Birthers Hail Judge’s Decision That Could “Depose” Obama

Ummm, yeah......ummm, because following the Constitution is such frivolous sh!t....what a dumba$$!!! How dare Americans demand that the Constitution be followed...how many times does Minor vs. Happersett need to be quoted to you? Obama's own admission in his own damned book says his father was NOT American. Minor vs Happersett says Obama is ineligible ...only a moronic, self-serving fool would wish to obfuscate this truth.

With no respect whatsoever,
gastropod

 

Minor vs Happersett says no such thing. It makes no ruling in regard to natural born citizen.

Here, go and get some education . How many times do the words of James Madison father of the Constitution, need to be quoted to dimwits like yourself.

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States" James Madison, May 22nd, 1789.



It's where you are born, not where your father was born. This is a Republic, not a f'kng monarchy you tosspot. Birthright is not made paternally, handed down, as a king would.

Born on US soil is natural born. End of. It has always been fundamental in all western common law, totally understood by the founders and is made evident by James Madison.

Go and take some citizen courses you babbling brainless birther.

 

Seems simple enough.

 

to simpletons, obviously.

 

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/


"...because Obama needs either the Fourteenth Amendment or statute to remove the alienage with which he was born by being born to a non-U.S. citizen father, he is in effect at best a naturalized citizen “at birth,” who automatically becomes a “citizen of the United States” and needs no further naturalization after birth. But the Founders and Framers, as they revealed through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, meant a “natural born Citizen” to be a child whose first breath of life was as a person in allegiance and citizenship only to the United States and to no other country. In other words, to be a “natural born Citizen” it was not sufficient that one was a citizen of the United States “at birth.” Rather, what was needed was that “at birth” one was only a “citizen of the United States” and of no other nation. Because of the possibility of jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from one’s parents) and jus soli (citizenship acquired from the territory on which one is born) providing allegiance and citizenship to a child at the moment of birth, they adopted the “natural born citizen" standard for future presidents which was a child born in the country to citizen parents. This means that a “natural born Citizen” is a child who is born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to a father and mother who are both either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.”

Obama has conceded that his father was a citizen of Great Britain at the time Obama was born. Hence, even assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii, he was not born to a father who was either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.” He was not born as a child whose first breath of life was as a person in allegiance and citizenship only to the United States and to no other country. Obama may be a Fourteenth Amendment "naturalized born Citizen," but he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

 

OK, being lazy. And this has been brought up many times. Hawaii was and is a State of the United States.

'The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.[1]'



c

 

"and jus soli (citizenship acquired from the territory on which one is born) providing allegiance and citizenship to a child at the moment of birth, they adopted the “natural born citizen" standard for future presidents which was a child born in the country <strike> to citizen parents."</strike>

jus soli "right of the soil".. nothing to do with parents' status.

blogs don't trump James Madison's explanation.

 

Madison has a long list of worthy credentials, but I don't see any that automatically mean his opinion of this question trumps all else.

 

"by birth," including any child born "in" the United States

Yes, quoting myself. Is the above not clear about 'by birth'? I'm really just asking, seriously. I've read an awful lot here by both sides, and this just seems to be simple enough. If he was born in Hawaii, then he is entitled to run for President, it seems. ? ?



c

 

Except that the memo from the CRS was written by a Jack Maskell who attempts to re-write the actual legal opinion of the court.

On pg. 48, Maskell states:

In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221

221 Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920). The Supreme Court also noted there: “It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.” 253 U.S. at 464.

Reading this yesterday, I had a fleeting moment of self-doubt. Could I have missed this case? Did the Supreme Court really state that the son of two aliens was a natural-born citizen? The Twilight Zone theme suddenly chimed in. I then clicked over to the actual case, and of course, the Supreme Court said no such thing.

The petitioner was born in California to parents who were both US citizens. His father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of the holding in US v. Wong Kim Ark. His mother’ place of birth was not mentioned. Regardless, she was covered by the derivative citizenship statute, and was, therefore, a US citizen when the child was born.

It was alleged that the petitioner had obtained a false identity and that the citizen parents were not his real parents. But the Supreme Court rejected the State’s secret evidence on this point and conducted their citizenship analysis based upon an assumption these were petitioner’s real parents.

Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen. But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents. The Supreme Court rejected that contention. And Maskell’s ruse highlights the depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue. I can imagine Mini-Me sitting on his lap while this was being prepared.

When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork. He starts the reversed vivisection off with the following:

“t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son…”

These are the first few words of a genuine quote from the Court’s opinion. Then Maskell goes way out of context for the next two body parts. The first is not in quotation marks:

of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is

And finally, an unrelated quote from elsewhere in the Court’s opinion:

“a natural born American citizen ….”

Put it all together and you get the following monstrosity:

…the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”

But the Supreme Court never said that. Here’s what they actually said:

“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.” Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).


This real quote – when liberated from Maskell’s embalming fluid – does not resemble the propaganda at all.

Maskell avoids the inconvenient truth that the Court took direct notice of the authorities having established that the petitioner’s father was born in the US and that he was a voter:

“…the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.” Id. at 460.

Maskell never mentions that the father and mother were US citizens at the time of petitioner’s birth in California.

This deceitful exercise alone strips the entire memo of all credibility.

Had Maskell simply offered his arguments fairly, using real quotes instead of Frankensteining this crap, I would not have attacked him personally. But such deceptive behavior deserves no respect whatsoever. The memo is pure propaganda, and it’s not even shy about it.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...rn-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/