Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Their filings mean nothing. A plaintiff can put whatever they want in a filing; it doesn't mean the contents of that filing are absolutely the
objective truth.
Oh, so precedent law, and other case citing, as well as legal definitions, etc found in the filings are nothing to you? If you won't even look at
what has already been offered, repeatedly throughout 4-5 threads in this forum, why would having it presented to you one more time make any difference
to you?
Can you provide a direct link to the specific law stating Obama's mother could not pass on her citizenship? Because I haven't been able to
find it except in the context of blogs about this issue, and none of them provide the direct source for this information.
Nope, sure can't - previous law is not easily found on the internet - it is found in law libraries though. Berg researched the pertinent law in his
filing - while many other parts of Berg filing are ridiculous and Berg did not follow proper procedure, this one piece of information has not been
disputed by anyone who has looked over his case
I was able to find this.
EXCELLENT!!!! Did you read the answer to the question on the link YOU provided?
Thank you for your question. I am happy to assist you.
You may claim US Citizenship on two separate and unrelated grounds:
1. Hawaii became a state in 1959. A child born on American soil automatically gets U.S. citizenship, unless the child is born to a foreign government
official who is in the United States as a recognized diplomat.
2. Persons born between 12/24/52 and 11/13/86 - If one parent was a US citizen and resided in the US for at least ten years, at least five of which
were after age 16, you are a citizen.
Dunham was only 18 - you do the math :-)
Half of the Founders and Framers themselves didn't meet this "version" of nbc.
Which explains the grandfather clause :-)
Frankly I think this is your personal interpretation of what might have been in someone's head over 200 years ago. I'd like to
see a direct link to any official, legally-binding documentation from any of the Founders proving this assertion.
Legally binding - isn't that the rub of this whole controversy? Both sides would like a legally binding decision on this - if for no other reason
than to put it to rest already
I can give you quotes and "legal definitions"
In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All
persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United
States.”
Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing
allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his
father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was
held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:
When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law
determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a
citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.
Savage v. Umphries (TX) 118 S. W. 893, 909:
As a man is a “citizen” of the country to which his father owes allegiance, it was incumbent on one alleging in an election contest that a
voter was not a citizen of the United States to show that such voter’s father was not a citizen thereof during his son’s minority.
“The Law of Nations,”
in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood.
www.fed-soc.org...
BTW, this Book has been used before by Supreme Court Justice Scalia's on how to interpret the US Constitution
Should I go on???
In fact the Fourteenth Amendment states pretty clearly that all people born in the US are citizens:
not exactly, all those born in
AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF that is the defining portion.
You explain exactly how a person born with dual-nationality is born subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
I refer back to Rep Bingham and Sec 1992 of the US revised statutes
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons
born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United
States.”
That clearly rules out dual-citizenship, don't ya think?
As far as this assertion goes that the Hawaii law (which I have yet to see in its entirety and context) prevented Ms. Dunham from passing on
citizenship, I have seen some examples noting this law only applies to children born outside Hawaiian jurisdiction. Again, I'd like to see the
complete law, as it is (or was) on the books, and in complete context as to whom it applies. Thus far my searches have turned up nothing
except third-party references to it.
May I recommend a trip to a law library (college/ university) near you and look it up for yourself? I know, that requires work and effort, but as
you've said, the web is only providing second and third party references to it.
Edit to fix tags
[edit on 12/16/08 by redhatty]
