Posted on 07/30/2009 5:06:48 PM PDT by curiosity
Several readers have written over the past few days taking us to task for dismissing so-called birthers as lunatics without bothering to refute their claims. We reluctantly concede their point. The birthers have managed to sow confusion in the minds of some who are not lunatics, and for the latter group’s benefit it is worth clarifying matters.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I mean a soldier (this also includes Marines, etc) that is actually up on charges. I believe OBama has to sign the orders.I am not up to speed on Court Martials but anyone having to defend themselves under this concept for the next few years should be able to challenge Obama.
THANKS
Also known as reaping the whirlwind in the Bible
Obama sowed into the wind and now he is reaping, getting his just deserts. You reap what you sow
My point was Obama eliminated his US Senate opponent via getting his sealed divorce records unsealed....
Setting Obama up to suffer the same way as we get his dicey birth certificate opened up. We get his BC opened up then there will be an uproar to get his college transcripts and other records opened up. He has been most adamant about keeping these records closed. Obama succeeded since the stooge media ran interference
Thanks. That's fascinating reading, and shows that as a matter of statutory law, plenty of thought has been put into defining citizenship, and even the condition of "statelessness," which attached to some bastards!
Anyway, my answer to your question about "allegiance" was that I took it in a "matter of law" sense, as literally having, as a matter of law, rights in and duties to more than one country. I understand your point, that a person might be sympathetic to another country, and therefore not have "allegiance to the US" in his own head. I don't see any way to crack that nut, "as a matter of law."
It’s not his money, for one thing. And, for another thing, there’s no legal requirement for a candidate to show his birth certificate, so why bother? And since it’s only Obama’s opponents who are hollering about it, again, from Obama’s perspective, “Why bother?”
And no..., if Obama were to make people cry “uncle” all that would happen is that they would then move on to another issue to hammer Obama on. Obama sees that this is a much more convenient issue to have people “hassling around with” than anything else. That’s because it’s so easy to marginalize and call “fringe element”...
If people were to get off this issue and on to something like “health care” — that’s harder for anyone to “marginalize” someone on that issue.
So, no... this is a very convenient issue for Obama to have his opponents engaged in...
I really find it hard to believe you are this much of an idiot .
You must be an Obamabot.
Were there any validity to that, the clause would not be in the constitution. The fact that the framers had to give themselves a special elligibility in the document fully disproves the contention you posted.
Vattel definately was their intent!
Karma is found in the Bible. But I didn’t mean Karma in a strict Buddhist or Hindu sense. Just that so often the evil and good we send out comes back to us. Is returned to us. -——>>>
Also known as reaping the whirlwind in the Bible
Obama sowed into the wind and now he is reaping, getting his just deserts. You reap what you sow
My point was Obama eliminated his US Senate opponent via getting his sealed divorce records unsealed....
Setting Obama up to suffer the same way as we get his dicey birth certificate opened up. We get his BC opened up then there will be an uproar to get his college transcripts and other records opened up. He has been most adamant about keeping these records closed. Obama succeeded since the stooge media ran interference
You asked — How would the state of Hawaii know what natural born citizen means?
—
Well, it’s pretty clear that the State of Hawaii has lawyers on the payroll. I would hope that they pay them enough money to be able to give the State of Hawaii good enough legal advice... :-)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
And then you said — The last state which joined the Union, 200 years after the Constitution was written. They are still at the stage of suckling milk.
—
Cute.. no really... cute... LOL..
But, you may have missed the fact that the State of Hawaii may have hired lawyers who come from the oldest state in the Union...
You’re a real idiot!
Karma was plagiarized from God’s word.
Good analogy!
Think about it.
Which argument means precisely nothing. There is a Constitutional and legal question involved, and it needs to be settled by the correct mechanisms. I know what those mechanisms are even if "Joe Six-Pack" doesn't. I've been involved in quite a few legal issues (mostly involving patents), and I know exactly what constitutes proof in the eyes of the law, and thus far, those have NOT been met.
The fact that the courts at all levels have avoided this issue, before, during, and after the election, is malfeasance of the highest order.
And the fact that there is a media firestorm trying to put this issue "out to pasture" indicates that SOMEONE, SOMEWHRE is really, really worried.
I love it how birthers just make up numbers out of thin air.
That's because there's no basis for that claim. I have yet to see a birther produce a single piece of evidence that Obama has spent a dime.
Well.... sorry if you don’t like the reality of the way things actually work — but you’ll notice that these well-thought-out arguments that some people use here — are getting *absolutely nothing done* — in real life. There must be a reason for it... And I’m not talking about some over-arching conspiracy that lurks in the shadows. It’s not getting anywhere because those institutions that you think should be doing something in a certain way are simply *not buying* these kinds of arguments. They don’t work in real life.
And to insert *something* that will work in real life — is state legislation that requires a candidate to show his birth certificate or else he cannot be placed on the ballot in that state. But, that’s way too simple for some people...
And so, the “not getting anything accomplished in real life” — speaks for itself. If what some say here were viable, and something that actually works in the real world, we wouldn’t be talking about this issue now, because it would have already been taken care of before the election...
As far as an Obama operative... well, an Obama operative doesn’t vote for Bush two times and then Palin/McCain once — unless you think *I am a conspiracy* that was launched before Bush became President... LOL...
But, if you thought that, then I would have to refer you to my votes for the other Bush and then Reagan, too.... then you would have a *deep-cover agent* going on for decades... :-)
Immigration law both in the US and UK has long involved a difference between Legitimacy and Illegitmacy.
People keep quoting the wrong Residency requirement status if Obama was born in Kenya. There is a different one for out of wedlock births.
His case is so complicated that it will be a nightmare to deal with for any court.
So for example, born in US. Scotus decides allegiance is the determinate factor. Even though he THOUGHT he had allegiance - he did not because he was born a bastard.
So does what he THOUGHT make a difference?
Or is Scotus going to say the bastard’s birth allegiance isn’t important..it is the father’s own birth allegiance even if child born out of wedlock.
But what about a father that has US dual allegiance. His Parents were US citizens and he has dual allegiance because he was born somewhere else. I am not clear on this law but I saw the State Dept. write that the US does not force you to choose.
Is his son with a US citzen born on US soil a NBC..since the father has dual allegiance?
I can see why this hasn’t been spelled out. There are a myriad of possibilities.
You are forgetting they were concerned about Slaves when they wrote the Constitution.
I don’t buy into Vattel being the deciding factor..but you can.
Of course, you are going by Donofrio, are you not? Isn’t he the one that has totally ignored that Sr and Ann’s marriage was Void Ab Initio and the problems this creates?
And you know this how?
The rooster thinks he makes the sun rise.
I know it must be a *surprising reality* to find out that the general American public won’t be taking statements from anonymous posters on a forum called Free Republic — with the same level of authority and credibility — as they will with the institution of the State of Hawaii, when they post something on their official state website.
I’m sorry to be the one to burst the bubble...
But, as for the Obamabot... well, then you’ve got something that is very unique then.., in that you have to explain the *deep cover* for several decades of voting for Reagan, Bush (2 Bushes) and Palin... LOL...
And why on earth would an Obamabot want to have Sarah Palin for President? :-)
Yes, and I'm sure you've "asked" this of every single other US president. Right?
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.