Advisor: Obama Doesn't Attend Church Because It's A Distraction (Yea Right! We Know The Real Reason)

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I'm handing you your ass now: News flash: It's not illegal to be a Muslim in America and a Muslim can run for POTUS, too.

Who said anything to the contrary? The point was about democrats disparaging so-called birthers when it was their hero Hillary who started the birther movement. They're hypocrites.

And of course that is just the standard Birther lie.

Birtherism started in Conservative blogs. Hilary never even mentioned.

Funny though how Birthers like to claim that it was started by Hilary even though every Birther is a flaming right wing nutcase.

No, the Hildabeast just played the race card with Al Sharpton. Let's not pretend she didn't have lows to sink to.

Hillary's campaign started the birther routine during the primaries.

Prove it? That should be easy if true...

Go google it yourself. I'm not your personal news reporter. Just because you rely on left wing propaganda for news and you're left out on a lot of info as a result isn't my responsibility.

 

[Flopper]

It's because there's no room for him to put his prayer rug down.


obama my muslim faith - YouTube


Love the comment section.
Obama Doesn t Attend Church So As Not to Distract Others Says Advisor - Breitbart

Reagan didn't attend church either dumbass.

Reagan didn't have a secret muslim past to hide, dumber asser.

I'm handing you your ass now: News flash: It's not illegal to be a Muslim in America and a Muslim can run for POTUS, too.

Must to the dismay of the Christian Right.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It's because there's no room for him to put his prayer rug down.


obama my muslim faith - YouTube


Love the comment section.
Obama Doesn t Attend Church So As Not to Distract Others Says Advisor - Breitbart

Reagan didn't attend church either dumbass.

Reagan didn't have a secret muslim past to hide, dumber asser.

I'm handing you your ass now: News flash: It's not illegal to be a Muslim in America and a Muslim can run for POTUS, too.

Must to the dismay of the Christian Right.

Who happen to be left of the most moderate muslims. Tell the democrats.

 

[Skylar]

Excellent demonstration...

Save for one small problem. Herb Titus doesn't actually present any evidence. Nothing from history, no legal precedent, nothing from the founders on the nature of natural born citizenship. Nor does he cite any law. He simply says what he believes natural born citizenship to be.

But the courts have never held his reasoning to be valid. And in fact the founders contradicted his assertions with the Naturalization laws of 1790.

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.

Naturalization Act of 1790
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 - 1875

Now, if natural born citizenship has nothing to do with where you are born, but only involves being the child of two US citizens.....why would the founders have needed to extend natural born status to children born to citizens of the US born outside the US?

After all, per you.....they would have already BEEN natural born citizens. But per the founders, this status had to be extended in law for them to considered natural born citizens.

Demonstrating elegantly that natural born status follows place of birth. Not parentage. A fact well known by the courts as well:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

US v. Wong Kim Ark
United States v. Wong Kim Ark LII Legal Information Institute

Natural born status follows place of birth. Not parentage.

The founders and the federal courts trump Mr. Titus. And demonstrate that Obama was a natural born citizen the moment he was born.

A fact reaffirmed by the State of Hawaii itself:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

Hawaii Obama Birth Certificate is Real - ABC News

The State of Hawaii trumps Mr. Titus as well.

So what else have you got?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Excellent demonstration...

Save for one small problem. Herb Titus doesn't actually present any evidence. Nothing from history, no legal precedent, nothing from the founders on the nature of natural born citizenship. Nor does he cite any law. He simply says what he believes natural born citizenship to be.

But the courts have never held his reasoning to be valid. And in fact the founders contradicted his assertions with the Naturalization laws of 1790.

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.

Naturalization Act of 1790
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 - 1875

Now, if natural born citizenship has nothing to do with where you are born, but only involves being the child of two US citizens.....why would the founders have needed to extend natural born status to children born to citizens of the US born outside the US?

After all, per you.....they would have already BEEN natural born citizens. But per the founders, this status had to be extended in law for them to considered natural born citizens.

Demonstrating elegantly that natural born status follows place of birth. Not parentage. A fact well known by the courts as well:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

US v. Wong Kim Ark
United States v. Wong Kim Ark LII Legal Information Institute

Natural born status follows place of birth. Not parentage.

