Constitutional Scholar With Impeccable Credentials Explains What A True Natural Born Citizen Is

[Syriusly]

And we are entitled to believe that the birth certificate is altered, and all those that say they saw it, didn't directly go to files but SOMEONE brought it to them, and we have no idea who that person or persons were!

You are entitled to believe anything you want.

Doesn't matter- President Obama already convinced everyone who matters.

My personal theory about Birthers and Youtube videos

Writing is challenging for Birthers because it is far too easy for people to highlight written statements and then show how completely wrong that they are.

But Youtube video's- much harder quote and contradict.

So Stevie just makes up whatever BS he wants and says that is what the video says.

You nailed it. You can hit control F and find exactly what w you want in a document. So if you post a written argument, it can be shredded pretty quickly by someone who use a word search to find its weaknesses.

But a video? You've got to slog through every fuckin minute of that piece of shit. You have no indexing, no summaries, no way of finding what you want to look for. And when you do, you've got to create your own transcripts. Videos are less accessible. And so easier to hide bullshit in.

Yep- Youtube is the last resort of conmen......i.e. Birthers.

 

[Syriusly]

So accordingly, we have been governed by a fucking usurper.... SURPRISE!!!

And Ted Cruz is eligible to become president as his father became a naturalized citizen in 2005....OMG!!!

Cruz is a

A respected constitutional scholar and lawyer sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is in just over 6 minutes. His credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. In the brief video's, he gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to this outstanding scholar in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.
]

Because of course....real scholars use Youtube to release their scholarly works......

Real scholars can do anything they want with their work you unAmerican moron.

And Birthers will make up anything and claim that is what real scholars said.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

So....you have no reason why I would ignore the Director of the Department of Health of Hawaii on Hawaiian documents and instead believe .....you?

You're in excellent company. I can't think of a single reason to ignore Chiyome Fukino either.

Fukino 2 weeks before Obama released the long form on April 27, 2011 said to MSNBC's Michael Isikoff that she had seen the original and it was half typed and half handwritten. What he released was not anything close to being half typed and half handwritten.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

A respected constitutional scholar and lawyer sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is in just over 6 minutes. His credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. In the brief video's, he gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to this outstanding scholar in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.


His credentials:

He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Listen very closely.

Part one is 4:32



Part two is 2:03

Now that he has defined Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution, h should review Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 that defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:

"Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)"

Since the US Code is the polar opposite of what this Constitutional Scholar says, and since he is a lawyer, perhaps he should file a suit to declare that part of the US Code unconstitutional.

The code does not mention the Article 1 Section 2 term 'natural born citizen', only what defines a 14th amendment citizen.. Go back and listen to the scholar explain the 'Law of Nature' and ' Positive Law' in part one.

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

A respected constitutional scholar and lawyer sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is in just over 6 minutes. His credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. In the brief video's, he gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to this outstanding scholar in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.


His credentials:

He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Listen very closely.

Part one is 4:32



Part two is 2:03

Now that he has defined Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution, h should review Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 that defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:

"Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)"

Since the US Code is the polar opposite of what this Constitutional Scholar says, and since he is a lawyer, perhaps he should file a suit to declare that part of the US Code unconstitutional.

The code is for statute citizens. Nowhere in the code will you find natural born citizen. The Constitutional scholar discusses it. Go back and listen in the first 3 minutes of part one where he discusses the law of nature and positive law.

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

There are two kinds of citizens:
Naturalized and
Natural Born

No others.

Totally false. The Constitutional scholar destroys your myth.

 

[Camp]

So accordingly, we have been governed by a fucking usurper.... SURPRISE!!!

And Ted Cruz is eligible to become president as his father became a naturalized citizen in 2005....OMG!!!

Cruz is a

A respected constitutional scholar and lawyer sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is in just over 6 minutes. His credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. In the brief video's, he gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to this outstanding scholar in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.
]

Because of course....real scholars use Youtube to release their scholarly works......

