Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 02/14/2010 11:50:10 AM PST by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Man50D

Why is Congress even involved with this suit?


2 posted on 02/14/2010 11:57:05 AM PST by JoSixChip (HOPE = Have Obumber Prove Eligibility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D

Hey Glenn Beck, Thomas Jefferson was a birther!

IBTAT

In Before The AFTER-birther Trolls.


3 posted on 02/14/2010 11:57:33 AM PST by stockpirate (Hey Beck, Thomas Jefferson was a birther!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D

Again, I was employed by an employer who had a Federal contract with Federal Government.

I had 60 days to produce a passport or Birth Certificate, or else I would not be able to work on the Federal Contract.

Very simple requirement, for a US citizen born in America. A Photo Copy WOULD NOT DO, it had to be an original Certified copy. Cost me 30 bucks, and I did it over the Internet, plus shipping/mail cost.

A Tough requirement, for a NON Citizen to comply, as it was meant to be.


4 posted on 02/14/2010 11:58:16 AM PST by 4Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D
Hermione would wave her wand and incant Aloha Mora to unlock the birth certificate. Without proof, We can say Aloha to Obama as he leaves the White House.

WITHOUT A LEI!

5 posted on 02/14/2010 11:58:32 AM PST by Young Werther (wtih)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D

We all “lack standing”

Didja notice?


7 posted on 02/14/2010 12:32:20 PM PST by DontTreadOnMe2009 (So stop treading on me already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D
Counsel's definition of a natural born citizen is not correct. There no legal requirement that both parents be citizens. His explanation does not take into account the issue of Americans born overseas, born to military parents, etc. That issue is settled law.

Note, “natural born” does not mean “native born.” Two very different things. “Natural born” means a citizen naturally (”automatically”) at birth, not one made a citizen by operation of law later in life, i.e. “naturalized” to be made as if natural.

His point in the second paragraph is appropriate, however. No proof has been offered.

8 posted on 02/14/2010 12:39:04 PM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D

Onada’s “little” Constitutional problem that just won’t go away. The bloom is now off Onada’s paper flower bouquet. Because he is black—well half black—serious challenges to Onada’s qualification for presidental office were ignored.

But between the NJ, NY, VA and MA elections; plus his inability to move any of his agenda (despite his party’s majority in House and Senate; plus his on-going national security mistakes and plus an economy that has only gotten worse in the year he’s been in the WH (despite billions in bailout money thrown down the toilet) Onada is being seen for the empty commie suit that he is. He is now fair game.


11 posted on 02/14/2010 12:56:30 PM PST by dools007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D

More on “Natural Born,” i.e. citizen at birth

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.


12 posted on 02/14/2010 12:57:48 PM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D

bump


14 posted on 02/14/2010 3:04:51 PM PST by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D
We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate (a long-form birth certificate generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which was posted on the internet by some unknown person in 2008)

Well now this "unknown person" has a chance to present his alleged evidence to an actual court of law and put this issue to rest.

15 posted on 02/14/2010 4:22:24 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: onyx; penelopesire; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; BP2; Pablo Mac; ...

~~PING!

The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html


26 posted on 02/17/2010 12:18:35 PM PST by STARWISE (They (LIBS-STILL) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war- Richard Miniter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D; All
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

 

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

 

It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born).
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!


http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

 

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate based on the word of 1 relative. That is how a foreign born baby could get a HI BC on record, which in turn generates the "birth announcements" in the newspapers.

33 posted on 02/17/2010 1:25:00 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D

WTF!!!! I thought they lost their right to an extension for failure to respond?

This is BS, straight up!


37 posted on 02/17/2010 3:51:27 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D
It took the courts over 10 years to figure out McCain Feingold was unconstitutional (almost). So... by the time this is settled, Obama will be fully qualified for Medicare!
53 posted on 02/17/2010 9:27:38 PM PST by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D
related thread:

Obama’s attorneys will not be able to muster a defense without a direct attack on the very U.S. Constitution and the rights protected by it which are the basis of the case.

Kerchner case will test Third Circuit court’s adherence to the Constitution thread

68 posted on 02/21/2010 9:58:57 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson