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.

 

100% PROOF! Obama "RESOLVES" That He Is Not Eligible To Be President! (Condemning Info!)

page: 10
75
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by civilchallenger
Here is the one and only data I have on what it meant in 1776 to be a natural born citizen: Source: www.lonang.com...
Emmerich de Vattel 1758

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
I will ask you Vattelists this question again:

By Vattel’s definition, the children of US servicemen and women, born abroad, can never be President. And the children, born in the United States, of naturalized immigrants, can.

Is this really the definition you support?


I more than welcome others to add their own historical quotes from the era so that the answer can be more solidified as to what "natual born" actually means in the context of the US constitution.
While some argue, especially the birthers, the Framers relied on Vattel’s definition, the Supreme Court ruled the common law principle is what applies in the United States.

That has been settled since, at least, 1898 (Wong Kim Ark), and has never been changed.


Please re-read and comprehend the Wong Kim Ark case and note these distinctions:

Native-born Citizen is NOT Natural Born Citizen
Naturalized Citizen is NOT Natural Born Citizen

You are playing slight of hand by claiming that those terms are equal each other when in fact they are NOT.

This Wong Kim Ark case determined whether the individual was qualified as a U.S. Citizen and NOT Natural Born Citizen. In fact, you are completely misusing this case to make claims about something totally unrelated. Let me repeat, this case has NOTHING TO DO WITH Natural Born Citizen status.




posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I honestly don't know much about the truth about this guy Obama. I don't know him personally nor have I had history with him, so all I know is the information presented to me by others.

All of that information is conflicting and complete opposites often times.

It is so conflicting that I think it's like a Double Conspiracy, where TPTB are actually feeding us fake information to make us talk about specific details and then later have other conflicting information come out opposing it. It's like they are playing both sides of the coin here, the anti-birther and pro-birther sides.

Now like I said I don't know anything about the history of the real Obama. For all I know he could be a Jurassic park style genetic clone of some ancient person, or just some random kid. I have no legitimate access to data (like almost everyone else), so I wouldn't know either way, all I have is the information provided through various sources which are questionable.

The MSM has a super bad reputation, and random internet people have an equally shady reputation. So you can understand why someone like me would be thinking something is up here.

Maybe the whole goal is 'divide and conquer' combined with a bit of 'distract them on pointless issues for years while getting away with murder in the shadows'.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Please understand the distinction:

Native born = Location based (where)
Natural born = Lineage based (whom)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesGordon
Please re-read and comprehend the Wong Kim Ark case and note these distinctions:
You can only say something like this if you haven’t read the opinion.


II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "legality," "obedience," "faith" or "power," of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim, protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. ...

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

It’s not even ambiguous.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
does anybody really think this has gotten by the 50 million lawyers and constitutional scholars in washington DC ?

not one supreme court justice is aware of this ?


c'mon folks, get over it already
edit on 30-4-2011 by syrinx high priest because: I can't spell



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger
Every US citizen has a right to a constitutionally elected president. So, every US citizen therefore has legal standing to sue Obama if he isn't a constitutionally elected president.
No, mbkennel is correct, the Courts have ruled on this. Voters and citizens do not have standing because, inter alia, their injuries are not particularized.


And it would be fair to argue in court that his father's birthplace makes Obama a non-natural-born citizen because the word was used in that fashion during the late 1700's.
We’re not in 1700s, and the even if that was the definition of natural born the Framers relied on, that is not the law according to the Supreme Court, and hasn’t been for, at least, over a century.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
What did bush say? That god dammed scrap of paper? Its a useless scrap of paper and no one follows it. Obama may as well wipe his ass with it...
edit on 30-4-2011 by illuminnaughty because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Please... please no more, I can't take it anymore LOL.


I'm not happy with Obama, but come on now... stop it PLEASE!!!



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by JamesGordon
Please re-read and comprehend the Wong Kim Ark case and note these distinctions:
You can only say something like this if you haven’t read the opinion.


II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "legality," "obedience," "faith" or "power," of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim, protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. ...

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

It’s not even ambiguous.


