Corsi To File Criminal Charges Against White House Over Obama Birth Certificate

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
That is not true. Now you are using the argument that anyone born here is eligible to be POTUS.

Everyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible. The only exceptions are for those who, for one reason or another, are immune from the jurisdiction, like foreign diplomats.

Everyone else’s children, including those of aliens, and even illegal aliens, if born in the United States, are natural born citizens.

From the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual—

“Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.

Please show me in case law anywhere to support this claim of yours.

I already told you. The Supreme Court settled this in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

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."

You haven’t read the case have you?

Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana (2009), a recent birther lawsuit in Indiana, and the Court of Appeals of Indiana stated—

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 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

www.usconstitution.net...

Obama's father is by the British Nationality Act of 1948 subject to British rule.

So what people are arguing here for is the use of the 14th amendment to determine eligibility of POTUS and whether it was Blackstone, or Vattel or other source that determined our Founding Father's definition of Natural Born Citizen as eligible. The 14th Amendment seems to include children born in the States regardless of the status of parents.

Even if you take these requirements under the 14th Amendment, Stanley Ann was underage and may have been under the jurisdiction of British rule by her marriage to a Kenyan under British jurisdiction.

•Anyone born inside the United States *

•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Interestingly, here is a blog declaring 4 out of 5 of Donald Trump's children not to be eligible due to their mother's being foreign nationals.

www.hillarynme.com...

A blog which discusses the dual citizenship implications also regarding eligibilty as POTUS

constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
So what people are arguing here for is the use of the 14th amendment to determine eligibility of POTUS and whether it was Blackstone, or Vattel or other source that determined our Founding Father's definition of Natural Born Citizen as eligible.

The Supreme Court already did that in Wong Kim Ark. Natural born citizenship is derived from the common law principle. Vattel was only mentioned once, and by the dissent. Vattel didn’t play a part in the decision of the Court.

Even if you take these requirements under the 14th Amendment, Stanley Ann was underage and may have been under the jurisdiction of British rule by her marriage to a Kenyan under British jurisdiction.

Obama’s mother was 18 when he was born. But even if she was underage, what’s the relevance?

Interestingly, here is a blog declaring 4 out of 5 of Donald Trump's children not to be eligible due to their mother's being foreign nationals.

Then they don’t know what they are talking about either. If the children were born in the United States, they are natural born citizens.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


The only implication to that is either yours or birthers willing to overlook case law or even remarks from founding fathers...

In a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789, James Madison said:

"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States"

You might want to look up who James Madison is, just in case you're not familiar with him.

Speaking today on the Alex Jones Show, investigative journalist Jerome R. Corsi dropped a huge bombshell. Dr. Corsi provided proof that he was alerted to an on-going plot to release a fake more than two months before President Obama released his purported long-form birth certificate.

Additional info. now available on this topic.

www.infowars.com...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Referring you to this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If James Madison, the "father" of the constitution made that statement, it invalidates the argument about parents being citizens.

Some are saying that Obama's SSAN# should be reserved for someone from Connecticut. Some say the opposite.
Well, the truth is: that Obama's SSAN# was NEVER ISSUED TO ANYONE! EVER! Certainly not to him.
He never really applied for the selective service, because he didn't have a SSAN#. EVER! Certainly not now. Not in 1980, not now. not ever.
Here's the proof.

obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com...

reply to post by aptness


No, that states that the children are citizens. It says nothing about Natural Born and eligible to be POTUS. You all keep mixing that up.


From the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual—

“Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.



Where in any of that does it say Natural Born? It says they are citizens.
www.theobamafile.com...

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, first intended to secure the rights of former slaves. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868
The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) which had excluded slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights.
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.

The 14th Amendment does not address the "natural born citizen" issue, only citizenship.


.

Leo Donofrio on Chester Arthur, Schumann and Natural vs Native born
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by boondock-saint
everyone on this site is a researcher or investigator

No, they’re not.

oh yea, ur right
i forgot

there are some who are paid
to come here and spew nonsense.
Those aren't researchers,
they are traitors.

Aren't you
spewing
nonsense

As though you are trying to compose a Haiku but actually talking crap? Will you ever stop?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
No, that states that the children are citizens. It says nothing about Natural Born and eligible to be POTUS. You all keep mixing that up.

You asked me for “case law ... to support this claim of yours.” I have. You responded with links to blogs, and haven’t explained why Wong Kim Ark, for example, must not say what it does.

