Obama not Constitutionally eligible to be President

[Gaar]

your inferiority complex is embarrassing to be around.

no arguments have been made. the fukin' thing is supposed to be brought up in conference. do you know how few things come out of conference for a hearing?

you keep mentioning History as if the mantra History...History...History...makes you sound informed. It doesn't. It makes you sound like an idiot. You have very little to argue with except a few hair brained ideas that all apart if you open one of your eyes.

Fortunately for you? why? Are you suffering from delusions of grandeur? Do you think you matter in the great scheme of things? You're not even a pimple on the ass of SCOTUS let alone fortunate when they fart.

And yet more tripe without addressing anything in the argument...

And you have the nerve to ask if I am for real?

Don't like the discussion?

Don't participate.

Quite simple really.

But now I will have to ignore your ignorant ass, unless and until you are able to make a cogent point that is worthy of a response.

Your continued Ad Hominem attacks are not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And yet more tripe without addressing anything in the argument...

And you have the nerve to ask if I am for real?

Don't like the discussion?

Don't participate.

Quite simple really.

But now I will have to ignore your ignorant ass, unless and until you are able to make a cogent point that is worthy of a response.

Your continued Ad Hominem attacks are not.

"Your continued Ad Hominem attacks are not." funny. you said just about the same thing to others within a few posts of being new here.

is that your pat answer before you run away to troll again?


I've read your posts. I have your number: (0)

 

[Gaar]

"Your continued Ad Hominem attacks are not." funny. you said just about the same thing to others within a few posts of being new here.

is that your pat answer before you run away to troll again?


I've read your posts. I have your number: (0)

For the Record Troll, I did not put the Obama not Eligible Thread in the Conspiracy Section, one of the ignorant Moderators moved it there so they could make sure the Debate was signified to be a Conspiracy, in their ignorant little minds...

So please.

Your continued ignorance is not my problem.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

For the Record Troll, I did not put the Obama not Eligible Thread in the Conspiracy Section, one of the ignorant Moderators moved it there so they could make sure the Debate was signified to be a Conspiracy, in their ignorant little minds...

So please.

Your continued ignorance is not my problem.

how does it feel to dance?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Libertarian Gail Lightfoot’s lawsuit against Obama eligibility granted conference by US Supreme Court

Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). Investigating Obama (I.O.) interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT today, minutes after she learned of this move.

Taitz believes, “This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress… the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.”

yawn

The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot’s vice presidential candidacy in California.

true

---

It also addresses two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama’s failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama’s apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet to be heard by the Supreme Court.

false. no judgment has been made as to the legal merit of any accusation listed above.

1)Obama has not failed to do what you say. Who has he failed to provide documents to? who exactly?

2) His citizenship as a child?


the other current challenges? to what? are they current?

strongest what yet to be heard? have any arguments been heard yet?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Couple of links for ya.

Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

United States nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pretty damn clear.

 

[Gaar]

Couple of links for ya.

Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

United States nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pretty damn clear.

Funny...

None of that says anything about Natural Born.

Guess they didn't see fit to change that part.

 

[Gaar]

Couple of links for ya.

Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

United States nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pretty damn clear.

If you are a Dual Citizen, at Birth, you CANNOT be Natural Born to EITHER Country, and Obama has admitted he was a Dual Citizen at Birth...

From YOUR Link...

Dual citizenship

Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other," (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952). In Schneider v. Rusk 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the US Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) neither defines dual citizenship nor takes a position for it or against it. There has been no prohibition against dual citizenship, but some provisions of the INA and earlier U.S. nationality laws were designed to reduce situations in which dual citizenship exists. Although naturalizing citizens are required to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances, the oath has never been enforced to require the actual termination of original citizenship.[15]

Although the U.S. Government does not endorse dual citizenship as a matter of policy, it recognizes the existence of dual citizenship and completely tolerates the maintenance of multiple citizenship by U.S. citizens. In the past, claims of other countries on dual-national U.S. citizens sometimes placed them in situations where their obligations to one country were in conflict with the laws of the other. However, as fewer countries require military service and most base other obligations, such as the payment of taxes, on residence and not citizenship, these conflicts have become less frequent. As a result, there has been a dramatic increase in recent years in the number of people who maintain U.S. citizenship in other countries.

