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

[JakeStarkey]

More conspiracy theories, unverified, and big eyed wonderments.

What is nice is that that issue is settled, so all you can do is whine.

What is nicer, know that I know keys is a conspiracists, his comments about marriage equality are tainted. He is arguing his belief system without evidence only faith.

 

[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.

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".

And the Naturalization Act Of 1790 was repealed 5 years later omitting the term 'natural born citizens'.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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".

Yes... as the speaker stated, such is a function of the natural order relating to their circumstances; specifically wherein the person born was born as a consequence of BOTH OF THEIR PARENTS BEING CITIZENS... and this being so without regard to WHERE an individual is BORN... because the conception came as a result of US CITIZENS... the progeny is therefore, quite naturally: A US CITIZEN.

Now... this is not a complex equation. Therefore there is very little in the way of issues within such, which is worthy of debate.

What do we know, in terms of uncontested FACTS?

We know that barrack hussein obama is the consequence of a Kenyan national and a US national.

We accept, that barack hussein obama is a US citizen. (Although there is more than sufficient evidence to subject that acceptance to doubt... but the sake of argument, we accept that he is a citizen.)

We also know that obama is NOT a natural born citizen and this wholly without regard to those who erroneously 'feel' that because he is a citizen, presumably born in the US, that this makes him 'a natural born' citizen of the US.

And we KNOW that the reasoning SPECIFIC TO THE NEED FOR THE FRAMERS OF THE US CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT MINIMAL THRESHOLD HAVE BEEN PROVEN SOUND, AS obama's DIVIDED LOYALTIES HAVE BEEN AND WILL NO DOUBT CONTINUE TO PRODUCE TRAGIC AND MOST LIKELY CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES... .

 

[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".

And the Naturalization Act Of 1790 was repealed 5 years later omitting the term 'natural born citizens'.

Negative, The Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which extended the residence requirement to five years, and by the Naturalization Act of 1798, which extended it to 14 years. The 1798 act was repealed by the Naturalization Law of 1802.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Psst...


So what?

Do ya have a point? Or is it your goal to make a complete fool of yourself, wrecking what, if any credibility that you may have enjoyed before ya got here?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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".

And the Naturalization Act Of 1790 was repealed 5 years later omitting the term 'natural born citizens'.

Negative, The Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which extended the residence requirement to five years, and by the Naturalization Act of 1798, which extended it to 14 years. The 1798 act was repealed by the Naturalization Law of 1802.

So what? It does not alter the facts that to BE a Natural Born Citizen, one must be BORN TO AS A CONSEQUENCE OF BOTH A MARRIED FATHER AND MOTHER WHO ARE BOTH: US CITIZENS.

Which is, as the Professor noted... the means by which the natural circumstances of citizenship, are constructed.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

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".

And the Naturalization Act Of 1790 was repealed 5 years later omitting the term 'natural born citizens'.

Negative, The Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which extended the residence requirement to five years, and by the Naturalization Act of 1798, which extended it to 14 years. The 1798 act was repealed by the Naturalization Law of 1802.

So what? It does not alter the facts that to BE a Natural Born Citizen, one must be BORN TO AS A CONSEQUENCE OF BOTH A MARRIED FATHER AND MOTHER WHO ARE BOTH US CITIZENS.

Which is the Professor noted... provides for the natural circumstances of citizenship.

Correct.

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

The professor is wrong, end of story.

 

[JakeStarkey]

God does not bestow citizenship.

 

[Vigilante]

The professor is wrong, end of story.

Yes because YOU ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOOLAR......

 

[NYcarbineer]

Credentials of the source of this opinion?

Herb Titus is a major accomplice in the attempted perpetration of this lunacy:

Constitution Restoration Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

]

And Hitler was decorated War Veteran. What's your point?

 

[Roadrunner]

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President...... The obomanation is NOT qualified to become president, according to Title 8!, BUT the highlight seems to give Mr. Cruz the green light!

Save for one small problem. Obama was born in Hawaii. So lets review that 'citizen at birth' list again.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

• Anyone born inside the United States
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• 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)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

And done.

Yes, Obuma, according to this is eligible!...PERHAPS...., as there is a stipulation that an American citizen must be a citizen for 5 years after their 14 birthday. Obola's mother was just over 18 when he was born,
(For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

but I would defer to Constitutional scholars on that matter.

Since anyone born in the United States, except a child of a diplomat or invading army is a natural born citizen- Obama is proven eligible.

Cruz is probably eligible, presuming that his mother was a citizen- something we have seen no proof of, but I am willing to accept as true.

Illegals should be declared an invading army.

 

[Vigilante]

Credentials of the source of this opinion?

Herb Titus is a major accomplice in the attempted perpetration of this lunacy:

Constitution Restoration Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Beside being an obomazombie, what's your credentials to talk the Constitution?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Credentials of the source of this opinion?

Herb Titus is a major accomplice in the attempted perpetration of this lunacy:

Constitution Restoration Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Beside being an obomazombie, what's your credentials to talk the Constitution?

The President has better credentials than you do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why doesn't this guy then just file a lawsuit and get the courts to remove Obama?

 

[Vigilante]

Credentials of the source of this opinion?

Herb Titus is a major accomplice in the attempted perpetration of this lunacy:

Constitution Restoration Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Beside being an obomazombie, what's your credentials to talk the Constitution?

The President has better credentials than you do.

The president is a liar, among many other things, shall we discuss that?

 

[Vigilante]

Why doesn't this guy then just file a lawsuit and get the courts to remove Obama?

As usual, NO STANDING!!! The catch all for the judicial system to abandon the proletariat!!!!

 

[TheOldSchool]

Psst...


So what?

Do ya have a point? Or is it your goal to make a complete fool of yourself, wrecking what, if any credibility that you may have enjoyed before ya got here?

^ This nigga must be drankin

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why doesn't this guy then just file a lawsuit and get the courts to remove Obama?

Because it would fail for the same reasons all the other 'lawsuits' failed:

'The Obama birthplace lawsuit was dismissed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday. The "birther" lawsuit was filed by several different plaintiffs including taxpayers, political rivals, and military officers. The suit sought to challenge President Obama's citizenship.

They claimed that Obama wasn't born in the United States, which would have larger ramifications. Only a "natural born" citizen can serve as president.

The "birthers" persisted despite the fact that President Obama released his "long-form" birth certificate. They claimed that Obama, who has a Kenyan father, was actually born overseas in Africa. The "birthers" said that Obama's Hawaii birth certificate was nothing more than a forgery.

The appeals court dismissed the suit because none of the plaintiffs could show they suffered any injury.'

Obama Birther Lawsuit Thrown Out - Law and Daily Life

This birther nonsense is the hallmark of rightwing ignorance and stupidity, and why most conservatives are deserving of contempt.