Based upon that argument -- which I agree with -- why can't these two pages from his mom and dad's 1964 divorce be used in lieu of the COLB as prima facia evidence? It identifies BHO's biological father and is a court record ...
Posted on 03/01/2009 4:35:14 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
There has been much debate over what constitutes a natural born citizen. Much of the debate has been misinformed calling the concept of natural born an obscure technicality or an overight by the writers of the Constitution. Neither of these characterizations are true.
Many times the true meaning of consitutional wording must be determined by looking at the era and the circumstances, and, in some cases, terminology in other sections of the constitution, the inclusion or exclusion of supporting verbage, and even writings other than the Constitution.
Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United Satates."
The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that that eliminated them from being natural born and, thus, from eligibility, they included the grandfather clause which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being natural born. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.
When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th ammendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, "Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority." The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared "And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US." Neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents' citizenship.
This concept of citizenship by blood as opposed to citizenship by geography is a concept with a long history in British common law. A law passed in 1677 says that natural born citizens are those persons born to British citizens, including those born overseas. Alexander Porter wrote an article over 100 years ago in which he declares that the framers drew upon this difference in the law of heredity and territorial allegiance to define a third class of citizen applicable only to the eligibility to hold the office of president. According to Morse, "the framers thought it wise to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance only to the US at the time of birth." He goes on to say that the the eligibility of the president "was scarcely intended to bar the children of American citizens, whether born at sea or in foreign territory."
The concept of citizenship by blood also precludes the equation of natural born with native born as the latter strictly demands geographical requirements.
Many argue that Barack Obama was eligible to be a state senator and a US senator and could not suddenly be ineligible to be president, but that is exactly the case. If this premise were true, Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California, would also be eligible to be president, and it is established that he is not.
Barack Obama has proudly and publicly stated that his father was a citizen of Kenya. We know his mother was eigteen years old when he was born. These two facts make Obama ineligible to be president. No birth certificate is needed as proof, and it doesn't matter at all where Obama was born. His father's non-citizenship is all the law requires. He is ineligible from the beginning, meaning he is NOT the president and can be removed from office without any impeachment or trial, it requires only a ruling by the SCOTUS. HE is, in fact, a usurper, a pretender or a fake.
So why has Obama been shepharded into our highest elected office regardless of the fact that he is, according to his own statements and the law of the land, ineligible for that office? It is because those whose responsibility it is to insure the eligibility of the president, the SCOTUS, has chosen, in violation of the law, not to override the voters that voted for Obama. They are are cowards who violate their sworn oath rather than make an unpopular ruling. We are no longer a republic ruled by law, but, instead have become a democracy with rules made up as we go along, never to be written as law.
POSTSCRIPT: In each and every case dismissed by the SCOTUS challenging Obama's eligibility the reason for dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the plaintiff's claim. Not once did the SCOTUS rule Obama was eligible or even consider whether he was or not, rather they dismissed each case on the technicality of plaitiff's lack of standing to file the case.
Thanks for the clarification. I knew that the “anchor baby” could claim citizenship immediately, and that his status won’t stop his parents from being deported (and him with his parents). However, I thought that at 18, when the “anchor baby” has the right to return to the U.S., he could immediately bring his parents in; I’m glad to hear that that is no longer the case, and that he has to live in the U.S. for 10 years before he can apply to have his parents become U.S. residents.
You’re right that I assumed that the pre-1996 rules were in effect; I had a friend in college that was a U.S. citizen by virtue of having been born in the U.S. when his parents were in college (his parents had student visas), and he was filling out the paper work to bring his parents over. It was back in Fall 1993 or Spring 1994, before the 1994 elections brought the GOP into power, and I guess he was lucky he got all that done before the law changed.
“I fully understand why you don’t want to address an issue you have turned upside down (anchorbabies). I do hope you will read longtermmemory’s post to you, phantom.”
Being from Tennessee, I would think they’d have taught you better manners.
We in the South reserve our best manners for those who deserve them. You fail
Yawn.
So has there been a time of getting folks used to the issue (giving it legs) and then bringing them to some further realization?
Sounds like it to me. No wonder so many are now trying so vociferously to shoot it down.
Now, after ramming through a porkulus which threatens the very solvency of the nation, I am convinced the Democrats saw this as their greatest opportunity to end the Constitutional Republic and slide in a full socialist oligarchy fashioned to look like what it never can be, a real representative government.
We The People were the failing sovereigns of this Constitutional Republic so long as the Constitutional contract was not completely abrogated. Oh, to be sure, things like the Federal Reserve and the IRS, etc. have been abrogations of the terms of the contract. But with the advent of this Kenyan Klown and his posse, We The People have been pissed upon by the abrogation of our Constitutional contract by Congressional branch of the dying Republic (Congressional agents purposely failed to vett this bastard and signed documents claiming he was eligible when they had not substantiated that, and the Speaker of the HOuse in joint session in January '09 prevented any challenge to the receiving of the electoral votes) AND ignored by the Judicial branch of the Fed by refusing to use common sense and allow We The People to challenge and demand the minimum proof of this Kenyan bastard's eligibility to be sworn in.
The demonic game has been to play exceptions, such as do not allow objections to arise in joint session, and 'failure to have standing' in the federal judiciary to demand the candidate prove he is eligible to be on the ballot, much less be sworn in TWICE by a pinkneyed little twerp playing chief justice of a subpreme court.
The federal oligarchy isn't biuding their time before exposing the freaud, they have embraced the affirmative action fraud like the Quislings they are!
They federal employees have ended the Constitutional Contract and established the rule of federal oligarchy. All that remains is the further consolidation of their control via raising taxes to punitive levels and establishing a police-state domestic army to enforce their orders upon the sheeple who allowed themselves to be usurped via vote fraud and inattention to their sovereign's responsibilities in electing honest representation.
When 95% of a race votes for a candidate because of his race regardless of his political persuasions, We The People we assassinated by fellow voters.
Welcome to the Democrat's new world of Amerika, the Federal Oligarchy, Constitutional Republic hasbeen mutated to socialist paradise of national insolvency.
Donofrio holds the same opinion, but he would be SOL if Obama Sr' was not Junior's daddy. We had a dust-up on his NBC blog where he cracked on me for pursuing Obama's birth certificate.
Leo stated to me that he doesn't wish to remove Obama from office. Yes, you heard me right.
Based upon that argument -- which I agree with -- why can't these two pages from his mom and dad's 1964 divorce be used in lieu of the COLB as prima facia evidence? It identifies BHO's biological father and is a court record ...
>>>Leo stated to me that he doesn’t wish to remove Obama from office.
Threats?
He means that he, PERSONALLY, does not want to be the one who becomes known as the Man who dethroned a King.
Once he’s been ruled ineligible, he is not the President or a Senator, and therefore ALL SS protection STOPS!
I meant, was Donofrio threatened.
Well, for starters, Stanley Ann’s signature was abolutely FORGED.
ABSOLUTELY.
If her signature was forged, and those aren’t real divorce papers, maybe Obama Sr. had had his VISA revoked due to getting her pregnant since he was already married.
(Sorry, I had to post that.)
He probably feels threatened.
This article deserves to be reposted. OFTEN. REPEATEDLY. FREQUENTLY.
This is the single best article I have read regarding the issue of Barack’s Daddies citizenship and just exactly what it means!
I can’t believe I missed this one the first time around!!!
> “I always thought that was written because since these men were creating the United States, none of them could have been born in it.”
.
What they were creating, via the constitution, was a new Government for those previously united states.
.
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.