Obama Makes Jimmy Carter Look Good

[TDPerk]

Ladajo, I think it was a sadly large majority. If you don't think it was sadly large, why are you happy with it?

Jccarlton, I can't specifically say why he's been hiding it for so long. The point is, without your having it and it stating he was born elsewhere--you have nothing.

[JLawson]

Jccarlton, I can't specifically say why he's been hiding it for so long.

And that's the problem. WHY is he hiding it?

Admittedly, at this point it's kind of irrelevant. What I really would like to see are his college transcripts. I'm getting the unfortunate feeling that what we've got in the White House isn't just an empty suit, it's a picture of an empty suit...

[TDPerk]

"And that's the problem. WHY is he hiding it?"

I assume there is something embarrassing there. Either the name on the Father line isn't what he'd been told it was, or maybe there's a "?" over the M/M slot.

If it's that one, I presume things clarified later.

I don't know and don't care, given the absence of evidence that he was not born on US territory to a US citizen parent, it doesn't matter in relation to what Diogenes is obsessing over.

[ladajo]

Perk - "Sadly large majority" implies that Obama won by a staggering margin in the vote. That is absolutely not true. The popular vote was very close. He won in Electoral.

I did not vote for him, however, he got the job, and that means he gets to try and do it. As they say, "respect the Office". I think he will have trouble at the re-election, but it would not surprise me if he gets elected again. We did it with Clinton, and while he was not stupid, he certainly was challenged in many other ways. But as a people, I believe we tend to go with the devil we know.

Obama's birth certificate drama compares in my mind to the definition of "sexual relations". Something stinks. There can be no good reason to play games with symantics and not put the money on the table.

[Diogenes]

"Why should we accept his claim? He won't show anyone a REAL birth certificate."

Of course there's something embarrassing on it, he's been hiding it since before he entered politics. Why won't he show it now? Most likely he's obeying the maxim that you should never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake.

Like the mistake you are making.

"With his legitimacy being questioned you would think this would be a No-brainer."

Not if continuing not to release it makes your opponents waste their time and energy. Like you are doing.

"No one has come forward to claim they witnessed his birth."

If any of them are even still alive, I doubt if anyone in NICU remembers me. What I am getting at is, what you have said is notable is not.

"He has said he was from Kenya."

He could as have reasonably said he was from Indonesia--that wouldn't have affected his citizenship either.

"His WIFE said he was from Kenya."

And if she'd said he was from Indonesia, it would be as relevant.

"His mother was provably in Washington state 18 days after he was born."

A fact you've asserted that even if true does nothing for your argument. It is something so utterly without relevance that your stating it goes to show the fragmented, deranged nature of your thinking on the topic.

The purpose of me listing some of the things which were peculiar was to demonstrate that it was reasonable to wonder about him. Nothing else.

"He cannot be an Article II "Natural born Citizen" with one parent. (Especially if the father is not an American.) "

Prove it.

To someone reasonable, it is easily enough proven. To someone that alleges (sight unseen) old documents are "LIES" it is impossible to prove anything.

"but the reality is the man is absolutely NOT LEGITIMATE."

He is an US citizen born on American territory to an US citizen parent unless you can prove otherwise, which makes him a natural born citizen.

Even if what you say is true, that does not meet the minimum necessary requirements for "natural born citizen." That phrase is a specific legal term which was taken from a specific legal text. The founders consulted this book regularly in the Debates of the Convention, so we know where they got the term and what was meant by it. In 1787 it wasn't even possible for a woman to transfer citizenship at all. A Woman's citizenship was automatically the same as her husband, and it was the FATHER that transferred Citizenship. (This was both in English law AND American Law.) It wasn't until 1920 that women were legally permitted to pass on citizenship.

He was elected by a sadly large majority--that means his election IS LEGITIMATE. My caps lock works too. Your protests to the contrary are you putting your hands over your ears and shouting, "NANANANANANANA I'm not LISTENING!!!!"

Oh, well if the public thinks something is true, then that MAKES it true. Right? I am merely pointing out that 50 state election officials fell down on the job. They stupidly accepted at face value the affidavit (signed by Nancy Pelosi) which says he was qualified without asking for real proof.

"Wise you are to know that two hundred year old documents are "LIES!!!!" without even having looked at them."

I did look at it. It doesn't say anything of relevance to the question of Obama's citizenship. Your claim to the contrary is a lie your part. Or a delusion on your part.

