Birthers Show Their True Colors While Eating Their Own

[SAT]

Obama claims to be a native citizen. Article 2 Section 1 specifically states you have to be a natural born Citizen to be president.

Please respond to the question.

It's not mentioned but Obama claims to be a native citizen.

So even if Obama says that, it doesn't matter, because it's not anything based in the USC.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The birthers eat their own - The Washington Post

The good news is that they've shown they aren't partisan. The bad news is they've shown that they are racist.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I saw!

Who killed Brother Malcolm?.....

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Uncle Tom Negroes like driveby always like to distract, thats what they're trained to do.

 

[USArmyRetired]

Please respond to the question.

It's not mentioned but Obama claims to be a native citizen.

So even if Obama says that, it doesn't matter, because it's not anything based in the USC.

Yes it does matter. You have to be a natural born Citizen to meet Article 2 Section 1, not a native born citizen. Obama claims his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

 

[SAT]

Yes it does matter. You have to be a natural born Citizen to meet Article 2 Section 1, not a native born citizen. Obama claims his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

I don't think Obama says that, actually. I wonder where you're getting your information.

 

[Stephanie]

When will Liberals admit one of their own started the 'Birther' movement?

When will Liberals admit one of their own started the 'Birther' movement? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[USArmyRetired]

Yes it does matter. You have to be a natural born Citizen to meet Article 2 Section 1, not a native born citizen. Obama claims his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

I don't think Obama says that, actually. I wonder where you're getting your information.

His campaign website Fight The Smears. It states:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

What does that last sentence mean SAT?

It's also on Factcheck:

As far as the Native Citizen. It's there too.

Article 2 Section 1 calls for a natural born Citizen specifically, not native Citizen.

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

[SAT]

You tell me. What does that last sentence mean with respect to Obama's eligibility for President? It's a part of a larger explanation of Obama's origins, not a rationale for his US citizenship.

 

[USArmyRetired]

You tell me. What does that last sentence mean with respect to Obama's eligibility for President? It's a part of a larger explanation of Obama's origins, not a rationale for his US citizenship.

No, use your logic and let it dictate what it means pertaining to citizenship regarding him. I await your answer.

 

[SAT]

You tell me. What does that last sentence mean with respect to Obama's eligibility for President? It's a part of a larger explanation of Obama's origins, not a rationale for his US citizenship.

No, use your logic and let it dictate what it means pertaining to citizenship regarding him. I await your answer.

I await yours. You are lost, don't expect me to help you out of the maze that you have wandered into.

There are two kinds of US citizens. Natural, and naturalized. Obama is a natural citizen, and is eligible for the Presidency.

 

[pinqy]

Right, Obama is a citizen but not a natural born citizen. There is also a native citizen.

Nowhere in US law has "Natural Born Citizen" ever been defined.

Yes it has. Read Minor vs Happersett.

First I love that Minor v Happersett says "These were natives, or natural-born citizens" contradicting your claim that there's a difference between native born and natural born," but more importantly, neither Minor nor US v Wong Kim Ark defines "natural born citizen."

Minor says

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.

And there you stop. But it goes on to say

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.

In other words it is saying that for sure children born of citizen parents in the US are natural-born. But it does NOT say that ONLY those are natural born and not children born of non-citizen parents in the US or children born overseas to US citizen parents. Minor doe NOT exclude these.

And it does say that

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided ...that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.

directly refuting the claim that Minor establishes ONLY born in US to US citizen parents.

Moving on to Wong Kim Ark, the court pointed out that US law does rely on British common law and that

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

And the Wong decision continued to say that all children born within the US were "natural born" citizens, excepting only children of ambassadors or other diplomats.

Then of course in 1866, there was a decision in the Circuit Courts US v Rhodes which outright declares:

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

As I said, nowhere in US law defines Natural Born Citizen, but all the court cases (except perhaps the Slaughterhouse cases) support tha natural born is simply a distinction from naturalized and applies to all born in the US excepting the children of diploymats, ambassadors, and foreign invaders.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes it does matter. You have to be a natural born Citizen to meet Article 2 Section 1, not a native born citizen. Obama claims his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

I don't think Obama says that, actually. I wonder where you're getting your information.

His campaign website Fight The Smears. It states:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

What does that last sentence mean SAT?

It's also on Factcheck:

As far as the Native Citizen. It's there too.

Article 2 Section 1 calls for a natural born Citizen specifically, not native Citizen.

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

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 and once elected shall have the authority to deprive us of our Life, liberty and property without due process of law.

.

 

[SAT]

Boom. Good job, Pingy.

Isn't it funny how these alleged super patriots always seem to be mixed up with some extremely ugly racial politics?

 

[Againsheila]

[

…both our parents are American citizens as were our grandparents on both sides and we are both "naturalized" citizens. We can't run for president, why should McCain be able to?????

Your comment doesn't make any sense. If your parents were citizens, you're a citizen.

Obama had a natural born citizen as a mother, and he was born in the US. He's a citizen.

There are only two kinds of US citizens. Natural and naturalized.

Yeah, my comment doesn't make any sense, neither does our government. I have naturalization papers, I was sworn in as a citizen. I have proof.....

 

[Againsheila]

Who killed Brother Malcolm?.....

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Uncle Tom Negroes like driveby always like to distract, thats what they're trained to do.

You know, I really object to people using the term "Uncle Tom" as derogatory. According to the book, he helped slaves escape...why on earth would anyone use that name to insult people?

