Birthers: Lacking the sense God gave chickens


Birthers are still claiming the Earth is flat, still looking for a missing link, still claiming Judge Crater didn’t go missing, and still embarrassing America?

Yep.

Barack Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate

Barack Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate – image from Snopes.com (available many places)

Orly Taitz was in court in Georgia, losing another case because she lacks even a whiff of a scintilla of an iota of evidence to back any of her claims that President Barack Obama was not born in Honolulu, Hawaii, as his now-released long-form birth certificate, short-form birth certificate, contemporary newspapers, eyewitnesses and all other evidence indicate.  They have no evidence, and they have clowns for lawyers:

In court filings, Obama’s legal team has called the “birther” allegations baseless and the criticisms of his birth records “patently unfounded.” The filings also noted 68 similar challenges filed have been dismissed and, during a 2009 challenge, a federal judge in Columbus fined Taitz $20,000 for “frivolous” litigation.

But I stumbled onto a wildly misnamed blog, The Constitution Club*, where the issue is given credence and way too many electrons.

(Are lobotomies legal, again?  Can people perform self-lobotomies?  Just wondering.)

I added some references to sites in the real world, so that anyone not totally insane might find an anchor in reality and follow the threads back to the light.

The post’s author, Daniella Nicole, tried to make a defense of the birthers insane, destructive antics.

I responded, but you never can tell when the birthers will plug their ears, cover their eyes and start singing “Born in the U.S.A.” at the top of their lungs to avoid information that would require them to appear sober.  My comment went straight to “moderation.”  Probably too many links, or too many high-quality links (thank you, Cornell University Law Library’s Legal Information Institute).   For the record, here’s my last reply to Daniella Nicole:

[Daniella Nicole wrote:]

I daresay any of the GOP contenders, or to use your reference, SNL’s the Church Lady, Frankie and Willie or one of the Coneheads, would all be better than the clown (or Homey D. Clown from In Living Color, if you will) currently in office.

Excuse me. I had mistaken you for an American, a patriot, and someone who bears no ill will to the American people.

Unless Obama has lied about who his father is and the birth certificate is a fraud (which would raise other legal issues), Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. Period.

“Born on American soil” means “natural born American citizen.” Obama was born on American soil. End of your argument.

BUT, had he been born on foreign soil, with one American citizen parent, he would still be a natural born citizens — as is John McCain, born in Panama (and not on a military base, but in the local Panama hospital).

Remind me never to refer any of my clients or friends to you for immigration advice.

The Supreme Court actually set the precedent of defining natural born as born of two American citizen parents in the 1875 case Minor v. Happersett. Note it was not a dicta, which is an authoritative statement by a court that is not legally binding, but an actual precedent, which is a rule of law established for the first time by a court and is referred to by other courts afterwards.

The holding in Minor was that women are not voting citizens. The case dealt with Mrs. Minor’s attempt to register to vote. Obama is not a woman, and the issue you’re talking about has nothing to do with registering to vote. So, if the case says what you claim, it MUST be in obiter dicta. [Obiter dicta means those parts of the decision in which the court explains how and why it ruled as it did, but NOT the key ruling itself.]  No offense, but you really could use some legal training. At least get a Black’s Law dictionary, will you?

Here, read excerpts from the opinion:

The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.

So it would be error to claim the case got to the issue of who is a “natural born citizen” at all. It did not.

And, had you read the case, you’d know that. In fact, the case says the opposite of what you claim. It says:

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]

If you’re going to opine on citizenship, you would do well to read a summary of actual citizenship law, and don’t take the odd rantings of anti-Obama people on the internet.

Dani said:

Interestingly, many refer to Vattel’s definition of natural born (which is essentially the same thing and may have influenced the founders in their work on the Constitution), but it is not Vattel that sets legal precedent. The Supreme Court can and did set the precedent in the matter in 1875.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) most assuredly did not rule that a child must have two U.S. citizen parents to be a citizen, nor to be a “natural born” citizen. Read the case’s key sections above.

The precedent that is important here is the presidency of Chester Alan Arthur, a man who, like Obama, had a father born in a foreign country, and who was not a citizen of the U.S. at the time of Arthur’s birth. While opponents tried to make an issue of this in the campaign of 1880, it was a non-starter. You know the rest — Arthur was elected vice president under James Garfield, and ascended to the presidency upon Garfield’s death after being shot (no, Orly Taitz was not the shooter). So, had Hapersett had anything to do with presidential eligibility, it would have applied to Arthur. Since Arthur served out his term as president, it’s pretty clear that the actual precedent supports Obama’s eligibility 100%.

