BIG NEWS- Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent'

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


To be fair the intention of the Founding Fathers does matter. They intended to be as vague as possible when they wrote the Constitution. They were smart enough to know that there is no way they could predict the views of later generations so instead of providing clear cut definitions and laws that wouldn't be applicable later on they decided to let those later generations make decisions for themselves. We see this approach clearly exemplified in the Natural Born Citizen clause. Nowhere is this term defined. They left it up to the courts to provide an interpretation. As a result Natural Born Citizen is now defined as anyone with birthright citizenship as this has been the opinion of every court that has approached the issue.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


What the 14th Amendment did was establish a new title of citizen.

The 14th Amendment did not override the meaning of natural born Citizen because it did not address this.

A federal citizen existed prior to the 14th Amendment and only in territories acquired by the federal government.

What the 14th Amendment did was further the rights given, by law, to the existing federal government citizens.

it was never voluntary

Wrong.

Initially the Social Security program only applied to the jobs that it covered, which were about half the jobs in the US.
It was voluntary for business owners to decide if they wanted to enter into the program.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

They left it up to the courts to provide an interpretation. As a result Natural Born Citizen is now defined as anyone with birthright citizenship as this has been the opinion of every court that has approached the issue.

Wrong.

"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state".
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

"The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other".
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

"There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such".
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual".
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)

"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. (See Slaughter House cases, 83 US (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)). Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."
Jones v. Temmer, 839 F. Supp. 1226

link to source

It seems as if the courts have ruled in an opposite manner to which you believe.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

To be fair the intention of the Founding Fathers does matter. They intended to be as vague as possible when they wrote the Constitution. They were smart enough to know that there is no way they could predict the views of later generations so instead of providing clear cut definitions and laws that wouldn't be applicable later on they decided to let those later generations make decisions for themselves. We see this approach clearly exemplified in the Natural Born Citizen clause. Nowhere is this term defined. They left it up to the courts to provide an interpretation. As a result Natural Born Citizen is now defined as anyone with birthright citizenship as this has been the opinion of every court that has approached the issue.

This was a nice try, but the courts have repeated over and over and over that two distinct class of citizen exist in the US.
State and Federal.

When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, the only citizens were the Citizens of the States.
The federal government had not yet acquired territories so a federal government citizen did not exist.

The founding fathers were not vague.

What they wrote was implicitly understood.

Your point is baseless and without merit.

I have shown you numerous court cases that contradict it.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Wow I have never seen such mangling of the law. Of course there are two kinds of citizenship. I am a citizen of the United States and I am a citizen of Virginia. The Constitution of the United States applies to me as I am a citizen of the United States. The Constitution of Virginia also applies to me because I am a citizen of Virginia. However, since I am not a citizen of Alabama its constitution does not help define my relationship with the government. I really don't see how you could have confused the decisions in these cases so royally. They don't even define the term natural born citizen so I fail to see why they are pertinent.

The earliest case with the specific goal of defining the term natural born citizen was Lynch v. Clarke in which the judge concluded:

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 the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.

The most recent case I am aware of that explicitly defined the term was Perkins v. Elg. This states that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen and even if they move to another country they are eligible to be President. In between these cases there were a number of others that upheld the precedent set by Lynch v. Clarke.

We can even go ahead and look at Black's Law Dictionary which has been used by your side a number of times. It states a Natural Born Citizen is:

A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.

Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is in the jurisdiction of the United States. Ergo Obama is a natural born citizen.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

it was never voluntary

Wrong.

Initially the Social Security program only applied to the jobs that it covered, which were about half the jobs in the US.
It was voluntary for business owners to decide if they wanted to enter into the program.

so it as not voluntary for the people who were in or out of it - which is what you were talking about because you linked it to social security cards - which are issued to people, not business organisations.

Man you really have it bad!!

reply to post by kyviecaldges


More BS - SS Cards weren't in all caps until the late 80s (I think). You can find examples of non-all caps SS cards from the 1980s with ease.

Silly freeman nonsense

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Wow I have never seen such mangling of the law.

I am quoting you law.

You said that the courts have decided multiple times what exactly is a natural born citizen and I have shown you that two categories of citizen exist within the US.

A state Citizen and a federal citizen.

The court case that you have referenced Lynch v. Clarke, did, in fact, define a natural born citizen, but what you conveniently left out is the date of the court decision.

1844.

This is prior to the 14th Amendment and only applied to State Citizenship.

Because as I said, in order to meet the requirements of a citizen to the united States, one must be born in the states.
The decision in the Lynch case concerned the dominions and allegiances of the united States, no federal territories.
It did not apply to federal citizens because that was a federal territory and not part of a nation.

The united States prior to 1871 was a collection of unified states.
It was not a collection of states within a Union.

You have cherry picked information to support your premise, and you, my friend, have mangled the law.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

so it as not voluntary for the people who were in or out of it - which is what you were talking about because you linked it to social security cards - which are issued to people, not business organisations.

Man you really have it bad!!

Your argument is baseless and does not justify a counter.

Unless you can form some type of coherent argument I will ignore you.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

More BS - SS Cards weren't in all caps until the late 80s (I think). You can find examples of non-all caps SS cards from the 1980s with ease.

Silly freeman nonsense

This is not freeman nonsense.

