"Evidence" from the birth certificate conspiracy, my analysis

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
There is no point in talking to you

Because I refuse to take some article from a propaganda website as proof?

I asked you before and I will ask you again. Where in the constitution or by law does it clearly state that both parents must be citizens in order for children born on US soil to be natural born? Where? Thus far you've referenced me to a surpreme court ruling that merely "was in doubt", two articles from fringe websites that still directly fail to reference the constitition and the law and thats it.

Do you have the spine to venture beyond the fringe websites and actually reference me in the constitution or by law where it cleary defines the need for both parents to be citizens in the case of natural born citizenship? Are you capable of moving beyond what the fringe websites told you? Can you come up with real evidence? Because thus far you have shown me you are incapable.

you are beyond thick-headed

I have asked you numerous times to drop the fringe websites and come up with direct evidence constitutionally where it states without a doubt that both parents must be citizens. You have failed to do so, instead you trod around your conclusions and offer me more "questions". I dont want more of your questions, I dont want some article that merely tells me "his eligibility is in question". I dont want a court ruling that merely states there is a "doubt". Under a court of law solid evidence is required to make the case, you continue to fail in doing so.

Get yourself up and actually directly use the constitition and the federal laws to state your case. I dont want this garbage from some fringe website. This is a serious accusation you make here, back it up.

and have no legal background or understanding of the Constitution

Given that you have repeatly failed to prove constitutionally where it says both parents must be citizens inorder for a child at birth to be a natural born you have the nerve to be critical of my analysis on the constitution. By the way go back and tell me which one of us actually bothered to directly reference the constitution.

I see no where in the constitution where it proves your claim, you have failed to directly tie your argument to the constitution so dont talk to me about my understanding. You are yet to correctly reference the constitution.

who read our respective threads can judge for themselves who is a Constitutional expert

What matters more? The facts in the constitution itself or the self proclaimed "constitutionalist" who continously failed to use the constitution directly to prove his point?

SG

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]

A couple questions;

Who was Obama's delivering doctor? And who was the nurse?

By getting these names you'd think we'd be able to verify one way or another. Employee records, live testimony(?), etc...

I don't believe that anything will come of this. It's simply too easy to forge things, and any missing information could easily be generated, if he is indeed hiding something.

I have not made up my mind on this whole debacle just yet. Without 100% transparency there will always be some doubt for me.

Originally posted by KnoxMSP
A couple questions;

"A couple of questions" does not prove to me Obama was born off US soil. "A couple of questions" will not get you that long form birth certificate of his.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Haha! You finish your OP with a warning to look out for birthers who don't read the original post and the first to reply does just that! Don'tcha just love ATS?

At last count that post got seven stars. Fools come in flocks, it seems.

When you consider the amount of evidence that the GOP rigged the previous two elections (which none of these people were concerned about), and how that was pretty much excluded from the MSM, this storm in a teacup is just a pathetic example of the wingnuts clutching at straws.

I actually would have accepted any serious evidence about this because I'm not an Obama fan. I'm disappointed in how many people are so desperate they'll hang on the flimsiest of evidence.

As for these cretins in the military who won't take his orders... they were happy to commit war crimes under Governor Bush, so any sudden attack of the morals looks simply revolting.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


What gives you the impression I am trying to "prove" anything to you?

I am simply saying by giving the birthers a name they could verify everything, since the long form is disposed of. I don't care either way, I didn't vote for anyone, nor do I plan to.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:
No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .

The Immigration Act of 1790:
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 residents of the United States.

Schneider v. Rusk (1964)
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘ natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1.

Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, excepta 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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.

Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9 (1913)
Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark
I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.’ Vatt. Law Nat. bk. 1, c. 19, § 212. ‘The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. * * * The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.’

reply to post by Southern Guardian



And here are some "moderate" views on the overall topic for you...I find these to be level-headed, not overly partisan and speak to the real concerns that most people have...

www.americanthinker.com...

article.nationalreview.com...

Oh your back... again.

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:
No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .

The Immigration Act of 1790:
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 residents of the United States.

This law only applies to children born off US soil. You base this law over the assumption that Obama was born off US soil to which you have not proven. Its interesting to note as well that the founding fathers specifically stated the citizenship of both parents in the case natural born citizenship, only for Children born abroad. They do not make such specific mention for children born on US soil anywhere in the constitution or by federal law.

Schneider v. Rusk (1964)
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘ natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1.

