One More BC Thread, This Is Bizarre.

No they have the same rights as all americans except they cant be president in the wong case it was ruled he was a us citizen not a nbc.reply to post by vjr1113

reply to post by aptness


Thanks Aptness.

Here we go again.

reply to post by Gixxr1rider


Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution

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.

just stop, you look really bad enough as it is.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by bsbray11
I liked the thread about John McCain's citizenship having to be proven.
Because in that thread, it is shown that the Constitution's use of the term "natural-born citizen" or etc. was actually defined as someone who was born to two parents who are BOTH American citizens at the child's time of birth. .

If by McCain’s citizenship “having to be proven” you mean the Senate passed a non-binding resolution, then yes, I guess it was ‘proven.’ In any event, the resolution is describing McCain’s situation, not the requirements for natural born citizenship.

Even if it was defining the requirements for natural born citizenship, it couldn’t, since a non-binding resolution has no legal force.

The Supreme Court unequivocally said anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen, over a century ago.

Let me quote you from one of the Obama eligibility lawsuits that actually addressed the merits of the “two citizen parents” theory, Ankeny v. Governor of the state of Indiana—

Based 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. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens."

The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs' arguments fall under the category of "conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions"

Ouch.

The Court stated that:

The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'[9]

Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen", the majority adopted the common law of England:

The Supreme court ruled:



Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

CONCLUSION
Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

Originally posted by dizzie_lizzie79


I am a great judge of character and man...something about that look in his eye !

"They say the eyes are our windows to our souls, but I know when
I look into your eyes, I will see a reflection of myself...".
--Author Unknown.

"The eyes see only what the mind is
prepared to comprehend...."
--Robertson Davies.

“Seeing is not always believing.”
--MLK

“Few people get weak eyes from looking on the bright side”
--Author Unknown

And the winner is this one. It is so true about birthers.
“every second i shut my eyes it is him i see.”
--Author Unknown

You guys are obsessing on this man.

reply to post by Brassmonkey


Problem with your interpretation is "where would it end?" You can't sit here and tell this board every person who came here between the adoption of the constitution and now came here legally? It was a lot easier for some to jump off the boat in New York and blend in than it was for others. Heck, some jumped off in the Atlantic and swam the rest of the way because they were criminals from the UK.

So where does it end? More importantly, where does it begin? My grandparents were illegal as all get out. My mother told me they didn't have the money to pay the entrance fee. They stayed in a holding area then just simply walked out. Went to their families house and just acted like they were Americans. That would make my maternal grandparents illegal. My mother would also be illegal. Therefore I too am illegal. Therefore my children are illegal. Therefore my grandkids are illegal.

Where does it begin and end?

reply to post by LosLobos


No, your parents would be legal as per the law of the United States, and if you were born in lets say UK before your parents had a chance to get back to the US you would be a person with Dual Citizenship, I do believe.

Which is why all of this stuff doesn't make any sense. What it really sounds like to me is that he is afraid that he will be found by the court to be a naturalized citizen with dual citizenship and not a natural born citizen. Which would still disqualify him to be POTUS.

If I do remember correctly I don't think I ever remember saying he was an illegal citizen, I always recall saying him not meeting the qualifications of being Natural Born.

Another Edit To Add:

The truth of the matter is it doesn't matter what happens at this point, the White House officially released his Birth Certificate and there isn't a court in the land that is going to touch this issue, because for one that court doesn't want to go down in history as the court that proved the government will lie to save it's own butt (Administration Notwithstanding) and two the White House released what is now considered an Official document.

And besides, this is a fringe conspiracy forum, and should be looked at as a place for our imaginations to run wild without the consequences of looking like nutters,

Remember folks, it's just the internet,

Originally posted by Gixxr1rider
Aloha ATSers
Im new just signed up today and give my 2 cents on this issue. To be a Natural Born Citizen it requires 2 US Citizen parents and child born on US Soil and heres why. What if OBL or any other non us citizen father gets an american girl pregant and that child born in ohio could that child become president? Where would that child loyality be with the terrorist dad or the US? Thats why the it takes 2 citizen parents no conflict in alegiance. Read what john jay wrote to GW and what john bingham who is the father of the 14th add. on the house floor around 1862 or 1866.

To be a Natural Born Citizen does NOT require 2 US parents. If you believe I'm wrong - then kindly show me where IN the Constitution or in US code it says otherwise.

1 - John Jay may have been a SC justice, but he did not write the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights on which it was based. Further, for all his input to Washington, the matter was not clarified to Jay's specifications which should tell you something of his input to the framers of the document.

2 - John Bingham may be primarily associated with the intro and composition of the 14th amendment, he did not write the citizenship clause - Senator Jacob Howard did.

reply to post by Signals


You do understand that politics is irrelevant, don't you? What difference has this president actually made? The only difference between this presidency and the previous is the rhetoric. The reforms he timidly promotes, fail or are so watered down as to achieve nothing. The war seems unendable, and the coporate oligarchy and MIC shamelessly dominate our government.
Where this man was born is even more irrelevant than his presidency.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

But that gets to the heart of my question. Would anyone be upset if he actually became President?

I would assume simply because it is the USA law. The law may have been because our presidency can be bought, so if you let people who were not born American citizens it would be much easier for an enemy country to pay for a planted presidential runner? You think?
Personaly I think it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then a good person to reach the top in politics, so since i think they are all corrupt I don't really have an issue but find it odd that people don't mind THEIR OWN gov of "elected" to keep all these secrets and tell all these lies.