The all caps name can be recognized in a variety of forms.
Once it is recognized it is a contract and binding.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


There was a clear distinction of a federal government and state government as early as the signing of the Constitution. This is clearly indicated by the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment. As a result people have always been federal citizens and state citizens. They have always been citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they live. It seems like the type of government you're describing is that laid out in the Articles of Confederation which was an abject failure and was quickly replaced by the government laid out in the Constitution.

Also, nice job on ignoring the other case I mention by name (which took place in 1939) or the definition from the most recent edition of Black's Law Dictionary.

reply to post by kyviecaldges

Yet you cannot find the law that makes it so. So it's in your imagination.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

There was a clear distinction of a federal government and state government as early as the signing of the Constitution. This is clearly indicated by the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment. As a result people have always been federal citizens and state citizens. They have always been citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they live. It seems like the type of government you're describing is that laid out in the Articles of Confederation which was an abject failure and was quickly replaced by the government laid out in the Constitution.

Also, nice job on ignoring the other case I mention by name (which took place in 1939) or the definition from the most recent edition of Black's Law Dictionary.

Prior to 1871 we did not have a recognized nation.

The Federalist paper no. 39 discusses this at length.

The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

link to source

Your Blacks law dictionary meaning does not apply to the original intent of the Constitution because at the time they did not perceive the US as a nation, but a federation.
Those were quotes from James Madison...

Who happens to be the founding father whose notes from his diary formed the basis of the Constitution.

They have always been citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they live.

People have been federal citizens by way of state Citizenship, but they are a different distinction.
And remember, we are discussing the original intent of the founding fathers, which matters greatly, your words not mine.

The only sole federal citizens were those born in federal territories and the federal government did not begin acquiring territories until AFTER the writing of the Constitution.

It seems like the type of government you're describing is that laid out in the Articles of Confederation which was an abject failure and was quickly replaced by the government laid out in the Constitution.

No, I am describing the government as it existed when the constitution was written.
We have a distinctly different form of government currently.
We now live in a democracy.
It is a representative democracy, but a democracy still that was created in 1871.
The 14th Amendment created the citizen class that belongs to this representative democracy.

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to create federal citizenship for the freed slaves.
This was because the feds could not force the states to endow citizenship onto anyone.

This did not exist until 1871 with the incorporation of DC, and when deciding original intent we have to look at the historical era in which it was written.

Also, nice job on ignoring the other case I mention by name (which took place in 1939) or the definition from the most recent edition of Black's Law Dictionary.

Since you seem to want to NOT link your sources, I have been looking it up.

But anyone with a constitutional understanding knows that all Federal Common law was disregarded in 1934 with the Erie decision.
If you want to admit that the original intent of the founding fathers no longer applies because we have a completely different form of government that ignores all decisions prior to 1934, then I am fine with that, but I don't see the actual federal government admitting this.

To do that, they would have to tell everyone the truth.

That we are in bankruptcy receivership and the Constitution has become a compact outlining the civil rights given to the people who were pledged as collateral on an outstanding debt.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

Yet you cannot find the law that makes it so. So it's in your imagination.

edit on 22/7/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)

To be honest with you I am in a debate with 4 people right now and I have to prioritize.

I do not have any interest in proving this to you.
This thread is about Barry's legitimacy and this issue has been covered at length by Veritas.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Total BS.

www.elvispresleymusic.com.au...

Again, a simple google search will tell you that all social security card names are not in all caps. Found a few from the 1980s that are a mix, just like Obamas and Elvis'.

The concept that all caps is meaningful is freeman bs and is not even vaguely true.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

More BS - SS Cards weren't in all caps until the late 80s (I think). You can find examples of non-all caps SS cards from the 1980s with ease.

Silly freeman nonsense

This is not freeman nonsense.

The all caps name can be recognized in a variety of forms.
Once it is recognized it is a contract and binding.

What is freeman nonsense is that the capitals have any effect at all.

reply to post by longlostbrother


I have already told that psycho character from Finland that you are only distracting the debate.

I have provided you with a variety of court decisions that show that two classes of citizen exist.

I have provided you with law dictionary meanings that validate this.

If y'all want to keep playing tag team wrestling in this debate then that is up to you.

Right now the only person sticking to the topic is xcalibur whatevery number.

I will respond to timely arguments.
You are trying to distract the debate and take it into a pointless area.

This is a straw man argument and a waste of my time.
If you want to debate this then start a thread and send me a PM and I will be happy to oblige you.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

Yet you cannot find the law that makes it so. So it's in your imagination.

edit on 22/7/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)

To be honest with you I am in a debate with 4 people right now and I have to prioritize.

I do not have any interest in proving this to you.
This thread is about Barry's legitimacy and this issue has been covered at length by Veritas.

Eh ... you're the one quoting here. If there's a law that exists on the books as you say, you should have no problems finding it. Or Veritas. Either one of you, I dont think it really matters.

If neither of you are willing to provide the source information, which both of you have said exists, I dont really think you've got much of a leg to stand on here. Not that you did anyway, because the rest of us live in a reality not clouded by ancient Roman laws. But hey, to each their own.

If you can find a lawyer willing to argue all of this in court, and a judge to even come remotely close to agreeing with him, I'd eat my hat. And a printout of this thread. No ketchup or mustard.