The word "Documents" has an "s" on it. That means it's PLURAL. Now tell me again how you looked at them? I haven't even posted the rest of them.

"A "Citizen" is NOT the same thing as a "Natural Born Citizen." The most obvious proof of this is the fact that article two uses BOTH TERMS. If they meant the same thing, they wouldn't have used two different terms"

I never claimed they meant the same thing legally, but I feel free to use the term citizen when I mean natural born citizen, both because it is the colloquial meaning of the word and because it ties you up in knots. I'm saying that absent evidence Obama is not a natural born citizen, he is one for constitutional purposes--because he has an American parent and was born on US soil.

They DON'T mean the same thing legally, and that's the entire point! It is possible to be a "Citizen" without being a "Natural Born Citizen." The term "Natural Born Citizen" REQUIRES two American citizen parents BEFORE the child is born. The born on the soil thing is a result of people misunderstanding the 14th amendment. If Barack's father really is a foreigner, he is automatically NOT a natural born citizen. Don't you comprehend what divided loyalties mean? The founders argued about this exact thing.

You'll have to prove he was born somewhere else to make any headway.

No I don't. All I have to do is help push my legislature into enacting into law a proposal now before them. The law would require any candidate for the office of President to submit an ORIGINAL copy of their birth certificate. If they do not comply, they will be refused access to the ballot. In reality, this is already the law of the land, but apparently election officials are too ignorant to know that you have a Legal and Moral obligation to verify a claim with proof. You may not know this, but a Brazilian born man got on the Ballot for President in California.

In short: "He can be an American Citizen with one parent. He cannot be an Article II "Natural born Citizen" with one parent."

Bullshit! The article does not define the term.

You are correct. The Constitution also does not define the term "We" or "The" or "People." It does not define what the "right to keep and bear arms" means either. The terminology was well understood by all parties at the time it was written, and it is only through the intervening two hundred years that people have managed to forget what was once common knowledge.

But even so, the legal term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined in the legal text book which the founders used to frame our system of government. It was entitled "The Law of Nations" and it was written by Emerich Vatell. It was known that they used this specific legal text book because they SAID SO. It was also known that they had over a dozen copies of it made available to consult because Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter thanking the man who gave the books to them.

If you wanted to make headway, you might begin by pointing out the US statute which declares US born citizens with foreign subject fathers to not be US natural born citizens by birth. Because if they are US citizens by a parent and are born on American territory, then by the quite fundamental and otherwise controlling principle of "jus soli" which you may have seen but discounted in your rambling, Obama is a natural born citizen.

Good luck.

You make me feel as though I am talking to a child. The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. It cannot be trumped by a statute. It can only be modified by a Constitutional amendment, which requires a vote of congress AND 3/4ths of the State legislatures to agree.

The constitution means what it meant when it was written. Subsequent statutes are irrelevant because they cannot override what is written in the Constitution. They CANNOT redefine accepted terms.


But if you WANT to see a statute that claims a child cannot be a "Natural Born Citizen" without having an American Father, then I can show you one.

The Naturalization act of 1790. Written by the FIRST congress, who ought to know what the term meant.

Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: . . .

http://web.me.com/joelarkin/MontereyDem ... _1790.html

[TDPerk]

"To someone reasonable, it is easily enough proven. To someone that alleges (sight unseen) old documents are "LIES" it is impossible to prove anything. "

Your utter lack of a direct response shows even you know you have nothing.

"That phrase is a specific legal term which was taken from a specific legal text. "

Show where that specific text's specific definition was adopted by statute.

"In 1787 it wasn't even possible for a woman to transfer citizenship at all."

Which says nothing at all about what laws are in force now. Congress decides such questions, what have they decided?

"It wasn't until 1920 that women were legally permitted to pass on citizenship. "

Oh, you admit you know what they've decided, you'll just keep on lying about it.

"Oh, well if the public thinks something is true, then that MAKES it true."

What is impeacheable is ultimately a political question, so unless a great many more people sour on him or it's discovered he really wasn't born on US soil or his mother actually completed paperwork to renounce her citizenship, his administration is as legitimate as any. More stupid than most, but not less legitimate.