I will respond further if and when you provide any US statute, act, regulation or case law that supports your interpretation of natural born citizen.

Now, do you have any?

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by alphabetaone
The 20 years I served in the Corps I did for my country.
Mogadishu I did for my country.
Eritrea I did for my country.
Tblisi I did for my country.

No, what you did was further
corporate imperialism in 3rd
world countries who push
a US Petro Dollar for the elites.

Not one single entity you quoted
above attacked the US. That makes
you a mercenary for hire.

Sheesh, I wish I was smoking what you are, Boondock, you have done your piece to lower the stock of this site with your continual BS, I hope you are proud.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Are your arguments going to continually cite birther blogs which in turn cite other birther blogs or opinion articles and not law? The fact of the matter is that the Constitution definition was loose and has been interpreted by congress many different ways, most recently as the resolution resulting in McCain's eligibilty. Furthermore it is out the courts hands to declare a President ineligible only congress can do that.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
reply to post by Antiquated1

 

I cannot comment on Corsi's book yet
because I haven't read it yet.

As soon as I get the chance
to read it, I'll get back with ya.

Soooooooooo, seeing as this is the point of the whole thread, why don't you shut up until you have read it? Wouldn't that make sense?

Oh,
Sorry
Should
I respond
like
this
?

Ok.. Because Barack Obama had a "foreign born" parent, he's not eligible for the presidency? You might want to tell that to:
Herbert Hoover
Andrew Jackson
Thomas Jefferson
James Buchanan
Chester Arthur
AND Woodrow Wilson
Who all had at least one parent that was "foreign born"...

As for the SS# stuff? All 16 of those numbers were connected to properties owned or rented by other members of his family, or by people with names similar to those of his relatives, or by completely unrelated people with names that are some variant spelling of "Obama". I have yet to see anything but conjecture connecting this SS# to the POTUS. Just more purposely misleading information in order to achieve some type of insane agenda.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
all these die hard obama fans cant come to terms that there dear leader might be an illegal alien

And all those brain dead sheep can't accept that he isn't an illegal alien..... I'm sorry, which camp are you in? Just need to know in case we need more tinfoil hats, ffs, grow up.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's probably gotten a lot of use lately, but this page goes over cases related to the subject.

James Madison even makes an appearance.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Antiquated1

 

That is just deflection and obfuscation. The implication of the resolution is that both the parents must be American citizens at the time of birth, which Barrys Dad was not, no matter where Barry was born.

No, it is the truth. Please show me the resolution in full and explain how you find that implication.

You do know it was a non-binding resolution right? From the same people that "resolved" that Hawaii is Obama's birthplace. Let me guess, what they actually do and say does not matter, just what you think it really meant.

The implication is that both parents must be American citizens. What part of that do you not understand? What part of Barry's father not being American citizen, EVER, do you not understand. McCain was born in Panama while it was under US Jurisdiction. Kenya was never under US jurisdiction, but under British jurisdiction.

Apologies, but that really is close minded, none of your first 3 or four presidents could have stood for office if that was the case - please use some sense.

reply to post by aptness


Once again, as other liberals have used that same argument, you are attempting to declare that Native Born is equal to Natural Born.

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Antiquated1

 

That is just deflection and obfuscation. The implication of the resolution is that both the parents must be American citizens at the time of birth, which Barrys Dad was not, no matter where Barry was born.

No, it is the truth. Please show me the resolution in full and explain how you find that implication.

You do know it was a non-binding resolution right? From the same people that "resolved" that Hawaii is Obama's birthplace. Let me guess, what they actually do and say does not matter, just what you think it really meant.

The implication is that both parents must be American citizens. What part of that do you not understand? What part of Barry's father not being American citizen, EVER, do you not understand. McCain was born in Panama while it was under US Jurisdiction. Kenya was never under US jurisdiction, but under British jurisdiction.

Apologies, but that really is close minded, none of your first 3 or four presidents could have stood for office if that was the case - please use some sense.

Apologies, but this is not about being open or closed minded, it is about being Constitutionally accurate. "Your" first Presidents....blah blah blah, you are obviously not a US Citizen and think you know more than you do. The Natural Born clause grandfathers in those who at the time of the adoption of the Constitution may be eligible. Even Wikipedia gets this one right.

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
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.
The grandfather provision of the clause provided an exception to the "natural born Citizen" requirement for those persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The first several Presidents prior to Martin van Buren, as well as potential Presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution and this grandfather clause would cover them.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...