Real scholars can do anything they want with their work you unAmerican moron.

Your scholar does not meet the accepted criteria for being a scholar of repute with impeccable credentials. Being a professor and having law degrees does not make a person a scholar. Pat Robertson University and Youtube video's don't really count for a whole lot.

 

[Syriusly]

So....you have no reason why I would ignore the Director of the Department of Health of Hawaii on Hawaiian documents and instead believe .....you?

You're in excellent company. I can't think of a single reason to ignore Chiyome Fukino either.

Fukino 2 weeks before Obama released the long form on April 27, 2011 said to MSNBC's Michael Isikoff that she had seen the original and it was half typed and half handwritten. What he released was not anything close to being half typed and half handwritten.

Lets go with the entire article Stevie.....and how right Fukino was- she knew what you and your kind are like:

No matter what state officials release on the issue, the "birthers" are going to question it, said Fukino. "They’re going to question the ink on which it was written or say it was fabricated," said Fukino. "The whole thing is silly."

Story: The Isikoff Files
As the top Hawaiian official in charge of state health records in 2008, when the issue of Obama's birth first arose, Fukino said she thought she had put the matter to rest. Contacted by NBC, Fukino expanded on previous public statements and made two key points when asked about Trump's recent comments.

The first is that the original so-called "long form" birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a "record of live birth" — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state's then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya.

Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document's validity. She later put out another public statement in July after reviewing the original birth record a second time"It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that," Fukino said.

Moreover, she added, her boss at the time, Lingle — who was backing John McCain for president — would presumably have to be in on any cover up since Fukino made her public comment at the governor's office's request. "Why would a Republican governor — who was stumping for the other guy — hold out on a big secret she asked.

Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is that the shorter, computer generated "certification of live birth" that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.

The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was "testy" when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said. The White House has dismissed all questions about the president's birth as "fictional nonsense.")

The certification that the campaign received back —which shows that Obama was born in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961 — was based on the content of the original document in state files, Fukino said.

"What he got, everybody got," said Fukino. "He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate."

Essentially Fukino said Birthers are idiots- and you have proven her correct.

It’s kind of ludicrous at this point," Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health, said in a rare telephone interview with NBC.

She was right then- and is still right.

 

[Syriusly]

A respected constitutional scholar and lawyer sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is in just over 6 minutes. His credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. In the brief video's, he gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to this outstanding scholar in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.


His credentials:

He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Listen very closely.

Part one is 4:32



Part two is 2:03

Now that he has defined Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution, h should review Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 that defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:

"Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)"

Since the US Code is the polar opposite of what this Constitutional Scholar says, and since he is a lawyer, perhaps he should file a suit to declare that part of the US Code unconstitutional.

The code is for statute citizens. Nowhere in the code will you find natural born citizen. The Constitutional scholar discusses it. Go back and listen in the first 3 minutes of part one where he discusses the law of nature and positive law.

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

There are two kinds of citizens:
Naturalized and
Natural Born

No others.

Totally false. The Constitutional scholar destroys your myth.

Feel free to prove that.

Meanwhile- there are two kind of citizens- naturalized and natural born.

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[TooTall]

A respected constitutional scholar and lawyer sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is in just over 6 minutes. His credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. In the brief video's, he gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to this outstanding scholar in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.


His credentials:

He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Listen very closely.

Part one is 4:32



Part two is 2:03

Now that he has defined Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution, h should review Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 that defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:

"Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)"

Since the US Code is the polar opposite of what this Constitutional Scholar says, and since he is a lawyer, perhaps he should file a suit to declare that part of the US Code unconstitutional.

The code is for statute citizens. Nowhere in the code will you find natural born citizen. The Constitutional scholar discusses it. Go back and listen in the first 3 minutes of part one where he discusses the law of nature and positive law.

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

There are two kinds of citizens:
Naturalized and
Natural Born

No others.

