I really hate to go there CB, but under a mountain of evidence...there is basically nothing left...other than utter stupidity

(04-29-2011 12:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I really hate to go there CB, but under a mountain of evidence...there is basically nothing left...other than utter stupidity

For gosh sake, end this issue.

(04-29-2011 09:43 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  If you would have read the whole thread, Simpletom, you would have learned many things.

1) As I stated many times in this thread, I just want the truth. Obama has shown himself to be politically motivated to the point of deception. He can only be trusted to do what is politically best for himself. He is a narcissistic, maniacal egomaniac. IMO

2) The legal definition of "natural born citizen" is vague and open to interpretation.

3) Other questions still remain. Our transparent wannabe president, is anything but.

When will you apologize for being a schmuck? Or is it that no apology is necessary because it is hereditary. Either way, most everybody ignores you anyway.

The legal definition for natural born citizen is actually quite clear according to the United States Supreme Court:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

“III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

(04-29-2011 01:22 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 09:43 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  If you would have read the whole thread, Simpletom, you would have learned many things.

1) As I stated many times in this thread, I just want the truth. Obama has shown himself to be politically motivated to the point of deception. He can only be trusted to do what is politically best for himself. He is a narcissistic, maniacal egomaniac. IMO

2) The legal definition of "natural born citizen" is vague and open to interpretation.

3) Other questions still remain. Our transparent wannabe president, is anything but.

When will you apologize for being a schmuck? Or is it that no apology is necessary because it is hereditary. Either way, most everybody ignores you anyway.

The legal definition for natural born citizen is actually quite clear according to the United States Supreme Court:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

“III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

A federal district court sided with Wong, declared him to be a citizen. Every citizen is not "natural born". A consistent falsehood the left rams down the throat of every American. <Choking> They are not interchangeable. <gagging>

Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is basically rendered meaningless when a person born owing certain allegiance to a foreign nation can be a natural born citizen of the United States. Can anyone from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong have a child with an American woman and that child can become President of the United States? The legal issue is of dual nationality. If a person born with dual allegiance can be President, then I don’t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. If Thus, that constitutional provision is not worth the paper it's printed on.

So far, Federal law, the Constitution and the courts have not answered these questions. - A summary of the differences.

(04-29-2011 04:02 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 01:22 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 09:43 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  If you would have read the whole thread, Simpletom, you would have learned many things.

1) As I stated many times in this thread, I just want the truth. Obama has shown himself to be politically motivated to the point of deception. He can only be trusted to do what is politically best for himself. He is a narcissistic, maniacal egomaniac. IMO

2) The legal definition of "natural born citizen" is vague and open to interpretation.

3) Other questions still remain. Our transparent wannabe president, is anything but.

When will you apologize for being a schmuck? Or is it that no apology is necessary because it is hereditary. Either way, most everybody ignores you anyway.

The legal definition for natural born citizen is actually quite clear according to the United States Supreme Court:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

“III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

A federal district court sided with Wong, declared him to be a citizen. Every citizen is not "natural born". A consistent falsehood the left rams down the throat of every American. <Choking> They are not interchangeable. <gagging>

Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is basically rendered meaningless when a person born owing certain allegiance to a foreign nation can be a natural born citizen of the United States. Can anyone from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong have a child with an American woman and that child can become President of the United States? The legal issue is of dual nationality. If a person born with dual allegiance can be President, then I don’t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. If Thus, that constitutional provision is not worth the paper it's printed on.

So far, Federal law, the Constitution and the courts have not answered these questions. - A summary of the differences.

Opinion fo US v Wong Kim Ark


I don't know how much clearer Justice Horace Gray could have possibly been in his Opinion. The subject of who is a natural born citizen is not defined by the Constitution or the 14th Amendment, therefore precedent of English Common Law in the colonies prior to American Independence is to be used. In English Common Law, anyone born on English soil was a natural born citizen regardless of the nationality of the parents as long as they werent in the service of said nation or part of an occupying force.