"The word "Documents" has an "s" on it. That means it's PLURAL. Now tell me again how you looked at them? I haven't even posted the rest of them. "

I looked at the one you posted, obviously, I haven't read ones you haven't posted except by happenstance. I have no reason not to think, since you posted one, that when you put in an "s", you made an error. In fact, I have no reason to assume even middling fair competence on your part.

"They DON'T mean the same thing legally, and that's the entire point!"

They do mean the same thing colloquially, and I will continue to use that term when "natural born citizen" does not roll easily off the keyboard. Deal with it maturely or don't.

"The term "Natural Born Citizen" REQUIRES two American citizen parents BEFORE the child is born."

You still haven't cited that statute, and you've admitted a mother can pass on citizenship--a concept that has no relevance without her doing so alone.

"If Barack's father really is a foreigner, he is automatically NOT a natural born citizen."

If Barak's father was a foreigner, it doesn't matter if he was born on US soil, because his mother was a citizen.

"Don't you comprehend what divided loyalties mean?"

Don't you comprehend that a foreigner's book written a generation before the Revolution is trumped by the Constitution and federal statutes to the contrary?

"No I don't. All I have to do is help push my legislature into enacting into law a proposal now before them. The law would require any candidate for the office of President to submit an ORIGINAL copy of their birth certificate."

Yeah, waste your effort--that's what the man wants.

"If they do not comply, they will be refused access to the ballot."

Yet again, you show how much of a moron you are. The election is for electors, these are the electors chosen by a party for their loyalty to the party--you can waste time and effort to keep Obama off the ballot and if the Democratic party electors win, they can vote for him just the same.

"It was entitled "The Law of Nations" and it was written by Emerich Vatell."

And the English Common Law already differed from that text, and the Founders adopted English Common Law. Again, to make any headway, you need to show where Vatell's definition was adopted in statute--BTW, current statute at that.

"You make me feel as though I am talking to a child. The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. It cannot be trumped by a statute."

The Constitution gives to Congress the power to define naturalized citizenship, this mean they can also define natural born citizenship, or the naturalization power has no meaning.

"The constitution means what it meant when it was written."

Absolutely so, but unless Vatell's definition which is more restrictive of natural born citizenship than the English Common Law version was adopted in statute, then Vatell's does not command. Instead, the English Common Law does--although once the Revolution had taken place, American Common Law was free to evolve in differing directions, as you've admitted it has with women passing on citizenship.

Of course, you could be making that up, after all, you haven't cited that statute either. Are you sure you did all the scholarship you're claiming?

"Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien...resident in the United States:"

Of course, that statute has as you've already said been overridden by one permitting mothers to pass on US citizenship--necessarily natural born citizenship, same as the mother's.

It's really hilarious when you sow (or is that show?) the seeds of your own argument's self immolation in your own post.

[hanelyp]

It's clear to me that the intent of Natural Born Citizen is being brought up in the culture of this country. Being raised in his early years by a non-citizen outside this country clearly does not satisfy that intent.

[ladajo]

Gasoline...fire...

The is a legal difference between Natural Born Citizen, Citizen, Foreign Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen.

If there was not, then Arnold could run for President. And so could I, or even my wife (who falls in the same Category as Arnold.)

I can be a Senator or Governor, but I can not be President. I am Foreign Born of a US Father and Foreign Mother. I do not meet the criteria of "Natural Born Citizen".

[TDPerk]

It's clear to me that the intent of Natural Born Citizen is being brought up in the culture of this country. Being raised in his early years by a non-citizen outside this country clearly does not satisfy that intent.

It certainly does not. But that is not the legal or constitutional question.

[Diogenes]

"To someone reasonable, it is easily enough proven. To someone that alleges (sight unseen) old documents are "LIES" it is impossible to prove anything. "

Your utter lack of a direct response shows even you know you have nothing.

TDPerk says:
"T'is but a scratch"

"That phrase is a specific legal term which was taken from a specific legal text. "

Show where that specific text's specific definition was adopted by statute.

Sure. Just as soon as you show me where the term "Right to bear arms" was adopted by statute.

"In 1787 it wasn't even possible for a woman to transfer citizenship at all."

Which says nothing at all about what laws are in force now. Congress decides such questions, what have they decided?

Yes, congress decided that Slaves should gain the rights of citizens, that we should have an income tax, that we should enact Prohibition, that Women should get the right to vote, that Poll taxes should be illegal, that the voting age should be lowered to 18. That's why all those things happened! It was because CONGRESS decided!


