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

[Vigilante]

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.

As I said, NO STANDING is the judicial systems way of HIDING and saying FUCK YOU to America!.... They might actually have found just one set of balls between the NINE of them!

 

[ogibillm]

This thread could also be called "guy we found says what we want him to"

 

[konradv]

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).

If that's true, cite the law that says so, because it doesn't say that in the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The Maricopa County Sheriff Department found nothing.

Just a Birther lie.

 

[Syriusly]

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...

Bat Guano Crazy- the Dr. Fukino- the Republican Director of Health also said she had seen the original BC- and she is alive and kicking.

But Birthers prefer crazy conspiracy theories.

 

[Syriusly]

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).

there are only two kinds of citizens- natural born and naturalized.

 

[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 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... .

We Americans- you know the voters, Congress, Chief Justice Roberts etc- know that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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).

If that's true, cite the law that says so, because it doesn't say that in the Constitution.

That is exactly what the Constitution says... but only because that is WHY the Constitution says it, to make that SPECIFIC EXCEPTION, to note that the President of the US can ONLY be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' distinct from all other forms, including the Statutory Citizen.

There's no potentially viable contest of that fact... it is quite clear.

All that can be done at this point, is already being done and that is the endless parade of 'Practical' rationalizations which will come to explain why the Constitution is no longer relevant on that issue... because:

He was elected and there's nothing that can be done now ...
His Mother was a Citizen ...
His father was Frank Marshall Davis ...
blah, blah, blah ...

 

[Syriusly]

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).

If that's true, cite the law that says so, because it doesn't say that in the Constitution.

That is exactly what the Constitution says... but only because that is WHY the Constitution says it, to make that SPECIFIC EXCEPTION, to note that the President of the US can ONLY be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' distinct from all other forms, including the Statutory Citizen.

There's no potentially viable contest of that fact... it is quite clear.

All that can be done at this point, is already being done and that is the endless parade of 'Practical' rationalizations which will come to explain why the Constitution is no longer relevant on that issue... because:

He was elected and there's nothing that can be done now ...
His Mother was a Citizen ...
His father was Frank Marshall Davis ...
blah, blah, blah ...

Birther idiocy.....blah blah blah

 

[SteadyMercury]

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

This is pretty rich coming from a guy older than my grandpa that somehow hasn't outgrown the whole Guy Fawkes imagery that most 20 somethings manage to get past right around the time the realize The Doors aren't the deepest thing ever.

What are your credentials, other than being astoundingly immature?

 

[Skylar]

That is exactly what the Constitution says... but only because that is WHY the Constitution says it, to make that SPECIFIC EXCEPTION, to note that the President of the US can ONLY be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' distinct from all other forms, including the Statutory Citizen.

There's no potentially viable contest of that fact... it is quite clear.

The obvious problem with your reasoning is that the Constitutoin doesn't define what natural born citizenship is.

So how could you exclude Obama from eligibility based on a term that the constitution doesn't define?

 

[Skylar]

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

Holy shit.

The central statement of the bill is that, after passing, "the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." In other words, the bill would limit the power of the federal judiciary specifically in religious liberty cases. The bill also states that judges or other court officials that listen to cases that meet said criteria are to be impeached and convicted.

Constitution Restoration Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So um.....Sharia law trumps US law then?

 

[Skylar]

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.)

Not a reasonable doubt. Which was put to bed with Obama's COLB in 2007. That leaves unreasonable doubts.....which obligates no one to do anything.

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 how 'we also know this'? Where are you drawing your definition of 'natural born citizen'? Its certainly not the constitution.

Where then? And is that the royal 'we'?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That is exactly what the Constitution says... but only because that is WHY the Constitution says it, to make that SPECIFIC EXCEPTION, to note that the President of the US can ONLY be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' distinct from all other forms, including the Statutory Citizen.

There's no potentially viable contest of that fact... it is quite clear.

The obvious problem with your reasoning is that the Constitutoin doesn't define what natural born citizenship is.

So anything which is not defined BY the constitution, is therefore irrelevant TO the constitution.... despite the constitution specifically prescribing such as a MINIMAL STANDARD?

The term defines itself. As the professor in the OP demonstrated in no small degree of detail.

Ya see... if you were an American, you'd have known that!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.)

Not a reasonable doubt. Which was put to bed with Obama's COLB in 2007. That leaves unreasonable doubts.....which obligates no one to do anything.

The COLB is not just a forgery, it was a BAD FORGERY... Bad forgeries tend toward establishing doubt.

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 how 'we also know this'? Where are you drawing your definition of 'natural born citizen'? Its certainly not the constitution.

Where then? And is that the royal 'we'?[/QUOTE]

We know it because his father was NOT a citizen! Naturally born citizens are those citizens which come as a result of the natural inheritance common to progeny of citizens.

 

[Skylar]

So anything which is not defined BY the constitution, is therefore irrelevant TO the constitution.... despite the constitution specifically prescribing such as a MINIMAL STANDARD?

More accurately, you don't have a authoritative definition of natural born citizenship. Your source isn't the constitution. So what is it?

The term defines itself.

No term defines itself. Your offering us circular reasoning.

Shocker.

 

[konradv]

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

What are your credentials, other than being astoundingly immature?

He does a good job stealing other people's artistic output from all over the net.

 

[Skylar]

The COLB is not just a forgery, it was a BAD FORGERY... Bad forgeries tend toward establishing doubt.

Says you. Yet the State of Hawaii has affirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii, exactly as the COLB indicates. With the Director of Health of Hawaii affirmed that Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States.

Why would I ignore the Director of Health of Hawaii on Hawaiian documents....and instead believe you citing yourself?

Explain it to us.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So anything which is not defined BY the constitution, is therefore irrelevant TO the constitution.... despite the constitution specifically prescribing such as a MINIMAL STANDARD?

More accurately, you don't have a authoritative definition of natural born citizenship. Your source isn't the constitution. So what is it?

The expert understanding of the words: Natural, Born and Citizen.

 

[Skylar]

So anything which is not defined BY the constitution, is therefore irrelevant TO the constitution.... despite the constitution specifically prescribing such as a MINIMAL STANDARD?

More accurately, you don't have a authoritative definition of natural born citizenship. Your source isn't the constitution. So what is it?

The expert understanding of the words: Natural, Born and Citizen.

And yet the experts of the USSC have never found that definition to be exclusive. Your youtube 'expert' says it is. Why would I ignore the USSC and instead believe the guy on youtube?