Obama not Constitutionally eligible to be President

[Gaar]

bummer you don't have a legit source

again why are you ignoring the lawyers and judges on this subject. are you being intentionally obtuse or just a troll?

Care to address ANY of the argument, or just be a Troll?

 

[jillian]

Care to address ANY of the argument, or just be a Troll?

Sorry snookie, you're the troll. And many of us have already responded to your nonsense. You've refused to acknowledge that you don't have a leg to stand on here.

You're making it up as you go along. You know you are. Hence my asking if you're being intentionally obtuse. But I'm afraid I don't try to engage in discussion with attention seekers who know they're trolling. Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone is wasting their time trying to educate you.

 

[Care4all]

I do not simply use any "wiki quote", please....

Natural Born Citizen Chart

The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book Law of Nations. That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the US Constitution, derived from the Law of Nations. See this chart as to which type of citizenship a person holds based on the facts as to WHERE he was born and WHO WERE BOTH HIS PARENTS, based on the Constitution and prior court rulings.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..." (America Must Know)

John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.

In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”. And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

” ‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

Perkins v. Elg's importance is that it actually gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

An attorney, who practices in Missouri and the federal courts system and is also an accountant, observes that two plus two equals four (2+2 = 4). There is no dispute in that. Also, the similar logic applies with the meaning of what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. To be one as defined under U.S. Supreme Court case law and the English Common Law adopted by the U.S., you have to be born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the U.S. mainland.

Congress for 26 times has tried to change the meaning of natural born citizen as early as the 1790 Nationality Act and 26 times the bill has been defeated, repealed or ruled unconstitutional. The meaning of what natural born citizen is what it is. Regardless of what people in the mainstream media and in our federal government try to do, they still can't change the fact of the meaning of what a natural born citizen is. What is occurring right now is straight up a coup de'tat seeking to destroy the Constitution as we know it.

So mccain was NOT ELIGIBLE to run for the presidency because he was NOT born in the USA? Nor Romney's father who was born in Mexico, was not eligible to run for the USA presidency either? There are a number of cases over the years where what you have posted, would have ruled alot them out too, but they were not ruled out....why do you think that is....?

I think we had a vp that was born in paris....but from 2 american parents....?

Care

 

[Gaar]

So mccain was NOT ELIGIBLE to run for the presidency because he was NOT born in the USA? Nor Romney's father who was born in Mexico, was not eligible to run for the USA presidency either? There are a number of cases over the years where what you have posted, would have ruled alot them out too, but they were not ruled out....why do you think that is....?

I think we had a vp that was born in paris....but from 2 american parents....?

Care

That's why they later clarified and said any 2 Citizens anywhere...

The 2 Citizens part has never changed, yet soil has.

Imagine that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and all the below quote is from his post...




it all hinges on the idea that Obama is a naturalized citizen who at one time had allegiance to a foreign power.

make him answer....what foreign power and when was Obama naturalized...there has to be documentation that Obama was naturalized.

until he answers both---why bother with the circle jerk?
\
where is ravi when you need a circle master?

LOL i think shes posting something moronic somewhere else

just has to see this post. lol

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That's why they later clarified and said any 2 Citizens anywhere...

The 2 Citizens part has never changed, yet soil has.

Imagine that.

so where you come from clarification amounts to conspiracy?

it's unfair to trolls everywhere to lump you in with them.

you're just a nut.

:shadow:

 

[Gaar]

Sorry snookie, you're the troll. And many of us have already responded to your nonsense. You've refused to acknowledge that you don't have a leg to stand on here.

You're making it up as you go along. You know you are. Hence my asking if you're being intentionally obtuse. But I'm afraid I don't try to engage in discussion with attention seekers who know they're trolling. Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone is wasting their time trying to educate you.

You are the one doing nothing but insulting and not addressing ANY of the argument...

Otherwise known as an Ad Hominem attack.

Imagine that.

 

[Gaar]

so where you come from clarification amounts to conspiracy?

it's unfair to trolls everywhere to lump you in with them.

you're just a nut.

:shadow:

Who said anything about conspiracy?

Those are your words, not mine.

 

[Gaar]

and all the below quote is from his post...




it all hinges on the idea that Obama is a naturalized citizen who at one time had allegiance to a foreign power.

make him answer....what foreign power and when was Obama naturalized...there has to be documentation that Obama was naturalized.

until he answers both---why bother with the circle jerk?
\
where is ravi when you need a circle master?

Has nothing to do with Naturalized...

You can be a Citizen at Birth and NOT be Natural Born.

 

[Care4all]

That's why they later clarified and said any 2 Citizens anywhere...

The 2 Citizens part has never changed, yet soil has.

Imagine that.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China but who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China” was a U.S. Citizen. The Court stated that: "The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'''


The Constitution says BORN or Naturalized....Naturalized citizens are people that were born in another country to foreign parents like my Italian mother, who then married my father and then applied for her citizenship, or like my Italian grandparents who once living here, applied and got their us citizenship...

so, you are either BORN a citizen, or have been naturalized a citizen according to the constitution, no? Are you saying that there is a third option for someone like John McCain, that was not in the Constitution?

Explain this ruling:

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States."


Care

 

[bk1983]

has Nothing To Do With Naturalized...

you Can Be A Citizen At Birth And Not Be Natural Born.

Wrong!!