The first eight US Presidents were born before there was a United States.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Obama has nothing to prove to those who think he is an illegal.

The State of Hawaii has certified BHO was born there.

Then Hawaii shouldn't have no problem releasing the original 53 year old birth certificate with the raised seal and its microfilm to counter the Maricopa County Sheriffs Departments investigation findings the document is a 100% forgery.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Obama has nothing to prove to those who think he is an illegal.

The State of Hawaii has certified BHO was born there.

Then Hawaii shouldn't have no problem releasing the original 53 year old birth certificate with the raised seal and its microfilm to counter the Maricopa County Sheriffs Departments investigation findings the document is a 100% forgery.

Ah the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department. The only bigger tea party media whore is the Canadian Senator from Texas.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I take it 'Birther Report' didn't work out so well for you?

ROFLMNAO!

So there ya have it... a response, which bears absolutely NO KINSHIP with the argument.

Obscurant deflection.

"Birthers" as the epithet describes are people who are UNSATISFIED WITH THE ADHERENCE BY THE CULT OF obama, to the US Constitution.

That some believe that the forgeries of Certificates of Live Birth, do not represent a valid means of identifying obama's birth origins IS IRRELEVANT.

What IS RELEVANT is that, as the scholar above addresses, obama is NOT, in ANY SENSE, a natural born citizen of the United States, thus is disqualified from holding the office, therefore his office is ILLEGITIMATE.

And that is WHOLLY WITHOUT REGARD TO HIS HOLDING OFFICE!

That he possess the the power intrinsic to hold the office is IRRELEVANT to the FACT that his powers are ILLEGITIMATE.

That the contributor of the post to which I am speaking, disagrees with that FACT, is IRRELEVANT TO THE FACT and in no way discredits, refutes or in any way at all, effects the factual NATURE of said FACT.

Just as the fact that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, is in no way effected by the 'feelings' that the people can define marriage how ever they want.

See how that works?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

A respected constitutional scholar and lawyer sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is in just over 6 minutes. His credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. In the brief video's, he gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to this outstanding scholar in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.


His credentials:

He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Listen very closely.

Part one is 4:32



Part two is 2:03

Now that he has defined Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution, h should review Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 that defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:

"Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)"

Since the US Code is the polar opposite of what this Constitutional Scholar says, and since he is a lawyer, perhaps he should file a suit to declare that part of the US Code unconstitutional.

The code is for statute citizens. Nowhere in the code will you find natural born citizen. The Constitutional scholar discusses it. Go back and listen in the first 3 minutes of part one where he discusses the law of nature and positive law.

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

There are two kinds of citizens:
Naturalized and
Natural Born

No others.

The first eight US Presidents were born before there was a United States.

All presidents post Article 2 Grandfather Clause were born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents that would ensure sole allegiance to the United States. See below and pay attention.

All U.S. Presidents Eligibility Grandfather Clause Natural Born Citizen Clause or Seated by Fraud

 

[Syriusly]

A respected constitutional scholar and lawyer sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is in just over 6 minutes. His credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. In the brief video's, he gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to this outstanding scholar in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.


His credentials:

He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Listen very closely.

Part one is 4:32



Part two is 2:03

Now that he has defined Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution, h should review Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 that defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:

"Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)"

Since the US Code is the polar opposite of what this Constitutional Scholar says, and since he is a lawyer, perhaps he should file a suit to declare that part of the US Code unconstitutional.

The code is for statute citizens. Nowhere in the code will you find natural born citizen. The Constitutional scholar discusses it. Go back and listen in the first 3 minutes of part one where he discusses the law of nature and positive law.

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

There are two kinds of citizens:
Naturalized and
Natural Born

No others.

Totally false. The Constitutional scholar destroys your myth.

Feel free to prove that.

Meanwhile- there are two kind of citizens- naturalized and natural born.

What do real Real Constitutional Scholars do?

