I cite pictures and ridicule, because you've already been educated about the Natural Born Citizen issue on Free Republic, ad infinitum. I refuse to waste my time with you.
Posted on 05/08/2011 8:40:39 AM PDT by rhubarbb
Sorry if this is in the wrong area, this is my first time posting. I'm a long-time lurker who loves FR and I use what I learn all the time against my friends, some of whom (Unfortunately) are liberal. It's the price of going to a big college. I'm really good about speaking the truth to them and showing how they're wrong, and most of my best arguments come from FR. But there's been one question that one of my friends keeps repeating and while I know he's wrong I can't prove it and it's bugging me.
I know the best researchers are here and I figured someone here has figured out how to set the Obama-bots straight on the issue. I've searched through all the other threads on eligibility and didn't find anything.
======
My friend says that Spio Agnew (Nixon's VP) proves that you don't need two citizen parents to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Now, I know that the Vice President must meet the same elgibility requirements as the President, and therefore must also be a Natural Born Citizen (12th Amendment). My friend claims that Spiro Agnew's father was a Greek Citizen when he was born. I've tried to find any information to confirm and deny this, but can't find anything. I know he's wrong (he's a Dem... haha) but need help with the proof.
I can't see Nixon choosing someone, and the Republicans electing, a vice president that was obviously unqualified for office.
So my question:
Is this true? Have one of the researcher's looked into Agnew's citizenship? Did Nixon choose a VP that was not a Natural Born Citizen? And if so, did he hide it like Chester A. Arthur did? I figure that one of the reasons I can't find any information on it might be because he did the "hide your past" thing like Arthur.
Any help would be great and help to take a liberal down!!
“the goofy after-Birther” = the goofy after-BirtherS.
His dad was naturalized before he was born.
While there are deviations from the Natural Law definition of “natural born”, these deviations have generally been asserted on the state rather than federal level and part of court „obiter dicta‟, offered without any supporting legal argument. Both British common law and American statutory history involve such assertions, yet these do not change the fundamental meaning of “natural born”, as it is exerting statutory definition on a term outside of Positive Law, when it is resolved by natural, self-evident means.
Not surprisingly the first 100+ years of this country‟s history are spanned by Supreme Court opinions clearly indicating the definition of natural born citizen, and repeatedly indicating the same reference consulted by our founders as they authored the Constitution in Carpenter's Hall, that reference being Emmerich de Vattel's "Law of Nations".
► 1814 The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel‟s definition of natural born citizens);
► 1830 Shanks vs. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel);
► 1875 Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);
► 1879 Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel);
► 1890 United States vs. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel);
► 1898 U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (same definition and C.J, Fuller‟s dissent confirming Vattel‟s definition of a “natural born Citizen” );
1899 Keith vs. U.S., 8 Okla. 446; 58 P. 507 (Okla. 1899) (common law rule that the offspring of free persons followed the condition of the father was applied to determine the citizenship status of a child);
(quoting comments from Borderraven):
“Natural-born citizen( NBC) requires two NBC parents. The parents have to have US citizenship, meaning they can each, either or both be naturalized, native-born, or NBC.
Barack Hussein Obama II, has proven he was born a native born Hawaii citizen, and a dual-citizen UK/US, thus invalidated any claims he is a NBC, or constitutionally eligible to be a POTUS.
His father was a foreign born student, on a non-immigrant student visa (8USC1101(a)(15)(F)(i)), under British consular jurisdiction, per 1952 British Treaty.
Barack H Obama II, was born in the Hawaii, then per (circa 1961 law) 8USC1401(a)(1), he would have been native born a US citizen, and under consular jurisdiction of the 1952 British Treaty and the under jurisdiction of British Nationality Act of 1948, Part II(5)(1)(a) he was born a British Citizen, thus a dual-citizen UK/US, and not a natural born citizen, and not constitutionally eligible for the 2008 or 2012 Presidential elections.
Citizenship by birth is determined by the circumstances existing at the moment of birth (Usually the 24 hour day in which the birth occurs between 00:00:01 to 11:59:59), jurisdictions, location, laws, treaties, etc.
