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.

 

Hawaii Verifies Obama a Dual Citizen: Not Qualified For Presidency

page: 5
50
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


We receive our genetic code from our parents. We also receive our sense of right and wrong from those who raise us. THE major influence on who we are and what we believe in comes from our parents.

The only reason for these tests of eligibility is to ensure that POTUS believes in freedom as envisaged in the US Constitution.

P



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
It is interesting to watch the Government drones come out to pat each other on the back and try to manipulate the masses. I also find it enlightening to see which threads the GDs are interested in. It should be obvious that they come out in force when told to and therefore one can determine what subjects the dark side is alarmed about.

This issue always brings them out in full battle array. The name calling and specious arguments are easy to identify. These drones are not stupid. They know that a Supreme Court decision on the issue of 'native born' has no relevance to the issue of 'natural born.' But still, they use it. They use it because many are too lazy to check. But the other side, the so called birthers, are always willing to do the hard work.

To me, this topic is not gray, it is black and white. Obama is not qualified to be POTUS.

What I like about these threads is that it allows me to identify the Government drones and for this reason I will continue to read these threads.

P

That's Horlicks, and quite frankly you know that IMO. I am actually very disappointed with the recent Obama, but that is not to say that some truth should abide,

U.S. Supreme Court. Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court reinforce this understanding of the citizenship clause. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents, is entitled to birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. After traveling to China on a temporary visit, he was denied permission to return to the U.S. The government argued that Wong Kim Ark was not a citizen, even though he was born in the U.S. By a 6-2 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument."

That make your post nothing more than a side issue, which is non-inclusive for the native born, if that were their wish.
edit on 31-5-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


When all else fails call the poster names and denigrate them.

Nice avatar, reminds me of Chicken Little!

P



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


When all else fails call the poster names and denigrate them.

Nice avatar, reminds me of Chicken Little!

P


Yup, the sky is falling...

Always trying to find the mentality level of the person I'm dealing with. Apparently that's not yours.... but let it be known, that it is really difficult to go lower, however, I'll give it a shot....

Borneded here, natchural borneded.
not borneded here, not natchural borneded,
not matter who daddy iz or where daddy borneded

How's that, make more sense to you? Work with me here, I'm really trying to get it through to you. I dont' think I'll be able to translate to grunts but can try to find someone who can if that's what you need.
edit on 31-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
2 citizen parents are required for natural born status.


No it is not a requirement. You do not require both parents to be citizens in order to be a natural born citizen, and this has been stated clearly in Obama's case:

Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party,

Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV) ; Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett does not hold otherwise

www.scribd.com...

Farrar v. Obama,

Obama "became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen,"

www.ajc.com...

Ankeny v. Governor

President Obama was a United States citizen at the moment of his birth in Hawaii. Since he held citizenship at birth all constitutional qualifications have been met. There is no basis to question the presidents citizenship or qualifications to hold office

www.scribd.com...

Tisdale v Obama

The eligibility requirements to be president of the United States are such that the individual must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, S1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g United States v Ark, 169 U.S 649, 702 (1898)

www.scribd.com...

Supreme court justice J. Grey in his ruling on the Wong Kim Ark (1898) case:


The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that:

“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,”

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization

www.law.cornell.edu...

We can spend all day linking to opinion pieces from websites, politicians, on what a natural born citizen is but in the end these issues are left up to the courts for intepretation. The law, and the question of Natural born citizenship has been settled.

In addition to this we already had one other president before whom was born to one parent whom was not a citizen of the United States, Chester Arthur. His father was Irish Canadian who had only resided in the United States for a year before Chester Arthur was born. He did not have U.S citizenship. The courts had no issue with Arthur becoming the president, and there is no reason for them to all of sudden do so now, in the case of Obama. The courts have also made this matter clear.
community.myvoa.com...

