Posted on 04/12/2011 11:27:59 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
See line 72-75 and scroll over to the box that asks about citizenship. Theodore Agnew, Spiro's father, indicates in the box that he is an "al" (for alien). Young Spiro is shown on line 75. We now have two precedents against the birthers. The other is Chester Arthur. Both had non-citizen fathers and NOBODY in either case cared at the time. The controversy over Arthur was solely related to his alleged foreign birth.
The dems must figure that 'precedent' means if anyone gets away with breaking a law, the law doesn't count anymore.
Go read the agreement we had with panama, it says it is a lease and that american law does not apply there. Sorry, I posted it here once.
There are several schools of Birther "thought" that hold that the birth certificate is irrelevant, because, as the son of a non-citizen, BO cannot ipso facto be a Natural Born Citizen. Immigration law has no bearing on that issue.
Mitt Romney’s grandfather and father were born in Mexico
Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. "
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
It goes back to common english law and blacks law, which said the children are of the country of their father. Which was accepted as the law of the land for years, then some nut In the government makes the bogus claim of anchor baby.
The fact that the founders, fully aware of Vattel and his translations of Wolfe, rejected that language and went with the English Common Law language does not matter to them.
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citiizen in 1789
It is not only that but also the question if the other was old enough to confer citizenship and whether he might have extinguished those rights that did belong to Obama by taking him out of the country, by marrying another foreigner who may have adopted him. So it also involves the law of Indonesia. Obama was in a very anomalous situation. Hard cases make bad law, and that may be why the courts don’t want to get involved.
Have never been able to find the youtube video of that, who took the pictures.
The progressives always use precedent to adjust what is accepted. It has nothing to do with the spirit of the law, the spirit of the idea. It is ALL about what can we get away with and then later on be able to capitalize on our misdealings in the wide-open.
Laus Deo!
Look at social security - perfect example. If people actually took a stand against the way they pushed that through most of what is destroying our country wouldn’t even be law today.
Strangely, nary a peep was heard from most (perhaps all) birthers on genuine violations of the spirit and letter of the Constitution when it comes to the attacks on habeas corpus for an American citizen, Jose Padilla, by the previous administration, or the failure of that administration to go to Congress for a declaration of war. Interestingly, some brave, but generally non-birther, Americans, DID object to these violations. By contrast, NOBODY, abolutely NOBODY, objected to the Agnew and Arthur "usurpation."
Your statement proves he would be a native born citizen. There is nothing in your statement to conclusively claim he was a Natural Born Citizen.
“Agnew wasn’t President”
That is the first thing I thought.
So what if he was an alien.
Checked at post 89 too:
"1930 census, Line 65, Angew's father was naturalized in "1903 Na." Spiro Agnew was a natural born citizen. "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2703612/posts?page=89#89
So if two people get away with violating a Clause in the Constitution, it becomes null and void?
**Build: STOUT**
Why are they comminting on the wife’s build and not the husband’s? Is that more female discrimination, or profiling, again?
Agnew’s father became a naturalized in Sept. of 1918
Agnew was born in nov. 1918
Agnew was by Constitutional law a Natural Born citizen.
Census records are often wrong. workers were paid for how many citizens they listed on the forms. accuracy was not a big issue. A census record from 1920 has no legal standing because of poor records and fraud by poorly paid workers.
Captain, Sir,
the issue isn’t about Obama’s father. It is about where he was born. Ted (as he was known to Maryland voters) Agnew was born in the USA. His father was a legal immigrant.
A President must be a natural born citizen.
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.