Posted on 07/25/2010 5:29:54 PM PDT by RobinMasters
It just doesn't have the force of law.
So you're an American patriot that believes Kenyan law trumps US law?
You might want to read this
GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE
Common grounds for a fault divorce are adultery, bigamy, cruelty, desertion, incest and insanity. Hawaii has adopted "no fault" divorce laws that allow divorce without showing that one spouse was at fault. A divorce can be obtained because of incompatibility or irreconcilable differences or if spouses live apart for a period of time.
http://www.diehlandweger.com/services/divorce.html
OK you seem like a fairly honest Democrat to me.
Did you know Rev. Wright is ex-NOI?
You are correct. They are not synonymous, as the USSC has stated.
In the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, the Court noted (my paraphrase here) that every clause of the Constitution must have an effect, and to remove such effect (i.e., equating citizen and natural born citizen) is inadmissible (not a valid argument) before the Court.
Equating the terms citizen and natural born citizen removes the effect of the “natural born citizen” clause.
This clause was placed here by the Founding fathers, who, having just shed their blood to gain their independence and freedom, saw the dangers of having it taken away internally.
Neither does Article II of the Constitution in the hands of the Ruling Class.
Apuzzo sued Obama before he was elected and after he was elected.
If it didn’t have the force of the law, why did the Supreme Court use it?
Apuzzo sued after Obama became president elect, after the time period in which Obama was supposed to be qualified by Congress *and* before Obama was sworn in as President.
That meens Obama was sued after he ceased to be a powerless candidate, but before he aquired the immunities of the office of POTUS.
Witnesses and photographs, no video:
Here’s a recording of an Obama you might like, especially the bit 2 mins in:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rep-MB-wbkU
Oops, I got my date wrong, the retake was apparently on January 22nd, not the 21st.
Apuzzo sued after Obama became president elect, after the time period in which Obama was supposed to be qualified by Congress *and* before Obama was sworn in as President.
That meens Obama was sued after he ceased to be a powerless candidate, but before he aquired the immunities of the office of POTUS.
John McCain would be eligible to sue. Sarah Palin might conceivably be ruled eligible to sue. The Republican National Committee might be ruled eligible to sue. But individual citizens cannot show direct injury-in-fact.
Rather than suing Obama civilly, it made more sense to me to go after him via a criminal investigation for fraud, forgery and/or election fraud. There are no standing hurdles to overcome and it is easier to subpoena birth records and compel witnesses to testify in a Grand Jury investigation.
Nope, they muffed it again. However he may have signed a written version. Or he may not. It matters not, not eligible is still "Not Eligible". The oath is just another requirement to hold the office, along with the age, residency and natural born citizen requirements.
There's no requirement to swear the oath on a Bible, or any other Holy Book. There's not even a requirement that the oath be taken orally, or that the Chief Justice administer it. Several President's have been sworn in by other than the Chief Justice, LBJ for example when JFK was killed, and a couple of others who took office under similar circumstances. Some of those re-took the oath later. One originally was not even done by a federal judge at all.
It could relate to statutory citizenship at birth. But that's naturalized citizenship, since naturalization is the only power Congress has over citizenship.
However under the statutes then in existance, BO's mother did not have sufficient residency in the US to pass on citizenship, unless she was not married. If she was legally married to BHO Sr, then Jr was not a citizen at birth. If she wasn't, then he was a naturalized citizen at birth, if born in Kenya.
If born in the US he's a native but not Natural Born, citizen.
Such persons are "naturalized at birth", just as are those who meet the criteria required when the mother is married to a foreign national and the birth occurs outside the US.
You provide the context and I'll answer the question.
No troll.
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.