My mental image of Kansas58 to date.
Posted on 02/01/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by Sallyven
[snip]...Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.
Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.
The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.
Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Minor v. Happersett recognized at least two classes of citizens from “the moment of birth.” Only one was characterized as natural-born citizens.
Which means that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. The common law cited by the SCOTUS is a verbatim match of the law of nations. No law trumps that definition.
Congress, therefore, does have the right to define the term, as it has done several times.
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth. The term has always meant the same thing, however the law/rules for obtaining automatic citizenship at birth have changed over time, several times.
something that was in place then, then went missing
http://www.constitutionalconcepts.org/13thamend-%20facts.htm
Did Williams actually say this? I doubt it seriously. Williams is the very definition of ‘mugged liberal’.
Ridiculous!
The “Law of Nations” is weak, it has no weight at all except to inform and guide us as to the thoughts of SOME people at that time.
There was no other guidance, no other rule for the Courts to use, at the time of the rulings.
Now such rules, such guidance, in the form of actual legislation, does exist.
Also, the Court citations given do not specifically address Natural Born Citizenship as a “separate class” of citizenship, and different from “Citizen at Birth”.
We have two forms of Citizenship.
Natural Born
Naturalized.
Moot point.
That case does not control anymore.
“The Social Security card looks like it was signed by a child. Probably when she got her first job.”
Stanley Ann Dunham was born Novembere 29, 1942 and the posted Social Security Number was issued in Washington state sometime in 1959 or 1960 (probably 1959). See link below for determining SSN issuance dates. So she was about 16 or 17 when it was issued.
I’m not a handwriting expert, but I would be VERY surprised if her signature changed that much. The posting of the SSN card with its signature and posting of the later signature was very interesting and informative.
http://stevemorse.org/ssn/ssn.html
I didn't say it was. But the only thing the court held with regard to natural-born citizens is that those born in the country of citizen parents are natural-born citizens. I've never heard a serious argument against that. But the court did not specifically hold that those born here to non-citizen partents AREN'T NBC. The only thing the court held is that, without doubt, as Virginia Minor was born in this country of citizen parents she was a citizen.
"B)You misunderstand what the court is saying when it says it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Its only talking about the doubts of whether the second class of persons are citizens or not.
On re-reading the case, I accept that the court in saying it was "not necessary to resolve these doubts" was referring to the second class of citizen. In this case, there is no doubt that Virginia Minor was a citizen under any possible definition of the term. That question, and the further question as to whether citizens, by being citizens, acquired the right to vote, were the questions to which the court addressed itself. The court did not address itself to defining NBC except to say that a person born in the US to US parents was certainly a natural-born citizen. It did not state that others were excluded from that class.It did not say that others COULD BE included in that class. It was not a question before the court and, hence, not decided.
You keep saying that without proving that it's true.
Where specifically, has Congress defined the term Natural Born Citizen? It isn't on a passport application and it isn't in Wikipedia, so don't go there...again.
If you want to prove your point then you're going to have to come up with something more than "because I said so" or "go look at an application".
Wow Kansas58, with all the smoke you can generate and blow, there were occasions in my past Army service where you would have come in very handy. Looking forward to seeing your posts after Judge Mahili’s decisions & findings come out.
faucetman:”Only as to eligibility for president & vice president does being a Natural Born Citizen matter. It doesn’t make you a better person, or a better citizen.”
You do bring up an interesting question with this statement. What about the Speaker of the House since he/she would be third in line? Is there any legal requirement that the Speaker be a NBC in order to hold that office? It would be interesting to see how this is handled...
That's specious. NBC was commonly understood at the time the Constitution was written, as contemporary documents by the founders indicate.
Therefore, the Courts used other authorities available. Those authorities? Common Law! ... Congress then enacted Legislative Law that TRUMPS common law.
I'm not certain that legislative law trumps Constitution original intent. OTOH reference to US common law and natural law seemingly should be permitted to determine Constitution original intent.
You are wrong.
There are natural born, native, and naturalized citizens. That’s three.
Sorry Dude, it will carry very considerable and decisive weight. No longer will other states be able to cavalierly dismiss challenges to Obama’s eligibility (by saying the issues were already settled) as the Illinois State Board of Elections did moments ago.
Even Bill Ayers would know that “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”. And it will soon be blowing in a direction that Obama and his minions will not like.
You really think highly of yourself don't you? Who do you think you are? You know absolutely NOTHING about me, so how do you "know" I'm not capable of "WINNING" anything? If we ever cross paths, I'll make it a point to teach you a thing or two, and deflate your fat head.
Well, aside from a few cranks, everyone disagrees with your position.
Show some stats to back up all your claims, a**hole! Otherwise STFU and tell your boy Barry to do the same.
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.