Everyone knows that CONGRESS decides all matters constitutional. Silly me. I thought Changes to constitutional law required a constitutional amendment with the approval of congress AND 3/4ths of the states. Now we all know it merely requires a vote in Congress.

"It wasn't until 1920 that women were legally permitted to pass on citizenship. "

Oh, you admit you know what they've decided, you'll just keep on lying about it.

"Oh, well if the public thinks something is true, then that MAKES it true."

What is impeacheable is ultimately a political question, so unless a great many more people sour on him or it's discovered he really wasn't born on US soil or his mother actually completed paperwork to renounce her citizenship, his administration is as legitimate as any. More stupid than most, but not less legitimate.

I admire your determination, but I would have stopped making ignorant comments a long time ago. I would have researched what my opponent was saying, and if he was right I would have admitted it, but if he was wrong I would have come back with the appropriate evidence to show that he was wrong.






A Mother cannot renounce the citizenship of her child. (Neither can the father or any other guardian.) Only a citizen that has come to the age of maturity can renounce their citizenship, and then only through an "Affirmative Act." (another specific legal term.) As for his being born on American soil, we have no way of knowing. Hawaii will issue certificates of birth for people not born there. That is why their word is worth nothing.

"The word "Documents" has an "s" on it. That means it's PLURAL. Now tell me again how you looked at them? I haven't even posted the rest of them. "

I looked at the one you posted, obviously, I haven't read ones you haven't posted except by happenstance. I have no reason not to think, since you posted one, that when you put in an "s", you made an error. In fact, I have no reason to assume even middling fair competence on your part.

I have reason to assume gross incompetence on your part. You keep saying things which are demonstrably untrue, but which are also widely known among people that have done even basic research on the U.S. Constitution and American History. Prior to this discussion, I assumed you were reasonably sensible. You have just proven the old adage. "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. "

"They DON'T mean the same thing legally, and that's the entire point!"

They do mean the same thing colloquially, and I will continue to use that term when "natural born citizen" does not roll easily off the keyboard. Deal with it maturely or don't.

Maturity would require that one not use a term for convenience that means something other than what is intended.

"The term "Natural Born Citizen" REQUIRES two American citizen parents BEFORE the child is born."

You still haven't cited that statute, and you've admitted a mother can pass on citizenship--a concept that has no relevance without her doing so alone.

You really aren't reading what I'm writing. No Statute can override the U.S. Constitution, and Yes, a woman CAN pass on U.S. Citizenship by herself. She simply cannot pass on "Natural Born Citizenship" status without an American father.

"If Barack's father really is a foreigner, he is automatically NOT a natural born citizen."

If Barak's father was a foreigner, it doesn't matter if he was born on US soil, because his mother was a citizen.

This really isn't hard to comprehend, so I don't know why you're having such difficulty with it. Perhaps a diagram will help?

"Don't you comprehend what divided loyalties mean?"

Don't you comprehend that a foreigner's book written a generation before the Revolution is trumped by the Constitution and federal statutes to the contrary?

Ha ha ha... You're a funny guy! Most of our Constitution is BASED on that book! Vatell described the foundation for government that OUR nation adopted! And once again, STATUTES CANNOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION!

"No I don't. All I have to do is help push my legislature into enacting into law a proposal now before them. The law would require any candidate for the office of President to submit an ORIGINAL copy of their birth certificate."

Yeah, waste your effort--that's what the man wants.

Yeah, i'll chalk that argument up right next to the one that says "If there was anything there, HILLARY would have found it! " With most Republicans questioning his legitimacy, it certainly didn't hurt us in the last election.

"If they do not comply, they will be refused access to the ballot."

Yet again, you show how much of a moron you are. The election is for electors, these are the electors chosen by a party for their loyalty to the party--you can waste time and effort to keep Obama off the ballot and if the Democratic party electors win, they can vote for him just the same.

It is so funny seeing you call me a fool! I love it! Did it never occur to you what kind of media backlash would occur if Obama is NOT ALLOWED on the ballot because he won't PROVE he's even an American? (by the way, there IS a statute that says a girl cannot pass on Citizenship IF she is underage AND if the child is born in a foreign country. I'll post it if you really want to see it.) No, the publicity alone would sink him, and the Media would not be able to stop it.

"It was entitled "The Law of Nations" and it was written by Emerich Vatell."

