BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ... Full Story

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#89159 Jul 4, 2012
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>The Constitution; Article II Section 1: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President" Barack Obama's father was never a citizen of the United States of America,therefore Obama can never be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
Sorry, Frank.

United States v. Rhodes, 27 F Cas 785, 789 (C.C.D.Ky. 1866)(cited in majority opinion in Ark):“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.… We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.”
JEB

United States

#89160 Jul 4, 2012
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>The Constitution; Article II Section 1: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,

at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

shall be eligible to the Office of President" Barack Obama's father was never a citizen of the United States of America,therefore Obama can never be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
that's it , Obama was born before the adoption of the Constitution.

“The Usurper FAILED”

Since: Apr 11

Americans

#89161 Jul 4, 2012
What does
"born in the allegiance of the United States"
define?

“The Usurper FAILED”

Since: Apr 11

Americans

#89162 Jul 4, 2012
Do WHAT???????

Obama helps swear in 25 new U.S. citizens

-- Miguel Andrade, born and raised in the Cape Verde Islands, moved to the United States in the fall of 2008. Private First Class Andrade has distinguished himself, earning a coveted position in 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment's Scout Platoon.

-- Alla Victorovna Ausheva, born in Russia in March 2011, Alla joined the New York Army National Guard in July 2011 and serves as a maintenance technician in Company G of the 427th Brigade Support Battalion. The unit supports the 1st Battalion 258th Field Artillery. She lives in Bayside, NY.

-- Francisco Jose Ballesteros de la Rosa, born in Mexico, joined the Marine Corps in December 2009. Corporal Ballestros' personal awards and decorations include the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the National Defense Service Medal.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/ar...

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#89163 Jul 4, 2012
LurkerLooky wrote:
What does
"born in the allegiance of the United States"
define?
You might start your education with these references.

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madison

“that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.” Zephaniah Swift , A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795).

Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805)
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”

Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

That nativity furnishes the rule both of duty and of right as between the individual and the Government is a historical and political truth so old and so universally accepted that it is useless to prove it by authority. In every civilized country the individual is born to duties and rights—the duty of allegiance and the right to protection."
Rep. Bowen. The Congressional Globe, Volume 61, Part 3. pg. 96 (1869)

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#89164 Jul 4, 2012
LurkerLooky wrote:
Do WHAT???????
Obama helps swear in 25 new U.S. citizens
-- Miguel Andrade, born and raised in the Cape Verde Islands, moved to the United States in the fall of 2008. Private First Class Andrade has distinguished himself, earning a coveted position in 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment's Scout Platoon.
-- Alla Victorovna Ausheva, born in Russia in March 2011, Alla joined the New York Army National Guard in July 2011 and serves as a maintenance technician in Company G of the 427th Brigade Support Battalion. The unit supports the 1st Battalion 258th Field Artillery. She lives in Bayside, NY.
-- Francisco Jose Ballesteros de la Rosa, born in Mexico, joined the Marine Corps in December 2009. Corporal Ballestros' personal awards and decorations include the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the National Defense Service Medal.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/ar...
You have a problem?

“The Usurper FAILED”

Since: Apr 11

Americans

#89165 Jul 4, 2012
But why did the founding fathers require natural born citizenship for the President and no other office?(VP too.) Clearly, as John Jay wrote in his letter to George Washington:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check ... nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…[i]
John Jay referred in his letter to “Command in Chief” as we understand today to be the Commander in Chief. The U.S. President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. To this point in the book, we have not been able to discern with certainty what John Jay meant by natural born citizen, so let us see if we can understand what was meant by Foreigner(s). Returning to our dictionary.com site, foreigner is defined as:
...a person not native to or naturalized in the country or jurisdiction under consideration; alien.[ii]
Clearly under this definition, this is our first indication that maybe dual citizenship does not preclude one from being a natural born citizen. Utilizing this definition for foreigner, it is clear that Barack Obama would not be considered an alien of the United States. Being born in Hawaii and although having dual citizenship, he did possess U.S. citizenship through his Mother, so it would certainly appear that he would not be considered a foreigner or an alien. Was this enough for him to satisfy what was meant by John Jay’s qualification of natural born citizenship status for the Presidency?

... the Federalist Papers were written and published in New York City newspapers to persuade the people. In the final analysis, it may simply be that the term natural born citizen was firmly rooted in the minds of the founders either through de Vattel’s definition or another definition they commonly knew, so the founders never questioned in their minds what was meant. Was there any other evidence as to why the founders included this provision especially with respect to using the term natural?