 

[Care4all]

Vattel: The Law of Nations: Book I

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

§ 214. Naturalization.(58)
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

§ 216. Children born at sea.
As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

--------------------------------

"Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner."

So again, you can be Born a Citizen, but not be Natural Born but rather a "Naturalized Citizen" by Birth.

Women did not even have the right to vote back then and THINGS HAVE CHANGED gaar,

the Constitution, which NEVER DEFINED Natural born citizen OR Naturalized Citizen, left this definition up to the Congress...

And Congress has writen statute on this...once again, Here it is....

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

ALL of these cases, describe natural born citizens....citizens AT BIRTH....

The constitution itself, mentions "born or naturalized", there was not third option of "Statuatory" citizen.


Care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Women did not even have the right to vote back then and THINGS HAVE CHANGED gaar,

the Constitution, which NEVER DEFINED Natural born citizen OR Naturalized Citizen, left this definition up to the Congress...

And Congress has writen statute on this...once again, Here it is....



ALL of these cases, describe natural born citizens....citizens AT BIRTH....

The constitution itself, mentions "born or naturalized", there was not third option of "Statuatory" citizen.


Care

Do not confuse this poster with facts. They are inconvenient to the Conspiracy theory.

Anyone born INSIDE the US is a citizen and is a NATURAL BORN one. That this person can not provide a shred of evidence to support the claim that the Constitution defines the terms Natural and Naturalized is beyond their seeming ignorance.

In fact the only proof provided for the terms was a 1790 LAW. While this person CONTINUED to argue that some how a superceded law , changed only 5 years after being passed, was some how proof that the Constitution defined Natural Born.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once more for the record.
I do not think Obama was the right choice for President, I do not like the policies he has said he supports.

However, he was legally elected to the Office and was born to an American Citizen INSIDE the UNITED STATES. He is our President Elect and he damn well better be confirmed as such.

If the Court were to rule otherwise I would be right beside the millions that would protest such a bogus ruling. In fact I would call for Impeachment of any Judges on the Supreme Court that so ruled. They would have proven to be unfit to be Justices in the Supreme Court.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you are a Dual Citizen, at Birth, you CANNOT be Natural Born to EITHER Country,

 

[Gaar]

Do not confuse this poster with facts. They are inconvenient to the Conspiracy theory.

Anyone born INSIDE the US is a citizen and is a NATURAL BORN one. That this person can not provide a shred of evidence to support the claim that the Constitution defines the terms Natural and Naturalized is beyond their seeming ignorance.

In fact the only proof provided for the terms was a 1790 LAW. While this person CONTINUED to argue that some how a superceded law , changed only 5 years after being passed, was some how proof that the Constitution defined Natural Born.

The FACT is they do NOT address Natural Born, your ignorance on the matter notwithstanding.

Again, if you Idiots are so sure of yourself, why not just say let the SCOTUS decide and be done with it?

Afraid your ignorant ass may in fact be wrong and you haven't a CLUE what you are talking about?

Why are you all so afraid of having the SCOTUS Rule on this?

 

[Gaar]

Vattel: The Law of Nations: Book I

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

 

[Gaar]

Once more for the record.
I do not think Obama was the right choice for President, I do not like the policies he has said he supports.

However, he was legally elected to the Office and was born to an American Citizen INSIDE the UNITED STATES. He is our President Elect and he damn well better be confirmed as such.

If the Court were to rule otherwise I would be right beside the millions that would protest such a bogus ruling. In fact I would call for Impeachment of any Judges on the Supreme Court that so ruled. They would have proven to be unfit to be Justices in the Supreme Court.

It is not my fault that YOU don't support the Constitution, as written.

There are those of us who do, and we, like you, will FIGHT to make sure it is upheld.

Right now, that "fight" is happening in our Courts.

I am willing to accept ANY Judgment they make, once they address the Issues and arguments being made, but it seems you are willing to "fight" beyond that, should YOU be found wrong...

Imagine that.

I will say, if it is decided in MY Favor, and you attempt to "fight" that decision, in any way other than the Courts, I will be there to oppose you, I will guarantee you that!

 

[Gaar]

Once more for the record.
I do not think Obama was the right choice for President, I do not like the policies he has said he supports.

However, he was legally elected to the Office and was born to an American Citizen INSIDE the UNITED STATES. He is our President Elect and he damn well better be confirmed as such.