And the English Common Law already differed from that text, and the Founders adopted English Common Law. Again, to make any headway, you need to show where Vatell's definition was adopted in statute--BTW, current statute at that.

You might look at this.


http://beforeitsnews.com/story/246/418/ ... tizen.html


And this.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citi ... ce-to-Same

"You make me feel as though I am talking to a child. The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. It cannot be trumped by a statute."

The Constitution gives to Congress the power to define naturalized citizenship, this mean they can also define natural born citizenship, or the naturalization power has no meaning.

Not true at all. Congress CANNOT modify the constitution by statute. They can only modify it through Constitutional amendment. Redefining terms is not allowed. Abraham Lincoln once asked a witness during a trial "Suppose you call a tail a leg, how many legs would a sheep have? " The Witness responded "Five." "No" Lincoln Said. "It would only have four. Just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it so."

"The constitution means what it meant when it was written."

Absolutely so, but unless Vatell's definition which is more restrictive of natural born citizenship than the English Common Law version was adopted in statute, then Vatell's does not command. Instead, the English Common Law does--although once the Revolution had taken place, American Common Law was free to evolve in differing directions, as you've admitted it has with women passing on citizenship.

The Founders Rejected Much of English Common law and replaced it with "Natural law", and their reference was Vatell. The "Natural Born Citizen" is an example of one such rejection of English Common law.

Don't take my word for it. Here are a few quotes.

George Mason in Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire.


http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... -3s10.html

James Madison to George Washington:

“What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law.”

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... _1s10.html

James Madison to Peter S. DuPonceau

That the Constitution is predicated on the existence of the Common Law cannot be questioned; because it borrows therefrom terms which must be explained by Com: Law Authorities; but this no more implies a general adoption or recognition of it, than the use of terms embracing articles of the Civil Law would carry such an implication.
...
As men, our birth right was from a much higher source, than the Common or any other human law and of much greater extent than is imparted or admitted by the Common law. And as far as it might belong to us as British subjects it must, with its correlative obligations, have expired when we ceased to be such.

http://www.rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/ ... 02-02-0266

Of course, you could be making that up, after all, you haven't cited that statute either. Are you sure you did all the scholarship you're claiming?

Two points.
1. A Statute cannot override the meaning of an Article of the Constitution.
2. No Statutes can be enacted until AFTER you have a government. Until the Constitution was adopted by the states, we did not HAVE a congress under that charter. The Congress we had under the Articles of confederation could enact no laws binding on a country formed under the U.S. Constitution.

"Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien...resident in the United States:"

Of course, that statute has as you've already said been overridden by one permitting mothers to pass on US citizenship--necessarily natural born citizenship, same as the mother's.

Will you get "Statutes" out of your head? Statutes cannot override Constitutional law. What allowed women to pass on Citizenship was something called the 19th Amendment. While it did not directly say so, the courts interpreted it as allowing rights other than voting. The 19th Amendment broke the boundaries limiting Women's rights. If they had the right to vote, the courts reasoned they should have other rights as well. (Equal protection under the law as stated in the 14th amendment.)

It's really hilarious when you sow (or is that show?) the seeds of your own argument's self immolation in your own post.

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean.

[ladajo]

Ok, as I try to understand my own circumstances better:

From US Code Title 8, Section 1401:

(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:

Which means that by US Law I am a Citizen "At Birth".

And, From the 14th Amendment:

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

and

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

and from Article 1, Section 8:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

And via further research:
Rogers v Bellei, 401 US 815 (1971)

Section IV:

The statutes culminating in § 301 merit review:

1. The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution's Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated,

"And 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. . . ."

2. A like provision, with only minor changes in phrasing and with the same emphasis on paternal residence, was continuously in effect through three succeeding naturalization Acts. Act of January 29, 1795, § 3, 1 Stat. 415; Act of April 14, 1802, § 4, 2 Stat. 155; Act of February 10, 1855, c. 71, 1, 10 Stat. 604. The only significant difference is that the 1790, 1795, and 1802 Acts read retrospectively, while the 1855 Act reads prospectively as well. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U. S. 657, 274 U. S. 664 (1927), and Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S. 308, 366 U. S. 311 (1961).