The founding fathers were learned men. They had read and were versed in many subjects and literate in the writings and teachings of the political thinkers that came before them. One such political thinker whom the founding fathers were profoundly familiar was Cicero. In reading Cicero’s works on natural law, the founders concluded that:

The Law of Nature or Nature’s God is eternal in its basic goodness; it is universal in its application. It is a code of “right reason” from the Creator himself. It cannot be altered. It cannot be repealed. It cannot be abandoned by legislators or the people themselves, even though they may pretend to do so. In Natural Law we are dealing with factors of absolute reality. It is basic in its principles, comprehensible to the human mind, and totally correct and morally right in its general operation.[iv]

They created the Supreme Law of Land when they wrote the Constitution based on this idea of natural law. Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations is a treatise on natural law as indicated by the full title of his treatise: The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law.[v]

If we study this idea of natural law in relation to birth, we have to conclude that God given birth rights has something to say on the subject, therefore, the parents citizenship must play a part in the birth rights of the child, and arguably must play at minimum an equal role to the place of birth of the child. It is reasonable to conclude that this may be the very reason that de Vattel defined natural born citizen in the manner in which he did: on the soil of the country to citizen parents of the country.
...
We know that the founding fathers followed natural law in their political concepts of government. Why is only one citizen parent under natural law, birth rights and natural born citizenship incompatible?

I would argue it is for this reason,*allegiance.*

http://hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com/2009/0...

“The Usurper FAILED”

Since: Apr 11

Americans

#89166 Jul 4, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a problem?
You don't see it?

“WestieLover”

Since: Apr 12

The city that I reside

#89167 Jul 4, 2012
Ellen wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: "Sweetie Obama's own sister Maya Ng-Soetoro said he was adopted by her father in Indonesia. "
Answer: No, she didn't.
Re: "Mary Ayers said that she and her husband were financing a foreign student through college. "
Turns out that she said that AFTER Obama had graduated both from college and law school and was already at work at a law firm.
Re: "And Obama told the man why he was their, and even quipped that someday he would be President."
If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Spare me your "DEMOS" talking points. Truth is irrelvant to Progressive Liberals. All are inconvient facts to Progressive shills.

“WestieLover”

Since: Apr 12

The city that I reside

#89168 Jul 4, 2012
Spare me your "DEMOS" talking points. Truth is irrelevant to Progressive Liberals. All are inconvient facts to Progressive shills.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#89169 Jul 4, 2012
'A shining city on a hill'

The way to build a consensus for good governance is to come up with a simple, beautiful vision of liberty and justice for all.

That’s what the Founding Fathers taught us.

In 1776, the men who authored the Declaration of Independence probably did not represent the majority opinion in the colonies. There was no consensus among the people to risk war with the greatest colonial power on the face of the Earth. Life was more than tolerable in America – maybe even providing more prosperity than did life in Great Britain at the time.

... our founders were smart men.

So, before drafting a laundry list of grievances with the Crown, they wrote a beautiful mission statement we know as the Declaration of Independence. It was indeed revolutionary in nature, redefining the proper role of government and demanding that it accede to the consent of the governed. It also recognized that human beings are first accountable to their consciences and to God. That is the basis for liberty and self-government.

The founders saw government at best as a necessary evil in a fallen world and sought to build a nation that would allow responsible, moral people to be self-governing, getting much of their inspiration from the books of Samuel and the book of Judges.

Needless to say, their vision succeeded in building a broad coalition and a consensus needed to create an independent, free nation.

It worked

The Christian separatists who fled Europe for religious liberty represented a minority on that vessel. I’m sure they made every effort to convert the majority to their point of view. But they also drafted a beautiful mission statement called the Mayflower Compact that promised a better way of life for all aboard that ship.

They didn’t win them over by promising them goodies. They didn’t win them over through compromise. They didn’t win them over through mediation. They didn’t win them over one issue at a time. They drafted a document that appealed to all men and women who sought to live freely and responsibly.

It worked.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/a-shining-city-on-...

Put this site DOWN, ALL you "want to"
BUT this man has "spirituality" "intelligence" and "bravery" like obots can "only" dream about!
economy

Greensburg, IN

#89170 Jul 4, 2012
The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!Remember that day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall!)
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!
So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House.. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for,
and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."
There is no

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#89171 Jul 4, 2012
LurkerLooky wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't see it?
You cannot articulate it? If you have a point, you need to be able to write in the English language.

Now what's your problem? Can you muster a coherent rationale?

I doubt it.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a problem?

“The Usurper FAILED”

Since: Apr 11

Americans

#89172 Jul 4, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot articulate it? If you have a point, you need to be able to write in the English language.
Now what's your problem? Can you muster a coherent rationale?
I doubt it.
<quoted text>
Go piss up an electric cord w/bare wires
American Lady

Danville, KY

#89173 Jul 4, 2012
Own a gun? Doctors can refuse to treat you
Judge issues permanent injunction in 'Docs vs. Glocks' case

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/own-a-gun-the-doct...

Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#89174 Jul 4, 2012
LurkerLooky wrote:
But why did the founding fathers require natural born citizenship for the President and no other office?(VP too.) Clearly, as John Jay wrote in his letter to George Washington:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check ... nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…[i]
John Jay referred in his letter to “Command in Chief” as we understand today to be the Commander in Chief. The U.S. President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. To this point in the book, we have not been able to discern with certainty what John Jay meant by natural born citizen, so let us see if we can understand what was meant by Foreigner(s). Returning to our dictionary.com site, foreigner is defined as:
...a person not native to or naturalized in the country or jurisdiction under consideration; alien.[ii]
Clearly under this definition, this is our first indication that maybe dual citizenship does not preclude one from being a natural born citizen. Utilizing this definition for foreigner, it is clear that Barack Obama would not be considered an alien of the United States. Being born in Hawaii and although having dual citizenship, he did possess U.S. citizenship through his Mother, so it would certainly appear that he would not be considered a foreigner or an alien. Was this enough for him to satisfy what was meant by John Jay’s qualification of natural born citizenship status for the Presidency?
... the Federalist Papers were written and published in New York City newspapers to persuade the people. In the final analysis, it may simply be that the term natural born citizen was firmly rooted in the minds of the founders either through de Vattel’s definition or another definition they commonly knew, so the founders never questioned in their minds what was meant. Was there any other evidence as to why the founders included this provision especially with respect to using the term natural?
The founding fathers were learned men. They had read and were versed in many subjects and literate in the writings and teachings of the political thinkers that came before them. One such political thinker whom the founding fathers were profoundly familiar was Cicero. In reading Cicero’s works on natural law, the founders concluded that:
The Law of Nature or Nature’s God is eternal in its basic goodness; it is universal in its application. It is a code of “right reason” from the Creator himself. It cannot be altered. It cannot be repealed. It cannot be abandoned by legislators or the people themselves, even though they may pretend to do so. In Natural Law we are dealing with factors of absolute reality. It is basic in its principles, comprehensible to the human mind, and totally correct and morally right in its general operation.[iv]
They created the Supreme Law of Land when they wrote the Constitution based on this idea of natural law. Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations is a treatise on natural law as indicated by the full title of his treatise: The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law.[v]
If we study this idea of natural law in relation to birth, we have to conclude that God given birth rights has something to say on the subject, therefore, the parents citizenship must play a part in the birth rights of the child, and arguably must play at minimum an equal role to the place of birth of the child. It is reasonable to conclude that this may be the very reason that de Vattel defined natural born citizen in the manner in which he did: on the soil of the country to citizen parents of the country.
...
"Permit me to hint whether" or not it would be "wise and seasonable" for birfoons to to "declare expressly" coherent thoughts in their own words, and cite their sources efficiently summarizing. The implication is that if you cannot write your thoughts in the English language, you should go back to middle school and quit wasting the time of literate individuals.

American Lady

Danville, KY

#89175 Jul 4, 2012
Obama's Social Security Number challenged
Exclusive: Jack Cashill reports on woman's court filing based on myriad anomalies

Daniels, who has vetted thousands of Social Security Numbers for numerous other clients, has done her homework. In her filing, she thoroughly documents her contention “that Barack Obama has repeatedly, consistently, and with intent misrepresented himself by using a fraudulently obtained Social Security Number.”

To acquire appropriate standing in court, Daniels has gone to the trouble of establishing herself as a valid write-in candidate for president. Before she is through, this 70-something mother of seven, who has been a licensed Ohio PI since 1995, may cause Obama more trouble than the Romney campaign.

...

To have gotten a Social Security card at this time Obama would have had to show up for a “mandatory in-person interview.” This could not have taken place in Connecticut. Obama’s sister, Maya, by contrast, uses a number appropriate for a Hawaiian resident.

The ample evidence Daniels gathered led her to believe that the 042 number Obama has been using “had previously been issued to another person,” one who lived in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979 and who was born in 1890.

MORE

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obamas-social-secu...
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#89176 Jul 4, 2012
Conservative girl wrote:
<quoted text>
Spare me your "DEMOS" talking points. Truth is irrelvant to Progressive Liberals. All are inconvient facts to Progressive shills.
The facts are as cited. Maya did not say it, neither did Mrs Ayers. These are FACTS, not talking points.

What you claimed were lies, birther "taling points," which are not true. None of the people you quoted said any such things.
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#89177 Jul 4, 2012
LurkerLooky wrote:
What does
"born in the allegiance of the United States"
define?
All persons born in the USA who are not the children of foreign diplomats are born in the allegiance of the USA.
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#89178 Jul 4, 2012
LurkerLooky wrote:
But why did the founding fathers require natural born citizenship for the President and no other office?(VP too.) Clearly, as John Jay wrote in his letter to George Washington:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check ... nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…[i]....
I would argue it is for this reason,*allegiance.*
http://hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com/2009/0...
Vattel recommended many things that our Constitution did not adopt, such as a state religion and that only the nobility should own firearms. IF the writers of the US Constitution had meant to use his definition of Natural Born and not the definition that they were familiar with and was common, the definition in the common law, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Realtime 1,156,143
Obama: Racism, bias in US will take time to tackle 5 min barefoot2626 700
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 6 min Agents of Corruption 294,699
No charges: Houston officer shot unarmed black man 6 min White 38
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 min DanFromSmithville 134,248
Thousands attend 8-hour wake for slain NYC officer 13 min sandy1 8
Lovable 'Saved by the Bell' Actor Arrested on W... 20 min true dat dawg 2
More from around the web