They write up papers.
Like this one:
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2068&context=mlr

This legal scholar puts his analysis on paper- and is clear that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen(except children of diplomats etc)- but discusses the actual controversy about children born outside the U.S. to U.S. Citizens- but he is clear also that there are only two kinds of citizenship- naturalized an natural born.

 

[Syriusly]

I take it 'Birther Report' didn't work out so well for you?

ROFLMNAO!

So there ya have it... a response, which bears absolutely NO KINSHIP with the argument.

Obscurant deflection.

"Birthers" as the epithet describes are people who are UNSATISFIED WITH THE ADHERENCE BY THE CULT OF obama, to the US Constitution.

That some believe that the forgeries of Certificates of Live Birth, do not represent a valid means of identifying obama's birth origins IS IRRELEVANT.

What IS RELEVANT is that, as the scholar above addresses, obama is NOT, in ANY SENSE, a natural born citizen of the United States, thus is disqualified from holding the office, therefore his office is ILLEGITIMATE.

And that is WHOLLY WITHOUT REGARD TO HIS HOLDING OFFICE!

That he possess the the power intrinsic to hold the office is IRRELEVANT to the FACT that his powers are ILLEGITIMATE.

That the contributor of the post to which I am speaking, disagrees with that FACT, is IRRELEVANT TO THE FACT and in no way discredits, refutes or in any way at all, effects the factual NATURE of said FACT.

Just as the fact that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, is in no way effected by the 'feelings' that the people can define marriage how ever they want.

See how that works?

Bat guano crazy babble.

 

[TooTall]

A respected constitutional scholar and lawyer sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is in just over 6 minutes. His credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. In the brief video's, he gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to this outstanding scholar in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.


His credentials:

He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Listen very closely.

Part one is 4:32



Part two is 2:03

Now that he has defined Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution, h should review Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 that defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:

"Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)"

Since the US Code is the polar opposite of what this Constitutional Scholar says, and since he is a lawyer, perhaps he should file a suit to declare that part of the US Code unconstitutional.

The code does not mention the Article 1 Section 2 term 'natural born citizen', only what defines a 14th amendment citizen.. Go back and listen to the scholar explain the 'Law of Nature' and ' Positive Law' in part one.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens".

 

[Syriusly]

A respected constitutional scholar and lawyer sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is in just over 6 minutes. His credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. In the brief video's, he gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to this outstanding scholar in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.


His credentials:

He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Listen very closely.

Part one is 4:32



Part two is 2:03

Now that he has defined Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution, h should review Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 that defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:

"Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)"

Since the US Code is the polar opposite of what this Constitutional Scholar says, and since he is a lawyer, perhaps he should file a suit to declare that part of the US Code unconstitutional.

The code is for statute citizens. Nowhere in the code will you find natural born citizen. The Constitutional scholar discusses it. Go back and listen in the first 3 minutes of part one where he discusses the law of nature and positive law.

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

There are two kinds of citizens:
Naturalized and
Natural Born

No others.

The first eight US Presidents were born before there was a United States.

All presidents post Article 2 Grandfather Clause were born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents that would ensure sole allegiance to the United States. See below and pay attention.
d

The only fraud is what Birthers are trying to pull on American citizens.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Obama has nothing to prove to those who think he is an illegal.

The State of Hawaii has certified BHO was born there.

Then Hawaii shouldn't have no problem releasing the original 53 year old birth certificate with the raised seal and its microfilm to counter the Maricopa County Sheriffs Departments investigation findings the document is a 100% forgery.

Well... the last person who claimed to have seen that... died when the airplane she was flying in filled with water and sank to the ocean floor. Luckily the crash was SO VIOLENT that everyone else on the plane managed to open the door and swim out... but sadly... the only person on earth who has sworn that she'd seen obama's cert and it was a good one, was unable to unbuckle her seat belt, walk to the door and swim out into the tropical waters in the middle of a warm afternoon.

Such a tragic and untimely death. Just awful...