If it is so important to birthers to make it so that only children born of citizen parents be defined as natural born citizens, they will have to wait until after Obama leaves office which may be next year or 2016. Somehow though, I doubt birthers will persue this once Obama is out of office, because this matter is all about Obama for them and for you.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 

he was merely a citizen of a foreign government

as a member of the British colonial forces, he was hardly just a citizen of a foreign government or a student as you imply.

but alas, that isn't the topic of this thread either, would you care to comment on the topic at hand and save these deflections for an appropriate thread ??



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 

he was merely a citizen of a foreign government

as a member of the British colonial forces, he was hardly just a citizen of a foreign government or a student as you imply.


Barack Obama senior did not go to the United States on official business to the government or to the colonial forces, he was a student, this doesn't apply to him. You may have a different intepretation, but this is your personal position on the matter.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 
since when does Title 8 of US Code supercede INS regulations or the Constitution for that matter ??
oh, that's right, it doesn't. never has, never will.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 

Anyway, Obama and Romney's births are the exact same case.
how so ?? it is reported that Romney's father was a US citizen when Mitt was born.
Obama Sr, never.


If Obama were ineligible,
which he has always has been.

then Romney would also be ineligible.
only if his father never obtained US citizenship prior to Mitts birth, then this argument would have merit.


Obama was born in Hawaii [so he says], he is a natural [native not natural born] born citizen of the United States.


It doesn't matter if his father was born on mars, he'd still be a natural born citizen of the United States.
nope, he would still be just a basic citizen with no special status, just like today.


Romney's dad was born in Mexico, but Romney is still a natural born citizen of the United States.
this has no bearing on the Obama status

It is the EXACT SAME SITUATION whether you like it or not
repeat this as many times as the national debt has grown just today and it still doesn't make it true.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


What happened to all the birthers saying they would shut up if Obama produced a birth certificate?
birthers have been requesting a legitimate record.
one of which Mr Obama has yet to provide or produce for that matter.
he hasn't produced, they/we haven't shut up and why should they ??



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
which he has always has been.


Says nobody else but birthers.


repeat this as many times as the national debt has grown just today and it still doesn't make it true.


He doesn't have to repeat it to make it true, it already is. Your personal position on the matter doesn't change this reality. Obama is president, he is eligible and this has been confirmed by the courts, he may verywell get a second term, you can either face reality and accept this, or you can continue with the excuses.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by pheonix358
 


I'll ask a question I have asked a few times in the past and have yet to receive a response to. If someone is born on US soil to two US citizens but due to certain circumstances are raised on foreign soil by non-US citizens are they qualified to be president?
the only fair answer is it would be dependent upon when the citizen returned to US soil, established and maintainted residency for the duration specified in the Constitutional requirements section, their allegiance to the US, its people, its Constitution and its founding principles.

would said citizen be automatically disqualified from running in the POTUS nominations/elections, No.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
At first, I thought, hey, maybe they just don't know.... I was wrong
Then I thought, they must be kidding or something..... I was wrong
Then I figured , if they're shown the absolute proof, they'll have to accept it.... I was wrong

Now, I have come to the absolute conclusion that they're just outright IDIOTS ....and I'm right.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 

he was merely a citizen of a foreign government

as a member of the British colonial forces, he was hardly just a citizen of a foreign government or a student as you imply.


Barack Obama senior did not go to the United States on official business to the government or to the colonial forces, he was a student, this doesn't apply to him. You may have a different intepretation, but this is your personal position on the matter.
currently, my personal opinion on this matter is irrelevant.
so, by your logic or opinion ... all US forces who are educating overseas are NOT government employees ??? (or in the case of US service personnel, US property?)
how does that make any sense whatsoever ???



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
this again ???

