Posted on 02/13/2013 2:25:37 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
For Immediate Release 2/13/2013
There is substantial interest in creating a film adaptation of the Terry Lakin Story, "OFFICER'S OATH."
This is a poignant, heroic story that must not be forgotten, or falsely relegated to the "conspiracy theory" chapter in the annals of our national history.
Terry knowingly sacrificed his military career, endured a court-martial, and ultimately spent nearly half a year in Leavenworth Prison simply for standing up for the Constitution he pledged to uphold and defend. His story is detailed in the book "An Officer's Oath," which is recommended reading for anybody who reveres this country and the Constitution by which we were successfully governed for so many years.
Officer's Oath tells the sometimes harrowing, sometimes inspirational true story of Doctor and 17-year U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who sacrificed his distinguished military career--and his very freedom--to preserve the integrity of the United States Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at commandertaffy.com ...
I already know that one of these citations is completely false. And I’m pretty the rest are being mischaracterized. Start with Ankeny v. Daniels. It did NOT rule that Obama is a natural-born citizen. The Allen v. Obama citation you posted RELIES on this decison, but there is absolutely NO LEGAL PRECEDENT in Ankeny to support the claim by this judge. It simply is NOT there.
In Section B of the Ankeny v Daniels ruling, entitled “Natural Born Citizen” it states: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
The entire ruling can be read at:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb
The “Natural Born Citizen” section of the ruling begins on Page 10. The quotation above is in specific reference to Barack Obama.
Bingo!
That cert of loss of nationality ASSUMES 0 had u.s. citizenship to begin with!
So to claim 0 lost his nationality (when under age ) is unfounded, to say the least.
(now where did that FOIA request go?)
Still waiting on Mr. Magnussen to answer my questions in post 92 and 94. No reply so far.
Still waiting on Mr. Magnussen to answer my questions in posts 92 and 94. No reply so far.
” Obama’s mother amended her passport renewal to inform the State Department her son had naturalized in a foreign state.”
Liar.
“It puts Obama in a precarious position because the SoS could issue him a CLN if a preponderance of the evidence indicated his actions could be determined to be a renouncement of citizenship.”
No. Obama could not lose his citizenship by being naturalized in a foreign country. It involves a lot more work than that, even as an adult.
You don’t get to make up rules.
“In the Elg case, it was never established Elg was a citizen of another country.”
By treaty, she became a Swedish citizen and the USA was required to recognize her as such 5 years after she arrived in Sweden. Again, you don’t get to make up facts.
read your own link:
“The lawyers of Rachel Kingsley, however, appealed to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach, Florida. It ruled that the trial court erred in granting standing to a child to divorce his parents.”
“So what logic would the Framers have used to argue that persons with fundamentally divided loyalty should have equal access to the presidency? Has a court specifically offered an opinion on what have motivated the Framers to invite the children of foreigners to occupy the office of POTUS? “
Yes. It was discussed at length in WKA. Half of the decision involved that question.
edge isn’t sane. He cannot read a single sentence without getting it backwards.
“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.”
It was a question. I.e.: why would the Framers have preferred divided loyalty over undivided loyalty? If it was discussed in the decision, on what basis was it concluded the Framers would have preferred divided loyalty?
You said:
“No. Obama could not lose his citizenship by being naturalized in a foreign country. It involves a lot more work than that, even as an adult”
Elaborate on what kind of work.
As posted earlier:
“Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon one’s own application after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or its political subdivisions after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
accepting employment with a foreign government after the age of 18 if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for implementing this section of the law) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a person who:
is naturalized in a foreign country;
takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state;
serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or
accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government,
and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain U.S. citizenship since such an intent will be presumed.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
” I.e.: why would the Framers have preferred divided loyalty over undivided loyalty?”
The Framers saw no divided loyalty in someone of foreign parentage being born and raised in the US. If they were raised outside of the US, then they obviously believed the voters could judge for themselves.
Is Rev Wright loyal to the US? He was born in the US of citizen parents. What about Bill Ayers? Is he loyal to the US? He was born in the US of citizen parents.
Your genes don’t make you loyal or disloyal to a country.
