Posted on 04/24/2010 9:18:10 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
<>Then you should have absolutely no problem citing any number of articles published in known law review journals, of which there are dozens.<>
Your favorite journal.
Like I said, the worthless musing of internet bloggers.
“If Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and neglected to file the appropriate paperwork in 1979, he’s still an Indonesian citizen.”
File the appropriate paperwork with whom?
The United States government — specifically the INS.
a self-description of your posts.
Lord, I would hope that no idiot would be quoting and republishing the opinions found on a pseudo-anonymous political chat board. That would equal the absurdity of people quoting legal opinions of authors who aren't attorneys, legal scholars or even historians, writing in obscure and unknown internet blogs. That would be absurd, wouldn't it?
I prefer the evidence for the meaning of “natural born citizen” that we have to the evidence to the contrary that you don’t have.
OK. Let me get this straight. Your assertion is that it is possible for someone to file "paperwork" with the United States Immigration & Nationalization Service that, once executed, would somehow sever or undo any citizenship bestowed upon them by another country. Is that correct?
That my friend, is a fascinating interpretation of US and international law. Fascinating.
Only in your birther mind.
<>Only in your birther mind.<>
and in the minds and writings of a number of Supreme Court Justices that even your cleaning lady could understand:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
With all due respect and as former Merchant Mariners that we both are, would you mind to post YOUR similar credentials as Mario Apuzzo, Esq.'s since seems you have to be in judgment of his qualifications instead of bashing a lawyer who is trying to show the your C-i-C is NOT eligible for that high position. As far as I know, I think he is in a court appeal case right now???
I am NOT in that position to judge him negatively, but I'm looking forward to see your similar qualification posted here on line vs. Mario Apuzzo's!!!
Now OldDeck, that answer of yours to UncleChip reflects exactly what Judge Clarence Thomas said on YouTube, - very evasive!!!
What the relevance of my qualifications are with respect to Apuzzo's "esteemed" reputation, is elusive to me. His own credentials should speak for themselves. His own advertised areas of law do not include appellate, constitutional, election or immigration law - all areas that would presumably lend themselves to the subject-matter at hand.
Yes, he has moved for appeal of his cases dismissal by a lower court. My statement was self-evidently about previous cases to wit, I cannot find any record of his involvement in.
You are the one criticizing his qualifications. So post your qualifications to criticize. You've already admitted that you were not trained in the Constitution. So then what is your authority to say anything in that regard???
Elusive?
Is that not close to Clarence Thomas' Evasive??
See post 231???
Wasn't trained in the Constitution? I said I'm not a constitutional attorney - that is to say, an appellate lawyer that focuses on constitutional issues. And for the record, neither is Apuzzo.
But, I don't purport to be a constitutional lawyer, nor would I expect my postings to be disseminated to en masse and referenced as authoritative, as Apuzzo's seem to be with great frequency.
If you had a DUI case, or a personal injury claim, Apuzzo might be the go-to guy. But on the subject-matter at hand, his CV seems more than wanting.
As I said before, I'll say again - find me well-researched articles, essays and opinions from people who actually make their living in the appropriate areas of law, and have some reputation for excellence & accomplishment in their field, and people like me would start to listen. But, the opinions, assertions, claims and musings of amateurs or unremarkable attorneys, I don't find compelling, and neither should anyone else.
Then, I'm not sure what your assertion is, or what "paperwork" you believe Barack Obama was expected to file with the INS.
Barack Obama returned to this country while still a minor child, and under the guardianship of his citizen-parent. Obama, per US Statute 8 USC § 1481, has no obligation to do anything to either reaffirm, or maintain his US citizenship.
Whatever the status of his adoption, and whatever the status of his alleged Indonesian citizenship is plainly irrelevant to his the status of his US citizenship.
<>As I said before, I’ll say again - find me well-researched articles, essays and opinions from people who actually make their living in the appropriate areas of law, and have some reputation for excellence & accomplishment in their field<>
Like this from The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) which states the obvious:
“The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2500780/posts
<>and people like me would start to listen.<>
I doubt that there is any chance of that, but we will send it to your cleaning lady.
“If Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and neglected to file the appropriate paperwork in 1979, he’s still an Indonesian citizen.”
Please read this case, and others. By living here since he was 10, Barry did everything required to assert his US citizenship...even if you could prove adoption by Soetoro, and even if Indonesia had made Barry a citizen.
He didn’t need to file anything - his living here was sufficient.
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.