Territory and allegiance determine jurisdiction.
Dual-citizenship is conferred by territory (jus soli) or by blood (jus sanguinis), owes dual allegiances and may be influenced by one against the other. Not someone you would want commanding the Army, is it?
Natural born citizen, is conferred by territory (jus soli) and by blood (jus sanguinis), has a singular allegiance that cannot be affected by a foreign influence
Presidents 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 12, who were “present at the adoption of the constitution” became the first-generation US Citizens “by conversion”.
With George Washington being 55 and Zachary Taylor being the youngest at 3 years old.
The “second-generation” US Citizens who were born of two first generation citizens, became the Natural Born Citizens.
The Natural Born Citizens who became US Presidents are: 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 38, 40, 41, 42 & 43.
Both of their parents either became citizens at the adoption of the constitution, or were born of the new citizens, or were naturalized before the future president was born.
Anomallies
#21 Chester A. Arthur
#44 Barack Hussein Obama””
Quoting comments from Freepers:
“
Candidates and opinion-shapers need to stay focused on the real issues and attacking Obama’s policies, not his citizenship”
“The birth certificate debate is the dumbest waste of energy ever in American politics.
As long as conservatives continue to push this nonsense, they won’t be taken seriously as policy leaders.”
“You’ll notice that the overwhelming vast majority of prominent conservatives (including potential presidential candidates) want absolutely nothing to do with “birther” drivel. The one who has, Trump the clown, looks like an utter and complete buffoon now that the theory has been utterly blown to pieces when Hussein released his long form.”
“Obama will not be defeated by conspiracy theories, he will be defeated on the issues - primarily his horrendous mismanagement of the economy.”
“Yup. The whole “birther” issue has been an utter waste of time tied almost entirely to ridiculous conspiracy theories.”
“I agree.. I think there are other issues to talk about..”
NOW......ask yourself this. Is it wise to ignore a serious Constitutional issue so that one does not appear “ridiculous?” Is it brave to be bullied away from studying a legal question which potentially has enormous political impact?
If we attack obama only on these “policies” who will then tell us which “policies” we are allowed to attack on? Will these same people who work to dissuade us from this question of eligibility, further confine our approved “list” of allowable issues on which to debate?
Are we to be cowards with no conviction?
From an obama approved campaign website: FactCheck:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr.was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by THE BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT of 1948.
THE SAME ACT GOVERNED THE STATUS OF OBAMA SR.’S CHILDREN.”
How in hell can a single solitary person misunderstand or misconstrue the meaning in that paragraph?
But the more important question is, why would anyone want to?
Simply tell your friend “You’re right. Agnew was not a citizen but he never became president. Obama is not a citizen and DID become president. He should be removed.”
BO’s birth certificate states his father’s nationality as Kenyan.
This is a forgery and a lie, since Obama was born in 1961 and Kenya was formed as a country in 1964.
"The common law of England is not the common law of these states."
( Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788)
Great post!
In using the term you used to describe other Freepers, you sound like a DUmpster member.
I cite pictures and ridicule, because you've already been educated about the Natural Born Citizen issue on Free Republic, ad infinitum. I refuse to waste my time with you.
Earl the past week, Mark Steyn sitting in for Rush, ridiculed and derided a caller for wanting to push the eligibility issue. His basic point was ‘would you really want to disqualify a man because there is a question over whether his mother was old enough to convey citizenship on him at his birth, a birth which he had no control over?’ Of course Steyn was purposely giving (read affirmative action putz) barry bassturd a pass for all the criminal behavior which may be at the heart of the scam to get him in office. And the kneepad sycophants working FR for axelgreasy of late want us to ignore the criminality also! And we shouild, until the bassturd is out of office, unless a totally conclusive piece of evidence surfaces which proves barry bassturd and his criminal enterprise party have been committing massive fraud. I just hope the feckless pubbies have the good sense to nominate someone who will actually work to restore the Republic when barry bassturd is exposed as not only ineligible to run a second time but is a criminal who needs to be prosecuted asap.
