Posted on 06/10/2008 7:01:56 AM PDT by chessplayer
I know I’m interested in finding out the truth on this.
Thanks for the pings.
Those founders were smart guys! They even covered the corner cases.
Yeah, that'll probably work real good. :-)
In reality the issue regarding his birth, unless the mother lived out of the country anytime during the five years before his birth and had him outside the US (which I do not believe happened), is a non-issue. His mother was a US citizen and he was born on US soil therefore he is a natural born citizen.
There has been talk about issues regarding his citizenship in Indonesia, but I believe they are a far stretch that will have no traction either.
As it is, there is more than enough about his associations, his positions, and his own words to defeat him if we are up to the task.
THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
VOTE NOBAMANATION 2008
Jim, you are exactly right. Thanks for the wise words.
Thank you. I knew about them living in Indonesia, but had never heard about Kenya, so I was confused and couldn’t find anything else on it. I’m trying to keep up, but it’s hard!!
Again, this is silly. There are other, more substantive things we can go after him about that might actually sway someone not to vote for him.
This issue isn't going to go anywhere, and it isn't going to change the minds of any voters.
B. Obama has experience similar to Lincoln on the national stage our political oponents can argue. They can likewise point out that the largest political party in the United States has voted and caucused to nominate a person of his heritage, racial, ethnic and religous background and what does it say about people that oppose him due to those extractions alone?
Obama is very much like Benito Mussolini: a socialist turning away from international communism and instead promoting a third-way. Mussolini and Fascism were considered a viable option before the rise of Hitler. Woodrow Wilson and FDR espoused and enacted many fascist policies and spoke highly of Mussolini.
We need to point out that if our opponents want to say the McCain is the "third Bush term" that we will gladly accept that legacy if they, in turn, will agree that Obama is the ideological child of Mussolini and will serve out both the second term of Jimmy Carter and the first term of Leon Trotsky as a plain and simple socialist.
Thanks for the ping/bookmark for later
Hey, FARS: Could you please stop including my name in the “To” category of all of your posts? Every time I log in, for the past half a year, I get “New Posts To You” on threads I’ve never been involved in, and it gets kind of annoying.
Thanks!
“Birthright citizenship in the United States of America follows from the rule of jus soli, whereby any person born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted U.S. citizenship.”
Again, you are reflecting a recent-times judiciary ruling-understanding/interpretation of “subject to its jurisdiction” which is/was historically NOT interpreted to mean ANYONE whose parents WERE NOT U.S. citizens and/or not legally in the U.S. (they are subject (citizens of) some other “jurisdiction” at the time).
The change to that interpretation was delivered by our activist judiciary NOT by legislation. Its not part of the written Constitution and the legislative acts that wrote it; its part of the “living” Constitution drawn from the clouds by the minds of judges.
“If the baby of two illegal aliens born on American soil is a native citizen why wouldn’t the baby of an American woman be a citizen?”
By the simple understanding given in the debates surrounding the relevant portion of the Constitution, the written Constitution does not consider such a person a citizen.
Our activist judiciary has, by judicial fiat, altered the meaning from the original.
The relevant term is “subject to the jurisdiction of” (the U.S.) and it’s as-written intention was that one was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of another sovereign.
ROTFLOL
Exactly when did the United States began issuing Passports and Visas? For a very long time after Our Nation's founding, until the Reconstruction Period, individuals came to this country and became citizens without the US State Department even being aware of them.
You are the one that is making the interpretation. For one hundred years anyone could come to America and their newborn children became Americans simply because they were born here.
It should also be understood that the phrase, subject to its jurisdiction, is there to exempt foreign diplomats, envoys and other officials representing their respective governments. Ordinary individuals that come here are of course subject to our jurisdiction but foreign officials are not.
Having said that, I see nothing in the above that indicates anchor babies should exist today. Illegal entry predates a so called "anchor birth" and should negate any legal Constitutional protection.
Back to the matter of this thread, if the senior Mrs. Obama never went to Kenya the issue is moot, because she was an American giving birth in America, hence Obama is clearly all American, paternity not withstanding. If she was smuggled back into Hawaii to mask a foreign birth, the birth certificate will not reflect it. Even if his birth certificate indicated he was born at home and then registered later, it would still only be conjecture that he might have been born overseas, P> If US entrance records for the weeks before Obama's birth indicated that his mother had traveled from overseas, that would be cause to insist on seeing the details on his Birth Certificate. It would take a tinfoil hat wearer to believe that could have happened.
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.