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.

 

My personal Vetting Of Barack Obama: I am now a birther

page: 12
80
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Apparently you cannot read or comprehend or refuse to do both....I posted the case law for you and the interpretations by the Justices...


I've been looking for this source you supposedly posted but I couldn't find it. You're not sourcing your claims from Minor vs Happersett are you?


And if I don't know what I'm talking about...answer me a question since all you do is question and spout opinion....why have they been trying since 1975 to take the Natural Born citizen phrase out of the constitution if it doesn't mean anything special


Who has? Do you have a source for this?

Timetothink, you haven't provided any solid evidence to back up your claim. You just insisting that Obama is ineligible because only only one of his parents are natural born, then you link us to a bunch of random youtube videos that have no real relevance to that particular argument, do you well and truly believe that you are achieving something here?




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Autumnal
 


I was being overly dramatic, I guess that was lost. The point was that he did, as did the people he associated with, have some pretty racist outlooks on life. The white man is singled out, a whole lot. I already knew that I guess though.

In all honesty, I am not sure why I even bothered listening to his book, maybe I was hoping to find out some redeeming things. His book did not really help elevate his character in my mind though. At least I was getting work done while listening to it, so it wasn't a complete waste of time as it would have been had I read it instead. Also pretty glad I did not pay for it, and put any money into his pocket.

It didn't bring me anymore onto the birther team though.
edit on Thu, 31 May 2012 00:47:30 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
www.art2superpac.com...

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . .
reply to post by windword
 



Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) 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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

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

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens. "But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship." 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”.

The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.” Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations. Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record… 1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat H



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I cite everything I post...
edit on 31-5-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
[]reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Again with the selective reading....I took everything from the same site.

www.art2superpac.com...


Attempt to redefine constitution in reference to natuaral born all listed since 1975:
www.art2superpac.com...
edit on 31-5-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)




continued:

Now this is the end of the discussion Saturn whatever your name is, because your uncited source is WRONG...here is the list of ALL the presidents and their citizenship status if you dare to read:

www.art2superpac.com...!Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud.pdf
edit on 31-5-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 



Naturalization Act of 1790
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were "free white persons" of "good moral character". It thus left out American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians. While women were included in the act, the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...." Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. This was the only statute that ever recognized the status of natural born citizen, requiring that state and federal officers not consider American children born abroad to be foreigners. .[1][2]


Oh, Okay! I see where you birthers are coming from now. Of course! Nothing has changed. We still go by these standards, as listed above.

By this reasoning, a person could be a natural born citizen, even if only one parent was an American citizen, it just had to be the father. It didn't count if the woman was an American citizen but the father wasn't. Of course, birthers still apply this double standard.
edit on 31-5-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 



Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.


The Dred Scott vs Sandford case was based on fugitive slaves and whether blacks were actual person(s). The eventual ruling went in favour of the slave owner. The above quote was opinion set in favour of Sandford because the slave in question was not born on U.S soil (he was dragged from Africa by slave traders). It is a direct quote from Vettal’s book, Law of nations, it was not the judges ruling. It is not relevant to today’s debate concerning natural born citizenship:

Arguments
For Dred Scott: When a person enters a free State or territory, the free status overrides the previous condition of servitude. Since slavery was forbidden in the free States and territories by federal and State laws, Dred Scott became free when he entered Illinois and Wisconsin.
For Sandford: To deprive a person of property (in this case, Dred Scott) without due process or just compensation violated the 5th Amendment, which states that “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Dred Scott was still a slave and no master's property rights could be limited or taken away by a State or federal law.


Read more: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) www.infoplease.com...
It is to say the least pathetic that you are using the Dred Scott case to argue against Obama’s eligibility. Are we really going to go down that road?

The Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) concerned rights of Women, not specifically Natural born citizenship. There was opinion concerning doubt regarding children born of foreign born parent(s), but this was not the ruling of the case, this was not the matter at hand. There have been numerous birther lawsuits using Minor v. Happersett as reference and they all have been shot down by the courts. Most recent was the Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party court case where the judge dismissed Minor being used as an argument concerning natural born citizenship:
www.scribd.com...

What, you think you’re the first one to us Minor v. Happersett as an argument? It’s an outdated birther argument.




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


If we go back to the original source:
supreme.justia.com...

We find that this reference is from the defence appealing against the ruling of the case in favour of Wong Kim Ark. It is, once again, opinion, not the actual ruling of the case.

There are many many ‘opinions’ out there in court cases, you can find an opinion in favour of anything really. There are opinions in the courts in favour of making slavery legal, opinions concerning racial segregation, there are even opinions in the courts concerning women and their worth to society. Opinions are just that, opinions, they are not the actual rulings of the court.

edit on 31-5-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Your last quote below:


"But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship." 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”.

supreme.justia.com...

Was again, opinion, not the actual ruling of the court.