The founders and the federal courts trump Mr. Titus. And demonstrate that Obama was a natural born citizen the moment he was born.

A fact reaffirmed by the State of Hawaii itself:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

Hawaii Obama Birth Certificate is Real - ABC News

The State of Hawaii trumps Mr. Titus as well.

So what else have you got?

Thread fail. Former Hawaii Dept of Health Chiyome Fukino has absolutely no credentials in Constitutional/case law compared to scholar/lawyer Herb Titus to make an assessment that Obama or anyone else is a natural born American citizen. She erred in her statement.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Excellent demonstration...

Save for one small problem. Herb Titus doesn't actually present any evidence. Nothing from history, no legal precedent, nothing from the founders on the nature of natural born citizenship. Nor does he cite any law. He simply says what he believes natural born citizenship to be.

But the courts have never held his reasoning to be valid. And in fact the founders contradicted his assertions with the Naturalization laws of 1790.

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.

Naturalization Act of 1790
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 - 1875

Now, if natural born citizenship has nothing to do with where you are born, but only involves being the child of two US citizens.....why would the founders have needed to extend natural born status to children born to citizens of the US born outside the US?

After all, per you.....they would have already BEEN natural born citizens. But per the founders, this status had to be extended in law for them to considered natural born citizens.

Demonstrating elegantly that natural born status follows place of birth. Not parentage. A fact well known by the courts as well:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

US v. Wong Kim Ark
United States v. Wong Kim Ark LII Legal Information Institute

Natural born status follows place of birth. Not parentage.

The founders and the federal courts trump Mr. Titus. And demonstrate that Obama was a natural born citizen the moment he was born.

A fact reaffirmed by the State of Hawaii itself:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

Hawaii Obama Birth Certificate is Real - ABC News

The State of Hawaii trumps Mr. Titus as well.

So what else have you got?

Thread fail. Former Hawaii Dept of Health Chiyome Fukino has absolutely no credentials in Constitutional/case law compared to scholar/lawyer Herb Titus to make an assessment that Obama or anyone else is a natural born American citizen. She erred in her statement.

Erred? LOL! I guarantee you that she spent at least TWO DAYS crafting that announcement, with a team of obama lawyers. That thing is about as convoluted a statement as one could hope to create and leave within it, some sense of the subject.

"Citizen of America" ... ROFLMNAO! You can't buy that level of twisted gibberish, THAT ya gotta EARN!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's because there's no room for him to put his prayer rug down.


obama my muslim faith - YouTube


Love the comment section.
Obama Doesn t Attend Church So As Not to Distract Others Says Advisor - Breitbart

Reagan didn't attend church either dumbass.

Reagan didn't have a secret muslim past to hide, dumber asser.

I'm handing you your ass now: News flash: It's not illegal to be a Muslim in America and a Muslim can run for POTUS, too.

I don't see why not... As long as the Muslim was born to a Mother who is known to be a loyal US Citizen, and a Father is also known to be a loyal US Citizen...

Which, sadly for Islam, is NOT the case for the current Peasantpimp of the Union States. Who is disqualified to hold the Office of the President of the United States.

 

[Skylar]

Thread fail. Former Hawaii Dept of Health Chiyome Fukino has absolutely no credentials in Constitutional/case law compared to scholar/lawyer Herb Titus to make an assessment that Obama or anyone else is a natural born American citizen. She erred in her statement.

She's an officer of the State of Hawaii. That puts her head and shoulders above a guy on a youtube video. Especially one that presented zero evidence of his position, no court cases, nothing from the founders, no laws, nothing. Just his personal opinion of what 'natural born' was supposed to mean. A definition that courts have never recognized as valid.

The founders contradicted him with the Naturalization Acts of 1790.....where they extended natural born status to those were born to US citizens outside the US. Per Mr. Titus's personal opinion, such children would have already BEEN natural born citizens. But per the founders, this status had to be extended in law for them to considered natural born citizens.