This isn't the left(which I am definitely not a part of) jamming some falsehood down your throat. This is exactly what the affirming opinion of the case states. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

I understand. Do you?

Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

Quote:Taken into account the legislative history behind the citizenship clause - and the courts own stated objective in reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings - leaves the Wong Kim Ark ruling void due to vagueness. Adhering to Wong Kim Ark as precedent will never breath any factual substance into this very erroneous ruling.

Quote:Unfortunately for Gray, he can’t unmake history nor can he hide from what he had ruled in Elk. Again, Kim Ark was not born into the allegiance of the United States, his parents had no political rights at the time, and his parents were subject to treaties in the same way that Indians were.

When all was said and done, the majority in Wong Kim Ark reveals their true nonsensical position: “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”

That statement pretty much removes all doubt whether the Wong Kim Ark court had any idea what they were talking about.

Read #15

(04-29-2011 12:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I really hate to go there CB, but under a mountain of evidence...there is basically nothing left...other than utter stupidity

Considering this is Sumo's thread I'll go with utter stupidity.

(04-30-2011 06:34 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I understand. Do you?

Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

Quote:Taken into account the legislative history behind the citizenship clause - and the courts own stated objective in reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings - leaves the Wong Kim Ark ruling void due to vagueness. Adhering to Wong Kim Ark as precedent will never breath any factual substance into this very erroneous ruling.

Quote:Unfortunately for Gray, he can’t unmake history nor can he hide from what he had ruled in Elk. Again, Kim Ark was not born into the allegiance of the United States, his parents had no political rights at the time, and his parents were subject to treaties in the same way that Indians were.

When all was said and done, the majority in Wong Kim Ark reveals their true nonsensical position: “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”

That statement pretty much removes all doubt whether the Wong Kim Ark court had any idea what they were talking about.

Read #15

Elk v.Wilkins was a distinct and specific issue of citizenship because of the nature of Native American's relationship to the US Government. In Elk, if a native american renounced his tribe that wouldn't make him a citizen by birth because native american tribes were "alien nations" inside the United States and were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as needed for citizenship at birth in the United States. San Francisco was obviously "subject the jurisdiction" of the United States at the time of Wong's birth.

Listen, I understand you disagree with the ruling, but the precedent is set and it isn't a precedent that the Supreme Court is going to overturn.
It doesn't matter what some guy on the internet(you or me) says, it matter what the Justices of the Supreme Court wrote in their opinions and how the current legal code applies it. The way it is applied Barack Obama was natural born citizen by jus soli.

(04-29-2011 09:43 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  When will you apologize for being a schmuck?

When will you apologize for being a dumbazz?

Mods...PLEASE close this thread. This issue is DONE!!

Mods do not close this thread. There are 2 sides to this issue. So TX if your understanding holds, there would be nothing to prevent Bin Laden from taking an American women citizen as a wife and producing an offspring that could become president. If that were true there would be no differentiation between citizen and Natural born citizen. The constitution makes a special provision for Natural born citizen that is not just jus soli. The SCOTUS cannot undue the constitution, by interpretation. And has never ruled where it concerns a president.

(04-30-2011 09:41 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Mods do not close this thread. There are 2 sides to this issue. So TX if your understanding holds, there would be nothing to prevent Bin Laden from taking an American women citizen as a wife and producing an offspring that could become president. If that were true there would be no differentiation between citizen and Natural born citizen. The constitution makes a special provision for Natural born citizen that is not just jus soli. The SCOTUS cannot undue the constitution, by interpretation. And has never ruled where it concerns a president.

SOAF, give it up, you're just flat wrong.

The offspring in your hypothetical would be a natural-born citizen. A couple hundred years plus of US precedent, plus hundreds of years before that of UK common law, says that. That child could not become president for the simple reason that, for at least the next couple hundred years or so, Johnny bin Laden is going to be no more electable than Jimmy Hitler.

