Posted on 03/01/2009 8:22:44 AM PST by STARWISE
Do you? Or do I need to post the link to the federal law in force at that time yet again? And if so, will you read it?
The U.S. Department of State is my authority.
The U.S. Code is mine.
You can not list ANY legal authority that agrees with you.
All you can do is “quote” laws out of context.
The AUTHORITY on this matter is the U.S. Department of State.
The web page I listed is under the control, now, of Hillary Clinton, SECRETARY OF STATE!
So, my authority is the Obama Administration, through the Obama Administration's Secretary of State, Secretary Hillary Clinton.
Is it your position that Obama’s own Department of State is wrong on this matter?
Here is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on the State Department Web page:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/
Click on that link, and then click on “travel” and guess what?
You will see the same thing I posted, above!
So, if Obama was NOT born in Hawaii, or on US Soil, the Obama Administration, through Hillary Clinton, admit that Obama’s mother would have to be age 19, at the time of Obama’s birth, to pass along “Natural Born Citizen” status to Obama.
You lost this argument.
Try something else.
Wow. Another incriminating document scrubbed. And a pdf so no copying.
Now, if you go to Section 308 dealing with Nationals But Not Citizens of the United States at Birth and look at paragraph 4 and then you begin to see something close to what you claim:
"(4) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a national, but not a citizen, of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than seven years in any continuous period of ten years- (A) during which the national parent was not outside the United States or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of more than one year, and (B) at least five years of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years."
Of course, you conveniently leave out the 'national, but not a citizen' part, thus turning the quote into something that supports your position, but from what I've seen research is not something you're on a first name basis with.
You lost this argument.
To the likes of you? Not hardly.
Non-Sequitur thinks the Supreme Court needs congressional permission to enforce the Constitution!!!
Thank you so much for playing, I really needed the laugh today!
The AUTHORITY would be the laws applicable at the time, you've said so yourself. And I've quoted them in full. Why not read them?
Is it your position that Obama’s own Department of State is wrong on this matter?
On this matter and so many others, but that's just me. I don't mean to shake your faith in the man.
As did I, thanks for coming. So it's your position that the Supreme Court can jump into any matter that interest it? It doesn't need legislation or a court case to appear before it, it can just troll the news looking for places to jump in and intervene? Is that what you're trying to tell us? Is it really?
“Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.”
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
You are simply posting Federal statutes without any competent interpretation or time line.
No Court has supported your point of view, in this matter.
No Government Agency, or Government Official, supports your point of view, in this matter.
You can not find ANY current web page, from any competent legal authority, that supports your position on what the law was, at the time of Obama’s Birth.
I have quoted and posted a website, from the US State Department, and THEIR legal staff. That legal understanding has been the same throughout the Bill Clinton Administration, the George W. Bush Administration, and now, that same legal opinion is held by the Obama Administration.
You simply want to argue.
You remind me of the Monty Python movie:
“What are you going to do, Bleed on me?”
You have been chopped to pieces.
Just as an aside, I was talking with the fambly pediatrician earlier today.
Turns out one of her personal friends went to Oxy with a certain Barack Obama.
Rich (we’ll call him Rich, since that’s his name) said that Obama told him he was leaving Oxy “because it won’t get me where I want to go.” Rich says he had no idea just how far Barack wanted to go...
You are deep in, a-hole.
This might be a good time for you to stop digging.
As long as his masters keep the checks coming, he will never “lose”.
What crimes would those be?
But, if that is the case, and the House refuses to even try to impeach, what then? Do the people have no recourse to enforce the Constitution?
O is rather quiet about his time at OXY.
I would like to see his entrance records from every college he attended.
And his grades. Seems like the libs bashed W. quite a bit over that.
Pot, Kettle, Black.
You did not get it right either. The Certification is a certified abstract of the information from the original Certificate of Live Birth, not a copy of any original document.
The certification is quicker to obtain, since the original document need not be manually pulled and copied, but rather the data is obtained from a computer database containing the extracted data. However, if it's specifically requested, a certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth can be obtained. Instances where that is or might be required include for purposes of the Hawaiian Lands program, and for purposes of obtaining a US passport, if the date the certificate was accepted or filed is more than year after the date of birth. (Doesn't apply in this case).
They don't and can't "establish" who is a natural born citizen. They have to use the existing definition, whatever that might be. Then they can say other people are citizens, at birth, or after birth following some procedure. But either way, they are not defining "natural born citizen". They have no power to do that. They only have the power to define uniform rules of naturalization. Thus anyone who is a citizen because of or as a result of an act of Congress is a naturalized citizen.
The power to define the terms would be the power to change the Constitution, and that Congress cannot do, except through their part of the amendment process.
Actually not, if the Congress could define who was a natural born citizen they would be changing the meaning of a Constitutional provision. I don't think we want them to be able to do that. They might define "arms" as swords, knives and muzzle loading firearms, or as only knives for that matter. They could define "militia" to mean only members of the National Guard. They could do lots of mischief. Fortunately the Constitution means now what it meant when ratified, save changes made through the amendment process.
So, whatever "natural born citizen" meant at the time the Constitution was ratified, it means today. If that meaning is not clear or in dispute, that's a matter for the Courts, not the Congress, again unless they wish to write and attempt to get ratified, an amendment changing or clarifying that meaning.
Congress's laws making people citizens at birth can only be considered "naturalization at birth", since Congress only has the power to provide uniform rules of naturalization.
The Government position, TODAY, is that the law in place at the time of your birth determines whether or not you were a citizen, at birth.
The Constitution FREQUENTLY leaves definitions to the Congress. Where the Congress does not act, often the Courts provide such definition.
To say “Natural Born Citizen” in the Constitution, and then not describe what that means, directly, would indicate that our government bodies could decide what that meant.
However, only the law in force at the time of birth can be accepted for the high bar test of “Natural Born Citizen” -—
Even the US Passport Application makes specifically clear that the DATE of your birth controls which law must be followed.
Now, you can claim that you, personally, disagree with Presidential, Executive, State Department policy over the last few decades -— that is another story.
However, the AUTHORITY in the field is the US State Department, and that authority says that I am right and you are wrong.
You might disagree, but I challenge you to find an alternative authority, that carries more weight than the State Department.
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.