"Evidence" from the birth certificate conspiracy, my analysis

reply to post by ShadyLawyer


Shady I am going to go into that link again and Im going to try to address as much points in it as possible as you requested, as you feel I am not looking into it fairly, but this is the last time Im going to go over this particular topic with you.

reply to post by ShadyLawyer


Good point, however assume we are dumb as rocks and walk us through the points and suspend your frustration, okay?

We all specialize in various skills. Let yours shine.

reply to post by OnTheFelt
I think the biggest thing is that people want it to be true more than anything and unfortunately, I can't be a hypocrite and say I'm not one of them. Oh well, back to the drawing board.



I am one would wish this is not so, I would wish that Obama be a good and just man, the best President to ever be.
But what is that one wish in one hand # in the other, and see which one fills up first.

But I know this one a Attorey/Politician died and on his tombstone they wrote here lies a Attorney/Politician and a Honest Man.

A guy walks by and says why did they burie two people in same grave?

reply to post by Southern Guardian



Save your link. I already looked at it and it is off the mark. Again, it consists of an analysis of who is a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment. While that is all well and good, it has ZERO to do with that portion, and the sole portion, of the Constitution that addresses the "natural born" citizenship requirements of a President...

Instead, riddle me this one, as I think it makes my point clear:

Here is the pertinent portion of Article II:

"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

What this portion clearly delineates is that one cannot legally or legitimately serve as President of the United States unless:

(1) that person is at least 35 years of age, and
(2) has been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and
(3) is a natural born citizen.

Now here is the important point (and, I'm sure, the point you will conveniently choose to ignore):

Regarding the third requirement ("natural born" citizen), Article II clearly made a SPECIAL EXCEPTION for people WHO WERE CITIZENS WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED. Those people did NOT need to be "natural born" citizens. Their pre-Constitution citizenship, by itself, was sufficient to meet the third requirement.

So why then, genius, would The Framers have done this??? Why make a clear distinction in Article II between someone who was a "citizen when the Constitution was adopted" and a "natural born" citizen????????

Now, based upon this, unless u can show me that Obama was born in 1787, why are we affording him the same exception that was granted to those who were citizens when the Constitution was adopted????

Isnt it clear then that if he was not born before the Constitution was ratified, that he must meet the "natural born" citizen requirement instead???????????

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by OnTheFelt

 

I think the biggest thing is that people want it to be true more than anything and unfortunately, I can't be a hypocrite and say I'm not one of them. Oh well, back to the drawing board.



I am one would wish this is not so, I would wish that Obama be a good and just man, the best President to ever be.
But what is that one wish in one hand # in the other, and see which one fills up first.

But I know this one a Attorey/Politician died and on his tombstone they wrote here lies a Attorney/Politician and a Honest Man.

A guy walks by and says why did they burie two people in same grave?

Very true!

Listen, I voted for Obama and I've always been centered but way more to the right than left.

The thing is, when he appointed people on his cabinet like Geitner, Emanuel, Panetta and Gates....it didn't take me long to figure out what was really going on.

Anyways, I hope I'm wrong, but after this whole Goldman Sachs crap, I'm pretty much done.

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
Ok, I'll take one last stab at this. I myself am not constitutionally eligible to serve as President, despite being born on US soil and my Mother being a US citizen at the time. This is because my Father was not a US citizen at the time. Now does that mean I am not a "citizen" as defined under the 14th Amendment? No, in fact, I was automatically a citizen at birth.

Yes you are now specifically talking to me about the difference between birth right by natural born citizens and "citizenship". You are correct to say that you cannot be eligible for the presidency by just being a citizen, you have to be a natural citizen. This is what Iv been addressing so far, why Obama is a natural born citizen, not just merely a citizen. Obama is a natural citizen for the simple reason that he was born on US soil, the constitution makes this case. Birth right by merely being born on US soil to one parent as a US citizen.

You may be refering to the fact the Ms Dunham at the time was too young to pass her citizenship over to Obama as it states in the constitution that you must have resided in the US for atleast 14 years following the age of 18 however this law only applies to if Obama was born off US soil. Because he was born on US soil he automatically gains the birth right of natural born citizenship.

