Hawaii Verifies Obama a Dual Citizen: Not Qualified For Presidency

page: 3
50
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Dual citizenship does not disqualify someone for the Presidency, if that were the case than any foreign power to ruin our entire system of government by simply declaring anyone and everyone who is a citizen of the U.S. as a citizen of their country, too. There is no way for the U.S. to control the rules of citizenship of a foreign power, so it's useless to even make it a criteria for eligibility of office, and it is not.




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by doryinaz
 


The standing decision regarding natural born citizenship is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born on US soil to two Chinese parents. The Supreme Court decided that he was a natural born citizen and established the precedence that birthright citizenship and natural born citizenship are the same thing.
this case is not a decision concerning "natural born status".

Any and all children born within the US are considered US citizens (at birth) by virtue of the 14th Amendment, no one is disputing that.
however, Obama has never met the qualifications of "natural born".

No one is questioning IF BHO is a citizen, just his "natural born status" as required.
the Wong Kim Ark decision indicates that WKA was a citizen of the US ... no mention of "natural born".
in the brief submitted, Wong Kim Ark asserted he was "native born" thus entitling him to protection and passage via the 14th. the issue of Natural Born isn't even addressed in said case.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Minor vs. Happersett defined natural born citizen. Here is one link, among many, that gives a brief
overview:

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com... en/



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


However it was the crux of Lynch v. Clarke which was the leading precedence in Wong Kim Ark. So far no court decision has countered Lynch v. Clarke so that definition of natural born citizen remains the authoritative precedent. One merely needs to be born in the US to be considered a natural born citizen.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by doryinaz
 


The standing decision regarding natural born citizenship is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born on US soil to two Chinese parents. The Supreme Court decided that he was a natural born citizen and established the precedence that birthright citizenship and natural born citizenship are the same thing.
this case is not a decision concerning "natural born status".

Any and all children born within the US are considered US citizens (at birth) by virtue of the 14th Amendment, no one is disputing that.
however, Obama has never met the qualifications of "natural born".

No one is questioning IF BHO is a citizen, just his "natural born status" as required.
the Wong Kim Ark decision indicates that WKA was a citizen of the US ... no mention of "natural born".
in the brief submitted, Wong Kim Ark asserted he was "native born" thus entitling him to protection and passage via the 14th. the issue of Natural Born isn't even addressed in said case.

While the decision pertinent to the case was not about "natural born" status, it nonetheless does go into great detail to define what natural born status is and has been used ever since as a guide to determining its definition. It's a rare case where the SCOTUS judges took it upon themselves to exceed the limits of the case and used it as an opportunity to outline and clarify once and for all these points of law.

"Native born" and "natural born" are synonymous terms under law.


Originally posted by Habit4ming
Minor vs. Happersett defined natural born citizen. Here is one link, among many, that gives a brief
overview:

Wong Kim Ark includes discussion of Minor vs. Happersett. Minor was about the rights of female voters (or lack there of at that time). It basically says that even though women are citizens, they didn't then have the right to vote. It has been superseded by the 19th Amendment on that point, and by Wong Kim Ark, which came after, on any points regarding the definition of citizenship.
edit on 5/31/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Habit4ming
 


Minor v. Happersett actually doesn't define natural born citizen. The Justices determined that Minor was a natural born citizen but they specifically state that they are not setting qualifications for natural born citizenship. The case was not about citizenship but they needed to determine whether or not Minor was a citizen before discussing the main point of the case which was women's voting rights.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
There is no legal entity in the United States that recognizes a "dual citizenship" status. You're either a US citizen or you're not. That makes this headline a total fabrication, as Hawaii did not rule Obama was a "dual citizen".