In addition to this we already had one other president before whom was born to one parent whom was not a citizen of the United States, Chester Arthur. His father was Irish Canadian who had only resided in the United States for a year before Chester Arthur was born
Chesters father was a resident alien with paperwork ... Obama Sr, never.

and let's not forget, Chesters father OBTAINED US citizenship prior to Chesters 18th birthday and thus was considered a citizen at the time of Chesters birth ... Obama Sr, not so much.
edit on 31-5-2012 by Honor93 because: add text



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Actually, you're wrong but either don't want to get it or just refuse to.

Being born in America is not enough - that might make you a citizen but still not a "natural born citizen" as defined for the purposes of the constitution when dealing with who can be President. This is clear from the second part which states that only people who were already "citizens" at the time the constitution was adopted could also hold the office.

If you had stepped off the boat 1 day later and become a naturalized citizen, you would not be eligible. That's what it says in black in white and since it hasn't been changed it doesn't matter if it was 1 day later or 1 million - the only non native citizens who were eligible died a few hundred years ago.

You have to be born in the US to two parents who are both citizens, period.

If your take on it was correct there would be no need for anyone to try and change it, something that has been tried numerous times.

You also cannot be a dual citizen, a rule that also affects quite a few other government offices (a rule which has also been ignored now, apparently since we're allowing ineligible persons to hold the highest office).



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Actually, you're wrong but either don't want to get it or just refuse to.

Being born in America is not enough - that might make you a citizen but still not a "natural born citizen" as defined for the purposes of the constitution when dealing with who can be President. This is clear from the second part which states that only people who were already "citizens" at the time the constitution was adopted could also hold the office.

If you had stepped off the boat 1 day later and become a naturalized citizen, you would not be eligible. That's what it says in black in white and since it hasn't been changed it doesn't matter if it was 1 day later or 1 million - the only non native citizens who were eligible died a few hundred years ago.

You have to be born in the US to two parents who are both citizens, period.

If your take on it was correct there would be no need for anyone to try and change it, something that has been tried numerous times.

You also cannot be a dual citizen, a rule that also affects quite a few other government offices (a rule which has also been ignored now, apparently since we're allowing ineligible persons to hold the highest office).


One more time darlin, read it, if you don't comprehend, hire someone to tutor you
www.usconstitution.net...




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink

The only direct Supreme Court discussion on point as to the meaning of “natural-born citizen” in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution remains Chief Justice Waite’s discussion in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): 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. As WND has reported, according to the standard that both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of birth, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana would not qualify. Both have been discussed as future presidential candidates. Is Mitt Romney a natural-born citizen? Judging by the Happersett decision and most interpretations of the eligibility clause, a president’s parents would only have to be citizens of the U.S. at the time of his or her birth, not natural-born citizens. Therefore, even if George W. Romney’s birth in Mexico disqualified him from being a natural-born citizen, Mitt Romney could be a natural-born citizen, because his father was a citizen when his son was born. Opponents of George W. Romney’s presidential candidacy in 1968 argued that his grandparents had renounced their U.S. citizenship when they went to Mexico, but there is no evidence for that. Nor was it considered necessary for George W. Romney to become naturalized to be a U.S. citizen after he was brought to the United States for the first time when he was 5 years old. Moreover, decades after George W. Romney was brought to the U.S. by his parents, the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 201, 54 Stat. 1137, specifically provided that a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen, provided the father or mother, or both, at the time of the birth of the child is a U.S. citizen


www.wnd.com...


Romney still passes the strictest test of natural born citizen...he doesn't even need the obama precedent to cheat his way in.....but it is nice to be able to throw it back.


So maybe you should stop and read the last sentence of your post here.And explain this cheating your way in thing you describe. Maybe by reading your own source you can put this birth nonsense to rest,



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

Says nobody else but birthers.
oooooh, name calling first.
now that makes for a strong argument, please continue.


he may verywell get a second term
i wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
however, miracles have been known to occur and if they don't, they're simply manipulated, just like his last election. Change may have been his last platform to success but i tend to think his record of "change" will be his downfall this election.




edit on 31-5-2012 by Honor93 because: fix commentary



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join