For the last time, the definition and analysis of a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment is an entirely different animal than the "natural born" citizen requirement that is mandated upon a President under Article II. ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

The US constitution says nothing about dual citizenship.

Doesn't the US Constitution forbid dual citizenship?
No. The Constitution says nothing explicitly about dual citizenship at all. Indeed, in its 1967 ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court used an argument derived from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to affirm a right to dual citizenship.

www.richw.org...

reviewing the 14th admendment itself doesnt say anywhere that indicates Obamas ineligibility, here Ill reference you the "citizens rights" admendment of the constitution:

The Afroyim Supreme Court ruling, which paved the way for dual citizenship after foreign naturalization, dealt specifically with the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to people "born or naturalized in the United States." The court did not prohibit Congress from establishing prerequisites to naturalization. Hence, it is still OK for Congress to require prospective new citizens to be willing to renounce their old citizenships

www.richw.org...

It specifically references foreign naturalization. When your applying this case to Barack Obama your basing it on the assumption that he was born off US soil, which you are yet to prove. This admendment deals specifically to foreign born children, not children born to one foreign born parent on US soil. This is what Iv been telling you all this time, that your argument based on the 14th admendment is on the assumption that Obama was born off US soil, which you are yet to prove.

The constitution, the one to which the founding fathers established, made clear that you are a natural born citizen when you are born on US soil. There are no exceptions to this, no legal route around it, the rule is clear, and unless you prove otherwise, that the current president was born off american soil, Im afraid you have absolutely no case on the matter.

SG




[edit on 17-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
Save your link. I already looked at it and it is off the mark.

Well thanks for alteast referencing me the laws concerning. Atleast then we can get this matter in particular cleared up.

Here is the pertinent portion of Article II:

"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

What this portion clearly delineates is that one cannot legally or legitimately serve as President of the United States unless:

(1) that person is at least 35 years of age, and
(2) has been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and
(3) is a natural born citizen.

Now here is the important point (and, I'm sure, the point you will conveniently choose to ignore):

Regarding the third requirement ("natural born" citizen), Article II clearly made a SPECIAL EXCEPTION for people WHO WERE CITIZENS WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED. Those people did NOT need to be "natural born" citizens. Their pre-Constitution citizenship, by itself, was sufficient to meet the third requirement.

Thats true, I never denied those individuals citizens during the adoption of the constitution. However you are basing this entire argument on the assumption that Obama was not born on US soil, which you are yet to prove. Otherwise the above only confirms Obama to be eligible as he proved sufficiently that he was born on US soil, he is over 35 years of age and he resided in the US more than 14years.

Your entire argument here is based on the assumption that he was born off US soil. The point of thread is that you provide the evidence that he was born off US soil. You are yet to do so.

reply to post by Southern Guardian




Wrong....again....

Where in Article II do u see it stated to any degree that a "natural born" citizen is simply one who was born on US soil? Where??

reply to post by ShadyLawyer

Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

www.usconstitution.net...

reply to post by ShadyLawyer


If you can prove to me otherwise it be much appreciated. Regarding the citizenship of parents, that only matters in regards to children being born off US soil.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian



For crying out loud....noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT! My argument assumes that Obama was, in fact, born on US soil (even though in reality, that is a debatable issue)....

I am not contesting the point that if u are born on US soil, then u are a citizen....the Framers would agree, and this is why, as per my last post, THEY MADE AN EXCEPTION FOR THOSE WHO WERE CITIZENS AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED...

What do u think they intended when they made that exception???? Clearly, they were attempting to make a distinction between a "citizen" and a "natural born" citizen, no??? Why make a distinction if, as according to you, there is no difference between the two??

reply to post by Southern Guardian




Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh....I asked you to cite from Article II for the proposition that it was the Framers intent that a "natural born" citizen is simply one born on US soil...that language you posted is clearly not from Article II...

