Posted on 03/31/2015 9:38:45 AM PDT by yoe
The further I travel down this rabbit hole, the more I feel divorced from the good conservative people that I choose to call my own. I hold some stories back from our readers. My thought is that people have a hard enough time embracing the basic fact that our government is ( corrupt on both sides of the aisle.) If you knew how corrupt I thought these people really were, I feel like you'd rush to the phone and soon bad men would show up to haul me off in a straitjacket.
Do they still do that?
Regardless, today I want to show you something that might leave you questioning everything around you.
Welcome to my world.
In 1975 a representative named Joe Bingham introduced an amendment to remove the "natural born citizen" constitutional requirement to become President...........
Why is that important?
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomoutpost.com ...
The Founders and Framers established the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence as The Supreme Law of The Land [Article VI, Clause 2].
James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention recorded that: One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last decided. On the twenty-second of August, the Committee of Detail, fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty-five, on their own motion, and for the first time required only that the president should be a citizen of the United States, and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty-one years. On the fourth of September, the Committee of States, who were charged with all unfinished business, limited the years of residence to fourteen. It was then objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place; but, as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the seventh of September, it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who shall be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the Office of the President. (Corroboration for the statements of Bancroft are to be found in Vol. 5 of Johathan Elliott’s “Madison Papers,” page 462, 507, 512 and 521, and in Vol. 3 of Henry D. Gilpin’s “Madison Papers” pages 1398 , 1437 and 1516) — From George Bancroft’s History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States of America, (1882 )
You saw it when Cheney asked for objections to Obama’s election results in 2008. He looked up and looked around, and then back down.
Silence.
They ALL knew.
The fly wandering around his face like from some refugee camp just about did me in. It was like one of those hungry children commercials.
Then there was that HUGE rat walking behind him on the WH steps, near where the podium was.
And the bees that went after him. The bees know.
The animal world was trying to tell us about him the whole time. Frankly, with his vindictiveness, I’m surprised he hasn’t gone all out to kill every animal in the US.
yes, that is true today. that law changed in the 70's.
“...shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.
So the 1790 law rules out citizenship by birth for Obama, since it is well-established that his purported father was a visitor, but never a resident, of the United States.
“Well then I guess Obama is untouchable.”
as long as he stays out of arms reach for the rest of his worthless life.
That’s why he signed this bill into law: With the stroke of a pen, President Barack Obama gave himself and his wife Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives.
The new law, which passed the House and Senate designates that all former U.S. presidents who served after January 1, 1997, along with their spouses, receive protection from the Secret Service for their entire lifetimes – meaning former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura are also covered. The law also stipulates that children of presidents receive protection until the age of 16.
Lifetime government-provided security for former presidents was the law of the land until 1997, when Congress passed legislation limiting Secret Service protection to ten years after leaving office.
The 1997 law said any president serving before January 1, 1997 would still receive the lifelong protection. That means with the law signed Thursday, every former president – Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush – along with Obama will continue to receive Secret Service details for the rest of their lives.
Anyone with a U.S. address (as opposed to a tourist) is considered to be a resident. That includes people here on student or work visas.
But as long as the state of Hawaii continues to say that he was born there, his father’s status is irrelevant.
Vice President Cheney was criticized because he never asked for objections to certifying Obama’s electors.
The supposed reason that he did not ask for objections is that the law requires all objections to be in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one Representative. Since no written objections had been received, calling for them was considered to be moot?
By the way, none of the people who had standing to challenge Barack Obama’s eligibility because they could show DIRECT injury from him being elected filed suit against him.I realize that this is the interpretation of the marxists and cowards in the judiciary, but anyone with a lick of common sense knows in their bones that a bogus president usurping the presidency directly injures each and every citizen. You, me and every sovereign citizen has an individual right to be served by a legitimate president -- that a usurper denies all of us that right is the first direct injury.
The next direct injury occurs with his first putative act that directly restricts, reduces or adversely affects the rights a citizen. A usurper inflicts those injuries only upon the individuals directly affected, but by now aka obama has probably caused direct damage to almost everyone in the USA. Lack of standing in this case is a cruel, conspiratorial tyranny of the judicial lapdogs of the power brokers in DC and beyond.
Unfortunately courts subsequently decreed "anchor babies are citizens!" which is a stretch too far for "Wong", but misapplied precedent is hard to correct.Our country has a growing problem -- a great many of our citizens are now carrying dual citizenship into adulthood. This situation arose because of the creation modern dual citizenship loopholes, such as with the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, whereupon wives no longer acquired derivative citizenship from their husbands upon marriage. Since one parent may remain an alien, children of such unions are born with naturally divided allegiances. This isn't the only loophole that gives rise to dual citizenship, with perhaps the most egregious being the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment that confers American citizenship by "magic dirt," thereby creating dual citizenship anchor babies, who, if spirited away back to their home country, may have no natural allegiance at all to the USA.
Note that the problem is not that some other country may foist random citizenship claims upon our citizens, for our government rightly would not recognize such folly. The problem is that officially recognized dual citizenship is allowed to persist into adulthood. This creates a cohort of unnatural hybrid citizens of split allegiance and questionable loyalty. This can only be described as civic bigamy and is as destructive and dangerous to a nation as is marital bigamy to a marriage.
Unlike these hybrid native citizens (whom our government allows to linger in split allegiance limbo), when complete aliens naturalize to become American citizens, they must take an oath of exclusive allegiance to the USA and officially renounce all prior allegiances. Their citizenship status from that point forward as recognized by the USA is 100 percent American and nothing else. Note that a native natural Citizen has this status without the need of any process or law. Obviously, a natural born Citizen must have this status from birth on.