Originally posted by Char-Lee
I would assume simply because it is the USA law. The law may have been because our presidency can be bought, so if you let people who were not born American citizens it would be much easier for an enemy country to pay for a planted presidential runner?

This takes me back to my original question. If Obama was born in Kenya wouldn't the concern be that he'd provide subsidies for their country? If this was the actual concern, then why not just approach the department of the treasury and look over the accounting?

Originally posted by Brassmonkey
In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Nice summaries, from which website did you copy that? I see they are posted on freerepublic verbatim.

I’m sure people who haven’t read the cases could believe them, or your completely unfounded statement that the Supreme Court “never applied the term” to anyone other than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens,” but I have read them.

And for those that haven’t, allow me to cite the relevant passages from Wong Kim Ark—

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. ...

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. ...

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. ...

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. ...

Mr. Justice Curtis said: "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, `a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth."

In United States v. Rhodes, (1866) Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England." "We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

The same common law principle that ruled English nationality, that “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject,” “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.”

“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

The opinion of the Court couldn’t be clearer. The only explanation why someone doesn’t understand these unambiguous words has to be because they are searching for a conclusion that simply isn’t in it.

Originally posted by Shadowalker
Its funny no one can accept the WH document at face value.

I mean really folks, its stamped right at the bottom as being a true copy or abstract of a TXE record.

Of course it a TXE record. Never doubted it for a moment.

Well, you have to admit, this POTUS isn't exactly the best at keeping promises. Everything he says is rife with doublespeak. But ironically, I think when he had that clip of Lion King played, even though it was a joke for the correspondence dinner, it's like the Power Elite telling us in plain view what's really happening. Imean George Bush Sr did tell us the Power Elite would be successful with the NWO plans, and still some goofs don't believe the NWO exists.
Ok, so he promised to get out of the wars, but now we are in three wars. He promised to close Gitmo(not my favorite idea) and now? There are so many things he said which were lies, and so many he said which were the truth of what his plans were, but no one saw it. The serpent always speaks with forked tongue.

reply to post by aptness


You lib supporters always uee the Wong Kim case. So let me ask, do you really think our Founding Fathers would use English Law stating that all born of foreign parents are eligible to be POTUS when it's obvious they wanted to keep the new Republic safe from the influence of foreign powers ? Or are you really just that desperate to support this guy no matter what? And also by extension support TPTB that control him by allowing this fraudulent thing to be perpetrated against our great country. He has never shown the true loyalty to our Nation that every President should, and we knew it when he refused to wear the flag pin or put his hand over his heart. What does it take for people like you to see that? Or maybe you and his supporters are all so anti-American that you just don't care if the President's allegiance is really to America. He has spent his entire Presidency apologizing for us. Even MO said she was never proud of her country till Barack was nominated. What does that tell you? Both of them never stood for anything but dividing this country and sacking the wealthy for their little redistribution schemes.

I think I may have found a reason why BO would want to create so much controversy on this subject:

As one commenter, Jon Lafferty, put it:

Until 1980, all foreign and domestic births recorded here received a COLB from Hawaii. In 1981, Hawaii started to issue a certificate of foreign birth for babies brought here from another country. I know a woman who came here from the Philippines as a 15 year old in 1982 and she has a COFB from Hawaii. This is why Maya, who came here in the 1970s has a COLB from Hawaii. I think Obama may have been born here and is hiding the rest of his records because he attended Punahou, Occidental, Columbia and Harvard as a foreign student receiving US government aid. If he did, he defrauded the US government out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

WWW.THERIGHTSIDEOFLIFE.COM

It would seem that Barry may be caught between a rock and a hard place. If I am not mistaken fraud is an impeachable offense.

www.sodahead.com...

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by bsbray11
I liked the thread about John McCain's citizenship having to be proven.
Because in that thread, it is shown that the Constitution's use of the term "natural-born citizen" or etc. was actually defined as someone who was born to two parents who are BOTH American citizens at the child's time of birth. .

If by McCain’s citizenship “having to be proven” you mean the Senate passed a non-binding resolution, then yes, I guess it was ‘proven.’ In any event, the resolution is describing McCain’s situation, not the requirements for natural born citizenship.

You obviously didn't read either my post or the thread I mentioned.

You see the word "Constitution"?

Yes, that is a "binding resolution." It's the freaking Constitution.

No one is saying this is a law that was invented when McCain's birth was investigated.

Originally posted by j2000
It says on the bottom that the Source is from the AP.

So the AP now generates birth certificates?
When did that start happening?
Yes, the STORY claims to source back to AP. The image of the BC????? Where does the story say that came from? No source for that. Thanks for trying though.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You see the word "Constitution"?
Yes, that is a "binding resolution." It's the freaking Constitution.

And nowhere in the Constitution is the requirement having two citizen parents.

No one is saying this is a law that was invented when McCain's birth was investigated.

McCain’s birth wasn’t investigated.

Originally posted by General.Lee
Exactly. That's the idea. Just like his many SS numbers. Create enough of confusion and distraction, people will get either frustrated or bored and the issue will go away.

So you admit that Orly Taitz and all the birthers are purposely creating confusion just to cloud real issues and bore people? That would explain why threads about Towns being dismantled make 3 pages while BC threads go to 90 in three days. Maybe if the birthers would stop trying to create smoke where there is no fire, we could fix this country. You are right, they have a plan. Keep the water as muddy as possible and hope it helps them somehow. Good catch.

Why does the OP post something that looks completely different than what was released?

thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...

?????