Demonstrating elegantly that natural born status follows place of birth. Not parentage. A fact well known by the courts as well. As the founders were inheritors of the English legal tradition, and in English law natural born status followed place of birth. Even to alien parents.

So you have the Founders, the USSC and the State of Hawaii on one side of the issue. And Mr. Titus on his youtube video on the other. Mr. Titus has been overruled by far better sources.

So what else have you got?

 

[Skylar]

Erred? LOL! I guarantee you that she spent at least TWO DAYS crafting that announcement, with a team of obama lawyers.

Yeah, but you don't know what you're talking about. Nor can you back up your position with any evidence. Further, Chiyome Fukino was a republican appointed by a republican governor.....a governor that had actively campaigned for McCain.

Rendering your latest piece of conspiracy batshit not only gloriously fact free, but remarkably silly.

That thing is about as convoluted a statement as one could hope to create and leave within it, some sense of the subject.

There's nothing particularly 'conveluted' about her statement. Its about as straight forward as it comes:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

Hawaii Obama birth certificate is real - USATODAY.com

And done.

She simply contradicts you....so you ignore her. Just like you ignore anything that doesn't say what you want to believe. Your problem is that you can't make us or any other rational person ignore her. Or any of the other evidence you have to ignore to be a birther.

Which is why you fail.

 

[Skylar]

I don't see why not... As long as the Muslim was born to a Mother who is known to be a loyal US Citizen, and a Father is also known to be a loyal US Citizen...

Save, of course, that that's not the definition of natural born citizenship. Natural born citizenship follows place of birth. Not parentage. As the founders demonstrated in 1790 when they had to extend natural born status to children born to US parents outside the US.

Per you, these children were already natural born citizens. Per the founders, this status had to be extended to them by law in order for them to be recognized as natural born citizens.

Killing your argument yet again.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Herb Titus Credentials:

Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.


Now show me in comparison the Constitutional/case law credentials of former HI Director of Health Chiyome Fukino that makes her more knowledgeable about past U.S. Citizenship laws and the true intent behind the framing of the presidential clause in the eyes of the founders. And while your at it add director Lorretta Fuddy's credentials too.


And by the way, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed 5 years later making it moot.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Herb Titus Credentials:

Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.


Now show me in comparison the Constitutional/case law credentials of former HI Director of Health Chiyome Fukino that makes her more knowledgeable about past U.S. Citizenship laws and the true intent behind the framing of the presidential clause in the eyes of the founders. And while your at it add director Lorretta Fuddy's credentials too.


And by the way, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed 5 years later making it moot.

WHAT DOES HE KNOW ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION?

Does he KNOW where it says there the Constitution says there's a WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE? How about where it says that A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO ABORT THE FETUS?

I DOUBT IT!

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

As well respected Constitutional scholar in the videos explains, the requirement for a "natural born citizen" was to prevent anyone with a reason to have divided loyalties from being President. A soldier who is a U.S. citizen serving overseas accompanied by his U.S. citizen wife would be able to have children with no presumption of divided loyalties on the part of the children.
A U.S. citizen who is born IN THE U.S. to immigrants who are not U.S. citizens could be expected to have extremely divided loyalties.

 

[Skylar]

Herb Titus Credentials:

Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.


Now show me in comparison the Constitutional/case law credentials of former HI Director of Health Chiyome Fukino that makes her more knowledgeable about past U.S. Citizenship laws and the true intent behind the framing of the presidential clause in the eyes of the founders. And while your at it add director Lorretta Fuddy's credentials too.

And Mr. Titus presented no evidence. Not a single law, not a single legal precedent, not a single piece of common law, not a single quote of any founder. Nothing.

He offered us his personal opinion...and opinion that has never been affirmed by the USSC.

Worse, his opinion has been contradicted by the Founders, State of Hawaii and history. As we've already had a US president who had a foreign national father: Chester Arthur. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish father. Yet his eligibility was never questioned until a rumor that he wasn't born in the US surfaced. As the people of Arthur's age knew what the founders knew: natural born status follows place of birth.

You have the USSC, the Founders, the State of Hawaii and US history on one side of the issue. And Mr. Titus on the other.