Angelika Schneider was born in Germany. This case applies to the laws of citizenship. We are arguing natural born citizenship. so you are incorrectly applying the laws to Obama. President Obama was born on US soil. The case of foreign born children do not apply to him until somebody proves he was born off US soil

Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, excepta 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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.

You are yet to prove President Obama is not a natural born. The court here made a point, however we have not been arguing the rights of the presidency between citizens and natural borns. We know this already. We are arguing on what grounds Obama is not a natural born, something you are yet to prove.

Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9 (1913)

Again your citing me a court ruling that merely tells me the rights of natural borns and citizens. Your basing your entire argument over the assumption you proved Obama was not a natural born, you are yet to prove anything.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Wong Kim was born to parents who both were not even american citizens. He was also born during the time when only the father could pass his natural born citizenship over, not the mother. Times have changed, both genders are now equally able by law to do so to children born on US soil.

You still have not cited me directly from the constitution or statutory laws where both parents need to be citizens for children born on US soil.

SG

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

And here are some "moderate" views on the overall topic for you...I find these to be level-headed, not overly partisan and speak to the real concerns that most people have...

www.americanthinker.com...

article.nationalreview.com...

right, I dont need righty to tell me whats moderate in his terms. Im not at all interested in the articles posted by Obama bashers on the case of Obamas birth right. I am only interested in the constitution and federal law.

reply to post by rich23

Couldn't have said it better myself!
Lord knows I would try, but it really is pointless!
Amazes me the hyprocrisy and denial here sometimes too.
Where were all these peeps the last few decades!
I think we got some big time sore losers on here!
They ought to pipe down and support the president like they
we're telling everyone else when bush invaded the wrong country!
Thanks SG for keeping reality in check for the graspers.
If this is the best it gets, I really did pick the right name after all....

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Though you make a good "logical" case the bottom line is if he (Obama) was not born in the United States he is uneligible to hold office. My evidence that he is not a natural born citizen is his Kenyan birth certificate. As he was born in Mumbasa Kenya he is inelligible to hold the office of president, period.

If you have not seen the Kenyan birth certificate I will prompt you to look at the copy from my web site www.constitutiondenied.com/faq.html and look toward the bottom of the page.

reply to post by Southern Guardian



Uh oh, genius....looks like the gig is almost up....

www.wnd.com...

www.rense.com...

Where are you from, btw? I can tell by the way you write and you're utter lack of any meaningful analysis of the Constitution that u are certainly not US-born....who let you into my country??

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Your analysis is laughable, really...are u a lawyer?? have u attended law school?? do u even have a GED? i doubt it, really...

Listen buddy, your legal analysis here is minor league...below minor league, actually...its pathetic, really...like i said before, if I had you as a student in my Constitiutonal Law class, you'd fail, plain and simple...you havent the foggiest notion of federal law and constitutional analysis...do me a favor and save your propaganda for some drone without a brain....

reply to post by ShadyLawyer



uh no it isnt trust me. I will be addressing that matter in time.

For now Im just allowing myself to be entertained.

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
Listen buddy,

Im listening, but Im hearing nothing but "talk" "buddy". When in the constitution or among the statutory laws does it say both parents? You have failed in every instance to provide me reference from the constitution and the statutory laws. Right now you are shooting blanks. Im not at all concerned about your personally take on the matter, Im concerned about whats written in the constitution and among the statutory laws.

SG

reply to post by Southern Guardian



I've given you more than enough evidence, both from Article II of the Constitution itself and various US Supreme Court cases, which serves to tip the scale far more in the favor of my argument as opposed to yours...I have likewise made it plain that the issue has not been resolved 100% because the Supreme Court, while strongly intimating that my position is correct, has yet to 100% to confirm it...u, on the other hand, have chosen to disregard all of the above because it does not fit squarely with your misguided ideology and continue to insist upon a 14th Amendment analysis that is COMPLETELY irrelevant and inapplicable...and yet somehow you're arguments are carrying the day here???? hahahahahahahahahahaha...

Ok , I have changed my mind. I have to agree with the Birthers on one point:

The document they are looking for does NOT exist.

Because Birthers are, in truth, looking for:
The Magical Parchment covered in Alchemical Symbols of the most ancient and esoteric nature,
written with a pen dipped into the blood of Malcolm X,
that when you wave it above a Black Mans head - turns him White.

Sorry dudes, I think all they have is a plain ol' B.C. from Hawaii.