Either way, Barak Obama was born here, he is an American Citizen by birth therefore case closed.
James Buchanan’s father became a citizen by virtue of the Constitution. He arrived in 1783 and the Constitution was ratified in 1787. He became a citizen before James was born in 1791.
Since this is all regurgitation, here what was said to Captain Duncel:
- - - - - -- - - - - - -
To: Captain Kirk; iowamark; WhiskeyX
Here's some...here you go:
- - - - -- - - - - - -
Possible 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates: Part 3 (Jindal/Barbour/Christie)
[Quote]
1910 Census: I haven’t found a Theodore Agnew in 1910, but I did find a “Theodoros Anagnostopoulos” (his original name) in Massachusetts who’s the right age. He’s listed as “Alien.”
Source Citation: Year: 1910; Census Place: New Bedford Ward 6, Bristol, Massachusetts; Roll: T624_579; Page: 4B; Enumeration District: 211; Image: 689.
[Unquote]
You are reporting the wrong census record and the wrong person. He is not the father of Spiro Theodore Agnew.
He is listed under a different name in another state and city. the 1910 U.S. Census reports he is “Na”, a naturalized U.S. citizen.
The 1930 U.S. Census reports he is “Na”, a naturalized U.S. citizen, but someone used a pencil to cross out the “Na” and write “Al”, meaning an Alien, in pencil above the “Na” written in ink. This was also done for some reason to other “Na” entries made by this census taker as well for reasons that are unknown.
The original entry for the 1910 U.S. Census very definitely reports he was a naturalized U.S. citizen eight years before the birth of his son. The draft registration reports he was a naturalized U.S. citizen no less than two months before the birth of his son. The 1920 U.S. Census record reports him as “Al” and Alien, but there are so many gross errors about age, year of immigration, the informant obviously was reporting erroneous information to the census taker. The 1930 U.S. Census reported he was a naturalized U.S. citizen, except the pen and ink entry was altered by pencil to report an Alien instead of naturalized U.S. citizen.
The natural born citizen requirement only matters to people who believe in enforcing the articles of the Constitution without bias and favortism to any party or person. Everyone else is acting in contempt of the Constitution and the principles for which it stands. It remains to be seen who will protect and defend the Constitution and who will effectively destroy the Constitution and the principles of freedom it was created to defend.
Now you are trying to take the comment out of context and twist it into something it was never meant to be in the first place. His immigration record demonstrated the 1920 Census record and informant were in gross error and thereby supported the census records, draft registrations, and other records which reported him to be a naturalized citizen at least by 12 September 1918. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence seen to date, everything other than some informant’s error ridden 1920 U.S. Census entry, reports Theodore Spiro Agnew was a naturalized U.S. citizen before the birth of his son. You have been given the exact citation where you can see the report of his U.S. citizenship in the draft registration for yourself. If you want to attempt to rebut the record of the man’s U.S. citizenship in those records, you are certainly free to find the persuasive documentary records needed to do so.
Theodore Spiro Agnew; born Sept. 12, 1878, U.S. Citizen, [checked] Naturalized....
Theodore Spiro Agnew, [date of rrecord] 12 September 1918, Draft Board 11, Baltimore City, Maryland, World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. United States, Selective Service System. World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. M1509, 4,582 rolls.
- - - - - - - - - -
He may be President, he took this Oath, but IMHO he is NOT upholding it.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
I understand the same things you do, but I simply have a different reaction to the wayward state of our nation.
The Constitution is the foundation which supports all statute law, but our Founding Principles are what supports the Constitution.
If high court rulings and constitutional amendments have violated our Founding Principles and the spirit of our Constitution, they need to be thrown out.
To allow these aberrations to become the supreme 'law' of the land, is to give up those ideals which we (should) hold most sacred.
This is where I'm coming from, and it's where I personally stand on all these questions.
And to add insult to injury he was Canadian, Eh?!?
This is a lie. Please stop posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.
This is the truth:
General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective “natural” making it “natural born Citizen of the United States” for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton’s proposed “born a Citizen”
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.