Birth Certificate: Obama's lawyer says forgery so obvious it cannot be used to deter

[washamericom]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Sorry. Clarification?

the obama birth certificate, his provenance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M. D. can consider himself an authority. Why not? Everybody else does, apparently?

The issue is settled, wash.

 

[washamericom]

M. D. can consider himself an authority. Why not? Everybody else does, apparently?

The issue is settled, wash.

jake what keeps someone as entirely brilliant as you so totally glued to this topic. lots of people aren't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because I have always enjoyed watching those discussing a subject, once trapped, run in circle. I will watch you run as long as you post.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Sorry. Clarification?

the obama birth certificate, his provenance.

It's all silly nonsense, a dead issue.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

M. D. can consider himself an authority. Why not? Everybody else does, apparently?

The issue is settled, wash.

Uh-huh, I'm still waiting for you to rescind your claim that Title 8, Section 1401 only deals with so-called "immigration law", that Wong Kim Ark definitively established that the United States' jurisdiction encompasses the offspring of illegals in ratio decidendi. The decision may be readily found on the Internet; that portion of it, the one you claim to exist, should be easy to copy and paste to this board. LOL!

In the meantime, for your reading pleasure, more from a real authority on the matter, including the Wong Kim Ark decision: A Critique of the Chin Argument; Prufrock's Lair: Wong Kim Ark Meet Rogers

Here you will learn, for the first time in your life, about the historical back-and-forth dispute between the left and the right over (1) the constitutional status of persons born of U.S. citizens abroad, (2) the status of persons born to foreigners in U.S. territories premised on the distinction between incorporated and non-incorporated territories, (3) the status of congressional prerogative over citizenship conferral and expatriation and (4) the status of persons born of illegals on U.S. soil, the struggle to emphatically establish the latter one way or the other.

The historical legal debate over all these things continues to rage right up to this very day in academia and in the courts (though conservatives have mostly prevailed) as a direct result of the Court's usurpation of power in Wong Kim Ark, and its careless or vague language in that decision. You will learn that the Taft Court came very close to overturning Wong Kim Ark altogether as the majority sentiment attempted to at the very least bar the children of illegals in ratio decidendi.

You just think that particular question was settled from your superficial reading of shoddy or biased opinions haphazardly gleaned from the Internet, authored by persons who are themselves unaware of the historical debate or, compelled by ideological dishonesty, to suppress knowledge of the same. Settled my ass! Apparently, somebody forgot to inform the best scholarship and the justices of the federal bench, given that the struggle in the courts over that very question has been quit intense over these many decades. So far neither side has managed to prevail, not due to any lack of trying, but rather due to being blocked by one swing vote or another.

However, unless you read the collection of works in the order listed, you will not be able to follow the articles in the above.

Start here: Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

Get real, JakeStarky. You're smart enough to recognize an authority when you've run into one. Another poster talked about your brilliance. Well, let's see if you have any wisdom to go along with it: the wisdom to shut up, listen and learn. Or, on the other hand, like the birthers, you can go on spouting the drivel of ignorance or bias: blind like the former or duped by the latter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M. D. clearly does not understand the subject, but, hey, it is right to be as ignorant as washamerican or edwardb.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

M. D. clearly does not understand the subject, but, hey, it is right to be as ignorant as washamerican or edwardb.

Clearly?!

Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

And so we have it, the typical close-minded, intellectual dishonesty of the leftist, even when caught outright making shit up as C_Clayton_Jones was regarding Title 8, Section 1401 of the uniform code of naturalization, and you, by default, as one going along with it, insinuating that he understands the matter: as if he wasn't shown to be incontrovertibly wrong, as if you wouldn't gleefully copy and paste the definitive enunciation regarding the status of persons born of illegals in the Wong Kim Ark decision if it actually existed, which, of course, it doesn't. Just like Jones' shit doesn't exist in the first part of the code.

LOL!

BTW, pm'ed Jones with a link to the posts exposing his stupidity and dishonesty. We won't here from him again, I'll bet, unless it be more lies like yours.

You reject my observations on the merits?! Uh-huh. In truth, you know I'm right. Like Jones, you just won't acknowledge it. Rather, you make prattle about statutory law, which does in fact make anchor babies natural-born citizens, albeit, only since 1952, as I pointed out. But of course statutory law, unlike constitutional or, in most instances, case law, is not settled law, but is subject to revision at any time. In short, you pretend not to understand my observation regarding the historical debate over the Wong Kim Ark "black hole". You don't have the background to evaluate the merits. Where is your work, like the following, on the matter?

Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

*crickets chirping*

But let's replay Jones' hilarious bullshit one more time. . . .

Nor would it be, as the Code addresses immigration law, which would have nothing to do with natural born citizens.