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I am not contesting the point that if u are born on US soil, then u are a citizen....the Framers would agree, and this is why, as per my last post, THEY MADE AN EXCEPTION FOR THOSE WHO WERE CITIZENS AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED...

I clearly distinguished the difference between natural born citizens and merely citizens. Firstly the constitution does not specifically use "natural born citizenship anywhere. Secondly, by current law you are a natural born citizen by merely being born on US soil or if both your parents are natural born american citizens, as in the case of Barack Obama or John McCain.

Iv been making that distinction throughout my posts, your just purposefully missing it out. I suggest you read again and if you disagree, back your claim with sources.


[edit on 17-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian




This is tiresome...why am I wasting my time with you? Here I am, a former Constitutional Law Review Editor and a current Constitutional Law Professor debating with...........? And I'm supposed to accept your snopes.com-based contentions because........?

Enough....I've made my point quite plain for anyone with an open and functional mind......

reply to post by ShadyLawyer


Here, I'll repeat the source I reference from and highlight for you the title:

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

www.usconstitution.net...

Do you see the title there? Can you calm yourself down and come to terms with reality. Its your choice to simple believe the current president isnt natural born, but as Iv said previously time and time again, your personal suspicions wont hold up in court, as the consequences of the other lawsuits.

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

This is tiresome...why am I wasting my time with you? Here I am, a former Constitutional Law Review Editor

Oh you were? Interesting. How did you get that job? How did you get the constitution so wrong in this argument? Iv seen individuals with Phds get it absolutley wrong. Ms/Mrs Tait herself couldnt get the laws correct in her prior lawsuits, to which I debunked in my OP. Corsi got his constitutional references wrong... after all he made the claim that Obama is right now a Kenyan citizen by law which is incorrect, Kenya prohibits citizenship for adults... and these are among his other incorrect assumption. Alan Keyes who is a supposed highly educated man got it so wrong a number of times in his lawsuits citing constitutional laws against Obama.

My point being, your credentials do not excuse in anyway your partisan biasness, or your personal views. At the end of the day the correct referencing of the laws are relevant to getting lawsuit through, not merely your credentials.

SG

reply to post by Southern Guardian




Thats pretty funny....first u say the Constitution fails to define what a "natural born" citizen is....then u proceed to definitively assert that one is a "natural born" citizen if they are born on US soil...

Uhhhhhhh...how can u be so definitive if the Constitution fails to define it???????????

Which is my point exactly, in the end...if u analyze the four corners of the Constitution and legal precedent, you will find that the weight of the law would appear to favor my argument...however, since the Constitution only strongly alludes to my points, and does not definitively make them plain, the sole way to really resolve this issue would be for the Supreme Court to rule on it....which it has not definitively done to date...

Again, in Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship IS IN DOUBT.

Since that case, the Supreme Court has never again touched upon the issue. Which means that all of your arguments ARE IN DOUBT.

But since you are apparently above the law, not only am I wrong on this issue, but apparently the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett was misguided as well, even though its opinion on the issue remains untouched to date....

reply to post by Southern Guardian



FOR THE 48,765th TIME....WHY ARE U CITING TO THE 14TH AMENDMENT?????????? IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS ARGUMENT!!!!! JESUS CHRIST, SOME PEOPLE....

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I agree with you SG if child is born on United States of America soil, he is a natural born American citizen, if his parents were from Alpha Centauri, as mine were the child would still be a natural born citizen.

There could be complication such as if Son of a been laden wife gave birth on American soil but not in hosipital, and later went to get a certificate of live birth, and later say if Son of Son of Been laden were to want to become President of the United States of America, But had lied at some point in his growing up not knowing he was to be the President of the U.S. and said no i am not a American citizen, give me money grant so I can learn to build very big bomb for my daddy, then it would come into question as to if he was really born on U.S soil or maybe really on the Canadian border as a lot of Those People sneak in thru Canada, that could be problem.

Could you just show me the Baby Pictures from Hawaii?

reply to post by Southern Guardian



Right, I have the Constitution wrong in this argument....and so does the Supreme Court in the Minor case, right genius??? When and where was Minor overruled???? Huh?????????????????????