Mr. Titus loses.

And by the way, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed 5 years later making it moot.

On the contrary, its immediately relevant in demonstrating what the founders understood 'natural born' to be. As the Naturalization act of 1790 was passed only 2 years after the constitution was ratified.

If, as Mr. Titus claims, natural born status followed parentage alone, why then did the founders have to EXTEND natural born status to children born to US parents outside the US before they could be considered natural born citizens? Wouldn't they already have been natural born, per Mr. Titus' argument?

If, however, as English common law dictates and the USSC has cited, natural born status follows PLACE of birth, then the 1790 law makes perfect sense. As those born outside the US wouldn't have been natural born citizens. So such status would have to be extended to them.

And surely you realize that your definition of 'natural born' changed. You've been arguing that natural born status is only those born in the US to two US parents. And suddenly, you've abandoned the 'born in the US' part entirely.

I take it your original definition wasn't working out too well for you. I wonder what your definition will change to next.

 

[Skylar]

As well respected Constitutional scholar in the videos explains, the requirement for a "natural born citizen" was to prevent anyone with a reason to have divided loyalties from being President. A soldier who is a U.S. citizen serving overseas accompanied by his U.S. citizen wife would be able to have children with no presumption of divided loyalties on the part of the children.
A U.S. citizen who is born IN THE U.S. to immigrants who are not U.S. citizens could be expected to have extremely divided loyalties.

A 'respected scholar' that presents no evidence, no case law, no precedent, no quote of any founder, nothing. And who's personal definition neither the law nor the courts have ever recognized as valid.

That's an opinion. And its contradicted by the Founders, the USSC, the State of Hawaii and US history. And one of which is more authoritative than Mr. Titus and his youtube video.

 

[Skylar]

WHAT DOES HE KNOW ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION?

Does he KNOW where it says there the Constitution says there's a WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE? How about where it says that A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO ABORT THE FETUS?

If Mr. Titus had evidence to present to support his case, he should have presented it. Yet he has none. No quotes from anyone, no case law, no precedent, nothing from the founders on the meaning of natural born.

Mr. Titus tells us what HE believes natural born is. Which is irrelevant. Its what the law and the founders recognized it to be. And neither back Mr. Titus. Nor do our laws recognize Mr. Titus as any legal authority.

Where as the USSC, the State of Hawaii, the Founders and US History all contradict him.

What else have you got?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Herb Titus Credentials:

Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.


Now show me in comparison the Constitutional/case law credentials of former HI Director of Health Chiyome Fukino that makes her more knowledgeable about past U.S. Citizenship laws and the true intent behind the framing of the presidential clause in the eyes of the founders. And while your at it add director Lorretta Fuddy's credentials too.

And Mr. Titus presented no evidence. Not a single law, not a single legal precedent, not a single piece of common law, not a single quote of any founder. Nothing.

He offered us his personal opinion...and opinion that has never been affirmed by the USSC.

Worse, his opinion has been contradicted by the Founders, State of Hawaii and history. As we've already had a US president who had a foreign national father: Chester Arthur. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish father. Yet his eligibility was never questioned until a rumor that he wasn't born in the US surfaced. As the people of Arthur's age knew what the founders knew: natural born status follows place of birth.

You have the USSC, the Founders, the State of Hawaii and US history on one side of the issue. And Mr. Titus on the other.

Mr. Titus loses.

And by the way, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed 5 years later making it moot.

On the contrary, its immediately relevant in demonstrating what the founders understood 'natural born' to be. As the Naturalization act of 1790 was passed only 2 years after the constitution was ratified.

If, as Mr. Titus claims, natural born status followed parentage alone, why then did the founders have to EXTEND natural born status to children born to US parents outside the US before they could be considered natural born citizens? Wouldn't they already have been natural born, per Mr. Titus' argument?

If, however, as English common law dictates and the USSC has cited, natural born status follows PLACE of birth, then the 1790 law makes perfect sense. As those born outside the US wouldn't have been natural born citizens. So such status would have to be extended to them.

And surely you realize that your definition of 'natural born' changed. You've been arguing that natural born status is only those born in the US to two US parents. And suddenly, you've abandoned the 'born in the US' part entirely.