 

[Harry Dresden]

[

…both our parents are American citizens as were our grandparents on both sides and we are both "naturalized" citizens. We can't run for president, why should McCain be able to?????

Your comment doesn't make any sense. If your parents were citizens, you're a citizen.

Obama had a natural born citizen as a mother, and he was born in the US. He's a citizen.

There are only two kinds of US citizens. Natural and naturalized.

here in California we have added a third....the "Undocumented"....

 

[Harry Dresden]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Uncle Tom Negroes like driveby always like to distract, thats what they're trained to do.

You know, I really object to people using the term "Uncle Tom" as derogatory. According to the book, he helped slaves escape...why on earth would anyone use that name to insult people?

Black people like Bass like calling other blacks names.....it makes him feel superior.....i would rather have a beer with a guy like Driveby.....at least he doesn't have any racial hangups....and he likes girls....

 

[SAT]

Yeah, my comment doesn't make any sense, neither does our government. I have naturalization papers, I was sworn in as a citizen. I have proof.....

You need to show those papers to a lawyer.

 

[USArmyRetired]

Nowhere in US law has "Natural Born Citizen" ever been defined.

Yes it has. Read Minor vs Happersett.

First I love that Minor v Happersett says "These were natives, or natural-born citizens" contradicting your claim that there's a difference between native born and natural born," but more importantly, neither Minor nor US v Wong Kim Ark defines "natural born citizen."

Minor says And there you stop. But it goes on to say In other words it is saying that for sure children born of citizen parents in the US are natural-born. But it does NOT say that ONLY those are natural born and not children born of non-citizen parents in the US or children born overseas to US citizen parents. Minor doe NOT exclude these.

And it does say that directly refuting the claim that Minor establishes ONLY born in US to US citizen parents.

Moving on to Wong Kim Ark, the court pointed out that US law does rely on British common law and that

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

And the Wong decision continued to say that all children born within the US were "natural born" citizens, excepting only children of ambassadors or other diplomats.

Then of course in 1866, there was a decision in the Circuit Courts US v Rhodes which outright declares:

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

As I said, nowhere in US law defines Natural Born Citizen, but all the court cases (except perhaps the Slaughterhouse cases) support tha natural born is simply a distinction from naturalized and applies to all born in the US excepting the children of diploymats, ambassadors, and foreign invaders.

Wrong. Minor avoided construing the 14th Amendment, while Wong Kim Ark required it. Since Wong Kim Ark was not a natural-born citizen under Article 2 Section 1, the Supreme Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant him citizenship, not natural born citizenship. Neither the Court in Minor nor Wong Kim Ark alleged that the 14th Amendment superseded Article 2 Section 1. If the 14th Amendment had superseded the natural-born citizen clause, the Court in Minor would have been required to construe the 14th Amendment. Again, if Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue. The Court determined Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, but in doing so the Court did not expand the “class” of persons who were eligible to be President. This is because the Court specified clearly that it was only construing the 14th Amendment, not Article 2 Section 1. Article 2 Section 1 and the 14th Amendment are mutually exclusive sections of the US Constitution.

Read the two passages very carefully, and you will see that the US Supreme Court clearly defined “natural-born citizen” by two independent remarks:

1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class -

2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.

But the Court didn’t stop there. Because the Court was avoiding the 14th Amendment, the Court went to the second step and defined this class to be different from all other citizens. This class did not require the 14th Amendment to be US citizens.

Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.

It was held that Mrs. Minor was a US natural born citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. This was the independent ground that springs forth precedent. Therefore, we have a direct determination by the US Supreme Court which defines a natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens. The citizenship of this class has never been in doubt. The citizenship of the other class was in doubt. But even if that doubt was erased – as to their citizenship – that they are not natural-born citizens was established as precedent by the Supreme Court in Minor. In order for that precedent to be reversed, one of two things are necessary:

- a Constitutional amendment which specifically defines “natural-born Citizen” more inclusively than Minor did , or;

- a Supreme Court case which overrules the definition of natural-born citizen in the Minor case

We have neither.

Minor was decided seven years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court in Minor did not consider anyone but those born of citizen parents on US soil to be natural-born citizens. Later, in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court stated that persons born on US soil to (some) alien parents were “citizens”, but that case specifically construed only the 14th Amendment.

Read again Justice Gray’s statement as to Minor, “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said…“ Nope. Not true. Gray was wrong in that Justice Waite did not construe the 14th Amendment in the quoted passage. Chief Justice Waite construed Article 2 Section 1. Whereas, Justice Gray construed the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the two cases are not in conflict.

Now thats get to this point: Obama indicates that not all 'Citizens' born are eligible to be president.

Wong Kim Ark was this ruling:

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

Read that last quote:

Wong Kim Ark clearly stated that the child of the alien was “as much a citizen” as the "natural born child of a citizen". Both children were citizens, only one was natural born — the child of the citizen.

In other words, the child born of the alien is as much a citizen as the natural born child of the citizen… here the SCOTUS tells you quite clearly that both children are citizens, but only one is natural born. Obama is excluded from natural born due to his father and is just a citizen clearly not eligible for Article 2 Section 1.

 

[SAT]

You can't really believe that. You can't really believe that there is some third category of citizen that you and a few birthers know about, while the Supreme Court has no idea.

 

[USArmyRetired]

You can't really believe that. You can't really believe that there is some third category of citizen that you and a few birthers know about, while the Supreme Court has no idea.

Have a look: A natural born Citizen is the highest subset of a U.S. Citizen, born to Citizen parents (plural). That insures total allegiance to the U.S. at birth.