I just joined this site after lurking for more than a year (and only joined to stop having to look at so many ads) but I don't recall so much bogus information being posted as it has been lately. ATS is becoming worse than a Yahoo news group in terms of outright lies and propaganda being posted. Where are the mods who should be trashing hoax topics? Or does this suit the ATS political agenda?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by vexati0n
 

If you are born on US soil, you are a natural-born Citizen.
wrong, you would be "native" born, not natural born.
still a citizen, especially via the 14th but not one of "natural born status".


Also, the US government does not recognize "dual citizenship." As a legal status, it does not even exist in the eyes of American law. By American legal standards, you are either a US Citizen or you are not.
why would "dual citizenship" impinge US laws or need to be recognized by them ??

perhaps this link will help some of you understand the finer details of the issue ...

www.richw.org...
Section 301 of the INA [8 USC § 1401] defines the following classes of people as having US citizenship from the time of birth:

anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction (basically meaning anyone other than a child of foreign government representatives with diplomatic immunity);

Indians and other aboriginal people born in the US;

anyone born outside the US, if at least one parent is a US citizen and certain residency or physical presence requirements were fulfilled by the citizen parent or parents prior to the child's birth;

anyone who is found in the US while under five years of age, whose parents cannot be identified, and who is not shown prior to his or her 21st birthday to have been born outside the US.
The only part of this section that is mandated by the 14th Amendment is the part giving citizenship to anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, in Rogers v. Bellei, held that the citizenship status of a person born outside the US to an American parent is not constitutionally protected.
please notice the bold as Obama's father was exactly that.


If you are born to one or more US Citizens, you are a natural-born Citizen.
got any proof for that ??
2 citizen parents are required for natural born status.
otherwise, you would be native born.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
(1) Hawaii didn't verify "dual citizenship". Hawaii verified birth in the United States. The Hawaii Dept of Health doesn't know, or try to ascertain, the peculiar citizenship laws of foreign countries.

(2) Obama is not a dual citizen under British law. He might have had -- and I said "might" -- an option of claiming British citizenship when he was born, but he clearly did not avail himself of that at any time and now, as an adult, he is not a British citizen, nor has the UK claimed him as one. We fought the War of 1812 to establish that principle.

(3) Considering how many countries claim or try to claim or try to offer citizenship by heredity, the possibility of dual citizenship is NOT a disqualifier for the presidency nor does it negate the natural born citizenship of someone born here. Minor v. Happerstatt dithered about that without actually addressing that question. But other courts have said so explicitly:

Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party of the USA (WD Tenn 4//13/2012)
scholar.google.com...,21
(and this despite the fact that the plaintiff very deliberately filed its lawsuit against the named defendant - somehow a Tennessee corporation of very recent establishment and no known activity - unrelated to the national political party of the same name)

Strunk v. NY State Board of Elections (NY, Kings Cnty Suprm Ct. 4/11/2012)
scholar.google.com...,21
(this the latest of about a dozen lawsuits brought by this one person, against all sorts of people including those not at all connected to Obama, about Obama's eligibility; in a previous lawsuit, brought under the Freedom of Information Act against the Passport Office of the US Dept of State, it came out that Mama Obama had not had a US Passport until the future President was age four - which meant that she must have been inside the United States when he was born)
edit on 5/31/12 by Shoonra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/31/12 by Shoonra because: (no reason given)


Of course, if those two court decisions are not enough for you, you have to consider this fact: Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico - a fact not disputed by anyone - and there is no documentation to show (nor was it ever claimed) that he (George Romney) was ever naturalized. So, if both parents MUST be US citizens to make the candidate eligible, what does that mean regarding Mitt Romney?
edit on 5/31/12 by Shoonra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/31/12 by Shoonra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/31/12 by Shoonra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 

this thread isn't about WKA or any other case and i refuse to participate in a battle reserved for SCOTUS.
besides, that isn't the topic of this thread.

also, since the decision of WKA has -0- impact on the status known as "natural born", its precedent is equally inapplicable. Native born is not equal to or determined in the same manner as Natural Born.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by vexati0n
 

If you are born on US soil, you are a natural-born Citizen.
wrong, you would be "native" born, not natural born.
still a citizen, especially via the 14th but not one of "natural born status".

