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 ...
Different positions, lots of noise from various attorneys, activists, even the USC to back it up.
But at the Department of State website, we have an interesting document:7 FAM 1100 ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF U.S.CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY
This is the Consular Bible. All the usual situations are discussed. However, "Natural Born Citizen", which is the term of interest for presidential qualification, is not discussed. It isn't since they don't care: they are just trying to establish who and how you become a citizen.
And what I find most interesting is this:
"Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and , for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States
Itchy trigger finger. Hit Post too soon.
Meant to add: So the State Department on its own now declares that the Children of Illegal Aliens are citizens.
There is not now nor has there ever been a court case that established this. The famous case in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark only established the citizenship of children of aliens LEGALLY in residence.
But the DoS just made up their minds and said this is what it is. Not the Congress; not the populace; not even the Judiciary.
Some bureaucrats.
Which is also what happened with Soetoro. They just make it up to suit the political winds.
Correct. He is a British Subject (from birth) and/or an Indonesian citizen. He has never been, and is not now, an American citizen. He is an illegal alien. And he is, of course, not President of the United States.
Of COURSE Congress knew it. You were expecting them to follow the law?
From January 6, 2011: “The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That’s good enough for me,” Boehner, R-Ohio, told NBC ‘s Brian Williams in an interview to air Thursday night on NBC Nightly News.”
From the former Republican Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle:
“You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. It’s been established. He was born here.”
A dummy believed some liars. Just a lot of arm waving.
Let’s see the document.
A US citizen is either Naturalized or Natural Born. It is irrelevant where BHO was born. His father was a British Subject, therefore he required 8 USC, Chapter 12 to Naturalize him at birth. A person cannot be both.
A US citizen is either Naturalized or Natural Born. It is irrelevant where BHO was born. His father was a British Subject, therefore he required 8 USC, Chapter 12 to Naturalize him at birth. A person cannot be both.
The article to which you linked got it wrong wrt 0; his mom was not old enough to convey us citizenship :
“..... In regards to President Obama, if the “birther” theory had been proven correct (and I’m not saying that it is) in that he had been born in Kenya (instead of Hawaii) to his U.S. mother and his Kenyan father, he would still qualify as a natural-born citizen. ....”
It’s elementary……Without 8 U.S.C., Chapter 12, subchapter iii (nationality & naturalization), he wouldn’t even be a US citizen. You can’t be a naturalized citizen and be natural born. Natural born citizens do not need US law to make them a citizen. The whole point of 8 U.S.C, Chapter 12, is to cover people who aren’t Natural Born.
That’s one legal theory however nineteen court rulings have said that Obama is a natural born citizen and no court ruling has ever said that he is ineligible.
For example: Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
All you need is a court order from a judge and it can be inspected. Over the last eight years, no one has bothered to do that.
And a congressional committee of Congress can also issue a congressional subpoena for the document if they wished to inspect it.
Here’s the Hawaii law: HRS §338-18 Disclosure of records.
(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
Thank you so much.
Obama must not have known how easy it was for him to get a real copy of his BC so he produced an obvious forgery and showed it to the world.
Of course it doesn't. The federal government started this new type of citizen years ago called statutory natural born. to supplant the sovereignty of other nations by disregarding the pesky thing known as Natural Allegiance.
Not to mention that the term itself in real world language means Man-made human being.
Statutory law is man made, or positive law .
n. statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law," which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles, "God's law," and/or derived from nature and reason. The term "positive law" was first used by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651).
As compared to Natural Law
n. 1) standards of conduct derived from traditional moral principles (first mentioned by Roman jurists in the first century A.D.) and/or God's law and will. The biblical ten commandments, such as "thou shall not kill," are often included in those principles. Natural law assumes that all people believe in the same Judeo-Christian God and thus share an understanding of natural law premises.
2) the body of laws derived from nature and reason, embodied in the Declaration of Independence assertion that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
3) the opposite of "positive law," which is created by mankind through the state.
---
Read the last one again:
3) the opposite of "positive law," which is created by mankind through the state.
So if, by legal definitions, natural law is the OPPOSITE of statutory law....
how can it create a natural born citizen?
If I were in this Judges shoes, I would come to the same decision to protect my family.
So if, by legal definitions, statutory law is the OPPOSITE of Natural Law....how can it create a natural born citizen?
You still aren't getting it. The Conservative side of the Aisle has little respect for the Judiciary. We consider them to be idiots. They would be a comedy team if the results of their willful ignorance/deliberate defiance weren't so tragic.
This is a fancy way of saying you simply pushing an argumentum ad nauseam. (Another Fallacy.)
"No one has bothered to do that"? Are you sh*tting us? People have been trying since 2008 to "do that." It's the F***ing @$$holes in the Judicial system with their worship of ritual and aversion to unpleasant cocktail parties that has been the major problem with "doing that."
All you seem to know how to do is hide behind robes and statutory gibberish.
I want to proffer you a legal argument. In Marbury v Madison it was held:
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
...
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
So in the case in which compliance with Constitutional law of Presidential eligibility and State Privacy laws apply to the same case, which wins?
Well in our upside down goofy bastard ignorant barking at the moon legal system, the tail wags the dog.
Statutory law didn’t create, it defined.
And what statutory law defined in ths instance is who are “Citizens of the United States At Birth” under the 14th Amendment.
It is JUDGES who have equated natural born citizens with Citizens of the United States At Birth.
The fifth section of the 14th Amendment says: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Defining born citizenship and naturalized citizenship as stipulated in Section 1 of the 14th amendment fell to Congress.
It is unlawful to for the Vice President-elect to assume the Office of the Vice President if the Vice President-elect is ineligible to assume the Office of the President of the United States pursuant to the 12th Amendment.
It is not unlawful for the President-elect to assume the Office of the President of the of the United States. The Eligibility Clause applies after the ineligible President assumes the office. The only consequence of a violation of the Eligibility Clause is that it voids the US Constitution and necessitates a convention of the states to develop a new governing document. The Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch are powerless to prevent the majority of American people from choosing an ineligible President as their leader and voiding the US Constitution.
The American people have fired all executive level officers of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Executive Branch, except Obama and Biden, by electing an ineligible President to assume the Office of the President of the United States on Jan. 20, 2009. Unfortunately, they refuse to leave their offices.
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.