Barack Obama is technically ineligible to become US President

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
According to Hawiian Law:



According to the state laws in Hawaii that were in effect at the time of Obama’s birth, a child must be born to “TWO” U.S. Citizen parents (this law was in effect from “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986,“ which means it applies to Barack’s birth.

But only Barack’s mom was a U.S. Citizen. Papa Obama was a citizen of Kenya.


Furthermore:



Well, the Hawaiian law stipulates:

…If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least FIVE of which had to be after the age of 16.”


Obama's mother underage to qualify her son as a US citizen by Law:



It appears that Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means she was shy of the 21 years of age required by the law. In other words, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At what point was Barack Obama Jr., son of Barack Obama Sr., recognized by the U.S. Government as an American citizen? When he moved to Indonesia with his mother and step-father in the mid-1960s I am assuming he had a U.S. passport.



This technically makes Barack ineligible for President. Obama is not a natural born citizen

This may be why he is not submitting his Certificate of Birth to the State
Dept., though they've requested it. All he has to show for it is a digital
image scan of the CoB on his website, but many believe it is fake.

Care to file a lawsuit? You won't be the first.



[edit on 18-6-2008 by jetxnet]




posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 03:16 AM
link   
OK. Two things.

Firstly, you have not quoted your source. As such what you've written is not, at present, attributable to anything but your own imagination and you might want to change that so we can see where you are getting your information from.

Secondly - do you really, honestly think that either the Republicans, with McCain who was born in Panama supposedly in a "US military protectorate", or the Democrats with Obama who was born in Hawaii, would have let either of their representatives get this far without the very basics of the proceedings - namely the claim of natural US citizenship - being completely checked out, validated by the best legal teams they can afford and completely covered by law?

I realise you're desperate to smear the guy - so much is obvious from the sheer number of posts you are putting out to try and do so - but maybe its time to start thinking this stuff through properly.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Oh, boy... using No Quarter as a source again? LOL

Look. You're WRONG. This law is ONLY for babies born outside the US.

Fin dLaw

VisaLaw



All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States (with the very minor exception of certain children of diplomatic personnel). This is perhaps the only simple rule of US citizenship. One of the most complicated areas of US citizenship law involves the passage of citizenship to children born outside the US to one or more US citizen parents. While naturalized US citizens are treated like natural born citizens, which includes those who are deemed citizens even when born outside the US, in almost every respect, there is one important office that only natural born citizens can hold – the presidency
...
What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14. An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.


Everything you're reading on these worthless smear-spreading blogs is for babies born OUTSIDE the US.

Congratulations on contributing to the further ignorance of America.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 

Please site your source there, jetman.

As BH pointed out, if he was born in Hawaii, after it became part of the US, there is no question that he is a citizen.

Keep trying, some of that mud might stick, but somehow you manage to get it all over yourself.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Mr. Heretic is right, you're getting your information from a source that is purposely misquoting the law to sway your opinion. The only real argument left to counter Obama's citizensip is the argument that perhaps he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. This has been argued a lot already in similar threads. If he was in fact born in Hawaii as the provided birth certificate indicates (it could be fake, so keep that in mind) then he's eligible for the Presidency.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Mr. Heretic is right


That's Ms. Heretic.


And I'm not sure if the source is purposely misquoting the law or he's just stupid. This is the same source that started the "whitey tape" rumor because of something he heard from someone who talked with someone else who had supposedly seen the tape.

And if you go to his blog, which I won't link, you'll see that this nasty little rumor is also being attributed to a "friend" of his who sent him an email.


Niiiice!



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Thank you BH, for sanitizing this turd with facts


So jexnet, what is it?

Is he a secret foreigner, a secret Mulsim, a secret Christian black supremacist, a secret atheist Marxist, or what?
Maybe he's somehow all at the same time?
Please make up your mind...


Do you actually care, or are you just regurgitating any lame bit of misinformation you come across to try and make this guy look bad?



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Mr. Heretic is right


That's Ms. Heretic.



I humbly apologize. I don't suppose that you would be willing present a birth certificate to support that? Perhaps there was some obscure law in your birth state that makes being a female heretic an impossiblity...or at least a "natural born heretic."



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 



This technically makes Barack ineligible for President. Obama is not a natural born citizen. This may be why he is not submitting his Certificate of Birth to the State Dept., though they've requested it. All he has to show for it is a digital image scan of the CoB on his website, but many believe it is fake


Although this is NOT true - that Barack is not a citizen - there is a lot better argument to make regarding John McCain. He was born in the Canal Zone.

Amendment XIV - Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . “

Article 2. “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.” US Constitution



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I case you would like to review citizenship ....

Link to US Code title 8 sec 1401



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   

posted by roadgravel

I case you would like to review citizenship ....

Link to US Code title 8 sec 1401


May I remind that not ALL statutes are constitutional. Saying it does not make it so. Under that statute I guess a child born at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would be a US citizen?

[edit on 6/18/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   


that Barack is not a citizen - there is a lot better argument to make regarding John McCain. He was born in the Canal Zone.


You should read the main post again. John McCain's parents are both natural citizens of the US, and his father served in the US military (as did McCain). The Panamal Canal zone was US juristiction at the time, until Clinton gave it to China.