Precisely where in this text is there any mention of naturalized immigrants? The first part of Title 8, Sec. 1401 does not deal with "immigration law" as you say whatsoever! It most indubitably, incontrovertibly, indisputably deals with citizenship at birth, i.e., natural-born citizenship!

8 USC 1401 - Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States:

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.

​

8 USC 1401 - Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth - U.S. Code - Title 8: Aliens and Nationality - Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization - Id 19271800 - vLex

 

[JakeStarkey]

M. D., you are far more likely to be a leftist than me. Jillian has already taken you to task on the inviolability of the 14th from congressional review. Live with it.

 

[washamericom]

i think you guys are missing the essence of the conspiracy and media cover up.
not even really that subtle.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

M. D., you are far more likely to be a leftist than me. Jillian has already taken you to task on the inviolability of the 14th from congressional review. Live with it.

Once again, my observation has nothing to do with the inviolability of the 14th. Idiot. It has to do with the Court's silence regarding the status of children born of illegals on U.S. soil. This isn't rocket science. You simply do not understand or are pretending not to understand what I'm talking about.

You idiot, of course the 14th is inviolable. There's no argument there. Your point, such as it is, is moot. LOL! You might as well be saying that the sky is blue, so to speak, and implying that I'm saying its green. Dumb ass. That does mean that statutory law is inviolable or that case law is not subject to clarification with regard to the status of children born of illegals on U.S. soil. The 14th Amendment is of secondary relevance, you dingbats.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is not what you said earlier, M. D. The 14th is untouchable, and so are the rights of anchor babies, unless the children of alien diplomats, to American citizenship. You have no case, and would be dismissed summarily.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

That is not what you said earlier, M. D. The 14th is untouchable, and so are the rights of anchor babies, unless the children of alien diplomats, to American citizenship. You have no case, and would be dismissed summarily.

The inconsistency you allege, whatever that might be, given that your assertions are so vague as to be indecipherable or virtually meaningless, exists nowhere but in your pointed head.

In any event, no U.S. citizen, whether he be natural-born of naturalized, can be stripped of his citizenship except as a result of certain willful acts of expatriation; no branch of the federal government could ever constitutionally strip a person of his citizenship and rights retroactively. So what the hell are you talking about? I certainly have not written that any such stupidity would be constitutional. What case would be summarily dismissed? And what does the 14th Amendment's inviolability, whatever that means to you, have to do with your point? Indeed, do you have a discernable point?

 

[JakeStarkey]

M. D., the only inconsistency is in your argument. Be schooled by Jillian, fool, and learn.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

M. D., the only inconsistency is in your argument. Be schooled by Jillian, fool, and learn.

Why am I the fool? It's not clear what supposed inconsistency you're talking about. That's all. And it's not my responsibility to coherently articulate your criticism.

Schooled by jillian? As if she could. LOL!

In any event, the only thing jillian wrote of any substance that could have any bearing on my posts was that "it [clarification] certainly isn't needed with respect to a person born in this country to a mother who was a citizen."

Her observation echoes my observation that the matter is not necessarily settled in case law with regard to the status of anchor babies.

You're simply not making any sense. Again, what inconsistency are you talking about?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am having fun with you, M. D. Chill. You can learn a lot from Jillian. I have enjoyed reading your comments. Keep them coming.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I am having fun with you, M. D. Chill. You can learn a lot from Jillian. I have enjoyed reading your comments. Keep them coming.

I thought you might be, but why do that and not simply help each of us, everyone, to understand the matter better? It's strange and ridiculous behavior.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Being human is strange and often ridiculous. You approach a level of the ridiculous with your insistence that your way is the only way to interpret such a difficult, and important, situation.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Being human is strange and often ridiculous. You approach a level of the ridiculous with your insistence that your way is the only way to interpret such a difficult, and important, situation.

Hogwash. The only ones doing that were you leftist nincompoops. I understand the argument of Wong Kim Ark proponents inside and out, the application of the common law rule of the jus soli, which none of you articulated, and 'am well aware of the fact that convincing the Court, after these many years of practice and convention, to uphold a test-case, legislative initiative intended to compel the Court to finally clarify its intent with regard to the status of anchor babies would be a long shot.

But you're merely trolling again.

This is ridiculous:

Nor would it be, as the Code addresses immigration law, which would have nothing to do with natural born citizens.

Precisely where in this text is there any mention of naturalized immigrants? The first part of Title 8, Sec. 1401 does not deal with "immigration law" as you say whatsoever! It most indubitably, incontrovertibly, indisputably deals with citizenship at birth, i.e., natural-born citizenship!

8 USC 1401 - Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States:

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.

​

8 USC 1401 - Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth - U.S. Code - Title 8: Aliens and Nationality - Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization - Id 19271800 - vLex[/QUOTE]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh. I am no more a leftist than you are an expert on this issue. Let Jillian guide you.