Sheriff Joe Arpaio Kicks Lawless Obama's Ass on FOX 06 25 2012

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Phoenix

 

Minor v. Happersett does not attempt to define the term natural born citizen. As it was dealing with voting rights they first had to determine whether or not Minor was a US citizen. In the decision the Justices specifically state they are not trying to define the term. They are merely determining whether or not Minor was a citizen and since she was born to two US citizens on US soil she clearly was. In Elk v. Wilkins the court's reasoning was that since Indian territory is technically an alien nation it does not count as US soil in terms of determining citizenship. The exact words of the court was that since Elk was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth he was not a US citizen. As for Osborn v. Bank of the United States I'm at a loss for seeing why it's even pertinent. On a quick perusal I don't see anything that has to do with citizenship.

Lynch v. Clarke on the other hand deals explicitly with defining the term natural born citizen. To quote the decision from that case:

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.

This was upheld in In re Look Tin Sing, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and most recently in Perkins v. Elg which states in the decision that anyone born in the US is capable of holding the office of President even if they are raised in another country.

"X" YASFOS here it boggles the mind, M&H defines "natural born" and you can quote disenting opinion all you want and dissemnate to other blown case's such as won kim, don't blow the smoke my way!

Come on - its been hashed and rehashed so many times don't even waste others time.

Pose my question to you - why such ardent support of someone with so many holes in their history, paid?

reply to post by LastProphet527


Right Idea - wrong movie - watch the correct version:

Your title is misleading and hopeshattering. I was really hoping Joe would talk some schmack but he really didnt ...Just for entertainment sake..I love it when people like Breitbart talk schmack about Obama and then they end up dead...SO entertaining....Its like , whos on the kill list ? whos on the indefinate detention list?

It is you people who are making junk up.

And I'm no Obamney supporter.

The truth is the truth.

And it is indeed you birthers who keep on bringing this crap up over and over again, raising the same points that have been debunked over and over again. not us. Stop trying to put this on us. That's entirely dishonest. The onus is on you to prove it. YOU ARE THE ONES MAKING THE CLAIMS!

The truth of the matter is Obamney is eligible to be President, legally and lawfully. He is a liar and many other rotten things, but he was truly born in Hawaii and is not a Kenyan.

It is your irrational hatred that keeps this going. Anybody else of any real intelligence sees right through your crap.

Please, you are no heroes. You're just a bunch of scam artists trying to make a buck.

reply to post by Phoenix


Let's quote the pertinent part of Minor v. Happersett:

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 [p168] 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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

All this case did was give an overview of the term natural-born citizen. It explicitly states that it was not going to attempt to clear up the doubts regarding the term. It was enough to know that someone born to two US citizens was a citizen. Minor v. Happersett is irrelevant in this matter. As I said in my last post, the last case to attempt to define the term natural born citizen was Perkins v. Elg. In the decision of that case it clearly stated that anyone born on US soil was eligible of becoming President. This is the standing precedent and the current definition laid down by the branch tasked with defining the term.

Originally posted by InternetGremlin

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

It also amazes me how so many here can claim to be defenders of the Constitution and at the same time defend Arpaio so vehemently. Him and his department have been shown in the court of law to take part in unconstitutional practices. It just doesn't make sense. He spits on the Constitution when it doesn't suit his agenda and yet if you listened to people on here he's pretty much the greatest and most patriotic American since George Washington.

I value your input and we've talked before about Arpaio. I only wish to know what you are referring to here.

Can you please detail some of his unconstitutional actions? I am unaware of them.

If they are about his chain gangs, pink underwear, and tent city then never mind because, I love those ideas and those are not suppose to be pleasantries while incarcerated.

I am only curious if I am missing something. If he had broken the law as you say, would he not be gone from said position?

Read this, it's only the tip of the iceberg

Truth about joe arpaio

reply to post by Phoenix


Sorry, think Xcalibur has you on this one. No need to beat a dead horse.

But hey, I suppose you also think that he spent millions to seal his records, right? Or maybe issued an executive order to do it?

reply to post by flyswatter


Actually, he did - and has spent over 1.5 million in legal fees to keep those records sealed. information release on one of those radio shows Jerome Corsi was guest on.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
This is prob way too late in the thread to respond to your nonsense but who cares: What are you saying? let illegals come here and take US citizens jobs? You are the problem in this country, along with countless others. 1 of 2 things; you are either an individual lacking sufficient IQ or you are a govt operative minion. Ya you prob wont see this response, but I'm satisfied for writing it.

Originally posted by 1BornPatriot
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Actually, he did - and has spent over 1.5 million in legal fees to keep those records sealed. information release on one of those radio shows Jerome Corsi was guest on.

Patiently awaiting your source for this information.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Phoenix

 

Let's quote the pertinent part of Minor v. Happersett:

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 [p168] 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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

All this case did was give an overview of the term natural-born citizen. It explicitly states that it was not going to attempt to clear up the doubts regarding the term. It was enough to know that someone born to two US citizens was a citizen. Minor v. Happersett is irrelevant in this matter. As I said in my last post, the last case to attempt to define the term natural born citizen was Perkins v. Elg. In the decision of that case it clearly stated that anyone born on US soil was eligible of becoming President. This is the standing precedent and the current definition laid down by the branch tasked with defining the term.

Nice misquote but you still have not answered the "paid" issue nor why the ardent support for a definate failure as a president. His own party members are running away now.

reply to post by Phoenix


What misquote? That comes directly from the decision of Minor v. Happersett. Also I did answer your question. Check the bottom of the last page.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Phoenix

 

What misquote? That comes directly from the decision of Minor v. Happersett. Also I did answer your question. Check the bottom of the last page.

I can quote also;

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. 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,’

So there it is, you quote parts you like I quote parts I like!

Originally posted by 1BornPatriot
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Actually, he did - and has spent over 1.5 million in legal fees to keep those records sealed. information release on one of those radio shows Jerome Corsi was guest on.

No, no he has not. He has not paid a dime to "keep records sealed" and this has been explained over and over again. Do a search for recent threads here on ATS and please do educate yourself on the matter.

That is unless you have some miracle information that nobody else here has. But my guess is no.

Originally posted by 1BornPatriot
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Actually, he did - and has spent over 1.5 million in legal fees to keep those records sealed. information release on one of those radio shows Jerome Corsi was guest on.

This is such a lie that even the hardcore Birthers stopped using it....or so I thought.

Here are two links that show it to be a lie...or you can continue to spread disinfo and ignore the truth...

The first link has all the birther lies...and they debunk all of them..

Obama’s legal fees

President Obama has spent over $2 million in legal fees defending lawsuits about his birth certificate.

reply to post by 1BornPatriot


Joe is RIGHT .... Its all POLITICS and nothing to do with ENFORCING National and State Law.
OBAMA wants the 3rd world Illegals in so they can VOTE him back in office. The Writing is on the Wall.
All Ya Gotta do is READ IT !

reply to post by Phoenix


I'm not exactly sure why you like that part. First it doesn't define natural born citizen. Second, it seems to that they are saying there are two ways to become a citizen, birth and naturalization. Since Obama has birthright citizenship he is a natural born citizen in the eyes of the court.