The terms "native-born" and "natural-born" (with or without hyphens) are used interchangeably in law.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 

nonetheless does go into great detail to define what natural born status is
then i would suggest you quote it because i know for sure "natural born" wasn't ever mentioned.

just because a case is presented as applicable doesn't mean it is.
in this case, WKA has no bearing what so ever.


"Native born" and "natural born" are synonymous terms under law.
not under current law or common law from which current law was based.
got any links to back up your assertion ??

WKA only addresses the issue of basic citizenship, not the refined status of "Natural born".

as many scholars and researchers alike have detemined the question has not been "adequately" addressed, why would you infer it has ??



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
The United States v. Wong Kim Ark (link) actually defines "native born" citizen. The phrase "natural born" is nowhere to be found in that decision.

Wrong. The term "natural-born" (use a hyphen) is found within the decision exactly 30 times. Try searching yourself:

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

The phrase "native-born" (which is synonymous anyway) is found in the ruling only 15 times. Are you just making stuff up, or did not not search with the hyphen in the word?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by doryinaz
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Before you chuckle your way into a coma....relax....more and more details are emerging daily....here's my question to YOU....If it is proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Potus is foreign born....or that his father was not a US Citizen, what are you and all those name-callers going to do about it??? Just sigh and let it go, because it's easier???...That's what I thought....


They will wallow in the afterbirth of course.

Little of the egg on face.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 

nonetheless does go into great detail to define what natural born status is
then i would suggest you quote it because i know for sure "natural born" wasn't ever mentioned.

It is mentioned, as I stated above, but you omitted the hyphen between "natural" and "born" in your search, I suggest you search the term in the ruling as "natural-born" and see what it says, the phrase is used 30 times in the winning argument, and it's used interchangably with "native-born" over, and over and over again.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...


Originally posted by Honor93

"Native born" and "natural born" are synonymous terms under law.
not under current law or common law from which current law was based.
got any links to back up your assertion ??

WKA only addresses the issue of basic citizenship, not the refined status of "Natural born".

as many scholars and researchers alike have detemined the question has not been "adequately" addressed, why would you infer it has ??


Some quotes from Wong Kim Ark:


The English statute of 11 & 12 Wm. III. (1700) c. 6, entitled 'An act to enable his majesty's natural-born subjects to inherit the estate of their ancestors, either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens,' enacted that 'all and every person or persons, being the king's natural-born subject or subjects, within any of the king's realms or dominions,' might and should thereafter lawfully inherit and make their titles by descent to any lands 'from any of their ancestors, lineal or collateral, although the father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor, of such person or persons, by, from, through or under whom' title should be made or derived, had been or should be 'born out of the king's allegiance, and out of his majesty's realms and dominions,' as fully and effectually, as if such parents or ancestors 'had been naturalized or natural-born subject or subjects within the king's dominions.' 7 Statutes of the Realm, 590. It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called 'natural-born subjects.' As that statute included persons born 'within any of the king's realms or dominions,' if of course extended to the colonies, and, not having been repealed in Maryland, was in force there. In McCreery v. Somerville (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concernedt he title to land in the state of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that state of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were 'native-born citizens of the [169 U.S. 649, 662] United States'; and without such assumption the case would not have presented the question decided by the court, which, as stated by Mr. Justice Story in delivering the opinion, was 'whether the statute applies to the case of a living alien ancestor, so as to create a title by heirship, where none would exist by the common law, if the ancestor were a natural-born subject.' Id. 356.



Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832) 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the state of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Wm. III. had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that by that law a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject; quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co. Litt. 8a, that 'if an alien cometh into England, and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm'; and saying that such a child 'was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law, stated by this court in McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354.'