So, McCain qualifies in more than one way, can you even say Obama does in just one way? I doubt it.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Amendment XIV - Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . “

Article 2. “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.” US Constitution


I am not sure this issue has ever been to the Supreme Court. I ask again, What is so hard about reading the Constitution? The Congressional enactment attempts to do what the Constitution does not do. I'm surprised and disappointed that all the Republican Original Intent types are not in my corner? Or are they really just pick and choose types after all?



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I'm not sure if this is right but I was being told that if you were born in a plane in the air space of that country you are a citizen of that county.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by damefool]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
You cite an Hawaiian law:


According to the state laws in Hawaii that were in effect at the time of Obama’s birth, a child must be born to “TWO” U.S. Citizen parents (this law was in effect from “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986,“ which means it applies to Barack’s birth.


But where is the reference to the law. You have lifted these references from other sites, but where is your research to show the truth of what you have cited?

I fully agree that his citizenship is questionable. I have stated my argument elsewhere. I made my positon with facts.

The actual law, not someone's summary of it, is the one key fact which either supports or topples your argument.


I went back to the source of your argument here. and got some things you left out:


If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least FIVE of which had to be after the age of 16.”

It appears that Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means she was shy of the 21 years of age required by the law. In other words, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship.


Note the words "Automatic US Citizenship", what other flavor was available. Was it granted? You cannot take it away if once it was granted.

It can very easily be argued that since the mother was under 21 but her entire life was spent in the US that she has fulfilled the spirit of the law.

You cannot reasonably deny someone their rights of citizenship because they were born to a mother under the age of 21. And if you try to deny someone their citizenship and therefore the right to be President on that point. You can expect revolution as your reward.



[edit on 18-6-2008 by Cyberbian]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
The Panamal Canal zone was US juristiction at the time, until Clinton gave it to China.






...Oh look ... another sewage pipe!!


...I am not the biggest fan of Slick Willie either... however as the best Republican president this country has ever had... Do you think you can get even the simplest facts right?... EVER???



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
So, McCain qualifies in more than one way, can you even say Obama does in just one way? I doubt it.


HE WAS BORN HERE. That qualifies him. What part of being born here don't you understand?

I agree with you that McCain qualifies. And so does Obama. Why are you still thinking he doesn't when the proof has been presented to you? Even your "source" has posted an update saying he's a citizen.

What kind of fantasy are you living in?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   

posted by damefool

I'm not sure if this is right but I was being told that if you were born in a plane in the air space of that country you are a citizen of that county.


It is from old English law that we get the concept that a person (or a nation) owns all the sky above and all the ground below his little spot on Mother Earth. It is that concept that set up the notion that you can destroy the earth or pollute the air just because you want to. It is yours to pollute. Note my signature line.

[edit on 6/19/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


Federal law trumps state law in regards to citizenship... PERIOD!!!

More bull hooey from the trash Obama at any opprotunity crowd whose threads are getting more inane and stupid at every turn.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyberbian
 



But where is the reference to the law. You have lifted these references from other sites, but where is your research to show the truth of what you have cited? I fully agree that his citizenship is questionable. I have stated my argument elsewhere. I made my positon with facts. The actual law, not someone's summary of it, is the one key fact which either supports or topples your argument.


Let's do the Constitutional Law 101 again. Article IV, Section 2. "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." [Bold my own for emphasis]

For obvious reasons this is referred to as the SUPREMACY CLAUSE. So who cares what Hawaii laws say on Federal issues?

Argument. Let's do the CITIZENSHIP thing. Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now we know the US Con is the TOP law of the United States. We also know that to be a citizen you must be born in the United States of America. OR naturalized as I say John McCain is. John McCain is a naturalized citizen by Act of Congress. Barack Obama is a natural born citizen by the US Constitution. It matters not a whit who Barack's parents were, if he was BORN in the US of A as in fact he was.

Now let's see who can be president. Article II Section 1 Clause 4. 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.

So WHAT is so hard about this? Why do we insist on confusing citizenship with the NATURAL born requirement? Who says Republicans are not STUBBORN?

Canal Zone. It was President Carter who in 1979 signed the Treaty approved by the US Senate returning the Canal Zone to Panama's jurisdiction. The Treaty provided for a 20 year transitional period before the final hand-back to Panama in 1999. Clinton had nothing to do with the return of the Canal Zone to Panama. He was just there when it happened.

Geography 101. The Canal Zone was never part of the United States. A ten mile wide strip of land running from the Atlantic to the Pacific which contained the Panama Canal. It was always part of Panama. President Theodore Roosevelt instigated the breaking away from Columbia of the people who lived on the isthmus. We took over jurisdiction and control of the Zone. We did that because we wanted to build a canal which the Frenchman who had built the Suez Canal tried to do but failed due to the mosquitos. We drained the swamps, killed the mosquitos, and built the canal. But the Zone was always PART OF PANAMA. It was never part of the United States.

Congress does have power to confer citizenship on who it pleases, but it does not have power to ALTER thE Constitution except by the amending process which it has done 27 times. See Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to . . [Clause 4] To establish a uniform rule of naturalization . .

So is all this just academic as they say as they try to dismiss an unwelcome outcome? But does it matter? Really matter? Apparently not. The American people are so jaded to the back and forth mudslinging of our electoral politics that anyone can do anything he or she can get away with. With a GOP stacked Supreme Court, the Dems might as well stay home as to raise this issue. So if McCain should win, he will be added to the Trivia Card deck as the only ineligible person to be elected president. A singular honor!


[edit on 6/19/2008 by donwhite]





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join