I take it your original definition wasn't working out too well for you. I wonder what your definition will change to next.

What are your credentials in practicing Constitutional law or citizenship law that makes your opinion trump Herb Titus's well established credentials and opinion based on years of practicing constitutional law? Still waiting on you to post Chiyome Fukino and Loretta Fuddy's credentials compared to Constitutional scholar Herb Titus.

 

[Skylar]

Herb Titus Credentials:

Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.


Now show me in comparison the Constitutional/case law credentials of former HI Director of Health Chiyome Fukino that makes her more knowledgeable about past U.S. Citizenship laws and the true intent behind the framing of the presidential clause in the eyes of the founders. And while your at it add director Lorretta Fuddy's credentials too.

And Mr. Titus presented no evidence. Not a single law, not a single legal precedent, not a single piece of common law, not a single quote of any founder. Nothing.

He offered us his personal opinion...and opinion that has never been affirmed by the USSC.

Worse, his opinion has been contradicted by the Founders, State of Hawaii and history. As we've already had a US president who had a foreign national father: Chester Arthur. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish father. Yet his eligibility was never questioned until a rumor that he wasn't born in the US surfaced. As the people of Arthur's age knew what the founders knew: natural born status follows place of birth.

You have the USSC, the Founders, the State of Hawaii and US history on one side of the issue. And Mr. Titus on the other.

Mr. Titus loses.

And by the way, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed 5 years later making it moot.

On the contrary, its immediately relevant in demonstrating what the founders understood 'natural born' to be. As the Naturalization act of 1790 was passed only 2 years after the constitution was ratified.

If, as Mr. Titus claims, natural born status followed parentage alone, why then did the founders have to EXTEND natural born status to children born to US parents outside the US before they could be considered natural born citizens? Wouldn't they already have been natural born, per Mr. Titus' argument?

If, however, as English common law dictates and the USSC has cited, natural born status follows PLACE of birth, then the 1790 law makes perfect sense. As those born outside the US wouldn't have been natural born citizens. So such status would have to be extended to them.

And surely you realize that your definition of 'natural born' changed. You've been arguing that natural born status is only those born in the US to two US parents. And suddenly, you've abandoned the 'born in the US' part entirely.

I take it your original definition wasn't working out too well for you. I wonder what your definition will change to next.

What are your credentials in practicing Constitutional law or citizenship law that makes your opinion trump Herb Titus's well established credentials and opinion based on years of practicing constitutional law? Still waiting on you to post Chiyome Fukino and Loretta Fuddy's credentials compared to Constitutional scholar Herb Titus.

I'm not citing my opinion. I'm citing the USSC, which has never recognized Mr. Titus' personal opinion as legally valid. Not once.

I'm citing USSC justices which has cited English Common Law as the basis of the founders understanding of the term 'natural born'. And then cited English Common law as recognizing one's place of birth as defining natural born status....even to alien parents.

I'm citing the 1790 Naturalization act passed by the founders themselves only 2 years after the constitution was ratified. That EXTENDED natural born status to those children of US parents born outside the US. An explicit contradiction of Mr. Titus who inisists these children were already natural born.

I'm citing the Director of Health of Hawaii, the State in which President Obama was born which recognized Obama as a natural born American citizen.

I'm citing history, with Chester Arthur, the 21st President of the United States having an American mother and Irish father. Who's eligibility to be president was never questioned until a rumor of surfaced that Arthur hadn't been born in the US. Contradicting Titus with both historical precedent and a clear understanding of natural born being a product of place of birth.

Titus, in stark contrast, cites no one. He tells us what HE believes natural born means. Which is irrelevant. What's relevant is what the law and the founders recognized natural born status to be.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

You don't have the credentialed knowledge of Constitutional/citizenship case law to cite the USSC. You don't have the credentialed knowledge of a Constitutional scholar to cite why our founders repealed the Naturalization Act of 1790 five years later removing the term 'natural born Citizen'. As for Fukino, she lacked the credentialed knowledge of Constitutional/citizenship case laws to form her opinion that Obama was a natural born American citizen. As for Arthur, he got away with being the first ineligible president due to not being a Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen. As for Titus not citing anyone in the video, his fine credentials, and knowledge of Constitutional law and the reasons why the framers put the natural born citizen term into the presidential clause, is enough to know he is right while you fail at every attempt to obfuscate the facts he lays out what a true natural born citizen is in the eyes of the founders.