 

[Care4all]

if you are a citizen at birth, then you are a natural born citizen....(even if born in a foreign country, like mccain.....this is precedence...or how it has evolved in definition.)

if you are not a citizen at birth but a citizen of another country, but become a citizen later on down the road, then you are a naturalized citizen.

here is the law:

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who said anything about conspiracy?

Those are your words, not mine.

of course you infer such a thing. how else can you explain everyone going along with what to you is obviously an unconstitutional thing? if there is no conspiracy are you saying everyone but you and a few certified lunatics is stupid?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Has nothing to do with Naturalized...

You can be a Citizen at Birth and NOT be Natural Born.

you are being disingenuous.

 

[Gaar]

of course you infer such a thing. how else can you explain everyone going along with what to you is obviously an unconstitutional thing? if there is no conspiracy are you saying everyone but you and a few certified lunatics is stupid?

Perhaps not stupid...

But ignorant of our History, and the intent of our Founding Fathers.

That's why we have the SCOTUS, so that people who have the time to Learn such things do, and then they can Rule on them, in the context for which it was written.

So imagine how much all of YOUR OPINIONS mean to me, since none of you can address the History and intent of our Founding Fathers, and such things will in fact have to be considered by those entrusted with the Duty.

 

[Gaar]

you are being disingenuous.

Vattel: The Law of Nations: Book I

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

§ 214. Naturalization.(58)
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

§ 216. Children born at sea.
As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

--------------------------------

"Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner."

So again, you can be Born a Citizen, but not be Natural Born but rather a "Naturalized Citizen" by Birth.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the problem with semi-educated arguments is that they are useless.

What the individual Founding Fathers wanted is irrelevant in many ways. I do know they left the Constitution open to changes for whatever future generations wanted. A stale and conservative interpretation is hardly what most of them desired or wanted for future generations.

Many of the semi-educated arguments you use (believe it or not, I've heard them before) are sophomoric at best. Many of the arguments used stem from writings of individual FFs (Founding Fathers) and those arguments may have fell on deaf ears when the final documents were voted on. Just because an individual no matter how influential to our Constitution had an opinion on something does not make that opinion the last word.

Intent? The only intent I ever argue seriously about was the intent to make a free nation of free people who had the freedom to decide their own fate and not have their fate dictated by old men long dead, the ages, or a god.

Ignorant of our History I am not, and sophomoric and academic about it I am not, but sadly I am well read enough to have heard your arguments before.

You are disingenuous and full of shit on a lot of IT.

Perhaps not stupid...

But ignorant of our History, and the intent of our Founding Fathers.

That why we have the SCOTUS, so that people who have the time to Learn such things do, and then they can Rule on them, in the context for which it was written.

So imagine how much all of YOUR OPINIONS mean to me, since none of you can address the History and intent of our Founding Fathers, and such things will in fact have to be considered by those entrusted with the Duty.

The SCOTUS will rule on things brought before them. I love the law and fear the courts and loathe justice for she is blind in her awesome power to do good and harm. Like war there are fools who worship at the altar of blind justice without a clue to the fearsome awesomeness of her power. (not bad on the fly, eh?)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Vattel: The Law of Nations: Book I

§ 212. Citizens and nat...

you remind me of a first semester grad student who thinks they are a teacher and that the world is waiting on their every brilliant word.

you should try talking to people instead of at them. the difference between us is I know what I am doing.

 

[Gaar]

you remind me of a first semester grad student who thinks they are a teacher and that the world is waiting on their every brilliant word.

you should try talking to people instead of at them. the difference between us is I know what I am doing.

So you say...

As yet another is unable to address the History as well as how the decisions others have cited here do not say what they say they do and NONE of them have addressed the Issue in the manner for which it was written, as this will.

Fortunately for me, such decisions are not yours to make.

I will wait for the SCOTUS, thank you.

The question to you and those like you is: What will you do if they find your ignorant ass is in fact wrong, and your supposed superior intellect gets tossed right out the window along with your pompous attitude?

Because they, unlike you, are going to have to address the arguments made, eventually, and Rule on the Constitution, and not what you and a bunch of others believe the Constitution may or may not have "become"...

Like I said in the beginning, There is a reason they used that Language. You want to change that, change it, but until you do it is the Law of the land, period.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So you say...

As yet another is unable to address the History as well as how the decisions others have cited here do not say what they say they do and NONE of them have addressed the Issue in the manner for which it was written, as this will.

Fortunately for me, such decisions are not yours to make.

I will wait for the SCOTUS, thank you.

The question to you and those like you is: What will you do if they find your ignorant ass is in fact wrong, and your supposed superior intellect gets tossed right out the window along with your pompous attitude?

Because they, unlike you, are going to have to address the arguments made, eventually, and Rule on the Constitution, and not what you and a bunch of others believe the Constitution may or may not have "become"...

Like I said in the beginning, There is a reason they used that Language. You want to change that, change it, but until you do it is the Law of the land, period.

your inferiority complex is embarrassing to be around.

no arguments have been made. the fukin' thing is supposed to be brought up in conference. do you know how few things come out of conference for a hearing?

you keep mentioning History as if the mantra History...History...History...makes you sound informed. It doesn't. It makes you sound like an idiot. You have very little to argue with except a few hair brained ideas that all apart if you open one of your eyes.

Fortunately for you? why? Are you suffering from delusions of grandeur? Do you think you matter in the great scheme of things? You're not even a pimple on the ass of SCOTUS let alone fortunate when they fart.