You have to also understand how the court system works timetothink. There is no supreme court ruling that is permanent, there are many rulings that eventually, with time, become redundant. Court rulings are not permanent, they are not binding. The Dred Scott Case is a good example of this. We don’t have slavery in this country anymore, it’s not legal, incase you didn’t know.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Sorry......I am done with all this...my opinion stands, I am not alone......but nothing will be done.....I have had a death in the family so there are more important things for me to attend to....good luck all in this useless endeavor.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Please don't speak to me like I am a child I have been researching this for 3 years and I am backed by the writings of the founding fathers and many constitutional lawyers on the definition of Natural Born...including the people who did all the research for the site I quoted......please continue to think of reason why they have been trying to remove Natural born from the constitution and why it was put there in the first place......take some time to read the writings of John Jay and also the Federalist papers...as for me....I am going back to my life, I am done for now with people who would rather use the constitution for toilet paper.......good night.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by INDOMITABLE
 


his is racism, though, it specifically harps on about racial groups and acting differently, racism



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Autumnal
 


I was being overly dramatic, I guess that was lost.


You mean lying? Yes it was lost because I do not see what could have been overly dramatic. Either Obama spews hatred against white people or he doesn't. How do you add drama to that and still avoid answering my simple factual question? Yeah a lot of that was lost on me.


The point was that he did, as did the people he associated with, have some pretty racist outlooks on life. The white man is singled out, a whole lot. I already knew that I guess though.


I am so sick of asking you twice for #. I guess you just lose by default from now on when you cannot provide the simple thing being asked. Too bad.



In all honesty, I am not sure why I even bothered listening to his book, maybe I was hoping to find out some redeeming things. His book did not really help elevate his character in my mind though. At least I was getting work done while listening to it, so it wasn't a complete waste of time as it would have been had I read it instead. Also pretty glad I did not pay for it, and put any money into his pocket.

It didn't bring me anymore onto the birther team though.
edit on Thu, 31 May 2012 00:47:30 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


Do I look like your diary?
What the hell are you telling me you half listened to his book for?
Did you want me to be proud of you?

I just wanted you to answer my question. Oh well.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Autumnal
 


Posted it earlier on this thread...one of his wife saying it also...




Previous page....enjoy!!
edit on 30-5-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)


I do not see what I asked you about.
I am not asking you twice either.
Your argument is so old and been done to death around here and you seem to be running out of steam. It seems like a good time to pull the "nothing will be done anyway" card and bow out gracefully like so many birthers before you at this point.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Also there is this mysterious black figure: Rafiq al-Shabazz who which I cannot find much information or record on except in Obama's book. Now, The places and circumstances in the book are most likely made up and different alterations of other people in Obama's life. So for the moment I cannot verify that this man has existed! Or you know it could have been Obama himself. Creative types do this sometimes where they make up someone and it was really them doing the actions of black nationalism. Maybe he is ashamed of his racist remarks back then.


edit on 29-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)


I remember seeing a picture of the two of them together back during the 2008 election - Obama was wearing Muslim garb (although curiously he's now apparently neither a Muslim or a fan of Jeremiah Wright's). If you thought Clinton was slippery this guy makes Clinton look like an amateur. I don't think he was born in the US, either but if anyone can forge a government document it's the government.

Obama wasn't unqualified just because of this. A junior senator with very little experience makes him as unqualified. I don't get the whole thing. He apparently hates the job. He hates working BOTH sides of the aisle and is now apparently fixated on his kill list of potential terrorists. (source #1, Time Magazine, source #2, recent reports of him being fixated on the kill list and droning people to death).



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by flashtrum
Obama was wearing Muslim garb (although curiously he's now apparently neither a Muslim or a fan of Jeremiah Wright's).


Can I see this picture?
I believe you imagined seeing it yourself.
What is Muslim garb?
What religions clothes am I wearing?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Please don't speak to me like I am a child I have been researching this for 3 years and I am backed by the writings of the founding fathers and many constitutional lawyers on the definition of Natural Born...including the people who did all the research for the site I quoted......please continue to think of reason why they have been trying to remove Natural born from the constitution and why it was put there in the first place......take some time to read the writings of John Jay and also the Federalist papers...as for me....I am going back to my life, I am done for now with people who would rather use the constitution for toilet paper.......good night.


Sorry, but you've been proven wrong.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


No I haven't......


Read, comprehend supreme court decision Minor V. Happersett.......

This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,’ …

“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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. “ (Emphasis added.)

Read that passage very carefully, and you will see that the US Supreme Court clearly defined “natural-born citizen” by two independent remarks:

1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class -

2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.

But the Court didn’t stop there. Because the Court was avoiding the 14th Amendment, the Court went to the second step and defined this class to be different from all other citizens. This class did not require the 14th Amendment to be US citizens.

Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not.


naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com... en/



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 



Yes, you have been proven wrong. Not just by us here on ATS, but by every court that has rejected Obama birthers' claims.

www.federalistblog.us...

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen.



^ Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. at 250. "Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by timetothink
 



Yes, you have been proven wrong. Not just by us here on ATS, but by every court that has rejected Obama birthers' claims.

www.federalistblog.us...

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen.



^ Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. at 250. "Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen
en.wikipedia.org...


What he said.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Autumnal
 


So you plan on playing the lazy, demanding and combatitive troll? Fine by me, have fun with that.



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join