Somebody told you a tall tale about the case — it’s about whether a woman may vote, not about what is a natural born citizen. Seriously, how could anyone confuse those issues?

Congress in 2008 (including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) also defined natural born as having been born to two American citizen parents when a challenge to John McCain’s eligibility was issued.So, even by the standard and definition of Congress, including Obama himself, he is not legally qualified or eligible.

1. That was a non-binding resolution, stating the opinion of the U.S. Senate.
2. The resolution, S. Res. 511 in the 110th Congress, ( does NOT say “two American citizen parents,” but instead refers to children born to “Americans.” Obama’s mother was an American.
3. Obama was born on American soil, and so the resolution, covering kids born outside the U.S., is inapplicable, and off the mark.

Obama was not born to two American citizen parents, by his own admission and via the birth certificate which he has provided to America. Ergo, he is not a natural born American citizen and does not meet the Constitutional requirement for the office of President of the United States of America. As such, not only is he not legally qualified to be in the office he currently holds, but he is not legally eligible to be on any ballot in the U.S. for the upcoming election. Period.

Except, none of the laws you cite says what you’d need it to say. Obama is natural born because he was born in the U.S. He is also natural born having been a child of a U.S. citizen. He is fully legally qualified — at least, to people who know the law, and who appreciate that it’s necessary to follow the laws.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Your wishes do not change the law. Your misstatements of the cases and the laws do not change the laws. Your wish to find something bad against Obama, a good man and a good president, does not give you a leg to stand on, nor a horse to ride.

And how, pray tell, is using legal means to resolve serious legal matters “polluting the courts”? That is what they are there for.

Junk lawsuits. Nuisance suits. Orly Taitz has already been fined for making these nuisance claims. The evidence needed to challenge Obama’s eligibility simply does not exist, except in the fevered and overactive imaginations of those crazies. The stuff in Georgia this last week is a supreme embarrassment to America — but thank God, the courts got it right.

But by all means, continue to stamp your foot and blather on about this. Your work on this insane and hopeless issue keeps you off the streets, and out of real politics. You can’t do damage to a school board race while you’re lost in the ozone on citizenship and Obama.

_____________

* Maybe by “Constitution Club” they mean “a club with which to beat the Constitution,” and not a group of people joining together in a noble cause, you think?

Earlier at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub

123 Responses to Birthers: Lacking the sense God gave chickens

  1. jsojourner says:

    Ascot,

    Would you be so kind as to elucidate a bit? Can you share, oh I don’t know, three or four examples of precisely HOW President Obama has “destroyed” America? I certainly have my quibbles with this or that policy position out of his administration.

    But I am finding it difficult to think of a single way in which he has destroyed or is destroying the country I love. Can you help me?

    All the best,

    Jim

    Like

  2. Ed Darrell says:

    Stock market’s doing well. Record profits at oil companies. Polls show foreigners’ views of U.S. higher than average; expectations also higher.

    Two wars ended. Oil dependency on middle east broken,and U.S. is an oil exporter again. Massive economic disaster ended, complete collapse of U.S. economy averted, jobs increasing . . .

    If Obama’s goal was to destroy America, he’s completely failed.

    Like

  3. Ascot says:

    It’s now June 29 2013, Born in Kenya or Hawaii, it all makes no difference now, Obama has just about completed what he set out to accomplish, and that is to destroy the Country he hates every bit as much as his ‘spiritual’ advisor, Jeremiah Wright and his mentor, the terrorist bomber, Bill Ayres, and that country is the United States of America.

    Like

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    Tatoott, you may be right: Birthers are crazy in more ways than one.

    However, in proving to a court that there is some problem with the President’s citizenship, your own insanity is not a potential plea, nor even relevant.

    Like

  5. ellen says:

    Re: “Are they saying that a person born to an immigrant with foreign allegiance, that comes over must denounce all foreign allegiance, but a child born here to an immigrant with foreign allegiance, is not required to also renounce their foreign allegiance? It makes no sense ”

    The answer is yes, a US born citizen–regardless of the number of foreign parents–is not required to denounce all foreign allegiance. And it makes perfect sense.

    The reason is that the writers of the US Constitution believed, as did Blackstone, that allegiance went with the PLACE of birth.

    Blackstone said: “… that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.”

    James Madison said:

    “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.” (In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789)

    Notice the resemblance.

