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.

 

natural born Citizen Obama is NOT, Illegal holds office

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
natural born Citizen
Obama is NOT, and there for holds office Illegal.

thepatriotsnews.com...

THE TRUE MEANING AND INTERPRETATION
OF ARTICLE II "natural born Citizen"

A SCIENTIFIC LEGAL THEORY

I wish to undertake a critical analysis of the incomplete works of attorneys Orly Taitz and Phil Berg, concerning the meaning and definition of "natural born Citizen" within the political context and intent of Article II. It is my contention that many of the attorneys working on exposing the illegal usurper know as Barack Obama have not described any valid theory of law that properly explains why Obama cannot possibly qualify to be President under Article II. I will show their mistakes and limitations and expose their incomplete efforts as failed hypotheses rather than valid correct legal theories. I will then state the correct and complete legal theory that clearly defines "natural born Citizen" within the context and intent of Article II and show how and why Obama cannot possibly qualify for the office of President.

Read the entire article for an education and learn the truth, and the points the whole so called birthers have been missing all along. Impeach Obama NOW
edit on 28-4-2011 by drmeola because: to correct typo




posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Youre completely right, i should get all of my political information from someone who doesnt know how to spell "illegally" but is lecturing me on the nuances of the Constitution.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I agree the spelling is very bad on the headline...

Still it does bring up a good point, that his PARENTS have to be citizens... which is underlined on the source, and also I found it elsewhere on Usconstitution.net




Becoming a citizen A non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States. At no time will such a person ever be considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is changed in some way). The process to become a citizen involves several steps, including applying to become and becoming a permanent resident (previously known as a resident alien), applying to become and becoming naturalized, and finally taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens automatically, though they will also not be considered natural-born. There is a time constraint before a permanent resident can apply for naturalization, generally either 3 or 5 years. The other requirements are that there be a minimum length of time in a specific state or district, successful completion of a citizenship exam, ability to read, write, and speak English, and good moral character.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Corrected the typo sorry I am only human with a public school education like most of you, and my mind works faster then my typing lol

How ever the fact still remains, study the law and stop parroting the BS they teach you as fact when it is false.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by drmeola
 


natural born citizen means that you were a citizen when you were born. we have legal precedent in our country that states, very clearly, that if either of your parents are citizens of the U.S., then you too, regardless of where you were actually born, are a citizen of the U.S. I have a friend who was born in Canada, his mother is American, he had dual citizenship from birth. he is eligible to become president. non-natural born citizens are people who have to apply for citizenship after their birth. Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, thus, and quite simply, he was and still is a U.S. citizen.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by morder1
Still it does bring up a good point, that his PARENTS have to be citizens... which is underlined on the source, and also I found it elsewhere on Usconstitution.net

Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens automatically, though they will also not be considered natural-born.
While it might bring up a point, one, even, that might seem like “a good point” to an uninformed person, it is not a “good point” for someone knowledgeable of US law and jurisprudence.

Addressing, for now, your quote that seemingly supports the argument the OP is making, and yours, a fair reading of the statement makes it obvious they are talking about already born children of persons who decide to get naturalization.

This reading is further reinforced by the fact that, at the top of the article you decided to quote, and apparently omit from your citation, it explains who, in their view, qualifies as a natural born citizen. And I quote—

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
If this wasn’t enough, they describe the 8 USC 1401 statute, that stipulates the conditions for US citizenship at birth, and enumerate, inter alia, the following—

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone born inside the United States ...
They further add—

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.

In conclusion, the argument you and the OP are making, is a specious one. And, also, you should read the whole articles that you decide to use to support your argument.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Truth doesn't have spell-check. Keep up the good work.
(S+F)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by RicoMarston
 


Obviously you did not read the full article and the laws to back it up, like most people parrot information without any real law to back it up. Case law by the way is not real law, going on two years of study in real law, until I started my education I was like most believing the bs feed to me by parents, teachers and enforcers.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Aptness,

If you read the article it shows that no amendment to article 2 was ever done, so all the so called changes you are speaking about means nothing as in case law, means nothing, all statutes written like the one quoted requires a constitutional amendment, and needs to be ratified legally with a majority of the states agreeing to the ratification of such document.

Learn the real law, a good place to start is my thread on PAC education here on ATS



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Youre completely right, i should get all of my political information from someone who doesnt know how to spell "illegally" but is lecturing me on the nuances of the Constitution.


There is someting very wrong with someone who picks up on someone's spelling. It doesn't effect the content and can be deemed rude. But there must be an awful lot of similar people to you on this site, to get that many stars for a post.

Good point OP, but I feel you are banging your head against a brick wall, trying to oust your president because of this. He is a stooge and someone is having fun with him. I cannot believe he has turned into such a robot since becoming president. He has nothing to say of any consequence and has such a monotone voice, I almost go into an hypnotic trance when I listen to him for more than 30 seconds.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by drmeola
Case law by the way is not real law
You hear that people? You can ignore all of the Supreme Court decisions, because “case law is not real law.”

Do your alleged professors preface their talks and discussions of Supreme Court cases by saying “hey folks, we’re gonna waste hours upon hours studying these cases, examining the decisions and the rationales behind them, but remember this is not real law”?

