Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery but disregards “image” as Indication of Obama’s Ineligibility Dama

Originally posted by timetothink
and just because Obama, his handlers and his followers got away with this doesn't make it right.

Got away with what exactly? this thread is a hoax....

.they did not want anyone who could be claimed by another country as president.....logic...go figure.

So you now claim Obama is a naturally born citizen! you seem very confused.

That is, one who is a citizen of the United States “at birth” by descent under federal law could develop the requisite allegiances and reverences for the United States passed down, inculcated, and taught by one’s parent-citizens, and would have a lifetime of allegiance to the United States at least as strong, in a theoretical sense, as one of a “native born” citizen.40 Native born citizens, that is, those born “in” the country, who are subject to its jurisdiction, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of their parents,

6 Regardless of the technical state of the common law in England with respect to children born abroad, however, there appear to be significant arguments that the corpus of English law applicable within the American colonies, known to the framers and adopted in the states, was broader than merely the “law of the soil.” Legal commentators have contended that the body of English law carried forward in the United States relating to citizenship included both the strict common law notion of jus soli, as well as that part of the law of descent (jus sanguinis) included in long-standing British law7 (including as “natural born” subjects those born abroad of an English father), and that this was part of the “common understanding” of the term “natural born” to the framers at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.8

www.fas.org...

Amar also agrees that the framers’ aversion to hereditary monarchies appeared to play an additional role in erecting a barrier to immigrants being President within the Constitution—a document that was otherwise, for its time, enlightened as permitting immigrants to weave their way into the fabric of American political and social life:

Originally posted by timetothink
www.fas.org...

You missed this bit:

In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

That is why Obama is the legal POTUS!

reply to post by spoor


I never said he was natural born...what the heck are you talking about....

Never mind...I don't care what you have to say.

We can sit here all night posting writings of differing opinions....all the ones that support my opinion are just as valid as any you may find.....actually more of them support my opinion.....the founders did NOT want a president with dual citizenship, which is exactly what O has....he is a British subject thru his father.

So basically we gave the country back to Britian in a round about way....is that what the plan was? Or was it just to prove enough money and power can indeed buy the presidency and negate the constitution?

reply to post by spoor


When you see SUCH selective quoting, as done by Birthers, you kinda think, in a different time and place these people would be accused of inciting a revolution... After almost a decade of hearing those on the right moan every time a Democrat "criticized a President at a time of war" it makes me pretty sick to see all of these Republicans intentionally lying about the President, for political reasons. You can't have it both ways people... and in fact, lying about the President and his eligibility is MUCH worse than criticizing his decisions.

Basically, if you've read this thread and are still a birther, you're pretty much a traitor or a political propagandist... there's NO legit reason to think Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen.

reply to post by spoor


That quote was the opinion of the author, written in 2011, by O's administration....think I'll throw that one out.

.....

Originally posted by timetothink
I never said he was natural born...

The link you posted did... you really are very confused!

reply to post by timetothink


I have linked to the official definition, as per the US government, via the state.gov pdf.

You can pretend that doesn't exist, along with dozens of cases that back it up, and also pretend that Vattel nonsense, but it's just you pretending; it's not rational.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
but it's just you pretending; it's not rational.

That is what birthers refuse to accept - Obama is a natural born US citizen, and thus the legal POTUS.

That is one of the reasons all birther lawsuits have failed, and birthers must resort to lies as the title of this thread and the OP have shown

Here's a link which through debunked the WND-pushed Vattel argument:

www.obamaconspiracy.org...

In essense, people that claim that the Founding Fathers were simply copying the phrase (and thus the definition) of Vattel are full of #.

The passage the birthers love to quote was from an English translation made years after the Constitution was written.

That being said the States often did define, explicitly, "Natural Born Citizen" before the constitution was written and they ALWAYS defined it using Jus Soli, not Vattel.

On top of ALL of that Vattel also said that states should institute a state religion... so...

I'm pretty sure the founders weren't generating English non-literal translations of Vattel, which contradicted existing STATE definitions, but used the exact same term, randomly, and expecting the judical system to just know that.

RATHER, the Founders were using the long established and widely used tradition of Jus Soli, already law in the States at the time of the Constitution.

Never would they imagine that people would question the citizenship of a citizen born on US soil, based on a modern translation of a French book, which contradicted the law of the States and the English Common Law concept of Jus Soli.