I stated that this case had nothing to do with determining natural born citizenship status of the individual, but instead his U.S. citizenship. There are many opinions and commentaries. So what was the outcome of the case? Please tell.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness


Originally posted by civilchallenger
Every US citizen has a right to a constitutionally elected president. So, every US citizen therefore has legal standing to sue Obama if he isn't a constitutionally elected president.
No, mbkennel is correct, the Courts have ruled on this. Voters and citizens do not have standing because, inter alia, their injuries are not particularized.


Well if it is a question of injury, then there was no injury for the typical person, that is until Obama does one single thing to harm any specific individual. As soon as I'm written a bill for health care I don't want under Obamacare, I've been wrongfully financially damaged by Obama (since being forced to purchase a product or service by threat of violence is an act of extortion), at that point IF he were not a natural born citizen I could sue him on that grounds. Or if you disagree on that specific point, then there surely must be millions of people adversely effected in one way or another by Obama's approval. You can also sue someone if you are sure that somoene intends to cause financial damage to you. Therefore I should be able to sue Obama now since there is upcoming financial damage to me personally from Obama being the president and signing the health care legislation that could put my job in jeopardy.




And it would be fair to argue in court that his father's birthplace makes Obama a non-natural-born citizen because the word was used in that fashion during the late 1700's.
We’re not in 1700s, and the even if that was the definition of natural born the Framers relied on, that is not the law according to the Supreme Court, and hasn’t been for, at least, over a century.


We are under a law written in the late 1700's, and the meaning of the law can only be understood by using the words as they were written to mean in the late 1700's. Do you have any idea how ridiculous the laws would be if their meaning changed every time someone used a word in a different way? "X" can often later change in meaning to mean some vulgarity after a law using the word comes into play. Are you going to tell me the judges should then re-interpret the law into the new vulgar meaning of the word and that eating utensils would be just fine on the counters but certain "nasty" acts on them should then be illegal? I can't imagine you would support that kind of idea. So, the laws mean what they say at the time they were written. That makes good sense, no? The point is that the effective meaning of a law should NOT change over time... it should be on the books until striken off of them.
edit on 30-4-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-4-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesGordon
I stated that this case had nothing to do with determining natural born citizenship status of the individual, but instead his U.S. citizenship.
Right, because his natural born citizenship status wasn’t the dispute, his plain citizenship was.

The opinion, however, spends considerable time analyzing and talking about natural born citizenship and reaches the conclusion the common law principle applies in the United States. Do you contest this?

Do you know of any Supreme Court opinion, since Wong Kim Ark, that disputes the Court’s conclusion in that case?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger
I'm suggesting that the constitution means what its words meant in 1776.

You mean what you think they meant?
What did "person" mean in 1776? I hope you know how much that has changed.


And I'm suggesting what its words meant depend on what people said that they meant in 1776. You get so worked up about an issue when you don't even know what the phrase even meant in 1776 when it was written. Find out to what degree you can. The constitution constitution means whatever it says. And whatever it says can be determined by figuring out what all of its words meant in 1776 to the best of our knowledge.


I am not sure what you consider worked up. You keep stating your opinion. I showed a list of elected presidents that prove your opinion wrong. Sorry. You cannot wish the facts away. Aptness has done a nice job of explaining the legality of it all to you. I am not sure what else can be done. You cannot tell me that Herbert Hoover was grandfathered in and you cannot tell me that the founding fathers intended to exclude him...we just haven't gotten around to dealing with that yet. You cannot have two realities.


To the best of my knowledge, the word "natural born" citizen was used in 1776 to mean "parents who were both citizens of the same country of their infants birth". People who argue with me say I shouldn't be allowed to define the word. Well, if I were to defining the word, I would define "natural born" as a life form who has hatched or been ejected from a womb in a common way. So if it were up to my definition, I'd say the guy was natural born.


What does your personal opinion of what that words should mean get you? Does belieiving it harder make it correct?


But it doesn't matter what I THINK, it matters what people in the late 1700's meant when they wrote down the constitution. Does that make sense?