3. Section 1 of the 1855 Act, with changes unimportant here, was embodied as § 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874. [Footnote 3]

So, it would seem that through the Constitutionaly derived power, upheld by the Supreme Court, and maintained through a long history of Legislation, Congress defines me as a "Natural Born Citizen", based on "Citizenship at Birth".

Ironically, in the case I cited, due to it being the most recent applicable decision I could find, the Court ruled against Citizenship rights for Mr. Bellei. however, the pertinant part for me was the argument, and the Court clarification to its interpretation of the Constitution, Legislative Rights of Congress, and rightful power of the Statutes in question.

I have learned. Hmmm.

Edit: Added US Constitution Article 8 Sect. 5, and Article 1, Sect 8 cites.

[wisnij]

How about treason? Obama knows full well he is not Permitted to be President because he is not a Natural Born Citizen. Taking the oath of office which REQUIRES him to defend the U.S. Constitution, is an immediate violation of the oath.

Wow... this is actually still a thing? I thought that got settled when he posted his birth certificate from Honolulu. Like three years ago.

You, uh, you do know that Hawaii is part of the US, right? I know it seems like an exotic foreign land what with the palm trees and dusky Pacific Islanders and sensible health care and all, but it really is a state.

[Diogenes]

Ok, as I try to understand my own circumstances better:

From US Code Title 8, Section 1401:

(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:

Which means that by US Law I am a Citizen "At Birth".

And, From the 14th Amendment:

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

and

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

and from Article 1, Section 8:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

And via further research:
Rogers v Bellei, 401 US 815 (1971)

Section IV:

The statutes culminating in § 301 merit review:

1. The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution's Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated,

"And 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. . . ."

2. A like provision, with only minor changes in phrasing and with the same emphasis on paternal residence, was continuously in effect through three succeeding naturalization Acts. Act of January 29, 1795, § 3, 1 Stat. 415; Act of April 14, 1802, § 4, 2 Stat. 155; Act of February 10, 1855, c. 71, 1, 10 Stat. 604. The only significant difference is that the 1790, 1795, and 1802 Acts read retrospectively, while the 1855 Act reads prospectively as well. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U. S. 657, 274 U. S. 664 (1927), and Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S. 308, 366 U. S. 311 (1961).

3. Section 1 of the 1855 Act, with changes unimportant here, was embodied as § 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874. [Footnote 3]

So, it would seem that through the Constitutionaly derived power, upheld by the Supreme Court, and maintained through a long history of Legislation, Congress defines me as a "Natural Born Citizen", based on "Citizenship at Birth".

Ironically, in the case I cited, due to it being the most recent applicable decision I could find, the Court ruled against Citizenship rights for Mr. Bellei. however, the pertinant part for me was the argument, and the Court clarification to its interpretation of the Constitution, Legislative Rights of Congress, and rightful power of the Statutes in question.

I have learned. Hmmm.

Edit: Added US Constitution Article 8 Sect. 5, and Article 1, Sect 8 cites.

I am trying to follow what you are saying, but I'm having a difficult time wrapping my mind around it. It sounds like you are saying that congress can change the meaning of an article of the Constitution without resorting to the Amendment process. Is that what you are saying?

[Diogenes]

How about treason? Obama knows full well he is not Permitted to be President because he is not a Natural Born Citizen. Taking the oath of office which REQUIRES him to defend the U.S. Constitution, is an immediate violation of the oath.

Wow... this is actually still a thing? I thought that got settled when he posted his birth certificate from Honolulu. Like three years ago.

Two points.

1.A bunch of people DECLARED that it was settled, but it really wasn't.

2. Obama didn't release a birth certificaTE. He released a CertificaTION of live birth. Go ahead and read what's at the top, it says "CertifcaTION of birth, not "Birth CertificaTE."




What's the difference? A CertificaTION of birth is the state claiming he was born there. A Birth CertificaTE is actual proof that he was born there. (It has a signature from a witness who SAW the birth, and can attest that it occurred at the place and time asserted.)

You may not know this, but you cannot accept any state's word on the truthfulness of a Computer printed birth certificate. I've been adopted, and I have TWO birth certificates. I have my original, and I have the one the state will give me every time I ask for it. The one issued by the state is flat out incorrect, (Untruthful) but the state will "Attest" or "Certify" it is correct. They ALWAYS do this in the case of an Adoption, and by the way Barry was adopted in 1965 by Lolo Soetoro, so he DEFINITELY has an amended "CertificaTION", so it is completely worthless to prove anything.