Jay’s proposal recommended clause added the additional adjective before “born Citizen” that was proposed by Hamilton. And that word and adjective “natural” means something special from the laws of nature that modifies just being born a Citizen of the USA such as being simply born on the soil of the United States. Natural means from nature by the facts of nature of one’s birth. Not created retroactively after the fact by a man-made law. A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them. The added adjective “natural” comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the Law of Nations which was codified by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. In Vol.1 Chapter 19 of Vattel’s Law of Nations, the “Des citoyens et naturels“, Vattel in Section 212 explains to us (the French term “naturels” was translated to English in 1781 in the Journal of the Continental Congress and in the 1797 English edition of Vattel), to tell us that the “natural born Citizens” are those born in the country to parents (plural) who are Citizens of the country when their child is born. These are the natural Citizens of the nation per universal principles of natural law for which no man-made law is necessary to explain or justify. Such a person, a natural born Citizen, is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil AND being born to two Citizen parents.

www.art2superpac.com...

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Here's a link which through debunked the WND-pushed Vattel argument:
..
RATHER, the Founders were using the long established and widely used tradition of Jus Soli, already law in the States at the time of the Constitution.

Never would they imagine that people would question the citizenship of a citizen born on US soil, based on a modern translation of a French book, which contradicted the law of the States and the English Common Law concept of Jus Soli.

I am discussing court cases not language, but how Supreme Court Justices viewed it.

You all act like there was never any question on the issue from any justice when in fact there was serious dissenting opinion, and they were NOT ignorant of law!

to quote from the dissenting opinion from Fuller and Harlan in Ark

The civil rights act became a law April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27, c. 31), and provided 'that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians [169 U.S. 649, 720] not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.' And this was re-enacted June 22, 1874, in the Revised Statutes (section 1992).

The words 'not subject to any foreign power' do not in themselves refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that, nevertheless, they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.

The allegiance of children so born is not the local allegiance arising from their parents merely being domiciled in the country; and it is single, and not double, allegiance. Indeed, double allegiance, in the sense of double nationality, has no place in our law, and the existence of a man without a country is not recognized.



No one is taking into consideration SCOTUS in Minor, and the dissenting opinions on cases like Ark, there is question concerning 'natural born'! And using Ark to determine case law is ridiculous considering Justice Gray controlled his own fate by presiding over an opinion, the outcome of which decided the very legitimacy of his appointment to the Supreme Court!

It is fact that until the age of 22 Obama had a dual citizenship by right of birth which has never been taken seriously, and dissenting opinions are simply overlooked as if they do not exist..

Obama will set precedent, that someone born in the United States can hold dual citizenship for the majority of their life and still be president... this is precedent, the question is, is it really a precedent that is upheld in the true spirit of the constitution?

Originally posted by Jameela
Obama will set precedent, that someone born in the United States can hold dual citizenship

Wrong again, that precedent has already been set, Obama was the 3rd President with dual citizenship.

But birthers ignore that!

reply to post by Jameela


As has been repeatedly stated, dual citizenship is meaningless, as it is not relevant to the concept of Jus Soli.

For instance, if Pakistan decided to give Romney citizenship, what then?

The US cares about it's definition of citizenship, and has stated, many many many times that Jus Soli is the basis for being a Natural Born Citizen.

That's the entirety of this discussion.

Voters can decide to not vote for someone who is a dual citizen, but there is nothing anywhere that states that a Natural Born Citizen loses certain rights by being a dual citizen. That's a fabrication.

As for quoting dissenting opinions, they too are meaningless.

Why?

Because in these cases they were trying to REDEFINE what NBC meant, and they failed. This is a different concept then a system trying to make an initial definition. The definition already existed (see the Georgia constitution that pre-dated the Constitution for example) and as such someone trying to rewrite law, and failing, is much less valuable (unless you're a delusional birther) than the continued and repeatedly upheld definition.

reply to post by timetothink


That whole text is simply a lie.

The states repeatedly said, before the Constituion, that citizenship was based on place of birth, not on the legal status of the parents.

reply to post by spoor


Your proof?

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


It's not a lie.......stop calling people liars and birthers and other childish names.....act like an adult for gods sake unless you really are 12.

Study up on John Jay and the letter he gave to Washington which led to the change from citizen to natural born citizen in article 2. Then give the federalist papers a read.

Originally posted by timetothink
Your proof?

James Buchanan and Chester Alan Arthur

You also ignore the fact that Obama lost his dual citizenship in 1983....

reply to post by spoor


No, in fact he is the second, the first was Chester Arthur who defrauded the nation and purposefully hid (in order to obtain presidency!) his being a subject to Britain.

John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. "

Therefore the article of the constitution adopted was thus;

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:

"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."


This is reflected in the dissenting opinions of cases such as Ark which I have previously shown here

Which is a case which Justice Gray controlled his own fate by presiding over an opinion, the outcome of which decided the very legitimacy of his appointment to the Supreme Court. Do you not see some conflict of interest therefore in introducing this to set a precedent?