Attorney Stephen Pidgeon to Glenn Beck

Tea Party Nation ^

[JDoutrider]

mark

[rxsid]

Right now, many (most?) people loath what he is doing to the country. However, if it were to become widespread common knowledge that he isn't even a legal President, I truly believe there is not a chance in the world he would be allowed to remain in the WH. I just don't think he could pull it off with ~10% of the people, and ~20% of the far left in Congress and perhaps less than 10% of the military still behind him as an illegal President. I guess I have more faith in the "average Joe" American. We haven't been concurred yet.

[philman_36]

Nonetheless, as far as I know, born in Hawaii to an American mother qualifies one for citizenship regardless of who the daddy is.
So you don't really know, do you?
Don't you think the issue ought to be addressed and all doubt removed?
Can't one man unequivocally resolve the issue and put it to rest?
It seems to me that if he has nothing to hide (how many times have we heard that line?!) then he would "man up" (another oft used quip) and end the debate.

And what about the other documents that he refuses to release? Is he above the law? This is about more than a birth certificate!
I'll say it again...This is the distraction within the "records" issue. The "birth certificate controversy" is the sacrificial pawn to keep attention away from the rest of the records that have never been released.

[Uncle Chip]

Nope, Nope, Yep, Yep

[philman_36]

I would simply like for someone to show that to me in either the Constitution, the US Legal Code, or relevant, current case law.

Here ya go...
AP, NYT AND POLITICS.CO.UK MISTATE LAW AND FACTS IN DEC. 1ST REPORTS
The truth of law and history is, however, that a natural born citizen, according to the manner in which this term was intended in the U.S. Constitution, and in 4 Supreme Court Cases ("IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN"), is one who is born in the U.S.A. of two parents, each of which was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth. Obama, by the very public fact that he claims a British subject, as his father, was not, is not, and can never be a natural born citizen of the United States, even if he is a citizen thereof. This legal and historical fact makes his presidency invalid, all his presidential acts unlawful, and his entrance into the office unconstitutional and a usurpation.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

I like this one the most...
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Yet despite my giving these excellent links and articles I get the feeling that you'll find some more ice to skate on, even if it's thin.

[philman_36]

BTW, before you go there...I can’t find that any of the cases have been overturned.

[Uncle Chip]

Here's the short version as to why Drew's right, and the 'two citizen parent' requirement is a fictional device ... 3) Despite the very well-known facts of the senior Obama's Kenyan nationality since at least 2004 if not 1995, and despite a contentious Presidential campaign that began in early 2007, when did people start making the argument that Obama Sr.'s Kenyan citizenship made Obama Jr. Constitutionally ineligible ...If the 'two citizen parent' requirement were true, and not a fictional device, it is absolutely astounding that no one realized that this was a straightforward Constitutional bar to his eligibility until almost a year and a half into his campaign

So then, by your line of desperate reasoning, if a bank robber robs a bank and is never caught, then he never robbed the bank, right???

Are you for real here. You Obamanoids have truly descended to the lowest levels of desperation to try to defend your Desperado in Chief. From the moment he announced for the office of POTUS, people with the Constitution in one hand, the facts of his birth in the other, and a brain above, were questioning his qualifications.

[Uncle Chip]

U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark determined the American born children of foreigners were citizens

"citizens" not "natural born citizens". Congratulations, you just shot a hole in your own desperate argument.

[philman_36]

Free Case Law Search Results
62. Minor v. Happersett

[Eye of Unk]

To take an example out of a recent film, “Inglorious Basterds” these obots in the future will be taking their uniforms off, but how will we still identify them?

They shall have the mark upon their foreheads, it may be a figurative mark but it will be a permanent one that any person will immediately recognize.

Animals can smell evil, its been said humans do to a point when they are capable of their faculties. This is a warning of the most severe type to the obots, what you do today will remain with you forever.

[Uncle Chip]

When the Senate held hearings regarding McCain’s natural born citizenship, Once again: there never were any Senate hearings regarding McCain's eligibility. None.

Ohhh -- so then the U.S. Senate never unanimously approved Senate resolution SR511 back in 2008 regarding the issue of McCain's natural born citizenship??? Is that what you're claiming???

[philman_36]

Drews68...U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark determined the American born children of foreigners were citizens
Uncle Chip..."citizens" not "natural born citizens". Congratulations, you just shot a hole in your own desperate argument.

The only time in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the words "natural born" appear in the decision is here...
"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. "

And that is only in reference to a pamphlet, to wit...
Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853...

[Uncle Chip]

Leahy: "Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not. I ask unanimous consent that the relevant excerpt from the Judiciary Committee hearing where Secretary Chertoff testified be made a part of the record.

Hey, LorenC, your "hearing" may be challenged, but how is your "seeing".