How can anyone in their right mind think that it is acceptable for our commander-in-chief to ever have had a weaker, more tenuous citizenship status than what we require of all naturalized former aliens, i.e., allegiance exclusive to only America? This sets the citizenship bar over which all presidents must pass and the Constitution demands that they pass it (exclusive allegiance) naturally from birth on.
The Republican National Committee challenged Republican Party New Hampshire primary election voter Fred Hollander on grounds of lack of standing in March, 2008, months before there was any challenge in court to Obama.
Hollander claimed John McCain was ineligible due to birth in Panama.
There has been no difference between conservative judges and liberal judges in rulings on standing. Conservative judges are even more likely to limit who can resolve political questions via the courts because they believe in limited government.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf
It is the responsibility of attorneys to find plaintiffs who will not have issues with standing. The way judges tend to look at it, 70 million Americans wanted Obama to be the president and were not “injured” by his election.
Also, there is no issue of standing in CRIMINAL court, only in civil court. If anyone in America wants to be able to bring a legal action, find a prosecutor willing to pursue election fraud, fraud, identity theft, forgery or document tampering charges against an illegal candidate or public official.
And so it is, but the deliberate omission of the term from the next piece of legislation and all subsequent ever since, demonstrates they thought that inclusion was a mistake.
If they thought the term was infinitely malleable we would not now be having this conversation.
I couldn't have written it better myself.
How can anyone in their right mind think that it is acceptable for our commander-in-chief to ever have had a weaker, more tenuous citizenship status than what we require of all naturalized former aliens, i.e., allegiance exclusive to only America? This sets the citizenship bar over which all presidents must pass and the Constitution demands that they pass it (exclusive allegiance) naturally from birth on.
We have become a Nation filled with people out of their right minds. I don't know what to do about it but attempt to destroy the liberal media and liberal academia. That is the only hope I see for correcting all this irrationality out there.
No it doesn’t. It is just as likely that subsequent Congresses thought the term “natural born” citizen was the mistake.
What we have in 1790 is “original intent?” Conservatives in the judiciary tend to be fond of the concept.
“Infinitely malleable” is hyperbole.
As well as the father of the 14th Amendment on citizenship.
Congressman Bingham would have been considered a nut by todays GOPe and other globalists.
Sad how ignorant much of our country is on our own history.
That position is unsupportable by the available facts.
What we have in 1790 is “original intent?”
Oversight in picking the right term.
Conservatives in the judiciary tend to be fond of the concept.
We are fond of the concept, but that is not what applies here. To get the original intent of "natural born citizen" you have to go back to the document which created it. The Declaration of Independence.
The natural law philosophy underpinning that document makes it very clear as to what "natural born citizen" was taken to mean.
“Infinitely malleable” is hyperbole.
Hardly. According to you, every time Congress modifies a naturalization act, they change the meaning of "natural born citizen." You've pointed out your position numerous times regarding Rogers v Bellei.
Given that congress has modified the requirements to be a "citizen" a dozen times since 1787, there is no reason to believe they can't do it as many times as they wish, and in whatever manner suits their whim, therefore "infinitely malleable is a perfectly reasonable descriptive term.
Now a reasonable man would conclude that his theory equating "natural born citizen" to "citizen" is wrong because it results in the absurdity of having an infinitely malleable constitutional term, but an unreasonable man will simply take issue with the term "infinitely malleable." :)
The term “natural born citizen” does not appear in the Declaration of Independence.
I said nothing even remotely similar to “every time Congress modifies a naturalization act they change the meaning of natural born citizen.”
What I said was that the first naturalization act exempted children born overseas or out of the US from needing naturalization by declaring them to be natural born citizens as long as their fathers had been at some time resident in the U.S.
It is my opinion that many will see that as an indication of original intent.
There is nothing “infinitely malleable” about 8USC 1401. It spells out precisely who is a Citizen of the United States At Birth.
What I said was that the first naturalization act exempted children born overseas or out of the US from needing naturalization by declaring them to be natural born citizens as long as their fathers had been at some time resident in the U.S.The first naturalization act, not unsurprisingly, was 100 percent about naturalization and had nothing to do whatsoever with altering or widening the understanding of the Constitutional phrase natural born Citizen. All it stated was that for the purposes of naturalization, the children of American citizens born overseas would "be considered as" (but not actually be) natural born Citizens -- that is they would not need to go through the naturalization process when they returned with their parents to the USA.
I suspect the reference to natural born Citizen was deleted altogether five years later because the founders knew that congress's powers over naturalization did not extend to redefining the meaning of the Constitution (not that that was ever their intent) and upon the consideration of time, felt that such language might be misleading and therefore had no place in a law about naturalization.
One does not need to state axiomatic consequences of larger principles. You do not need to inform people that a gun has "bullets." It's self evident. In the same manner, you do not need to elucidate that a "Declaration of Independence" creates a New Nation, and therefore New Citizens.
I said nothing even remotely similar to “every time Congress modifies a naturalization act they change the meaning of natural born citizen.”
Between what you have said in the past, and what is stated above, a hair cannot be split. You have cited a long litany of naturalization acts, and you have consistently held that these acts create "natural born citizens." You have specifically cited the act which removed the residency requirement for foreign born citizens.
So now if you are saying that this does not constitute congress changing the meaning of natural born citizen, all I can say is that you are emitting that cognitive dissonance again. You are literally saying they can and they can't at the same time.
There is nothing “infinitely malleable” about 8USC 1401. It spells out precisely who is a Citizen of the United States At Birth.
Until the next time they change it. Then it will mean something different.
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.