Free Republic 2nd Qtr 2024 Fundraising Target: $81,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $63,199
78%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 78%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by tommy777

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 2:57:13 PM PST · 89 of 305
    tommy777 to mlo

    “The framers didn’t consider themselves natural born citizens of the United States because when they were born there was no United States. That’s why they included the extra language, otherwise *nobody* could have been president.

    It is not about: “when they were born there was no United States”, but: On the time, the United States DID come to existence, the framers didn’t consider themselves natural born citizens in a retrogressive way...

    (sorry for my english... am from Europe)

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 2:03:17 PM PST · 59 of 305
    tommy777 to trumandogz

    http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

    Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.

    The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”. Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

    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;

    That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)

    The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

    The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

    But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.
    The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.

    Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

  • Justice Kennedy rejects 2 more challenges to Obama

    12/17/2008 3:10:35 PM PST · 289 of 417
    tommy777 to MHGinTN

    Indeed, I just registered, because I found your site...through some link or google. I did however visit your site long time, before I registered
    Point is, I am not of american/english origin, so sometimes I don`t get the point, when it becomes to technically...
    so thanks for the explanation.

  • Justice Kennedy rejects 2 more challenges to Obama

    12/17/2008 2:14:21 PM PST · 274 of 417
    tommy777 to freepersup
    “For your listening and dining pleasure; I present to you, the reader, an updated SCOTUS docket, replete with a date FOR conference:” What does that mean in plain english...?