If the Court were to rule otherwise I would be right beside the millions that would protest such a bogus ruling. In fact I would call for Impeachment of any Judges on the Supreme Court that so ruled. They would have proven to be unfit to be Justices in the Supreme Court.

You are likely one of those who believe our Drug Laws are ok as well...

Not understanding there is NO Constitutional Authority given to the Federal Government to Legislate such things, and that all things not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, to the Fed, goes back to the States and the People.

So we have the Fed making Laws which makes Criminals of people who have commited no Crime, and I am sure you are all for that because it is "The Law".

Sorry, if challenged on its Constitutionality, and the Right to face an accuser for your crime, it would easily be found unConstitutional.

So, am I right?

Do you support the Constitution, or do you support the Government taking the Authority that was never given to them?

This will tell me a lot about what it is you believe and what it is you support about this Country.

 

[Care4all]

You are likely one of those who believe our Drug Laws are ok as well...

Not understanding there is NO Constitutional Authority given to the Federal Government to Legislate such things, and that all things not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, to the Fed, goes back to the States and the People.

So we have the Fed making Laws which makes Criminals of people who have commited no Crime, and I am sure you are all for that because it is "The Law".

Sorry, if challenged on its Constitutionality, and the Right to face an accuser for your crime, it would easily be found unConstitutional.

So, am I right?

Do you support the Constitution, or do you support the Government taking the Authority that was never given to them?

This will tell me a lot about what it is you believe and what it is you support about this Country.

No Gaar, that's not how it works....you get the gist of it, but you have left out a very important part...

First, the constitution mentions natural born citizens but does not define it down to the enth degree as with many other provision in the Constitution, the constitution itself, gives this authority to define and give law/statute...to the Congress, what is not mentioned is then given to the states and the people.

As example, the constitution says the President appoints certain positions, Judges, Secretary of state, etc and the Senate is to advise and consent of these appointments of the President.

The constitution itself does not define HOW the Senate should go about advising and consenting. What the constitution does, is give this power to the Senate itself in its own rule making and procedures of vetting the appointees. So the laws and statutes and procedures of how the Senate consents is up to the Senate itself, not defined in the Constitution, but constitutional none the less.

Care

 

[DiveCon]

No Gaar, that's not how it works....you get the gist of it, but you have left out a very important part...

First, the constitution mentions natural born citizens but does not define it down to the enth degree as with many other provision in the Constitution, the constitution itself, gives this authority to define and give law/statute...to the Congress, what is not mentioned is then given to the states and the people.

As example, the constitution says the President appoints certain positions, Judges, Secretary of state, etc and the Senate is to advise and consent of these appointments of the President.

The constitution itself does not define HOW the Senate should go about advising and consenting. What the constitution does, is give this power to the Senate itself in its own rule making and procedures of vetting the appointees. So the laws and statutes and procedures of how the Senate consents is up to the Senate itself, not defined in the Constitution, but constitutional none the less.

Care

actually, it does, a vote, with a simple majority

 

[Gaar]

Women did not even have the right to vote back then and THINGS HAVE CHANGED gaar,

the Constitution, which NEVER DEFINED Natural born citizen OR Naturalized Citizen, left this definition up to the Congress...

And Congress has writen statute on this...once again, Here it is....



ALL of these cases, describe natural born citizens....citizens AT BIRTH....

The constitution itself, mentions "born or naturalized", there was not third option of "Statuatory" citizen.


Care

No they describe Citizenship, at Birth.

Natural Born is not simplt Legislated Citizenship.

You cannot Legislate Nature.

 

[Gaar]

No Gaar, that's not how it works....you get the gist of it, but you have left out a very important part...

First, the constitution mentions natural born citizens but does not define it down to the enth degree as with many other provision in the Constitution, the constitution itself, gives this authority to define and give law/statute...to the Congress, what is not mentioned is then given to the states and the people.

As example, the constitution says the President appoints certain positions, Judges, Secretary of state, etc and the Senate is to advise and consent of these appointments of the President.

The constitution itself does not define HOW the Senate should go about advising and consenting. What the constitution does, is give this power to the Senate itself in its own rule making and procedures of vetting the appointees. So the laws and statutes and procedures of how the Senate consents is up to the Senate itself, not defined in the Constitution, but constitutional none the less.

Care

Advice and Consent is NOT Natural Law...

Legislation can change one and not the other.