I obviously respect different opinions and interpretations, but when I hear you say something this absurd I have to question if you even studied law at all as you’re claiming.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by drmeola
Case law by the way is not real law
You hear that people? You can ignore all of the Supreme Court decisions, because “case law is not real law.”

Do your alleged professors preface their talks and discussions of Supreme Court cases by saying “hey folks, we’re gonna waste hours upon hours studying these cases, examining the decisions and the rationales behind them, but remember this is not real law”?

I obviously respect different opinions and interpretations, but when I hear you say something this absurd I have to question if you even studied law at all as you’re claiming.


The constitution is the REAL law..
Supreme court judges making decisions that go against the constitution are illegal but who's going to stop them?
However, it does NOT alter the constitution..



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by drmeola
 


obviously the majority of your fellow citizens DO think that case law and legal precedent matter, and DO think that if one of your parents was a citizen when you were born and you spent the majority of your life here then you are eligible for the presidency. if "the law" is so cut and dry in your opinion, then why was Barack Obama allowed to run for the DNC candidacy, let alone the office of the president? gee...he must have been born in hawaii.

it makes no sense, in 2011, to say that a person can't possibly be a good leader if he wasn't born in our country to two U.S. citizens. if a person lives here, loves this country and pays their taxes, then they are my brother, whether their ancestors fought in the Revolution or came here on a boat the week before they were born. where do we draw the line, then? what if a person lived abroad for five years? should that make them ineligible to be president? what if they love being on vacation in Barbados more than they love being at home? is their loyalty suspect?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
For all those who believe that Obama is not legally in office due to these developments.
Where were you BEFORE he was elected?!?

Now, it really makes no difference at all, like he would step down or something.

Or better yet impeachment!
Yea, we know how that would turn out also. This is all just a waist of time. . . energy. . . and distracts us from the real fight we all need to be getting ready for.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnteBellum
For all those who believe that Obama is not legally in office due to these developments.
Where were you BEFORE he was elected?!?

Now, it really makes no difference at all, like he would step down or something.

Or better yet impeachment!
Yea, we know how that would turn out also. This is all just a waist of time. . . energy. . . and distracts us from the real fight we all need to be getting ready for.


You do know people were questioning this BEFORE he was elected right??



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Were case law fails, you can say ok this case was won for this reason, how ever suppose that decision was based on bias and not real law. We have attorneys practicing what is called (at law) they are nothing more then repeaters, they are taught case law not real law, they know contract law, but have little to no understanding of real law which is referred to as practicing (in law). Semantics means everything in a contract; one word can change the whole legal understanding of the document.

Example:

I say I like all fruit, including apples and oranges. In a contract what does this say to you? First I said I like all fruit, and then I said including apples and oranges. In law, this means I only like apples and oranges.

Now same thing giving power back to the first part:

I like all fruit, including (but not limited to) apples and oranges.

This is the problem with regular people, we have not been taught this and IN law makes a supper big difference, attorneys practice at law, means case law and contract, and are trained to support at all cost the system and not the law of the people as a republic.


Much misinformation can be found on this php/pdf format explaining the problems of the so called patriot movement lie.

www.pacinlaw.org...



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by drmeola
Case law by the way is not real law
You hear that people? You can ignore all of the Supreme Court decisions, because “case law is not real law.”

Do your alleged professors preface their talks and discussions of Supreme Court cases by saying “hey folks, we’re gonna waste hours upon hours studying these cases, examining the decisions and the rationales behind them, but remember this is not real law”?

I obviously respect different opinions and interpretations, but when I hear you say something this absurd I have to question if you even studied law at all as you’re claiming.


The constitution is the REAL law..
Supreme court judges making decisions that go against the constitution are illegal but who's going to stop them?
However, it does NOT alter the constitution..


right, it merely sets a legal precedent which we can all agree to the next time murky or outdated language calls into question statements from the Constitution. we could both sit here and come up with our own definition of "natural born citizen" and there is no way to determine who is right, as any language is open to interpretation. so when you say it means one thing, and i say it means another, how do we come up with a solution?

I say that a natural born citizen is anyone born to a U.S. citizen. you (might) say that it means anyone born within the geographical confines of the U.S. another still may say that it means that no devilry or witchcraft was involved in conception and the birth happened "naturally." sure that last one was silly, but the point is that different people can take different things from the Constitution and case law and precedent are the only ways to get rulings in the gray areas.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Of course I do.

But it still did nothing, just like now!



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Bush stole trillions to fund a war that made him and his buddies rich.

Now Obama is the target and everyone forgot about the SS Bush family.

All this talk about 'legality' is a waste of time.

Laws only serve people who can afford lawyers.
edit on 28-4-2011 by zroth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by drmeola
 


"I say I like all fruit, including apples and oranges. In a contract what does this say to you? First I said I like all fruit, and then I said including apples and oranges. In law, this means I only like apples and oranges."

so, following this logic, since the Constitution uses the term "citizen" to describe who is eligible to be president, anyone who completes our naturalization process can be president.

if referencing specific fruits negates your statement that you like all fruit, then saying that a specific type of citizen can be president means that any citizen can be president.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join