    In any case, there is considerably evidence that the term Natural Born comes from the common law. The evidence is THAT IS THE WAY THAT IT WAS USED by the writers of the US Constitution and other leaders at the time. There is no example of them using it to refer to parents, only to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth.

    Here is an example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution was written:

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    Notice that that quotation refers only to the PLACE, not the parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within a state.”

    And here is how it was used in 1829:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    Like

  6. ellen says:

    Re Lyman Trumball

    Lyman Trumbull said this:

    I read from Paschalâ’s Annotated Constitution: ‘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. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” —Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

    His words are that under the common law, which he says applies in the USA, ALL persons born in the allegiance of the USA (meaning not foreign diplomats) are Natural Born Citizens.

    That, of course, is what the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case ruled too.

    That is why Ronald Reagan’s attorney general said this:

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    The Wong Kim Ark decision said:

    “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.”

    It says very clearly that in England and in the colonies and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats or enemy aliens is NATURAL BORN. Every child.

    That is why Meese’s book said what it said.

    Like

  7. There are no lingering doubts!

    The 14th amendment debates have Lyman Trumbull, the co-author, who wrote the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause, and he is on record EXPLAINING his amendment to the bill, because others were asking what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant, and HE, the one who WROTE the amendment to the 14th amendment, clearly states:

    “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

    And the Civil Rights Act (also authored by Trumbull), passed by the same men, months earlier, confirms my claims and validates Trumbull’s words, in the debates…
    “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
    http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html

    And the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance further supports my claims…
    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;”

    I mean it’s clear as day that a citizen (natural born or naturalized) must have full allegiance…

    Are they saying that a person born to an immigrant with foreign allegiance, that comes over must denounce all foreign allegiance, but a child born here to an immigrant with foreign allegiance, is not required to also renounce their foreign allegiance? It makes no sense and my proof and sources makes 100% sense, so why is it ignored and called irrelevant? Yet, when the left say, the 14th amendment grants Obama citizenship, people agree without a single fact?

    MANY TOLD ME THAT DEBATES CAN’T BE USED IN COURT, BUT I FOUND PRECEDENT THAT THEY CAN!

    (Go to page 112 at the link AND READ) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15118083235858813035&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

    Gray talks about how the 14th amendment debates prove what the founders intent was…
    “Language could not express that purpose with more distinctness than does the act of 1866. Any doubt upon the subject, in respect to persons of the Indian race residing in the United States or Territories, and not members of a tribe, will be removed by an examination of the debates, in which many distinguished statesmen and lawyers participated in the Senate of the United States when the act of 1866 was under consideration.”

    He even adds into his opinion quotes from Trumbull during the debate…
    “Of course we cannot declare the wild Indians who do not recognize the government of the United States, who are not subject to our laws, with whom we make treaties, who have their own laws, who have their own regulations, whom we do not intend to interfere with or punish for the commission of crimes one upon the other, to be the subjects of the United States in the sense of being citizens. They must be excepted. The Constitution of the United States excludes them from the enumeration of the population of the United States when it says that Indians not taxed are to be excluded. It has occurred to me that, perhaps, the amendment would meet the views of all gentlemen, which used these constitutional words, and said that all persons born in the United States, excluding Indians not taxed, and not subject to any foreign power, shall be deemed citizens of the United States.” Cong. Globe, 1st Sess., 39th Congress, p. 527.”

    Again Gray says “IN HIS OPINION”:
    “An examination of the debates in Congress, pending the consideration of that amendment, will show that there was no purpose, on the part of those who framed it or of those who sustained it by their votes, to abandon the policy inaugurated by the act of 1866, of admitting to national citizenship such Indians as were separated from their tribes, and were residents of one of the States or of one of the Territories, outside of any reservation or territory set apart for the exclusive use and occupancy of Indian tribes.

    AS THE DEBATES OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, WILL SHOW TRUMBULL’S INTENT, FOR THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, which clearly says:
    “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

    AND ONCE AGAIN Justice Gray:
    “A careful examination of all that was said by Senators and Representatives, pending the consideration by Congress of the Fourteenth Amendment, justifies us in saying”

    THE DEBATES, BY PRECEDENT, ARE RELEVANT AND ARE THE ONLY THING THAT WILL WIN THIS CASE AND TAKE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BACK TO IT’S ROOTS! THIS WILL ALSO MAKE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT THEY WERE CITIZENS, NOT!

    Like

  8. Ed Darrell says:

    LOLOL, Jack Maskell and NON-Partisan is an OXY-MORON!

    He’s a friggin Obama shill!