I could go on, but since I've linked it you or anyone else can do it yourself.
edit on 5/31/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Shoonra
 


Hawaii hasnt VERIFIED diddly doo doo squat. They produced documents they CLAIM are legit.

But that would require INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION, which they have chosen to deny to every person and govt official that has requested access.

Nope they made CLAIMS so far and nothing more.

Just like Obamy Shammy made a lot of claims for a balanced budget, examining every single expense line by line and complete transparency of the office of president.

He gave everyone Trance-parency.

Lots o turds, make a sandwich.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 
clarifying that the Constitution itself does not define these words is not an argument for the definition of "natural born".
this case does NOT address the issue specifically, period.

further, it goes on to declare ... from your link

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the 'general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of 'Aliens' and 'Natives," says: 'Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are, in theory, born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent.' 'To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born, not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government.
referencing Obama,
he would again be the exception to the rule.
it would not be wise to apply the "rule" to the exception.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 
don't presume so much as i didn't use a research link, i went to the SCOTUS volumes.
the WKA argument is not about "natural born" status and a hypen has no bearing on the law/laws involved.

ps -- i quoted YOUR link

the term can be mentioned as many times as an argument permits, still doesn't make it the foundation of the argument and that is what counts here.

quoting an argument is still an argument.
it is the decision that matters.
WKA was never detemined to be a "natural born" citizen.
native born, yes but not natural born and the terms are not synonymous (although many try)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 
clarifying that the Constitution itself does not define these words is not an argument for the definition of "natural born".
this case does NOT address the issue specifically, period.

further, it goes on to declare ... from your link

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the 'general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of 'Aliens' and 'Natives," says: 'Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are, in theory, born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent.' 'To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born, not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government.
referencing Obama,
he would again be the exception to the rule.
it would not be wise to apply the "rule" to the exception.

Obama's father was not an ambassador of a foreign government (nor was he a member of an invading army), he was merely a citizen of a foreign government so his status means nothing as far as the allegiance Obama owes by virtue of his birth on U.S. soil. You've apparently completely misunderstood that section of the ruling, willfully or not, by omitting from your quote here what is stated in the preceeding paragraphs which explain the definition of "allegiance" (and in other sections of the ruling):


In U. S. 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 [169 U.S. 649, 663] 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.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.

The supreme judicial court of Massachusetts, speaking by Mr. Justice ( afterwards Chief Justice) Sewall, early held that the determination of the question whether a man was a citizen or an alien was 'to be governed altogether by the principles of the common law,' and that it was established, with few exceptions, 'that a man, born within the jurisdiction of the common law, is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term 'citizenship." Gardner v. Ward (1805) 2 Mass. 244, note. And again: 'The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born; and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance was born.' Kilham v. Ward (1806) Id. 236, 265. It may here be observed that in a recent English case Lord Coleridge expressed the opinion of the queen's bench division that the statutes of 4 Geo. II. (1731) c. 21, and 13 Geo. III. (1773) c. 21 (hereinafe r referred to), 'clearly recognize that to the king in his politic, and not in his personal, capacity, is the allegiance of his subjects due.' Isaacson v. Durant, 17 Q. B. Div. 54, 65.


Allegiance in Common Law is based upon the soil on which one is born, not the citizenship of the parent, except in the cases where the parent is either a foreign ambassador or a member of an invading army. Obama's father was neither of these things, and so it does not affect his birth status.
edit on 5/31/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowalker
reply to post by Shoonra
 


Hawaii hasnt VERIFIED diddly doo doo squat. They produced documents they CLAIM are legit.

But that would require INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION, which they have chosen to deny to every person and govt official that has requested access.

Nope they made CLAIMS so far and nothing more.

Just like Obamy Shammy made a lot of claims for a balanced budget, examining every single expense line by line and complete transparency of the office of president.

He gave everyone Trance-parency.

Lots o turds, make a sandwich.


No one bites on reality.

The truth sucks for Obamatrons.....





top topics
 
50
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join