court cannot disqualify Obama after the fact."
If Obama was "disqualified" he would be removed.
Again, here is what YOU said and is contradictory to your statement above.
"If Obama was born overseas, I support his IMMEDIATE removal."
To "REMOVE" Obama after the "FACT," he would have to be "DISQUALIFIED" as an usurper 'president'.
However, a fact deliberately lied about and concealed - which is what it would be IF Obama was born in Kenya - WOULD disqualify him, and I think Congress would agree to remove him.
Now you admit to one of your contradictions in your post above that Congress can remove him after the 'fact.' Obama could also be removed if he never qualified for office. The Supreme Court could make him a figurehead with no power; a joker in the White House if they found Obama to be unconstitutional as president -- as no one would have to legally follow his orders. Obama could sit in the White House without any legitimate authority...keeping the lights on or something.
Ah...so you know they are birthers even if they do NOT believe that Obama’s father’s citizenship disqualifies Obama - and you know it based on secrets they’ve kept to themselves.
Rush and Hayward have questioned Obama's legitimacy like how about seeing Obama's real birth certificate? On his genuine birth certificate, if Obama has one, it would show if Obama was born in Hawaii [Jus soli] and to whom was his parents [ Jus sanguinis ], and if Obama showed it in a court of law, it would become public record. Obama would be exposed and vulnerable to one or both issues - Jus soli and Jus sanguinis.
If you had the brains God gave a goose, you would see no contradiction. I said a fact known to all prior to the election - Obama’s father - could not disqualify him after the election.
If I had the brains of a goose, you would wish for my goose brain since your brain is equivalent to what lives in goose droppings.
You are one of the brains on FR.
Attacks on your brain power are beyond assinine.
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.