It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
Obama's case revolves around the dispute of where he was born
If he was born in Hawaii its a non issue.
If he was born outside the US then its very relevant.
Here is how Savorgnan V. United States becomes relevant to this case.
This was a case on a native born American Citizen who became an Italian citizen in 1940, and lived with her husband from 1941 to 1945.
Held: Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. Perez v. Brownell, supra, overruled. Pp. 256-268.
(a) Congress has no express power under the Constitution to strip a person of citizenship, and no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty, as was recognized by Congress before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a mature and well considered dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, is to the same effect. Pp. 257-261.
(b) The Fourteenth Amendment's provision that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . ." completely controls the status of citizenship, and prevents the cancellation of petitioner's citizenship. Pp. 262-268.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea
Obama's case revolves around the dispute of where he was born and how long his mother lived outside the US before Obama was born.
If he was born in Hawaii its a non issue.
If he was born outside the US then its very relevant.
No. It isn't valid. The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that no law can remove citizenship involuntarily. It's plain as day. Unless Cruz's mother voluntarily renounced her citizenship she remained a US citizen.
The judgement was made in the 1950’s. However, case is very valid, and the points made are substantial to the Ted’s mother.
No.
That means when Mrs. Cruz moved to Canada and her husband got citizenship there, she would have been granted such as well, and ceased to be a citizen of the United States of America
originally posted by: sdcigarpig
she did willingly and knowingly give up her citizenship.
It was not stripped by law, but by the fact
there is compelling evidence to suggest that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America.
False. A formal renunciation is required.
There you are incorrect, she did willingly and knowingly give up her citizenship.
A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
sign an oath of renunciation
Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.
Not really.... but remember the courts have shown Obama is a natural born US citizen and some people still refuse to accept that fact!
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea
The reasons the courts have ruled the way they have on Obama is the people bringing the challenge lack standing. Its up to them to show standing and not Obama. Since Obama refuses to release documents, its created a tidy little catch 22 for those trying.
You cant have standing without the documents and you can get the documents unless you have standing.
As for Hawaii there is the issue of his social security number being from Connecticut. There is the issue of the missing archives for international travel manifests for hawaii during the time he and his mom came to hawaii...
originally posted by: Boadicea
because I cannot trust the paperwork provided.
That's just one of the many irregularities regarding Obama's records
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea
The reasons the courts have ruled the way they have on Obama is the people bringing the challenge lack standing. Its up to them to show standing and not Obama.
"ased upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Since Obama refuses to release documents,
You cant have standing without the documents and you can get the documents unless you have standing.
As for Hawaii there is the issue of his social security number being from Connecticut.
Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.
So you cannot trust the Dept of health announcements in the paper, nor any BC issued by any state....
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: hellobruce
So you cannot trust the Dept of health announcements in the paper, nor any BC issued by any state....
Exactly.
At this point, I don't trust anyone in government about anything...