    Slander. You know you’re not protected from lawsuit on this issue, except by the truth.

    Do you have a case? My checks of Mr. Maskell’s CV shows absolutely no possible tie to Obama or Democratic campaigns, for nearly 40 years.

    KBO, are you really so craven a liar? Do you have a case to make? Make your case, if you have one. But please, remember that truth is your only defense at this point. (Call your insurance agent, make sure your liability premium is paid, eh?)

    Like

  9. To quote:
    Since they can not get any American law right hardly surprising he can get British ones right too. Obama’s father has not been classed British since 1948.

    Which doesn’t even matter as that isn’t determining factor of natural born citizen anyways.

    I just love how birthers want to make up laws as they go. And all just to mask their racism.

    Like

  10. ellen says:

    The reason the judge ruled the way that he did was (1) birthers did not prove that Obama was born outside of the USA; (2) every US citizen born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen.

    No. Minor Vs Happersett is not a ruling. It is DICTA, and it says right in the case that the court did not have to decide the definition of citizenship, much less Natural Born Citizenship.

    However, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision (which followed the Minor vs Happersett decision and hence would have overturned it, if Minor vs Happersett actually was a decision, which it wasn’t) ruled that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.

    “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”— Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    Like

  11. Flakey says:

    Since they can not get any American law right hardly surprising he can get British ones right too. Obama’s father has not been classed British since 1948.

    Like

  12. whatever4 says:

    Forgot to add — Birthers couldn’t beat an empty table.

    Like

  13. whatever4 says:

    SO sorry, KBO — the verdict just came down. It seems that President Obama is a natural born citizen, and eligible to be on the ballot in Georgia. Yet another judge reads case law correctly and realizes, like most secondary school students in the US that birth in the US (particularly if one has a citizen mother) is sufficient to be a citizen at birth and is therefore a US citizen. See you in the GA Superior court!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

    Like

  14. I recall hearing a low flying helicopter, not too long ago!

    Like

  15. Jim says:

    KBO,

    Are they watching your house from a black SUV or helicopter at the present moment?

    Just curious,

    Jim

    Like

  16. DOH, the Illuminati is the Umbrella that houses ALL OF THEM!

    Oh, and you forgot the Bohemian Grove Butt Pirates!

    Like

  17. Jim says:

    KBO fulminates, Try checking the list of the”Illuminati”. Yes, the ones who put Obama where he is.

    Are you SURE it was the Illuminati?

    Because I could’ve sworn the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, The Bilderbergs, Jewish Bankers and those Shriner guys who ride in the tiny clown cars during parades were responsible. (I am also casting a very wary eye on that “Hey Vern” guy from all those Ernest movies). Something very shady about him…

    Please check your facts, adjust your tinfoil hat, remember to get back on your meds and then come back with the correct information. I would just hate to see the Jews and the Shriners left out of a good conspiracy theory.

    Have a nice day, KBO!

    Jim

    Like

  18. ellen says:

    KenyanBornObama says:
    February 2, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    “WRONG, I am saying that the founders did not recognize dual citizenship and I have proven that! It’s there’s no half loya or more loyal, there is full allegiance and you need that to be an American Citizen!”

    The founders made no mention of dual citizenship affecting Natural Born Citizen status or affecting allegiance. And Madison’s quotation indicates that he understood very well that there were two criteria of allegiance, the parents and the place of birth, and that only one of them applied in the USA, the place of birth.

    Moreover:

    “If allowing the recognition of citizenship under the law of foreign nations [dual citizenship] were determinative of natural born citizenship in the United States—as now argued by some advocates—then the operation of foreign law would, in effect, impact and be determinative of who is eligible to be President of the United States, a result wholly at odds with U.S. national sovereignty, that is, the“inherent right of every independent nation” to determine what classes of persons are to be its citizens.”—
    Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Jack Maskell, Congressional Research Service, November 2011.

    Like

  19. Whatever4 said: “Tell me, KBOA — where are the bog-name conservative lawyers? If you were correct, one would think they’d be involved. Where’s Robert Bork, Ted Olson, the Federalist Society? Pretty silent, eh? You think they’d go for a slam dunk. Where’s Ed Meese, Reagan’s AG?

    Where are they? Try checking the list of the”Illuminati”. Yes, the ones who put Obama where he is. And yes, the same ones that own the main stream media, that won’t report the truth!

    I guess this video is for you, Mrs. SHEEPLE!

    A Video to the Sheeple from the New World Order

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,151 other followers

%d bloggers like this: