Of that I have no doubt. As Reagan said:
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. "
Posted on 05/18/2013 7:52:44 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
Here he is again repeating that same lie; No Jeff, they didn't agree with you. They weren't idiots.
So, kindly explain to all of us here in as few words as possible how this applies to either Cruz or Obummer?
In 1790 there was no such thing as a "Dual citizen". If a Woman married an American, she was automatically naturalized by marriage. (American Common Law) Congress even codified this back in the later half of the 19th Century.
Of that I have no doubt. As Reagan said:
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. "
Yes, but people like you seize on one sentence, and assume that Madison was favoring your side. The truth is that Madison argued that in absence of State Statute, English Common law applied regarding citizenship in a State. He Explicitly said that in view of an existing law, it would not. Even at that, Madison's usage of the word "place" was not the mindless obsession with geography which you constantly employ, but he was referring to it in terms of community. Madison was not addressing an issue of Federal Citizenship.
Madison likewise supported Ambassador Armstrong for a Year and a Half in his claim that James McClure was an English Subject. Madison also very likely wrote that letter to the Alexandria Herald. There is just too much information contained therein to be from an interested bystander. Only someone who knew all the intricate details of the case could have written it, and that means someone in the Madison Administration.
Madison is not on your side.
Probably why the term was removed from the original 14th draft IIRC.
Thank you. You seem to be correct, as I see from this exchange. Your posting name seems to be well chosen.
I had not heard that before. Do you have a supporting link for this? I consider that powerful evidence of intent. (or more accurately, non intent.)
I wish I could remember but I am pretty sure it was somewhere here in a FReep thread.
There is evidence of support for Obama being issued a Certificate of Naturalization in 1983. You choose to ignore it. Some FReepers are interested in learning the truth.
How can I ignore evidence supporting your claim when you’ve offered none?
I haven’t seen this before. I have read of Gray’s contrary holdings in Elk and Ark, this article ties it all together.
Thanks for the link.
I’m an eyewitness and not the custodian of the evidence. I haven’t indicated I am the custodian, yet you continue to make demands that I produce the evidence so you may become an eyewitness.
Only the custodian of the evidence can produce it. Obama can obtain a certified copy of his Certificate of Naturalization just as easy as he obtained a certified copy of his COLB. Obama can show his Certificate of Naturalization to anyone he chooses. That doesn’t me the eyewitness has a copy of it. It means they’ve seen it and know it exists.
Pffft. I saw Santa Clause. Take my word for it.
We’ve been around this before, Sven. Produce an affidavit.
Thank you. I aim to be as cynical and accurate as possible. :)
A noncustodial witness can only be used for rebuttal in the Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, an affidavit by a rebuttal witness is ignored by the Court until the primary or custodial witness denies the existence of the evidence or testifies the evidence cannot be found.
Only an Obot will find value in an affidavit that is ignored until the primary witness denies the allegation. How many times did you vote for Obama?
Cite specific rule
Do your own research or get a secretary.
You made the assertion.
that’s obviously not the case
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.