http://www.archive.org/stream/shakespeareski01shak#page/n6/mode/1up
Posted on 11/02/2011 9:52:02 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Texas Gov. Rick Perry raised the legitimacy question on Mr. Obama’s birth certificates and location, only to recant. A media inquisition whereby one will be labeled a birther is intimidating, but it is standard fair for anyone who is serious about the Constitution and its requirements for the office of President.
The Constitution in Article II defines the duties and qualifications for President of the United States; Section 1, paragraph 5 declares:
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.
Sorry, but this wrong. The definition IS limited to those born in the country to citizen parents. It's a self-limiting defintion.
These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
The distinction from foreigners or aliens means that if you are born in the country to aliens or foreigners, your citizenship is dependent on meeting a statutory definition or satisfying the subject clause of the 14th amendment. In the Minor decision, the Supreme Court cited the naturalization act of 1790 for persons born on foreign soil to citizen parents and for the children of aliens.
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN means “Citizen at Birth”
And Congress can not RETROACTIVELY make someone a Citizen who at birth and qualify that person.
The laws in place AT THE TIME OF BIRTH control in the matter.
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN means “Citizen at Birth”
And Congress can not RETROACTIVELY make someone a Citizen who at birth and qualify that person.
The laws in place AT THE TIME OF BIRTH control in the matter.
Obviously, no Court in the USA would hear a child-custody case for such a couple -—
I, therefor, hold that the child does not qualify for Citizenship.
This point should be challenged in Court, and also codified by legislation.
Nonsense!
Nobody with any authority at all, at law, agrees with you.
No Court will ever agree with you
No Congress will ever agree with you
No Electoral College will ever agree with you
Nobody with any authority at all agrees with you.
You have a right to your silly opinion, but it holds NO legal weight at all.
Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH and nothing else.
Even the Court Case you site does NOT claim that BOTH parents HAD to be citizens, it only mentions that they WERE citizens.
Your entire argument is weak on every point.
That it was not needed, for the Court, in your specific citation does not mean that it has no effect in other situations.
Only for people who aren't natural-born citizens. That's what the court said and it's what the court affirmed more than 20 years later in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, which noted that children born in the country of citizen parents were excluded from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. This didn't mean that other parts of the 14th didn't apply to all citizens, just that it only conferred citizenship on people who weren't natural-born citizens. What exactly is your point now??
Don't give a d@mn. Nobody in Authority agreed with Galileo. All the authorities were wrong. Galileo was right. Having said such a stupid thing, It would apppear you are completely unfamiliar with this. It is a waste of my time showing it to you I think.
You have a right to your silly opinion, but it holds NO legal weight at all.
How would you know? You have no opinions of weight, legal or otherwise. Your response indicates that you do not have sufficient intelligence or knowledge to even bother conversing with. I would rather watch a monkey gibber and throw poo. It would be a demonstration of more intellectual capacity than you can seemingly manage.
Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH and nothing else.
Child, Stamp your feet elsewhere. Adults are conversing.
Even the Court Case you site does NOT claim that BOTH parents HAD to be citizens, it only mentions that they WERE citizens.
You are either in Shock at having been so badly steamrolled, or delusional. The Case cited SPECIFICALLY disproves your point.
Your entire argument is weak on every point.
Criticism from fools and idiots is nothing to me. Come back when you have grown up and learned something.
http://www.archive.org/stream/shakespeareski01shak#page/n6/mode/1up
Neither was the one to which it was a reply.
So, who is the fool?
You are wasting valuable time and resources on this stuff. I think there is much we can do to embarrass Obama, as Obama has been so private about his past and the public really does not know anything about Obama’s past.
But to think we can toss him out of office on these Citizenship grounds will go no where!
That a court stated that “Both Parents are citizens” does not mean that BOTH PAREWNTS MUST BE CITIZENS.
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at the moment of Birth and nothing more.
If one of the parents is NOT a citizen, then there are doubts ... thus it is NOT natural-born citizenship. The Supreme Court defined it according to jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria, not according “the moment of birth.” The court recognizes you can be a citizen at the moment of birth through naturalization.
Nonsense!
“Naturalization” can only occur AFTER you are born.
Natural Born Citizens
Naturalized Citizens
You are either one or the other, or you are not a citizen.
PERIOD!
Oh goody. Another thread for people to copy and paste all the same arguments from all the other threads. Golly gee... maybe this one will be the one that settles the matter forever. Maybe? :-)
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.