You see, it was called a "hearing" and it was real and it took place, and it determined that McCain was a natural born citizen because he had American citizens [plural] for parents -- something that Obama lacks no matter how you Obamanoids want to slice and dice it.

[philman_36]

IMO the argument (the word play) being badly made is that there was no "Congressional" hearing.
That "Judiciary Committee" hearing on April 3, 2008 wasn't a real hearing at all, don't ya know! /sarcasm

[LorenC]

Your reasoning isn't worth one red cent. You do understand by capitalized it means all the letters in LAWS OF NATIONS are capitalized whereas none of the other words are completely capitalized?

That might be persuasive...if you hadn't simply made it up. All it takes is a visit to the U.S. Archives to see that you're just lying now:

Did you think I wouldn't check the actual text of Constitution, and would just assume you were telling the truth about the Founders writing in ALL CAPS?

It was no slip up by the DNC...

Ah, I see. You don't actually have an answer to why no one alleged Obama was ineligible until summer 2008, so instead you're trying to change the subject entirely to paperwork filed by the DNC in August 2008. Shrewd, but it's a technique I've seen Birthers use all too often before.

[LorenC]

So then, by your line of desperate reasoning, if a bank robber robs a bank and is never caught, then he never robbed the bank, right???

That's a pretty inapposite analogy (not the least because unlike a missing bank robber, Obama's identity and location are hardly in doubt, making the "never caught" aspect totally off), but if I had to make it parallel the facts of Obama's eligibility, it'd go something like this:

A man publicly announces that he's going to rob a bank. When and where. He becomes a nationally known figure, and his autobiography about his dreams of bank-robbing becomes a bestseller. His relationship to that particular bank-robbery is mentioned in practically every background story on him. No one ever does anything to stop him. Finally, he robs the bank, as promised. Everyone knew he was going to, and now everyone knows he has.

And the legal system's response is...absolutely nothing. The bank doesn't report a robbery, the police don't record one, the feds don't investigate, and the US Attorney doesn't prosecute. They don't even acknowledge that a bank was ever robbed, though the guy is still a national figure and still talks about taking the money.

That's your analogy for you. The fact that it plays out rather absurdly is due to it being such a poor analogy to begin with.

From the moment he announced for the office of POTUS, people with the Constitution in one hand, the facts of his birth in the other, and a brain above, were questioning his qualifications.

Again, that's just untrue.

Obama announced his run for the Presidency in February 2007. No one, anywhere, was questioning the facts of his birth until March 2008, and no one alleged that his father's Kenyan nationality made him Constitutionally ineligible until June 2008.

I know you'd like to push back the dates of when all this started, and pretend like it didn't begin over a year into his campaign, but you're wrong.

[LorenC]

You see, it was called a "hearing" and it was real and it took place, and it determined that McCain was a natural born citizen because he had American citizens [plural] for parents

OK, let's go back and look at what MHGinTN originally wrote, and to which I responded:

"When the Senate held hearings regarding McCain’s natural born citizenship, there was no question that both his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth. For some reason unfathomable to Drew69, the Senate wanted to confirm the other leg of eligibility in the framer’s sense, whether he was born on American land. So, the stupid Senate was following the Vattel definition in their hearings..."

First, there were no "hearings." I've read enough posts about Vattel to know y'all love your plurals, and "hearings" certainly means "more than one hearing."

Second, MHGinTN wrote "the Senate held hearings regarding McCain’s natural born citizenship." No they didn't. McCain's natural born citizenship was mentioned in a single question-and-answer in a wholly unrelated Judiciary Committee hearing.

Here is the transcript of that hearing, from April 2, 2008. The title of the hearing is "Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security." It's 350 pages of oral testimony and attached documentation about the Department of Homeland Security. The only talk of Presidential eligibility comes on numbered page 12, right as Leahy wraps up a round of questioning. "McCain" is mentioned by name precisely once in the entire hearing.

So if you want to look at one question and one one-sentence answer, in a hearing entitled "Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security," where McCain wasn't questioned or even present, where there was no evidence presented, and the only person who gave any testimony was the Secretary of Homeland Security, and declare that it's not misleading or inaccurate to say that that constitutes that "the Senate held hearings regarding McCain’s natural born citizenship," then be my guest.

Third, MHGinTN wrote "For some reason unfathomable to Drew69, the Senate wanted to confirm the other leg of eligibility in the framer’s sense, whether he was born on American land." Check the transcript. That's just false. The Senate didn't "confirm" anything. They didn't question where he was born. It was just accepted as a fact. The reasonable it's unfathomable is because the Senate didn't do it.

[Matchett-PI]

bttt

[Uncle Chip]

If a tree falls in the woods and you don’t hear it, did it fall???

[Uncle Chip]

If a hearing takes place in the Senate, and you deny it, did the hearing take place???