Posted on 05/01/2010 1:22:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
One of the constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency is that he be a "natural born citizen." This was put into place by the founders to keep foreigners or persons who do not bear a non-questionable allegiance to the US Constitution out. Obviously, and admittedly Barack Hussein Obama was born to a foreign citizen and is not 100% American. He's half-American, half-African and all Marxist. He obviously bears no allegiance whatsoever to the US Constitution and is working overtime to destroy it. He's a usurper and should be removed from office. He is exactly the kind of fraud/usurper the founders feared.
Interesting link. Thanks!
You’re missing the point of Minor v Happersett....
The question, acknowledged but not ruled on, was whether or not there existed qualities (classes) of citizenship besides NBC...
I see you’ve added Natural Born where Minor v Happersett just says citizen.... it is important not the mix those terms up or you’ll negate the Founders use of the term Natural Born Citizen, unless that is your intention.....
You’ll further notice in Won Arc Kim that the Court ruled that there were qualities (classes) of citizenship besides NBC.....WAK was declared a citizen with full rights of citizenship. That is not to say that there is a right to be President, or that he was eligible to be President.....WAK was never found to be a NBC......merely a citizen.....WAK never met the Constitutional requirements to hold the Office of President......Neither does Obama.......
Who’s a troll?
IMO, top level DC politicians and intelligence agencies have to know the truth.’
If they do, there is no evidence of it.
Are you still posting that nonscense? evidentually you are....shakes head.....
It must be getting late or I’m getting tired.....
Are you still posting that nonsense? Evidently you are....shakes head.....
There, that’s better!
LALALALALALA LIBERAL LIES, not a chance in Hades they would pass an amendment making Obie eligible.
No, I'm not missing the point.
The question, acknowledged but not ruled on, was whether or not there existed qualities (classes) of citizenship besides NBC ...
That's incorrect. The question decided by Minor v. Happersett was as follows and is quoted verbatim.
The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.I see you’ve added Natural Born where Minor v Happersett just says citizen.... it is important not the mix those terms up or you’ll negate the Founders use of the term Natural Born Citizen, unless that is your intention.....
I did no such thing. I quoted Minor v. Happersett verbatim. See the link provided.
You’ll further notice in Won Arc Kim [sic] that the Court ruled that there were qualities (classes) of citizenship besides NBC. ...
The Court ruled no such thing in Wong Kim Ark. The question under consideration in WKA was as follows.
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, ... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution ...The court ruled that WKA was a 14th Amendment citizen.
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
The ‘nonsense’ I posted has carried the day every time it has been put before a court.
At this point, the only way I know of to challenge it legally would be for a state government to require candidates for President to have been born of two US citizens, and thus give legal status to the birther definition of natural born citizen.
The moment a state does that, the Democrats would HAVE to sue and I see no way for the SCOTUS to avoid the case or issue a formal, written ruling on what “natural born citizen” means. And I strongly suspect they would rule in the democrats’ favor.
There is a reason no member of Congress dissented from certifying the election. There is a reason Rush, Coulter, Malkin and others refuse to support birthers - and it ISN’T because Rush & Coulter are traitors to their country! And yes, there is a reason why neither Arizona nor Utah nor any other reasonably conservative state has passed a birther bill for ballot access.
I personally agree with the birther definition of NBC, and I disagree with the concept of anchor babies. But I neither make the laws nor set the definitions...
He'll just play the black gay card and then anyone who raised questions will not only be labeled racist but homophobic as well. Can't question his faith, citizenship, or sexual preferences. Kumbaya, don'cha know.
“not a chance in Hades they would pass an amendment making Obie eligible.”
Really?
Here in Arizona, we’ve finally passed a law allowing concealed carry without a permit. We passed a law making illegal immigration...well, illegal!
But the GOP here shelved a reasonable law requiring candidates for President to present evidence of eligibility to the state.
Do you think Arizona would pass a law putting the birther definition of NBC into law? I don’t think so. And if a state like Arizona won’t do it, do you REALLY think the rest of America will just stand by and let a court remove a sitting President based on information known during the campaign and election?
Then I guess we disagree about what the political fallout would be...
HF
Yep, we now know what his agenda is....he has this illusion that his kid is going to president.
Happens all the time, since Horace Gray meandered all over the place, citing Minor on one tangent, before blessedly and finally concluding with the decision, that Mr. Wong was a 14th Amendment citizen, a classification of citizen that neither existed at the time of ratification of the Constitution and thus unfamiliar with our Founders, nor encompassed by Blackstone in Blackstone's Commentaries.
How this can possibly have ever been perceived as having bearing upon the eligibility clause is beyond me, as a result. But, rationalizer myths are hard to kill off, they just keep popping up again and again, like whack-a-mole.
whack-a-mole
*chuckle*
The ‘country’ needs to exhaust the adjudication process first: the legal system’s gotta take a stand, to further clarify where we are.
Elect a Republican majority to Congress and let the investigations begin...
Are there enough Democrats out there who truly love this country and all she represents?
______________
Sadly, the answer is no. Not unless the evidence becomes intolerable. I think they are afraid of the O regime for more reasons than one.
BTTT
One of the after-birthers just revealed his reason for being one
____________
He sure did, didn’t he? He has a vested interest and thinks his son might be the next illegitimate president. Not going to happen. Fooled once, we won’t allow it again.
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.