Tell me what they meant by "person" in the 1700's, make the same argument and lets see how it goes from there.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger
As soon as I'm written a bill for health care I don't want under Obamacare, I've been wrongfully financially damaged by Obama (since being forced to purchase a product or service by threat of violence is an act of extortion), at that point IF he were not a natural born citizen I could sue him on that grounds. ... Therefore I should be able to sue Obama
You were forced to by a product or service by “threat of violence”? But no, you couldn’t sue the President, because the President has immunity from civil suits.


Do you have any idea how ridiculous the laws would be if their meaning changed every time someone used a word in a different way?
It’s not a question of how a word is used, it’s how the Supreme Court interprets the law, and the Constitution since Marbury v. Madison.

Do you not accept the premise that how the Supreme Court interprets the law, and decides a case, has influence over what the law, at that point, is?


So, the laws mean what they say at the time they were written.
Stating that laws “mean what they say” when they are written is self-evident, the question here is not “what they mean” when they were written, but what they mean now.

If one adopts your interpretation of how our laws work, however, women and black people couldn’t vote. That’s what our Constitution “meant when it was written.”

I guess not even Scalia got anything on you when it comes to originalism



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
OK Birthers, please follow along with me here. I am sure we can all agree that America is not about having a Dynasty in control, right? I hope so.

So if you cannot be a natural born citizen unless both your parents are natural born citizens going back 200 years...anywhere see where this is going? Anyone?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by JamesGordon
I stated that this case had nothing to do with determining natural born citizenship status of the individual, but instead his U.S. citizenship.
Right, because his natural born citizenship status wasn’t the dispute, his plain citizenship was.

The opinion, however, spends considerable time analyzing and talking about natural born citizenship and reaches the conclusion the common law principle applies in the United States. Do you contest this?

Do you know of any Supreme Court opinion, since Wong Kim Ark, that disputes the Court’s conclusion in that case?


There are various arguments made although the opinion you quote is not related to the outcome of this specific case. In other words a ruling was not made based upon this opinion. If it was then I would concur with you. But a precedent has not been set yet for the specific situation we are discussing.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
OK Birthers, please follow along with me here. I am sure we can all agree that America is not about having a Dynasty in control, right? I hope so.

So if you cannot be a natural born citizen unless both your parents are natural born citizens going back 200 years...anywhere see where this is going? Anyone?


Parents do not need to be natural born, just plain citizens.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesGordon
Parents do not need to be natural born, just plain citizens.


I will wait here while you find the appropriate clause, amendment, or SC decision to go along with that. I hate that I always have to ask birthers to back up the things they say.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
For the record ... I can't stand Obama and think he is an unmitigated disaster. I think 9/11 was either pulled off by our government or they permitted others to pull it off. So I am no Obama fan and I am one conspiracy theory MoFo.

Having said all that, Birthers ... you need to get a grip. This is just stupid. The man was born in Hawaii. Furthermore, EVEN if he wasn't (and he was and Congress passed a resolution that he was) you'd still lose on the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

All that's going on in the world and you idiots focus on this? It's why you are referred to as "useful idiots".

Get a grip on reality.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesGordon
There are various arguments made although the opinion you quote is not related to the outcome of this specific case. In other words a ruling was not made based upon this opinion. If it was then I would concur with you. But a precedent has not been set yet for the specific situation we are discussing.
But it was. Let me ask you, how do you believe the Court ascertained Ark’s citizenship?



Parents do not need to be natural born, just plain citizens.
That gets back to my initial question to those who endorse the Vattel definition.

Children of US servicemen and women born abroad can never be President, and the children, born in the United States, of naturalized immigrants can.

Is that your position? Because that’s what the Vattel definition entails.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by JamesGordon
Please re-read and comprehend the Wong Kim Ark case and note these distinctions:
You can only say something like this if you haven’t read the opinion.


II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "legality," "obedience," "faith" or "power," of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim, protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. ...

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

It’s not even ambiguous.


You're right it is not ambiguous:

"natural-born subjects" is NOT equal to "natural-born citizens"

In fact only a select few natural-born subjects were allowed to become king and was based on blood line, i.e. lineage of parents.




top topics



 
75
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join