 

[Skylar]

You don't have the credentialed knowledge of Constitutional/citizenship case law to cite the USSC.

Who says you need 'credentials' to quote Wong Kim Ark and its exploration of the meaning of 'natural born'?

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

United States V. Wong Kim Ark (1899)

Which cases did Mr. Titus quote in defense of his personal opinion?

None. He offers nothing. As Mr. Titus's personal opinion isn't law nor has any legal authority, the USSC wins.

You don't have the credentialed knowledge of a Constitutional scholar to cite why our founders repealed the Naturalization Act of 1790 five years later removing the term 'natural born Citizen'.

I don't need 'credentials' to quote the Naturlization Act of 1790. I can just quote it:

And the children of citizen of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.

Naturalization Act of 1790
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 - 1875

Why did the founders have to extend natural born status to children born to US citizens outside the US....if as Mr. Titus imagines they were already natural born citizens?

Mr. Titus doesn't say. Nor do you. He references no law, cites no precedent, offers us nothing but his own personal opinion. Which the USSC has never recognized as legally valid.

And, which Mr. Titus never claims the USSC has ever recognized.

As for Fukino, she lacked the credentialed knowledge of Constitutional/citizenship case laws to form her opinion that Obama was a natural born American citizen.

She is the authoritative agent of the State of Hawaii on this matter. Which puts her assessments heads and shoulders above some guy on youtube offering his personal opinion. Her recognition of Obama's natural born American citizenship as that authoritative agent of the State is thus immediately relevant.

And Mr. Titus is irrelevant. Again.

As for Arthur, he got away with being the first ineligible president due to not being a Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen.

That's your personal opinion. Mr. Titus has nothing to say on Arthur, so you only quoting yourself. History, however, tells a very different story. With President Arthur sitting as our lawful 21st president. Arthur stands are historical precedent that having a non-native parent doesn't disqualify you for the office of president.

Worse for you is the debate at the time of his presidency. No one cared that his father was Irish. His eligibility was only questioned when a rumor was started that he wasn't born in the US.

ST. ALBANS, Vt., Dec. 21.—A stranger arrived here a few days ago, and registered at the American House as A. P. Hinman, of New-York. Since then he has been very busy in the adjoining town of Fairfield, ostensibly collecting materials for a biography of Vice-President-elect Arthur. He has privately stated to leading Democratic citizens, however, that he is employed by the Democratic National Committee to obtain evidence to show that Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner. He claims to have discovered that Gen. Arthur was born in Canada, instead of Fairfield; that his name is Chester Allen instead of Chester Abell [sic]; that he was 50 years old in July instead of October, as has been stated, and generally that he is an alien and ineligible to the office of Vice-President.

New York Times
Dec. 22, 1880:

The Genealogue Our Canadian President

It was commonly known, as it was during the era of the founders, that 'natural born' status followed place of birth. Which is why no one cared that Arthur's father was Irish. But the rumor that he wasn't born in the US was taken very seriously.

Titus has nothing to say on the issue. You run screaming from it, unable to refute any of it.

History wins.

As for Titus not citing anyone in the video, his fine credentials, and knowledge of Constitutional law and the reasons why the framers put the natural born citizen term into the presidential clause, is enough to know he is right while you fail at every attempt to obfuscate the facts he lays out what a true natural born citizen is in the eyes of the founders.

Titus cites no source for his opinion. No USSC case, no law, no founder, no quote from anyone, no legal precedent. He offers his personal opinion backed by nothing. What Mr. Titus believes natural born status is means nothing. As we base no law on him. Its what the law and the founders recognized natural born status as meaning.

And US law doesn't recognize Mr. Titus' definition as valid. Nor did the founders indicate any agreement with him.

So what else have you got?