That does not eliminate the distinction between citizen and natural-born citizen. A person born a citizen of Mexico, for example, who comes here and becomes a naturalized US citizen, is a citizen but can never be a natural-born citizen.

Please indicate where you believe the constitution makes your alleged distinction between natural-born citizen and jus solis/lex solis. By the way, if Obama HAD been born in Kenya, jus solis/lex solis would not be the standard which applies.

Take it from someone who gets labeled by some on here as a right-wing nut (they're wrong, I'm not, but I am a lawyer who aced my con law courses), you're just flat wrong.

Sorry to give this thread more life than it deserves, but some things are just flat wrong. You thought you had an issue. You don't. Focus your energy on the real problems with Obama. There are plenty of them.

Mods...for the LOVE OF GOD...close this thread!!!!

Quote:Chief Justice Marshall provided only one exception to this rule, "such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it". The words "natural born citizen" don't require the clause to be construed to mean the same thing as the word "citizen". The exact opposite is true. The plain text of the Constitution shows that the framers allowed persons to become Senators and Representatives if they were "Citizens", but as to the office of President they required a "natural born citizen". So the exception is irrelevant here.

Marbury v. Madison creates a standing presumption against any interpretation that would render the "natural born citizen" clause to have no effect independent of being a "citizen". Chief Justice Marshall insisted such a construction is inadmissible.

... What is the independent effect attributed to the "natural born citizen" clause? The effect is that just being a "citizen" isn't enough to satisfy the requirement of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 which demands that the President of the United States be a "natural born citizen".

This means that under current United States law, the "natural born citizen" clause is presumed to mean something other than a "14th Amendment citizen". And no other construction is even admissible. (Leo Donofrio, SCOTUS has no Original Jurisdiction, 2009, italics and boldface are as they appear in the original)

Just stop reading it FO.

I'm starting to enjoy SOAF looking like Trump at the WHCD.

Ya know...every one laughing at him and he still can't understand why.

(05-01-2011 02:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Just stop reading it FO.

I'm starting to enjoy SOAF looking like Trump at the WHCD.

Ya know...every one laughing at him and he still can't understand why.

I watched some of that last night on C-Span. Funny stuff.

What needs to be done to stop the lunacy on here is simple. We just have to get SOAF committed. Fortunately for us, getting him committed would be pretty easy. All it would require is printing out this thread and giving it to the doctors

To paraphrase Tom Bergeron's twitter feed, I'm demanding SOAF release his long-lost sense of humor.

It's kind of like beating up a retarded kid though. No glory in it. Matter of fact, you lose when punchin the retard.

He's talking in 2nd person now.....................Classic.............................

OWLS, For every lawyer that correctly construes the law, there are at least as many that fail. Why do you fear such a debate, when lawyers know the adversarial nature of legal system? Marginalizing SOAF does nothing to bolster your interpenetration of the facts. You just give fodder for the weak minded, feeble, brainless, deft, witless, and simpletoms

If it is so settled then why do "Democrats Leaders" Try To Redefine the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

On February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).

Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a "natural born citizen" and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find.

Sen. McCaskill, her co-sponsors, fellow colleagues and legal counsel, contend that the Constitution is ambiguous in article II, section 1 and requires clarification.

The real purpose of this bill was to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a "natural born citizen" by the Democratic Party leadership -- paving the way for an Obama run.

Both Leahy and Chertoff avoid addressing the "in the US mainland" (jus solis) element of the eligibility requirement and focus solely on parentage (Jus sanguinis) in making their arguments and by doing so bring focus to the fundamental reason Obama is not qualified. He had one American parent and one foreign parent. Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen -- no matter where he was born.

Obama is a co-signer of this resolution.

Since the 1870s, Congress have attempted to define or redefine "natural born" citizen status nearly 30 times!

There were five attempts to re-define "natural born" citizen status since 2001 -- that's six attempts, if you include Sen. Leahy's Resolution for McCain in March 2008.

So OWLS don't tell me that the "precedent is set" and is on solid ground. IT IS NOT, no matter how much you disagree with me, the SOAF.