Is Obama loyal to the UK? He sure doesn’t seem to like the UK, or anything or place that involves whites. The people of America knowingly elected a racist who hates everything America was built on. No provision of the Constitution can prevent a majority from committing cultural suicide. If Obama was banned, they could have voted for Rev Wright...or John Kerry, the traitor from Mass, who nearly won in 2004.
Since the election of 1988, democrats have won, or come very close to winning. Since 1988, there has only been one election where the democrat candidate didn’t win the popular vote. Starting in 2000, there has only been one time that someone who didn’t loath America won the popular vote.
The problem with America isn’t Obama. It is with the majority of Americans, who apparently have rejected the laws of God, and every value that made America an admirable country. The 60s bore their fruit in the 90s, and a majority of Americans - natural born citizens, too - have rejected the principles that made us Americans.
The Framers could not prevent that.
“The Framers saw no divided loyalty in someone of foreign parentage being born and raised in the US. If they were raised outside of the US, then they obviously believed the voters could judge for themselves.”
Source/quotes please. Directly from the Framers. [This is the first I’ve heard of someone speaking from inside the minds of the Framers, who knows exactly what they were thinking and why they thought it, etc. If it’s not complete projection or supposed mindreading, then surely you have quotes to back it up.] Thank you in advance.
It is obvious from the legal language they used - “natural born citizen”, which is a term that was used in law back then interchangeably with “natural born subject”. In the years prior and right after the Constitution was written, the Mass legislature bounced back and forth between the terms in their citizenship laws and proceedings.
NBC wasn’t something pulled out of thin air. It was used interchangeably with natural born subject, and NBS has a well established legal meaning: born within the realm. The WKA decision discusses it at great length.
NBC did NOT come from Vattel. The first translation of Vattel to use that term was made 10 years AFTER the Constitution. Nor was NBC a term made up out of thin air.
Many of the men who wrote the Constitution were lawyers, as were most of the members of the legislatures that ratified the Constitution. When lawyers use a legal term in a legal document, it is safe to assume they are using its known legal meaning. And as the WKA decision wrote:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Let me repeat for emphasis:
“The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
‘It is obvious from the legal language they used - “natural born citizen”, which is a term that was used in law back then interchangeably with “natural born subject”.’
__
In addition, they also required only fourteen years of U.S. residency, which means that someone 35 years of age who has spent 60% of his life living overseas will face no Constitutional obstacle on the grounds of possible divided loyalty.
So you have no quotes. You simply have your steadfast belief that natural born citizen means ‘any brat dropped on a particular piece of real estate regardless of parentage or allegiance’. I’ve seen presentations like yours that make a solid case for NBC meaning the child of two citizen parents. If the evidence were cut and dried one side or the other could/would offer a quote directly from one of the Framers. But you did not, nor have I seen a direct quote supporting the other side.
Until I see that quote, I will remain convinced that two-parents is what was meant/intended. This is because I actually grasp the concept of divided loyalty. It isn’t a difficult concept to understand, but I have yet to meet a single soil-only person who gets it. Your comments on England made me shake my head. If what you said genuinely represents your full grasp of ‘divided loyalty’ then no wonder you think geographical location is everything. I’d certainly like to believe you have more insight into Obama’s particular situation than that, but so far you’ve provided no indication that you do—and nor has any other soil only proponent. For whatever reason, they either cannot or simply refuse to grasp the concept. In one case it is a mental/psychological limitation, in the other a choice, but in either case it closes the discussion. You can’t, for instance, intelligently discuss diseases w a person who doesn’t grasp the concept of germs. It would be a foregone waste of time.
If ever a soil only person demonstrates true insight into the issue of divided loyalty, and is able to discuss it intelligently and factually in Obama’s case specifically, I will be inclined to listen to whatever else they have to say. As long as they demonstrate zero—literally zero—grasp of the concept, all I can say is sure, go ahead and make it all about the technicality of the physical location of a particular patch of dirt. That is evidently the best you can do, so embrace it w everything you’ve got.
How did the Founders intend to prove who fathered a candidate? Were they just going to take the word of the candidate, the one person who was certainly not a witness to the conception?
Were they just going to take the word of the candidate's mother? What did they intend to do with a case like Obama's, where mom is dead?
Do you really think they intended to create an unworkable standard?
How could you know who fathered any of our past presidents?
How do you know Barrack Obama the First is Little Barry’s father? Or do you admit you have no freaking clue?
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.