You, uh, you do know that Hawaii is part of the US, right? I know it seems like an exotic foreign land what with the palm trees and dusky Pacific Islanders and sensible health care and all, but it really is a state.

Uh, you do know that Hawaii is the only state in the Nation that will give certifications of birth to people who were not actually born there? It's because they have a lot of birth at sea on ships coming to Hawaii, so they WILL register a birth that did not actually occur there. All that was required was an affidavit from a Relative that an "At Home" birth occurred.

[ladajo]

Ok, as I try to understand my own circumstances better:

From US Code Title 8, Section 1401:

(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:

Which means that by US Law I am a Citizen "At Birth".

And, From the 14th Amendment:

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

and

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

and from Article 1, Section 8:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

And via further research:
Rogers v Bellei, 401 US 815 (1971)

Section IV:

The statutes culminating in § 301 merit review:

1. The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution's Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated,

"And 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. . . ."

2. A like provision, with only minor changes in phrasing and with the same emphasis on paternal residence, was continuously in effect through three succeeding naturalization Acts. Act of January 29, 1795, § 3, 1 Stat. 415; Act of April 14, 1802, § 4, 2 Stat. 155; Act of February 10, 1855, c. 71, 1, 10 Stat. 604. The only significant difference is that the 1790, 1795, and 1802 Acts read retrospectively, while the 1855 Act reads prospectively as well. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U. S. 657, 274 U. S. 664 (1927), and Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S. 308, 366 U. S. 311 (1961).

3. Section 1 of the 1855 Act, with changes unimportant here, was embodied as § 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874. [Footnote 3]

So, it would seem that through the Constitutionaly derived power, upheld by the Supreme Court, and maintained through a long history of Legislation, Congress defines me as a "Natural Born Citizen", based on "Citizenship at Birth".

Ironically, in the case I cited, due to it being the most recent applicable decision I could find, the Court ruled against Citizenship rights for Mr. Bellei. however, the pertinant part for me was the argument, and the Court clarification to its interpretation of the Constitution, Legislative Rights of Congress, and rightful power of the Statutes in question.

I have learned. Hmmm.

Edit: Added US Constitution Article 8 Sect. 5, and Article 1, Sect 8 cites.

I am trying to follow what you are saying, but I'm having a difficult time wrapping my mind around it. It sounds like you are saying that congress can change the meaning of an article of the Constitution without resorting to the Amendment process. Is that what you are saying?

I went like this:
1. Reviewed US Code to see what it says about Citizenship (Title 8 Section 1401)

2. Reviewed Constitution to see what it says regarding Citizenship and Powers of Congress. Article 1 Section 8, 14th Amendment Sections 1 and 5.

3. Determined that the Constitution gives the power to Congress to enact laws for the execution of the provisions of the Constitution (Article 1 Sect. 8 & 14th Amendment Section 5.)

4. Reviewed related US Supreme Court Cases and Decisions to see where Congressional Powers start and end in regard to the Citizenship Issue, as well as the Court's interpretation of the Constitution and its guidance in the matter. In this process, I then reveiwed the changes in opinion through the years culminating with the most current related decision, Rogers v. Bellei (1971)

5. Review of the Rogers v. Bellei (1971) 401 US 815 decision provides that the Court upholds the right of Congress to enact legislation to clarify and regulate the provisions of the Constitution, and that the Court found that the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is equal with "Citizen at Birth", and was envisioned so by the original Congress in that the decision cited:
"The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution's Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated,

"And 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. . . ."..."

And in such that the Court found that the Congress has rightfully enacted legislation to provide provisions to clarify citizenship derivations that the Constitution did not.

So in short, to your question, Yes, the US Supreme Court has held that Congress has the "power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." and also to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" and this includes legislating rules for naturalization, and citizenship issues that are not defined by the Constitution, in some much as that these legislations do not violate the spirit and intent of the Constitution. And, specifically, in that since the Constitution does not clarify "Natural Born Citizen", and that the intent of the meaning was clear in both the commentary and actions of the framers (1st Congress, Federalist Papers, Letters, etc - as you have cited as well), and that Congress has kept in that with its legislation.

401 US 871 is an interesting read. Give it a go. It really helped me. I was not aware of this case until I dug in to the circumstances of my topic, and obviously it has relavence in the bigger picture.

Edit: spelling spelling spelling...