100% PROOF! Obama "RESOLVES" That He Is Not Eligible To Be President! (Condemning Info!)

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by JamesGordon
There are various arguments made although the opinion you quote is not related to the outcome of this specific case. In other words a ruling was not made based upon this opinion. If it was then I would concur with you. But a precedent has not been set yet for the specific situation we are discussing.

But it was. Let me ask you, how do you believe the Court ascertained Ark’s citizenship?

Parents do not need to be natural born, just plain citizens.

That gets back to my initial question to those who endorse the Vattel definition.

Children of US servicemen and women born abroad can never be President, and the children, born in the United States, of naturalized immigrants can.

Is that your position? Because that’s what the Vattel definition entails.

That is precisely why John McCain was vetted with a special resolution that included individuals who were born abroad by members of the armed forces. The required citizenship of both parents was implied in that resolution, however the location of birth was given a special exemption to include being born on a military installation abroad. This resolution only applied to John McCain and is not a law. However, it does define the term natural born citizen in a modern situation.

Originally posted by Scytherius
For the record ... I can't stand Obama and think he is an unmitigated disaster. I think 9/11 was either pulled off by our government or they permitted others to pull it off. So I am no Obama fan and I am one conspiracy theory MoFo.

Having said all that, Birthers ... you need to get a grip. This is just stupid. The man was born in Hawaii. Furthermore, EVEN if he wasn't (and he was and Congress passed a resolution that he was) you'd still lose on the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

All that's going on in the world and you idiots focus on this? It's why you are referred to as "useful idiots".

Get a grip on reality.

If you don't stand up for the Constitution then you don't deserve to be protected by it. Enjoy serfdom compliments of your new global government.

reply to post by laiguana

The more the birthers complain about Obama's birth certificate...the more I feel compelled to vote for him. I don't know if that makes much sense, but if the birthers are going to determine who our next president will be...then perhaps Obama can't be so bad.

Of course it makes sense, if you're someone who uses immature logic to try to make a point.

Originally posted by JamesGordon
"natural-born subjects" is NOT equal to "natural-born citizens"

And I didn’t say it was, nor did the Court. Merely that the English common law principle is at the foundation of the birthright citizenship principle in the United States.

That principle, the Court tells us, says that children of aliens, if subject to the jurisdiction, are natural born citizens, just as they were natural born subjects in England.

And that’s how Wong Kim Ark acquired his US citizenship, he was born in the United States.

Your point about the King is irrelevant and inapplicable, because the President is not the King.

reply to post by aptness


From P.A. Madison in referral to George Washington's writings. "P.A. Madison concludes that that there is no “better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father.” This is because, “Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.”

With confidence, P.A. Madison subscribes to the idea that a natural-born citizen of the United States can only mean, “those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.”

The Founders intended Natural Born Citizen to mean a child of 2 American Citizens. Not just 1 or none.

"Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant."

"In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

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."

sources: federalistblog.us...
www.worldandi.com...

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means not owing allegiance to any other nation... if you are NOT a US Citizen, then you still owe allegiance to the nation you came from. Therefore, anyone not born to 2 US Citizen parents cannot be President, period.

Originally posted by JamesGordon
r the location of birth was given a special exemption to include being born on a military installation abroad. This resolution only applied to John McCain and is not a law. However, it does define the term natural born citizen in a modern situation.

I’m sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.

You acknowledge the resolution does not have any legal power, it was a non-binding resolution after all, but then you say that it is defining the terms of natural born citizen “in a modern situation.” I’m not even sure why you think “in a modern situation” is of relevance.

But since the resolution has no legal power, it didn’t the change the law. If you adhere to the Vattelist definition — born in the country to citizen parents — and claim that is the law of the land, then John McCain, as per your definition, is not a natural born citizen.

You can’t have it both ways.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by JamesGordon
"natural-born subjects" is NOT equal to "natural-born citizens"

And I didn’t say it was, nor did the Court. Merely that the English common law principle is at the foundation of the birthright citizenship principle in the United States.

That principle, the Court tells us, says that children of aliens, if subject to the jurisdiction, are natural born citizens, just as they were natural born subjects in England.

And that’s how Wong Kim Ark acquired his US citizenship, he was born in the United States.

Your point about the King is irrelevant and inapplicable, because the President is not the King.

The "principle" is your opinion. As you said the King and President are not one of the same and therefore the rule of law cannot be applied in a one for one fashion. You are implying that the term "subjects" and "citizens" are interchangeable. Tell that to the founding fathers who deplored the term subjects and used citizens instead because it carries a different meaning.

Originally posted by Twainfan
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means not owing allegiance to any other nation... if you are NOT a US Citizen, then you still owe allegiance to the nation you came from.

The problem with your definition of jurisdiction, if you equate it to allegiance, and aliens “owe allegiance to other nation,” then the consequence of that is that aliens, when they enter the United States, are not in the jurisdiction of the United States.

If that were the case, however, you couldn’t deport an alien, sue him in court or arrest him for a crime.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t use the word ‘allegiance,’ it uses the term ‘jurisdiction’ and the Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean being subject to the law.

Are aliens, when they enter the United States, not subject to US law?

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by JamesGordon
r the location of birth was given a special exemption to include being born on a military installation abroad. This resolution only applied to John McCain and is not a law. However, it does define the term natural born citizen in a modern situation.

I’m sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.

You acknowledge the resolution does not have any legal power, it was a non-binding resolution after all, but then you say that it is defining the terms of natural born citizen “in a modern situation.” I’m not even sure why you think “in a modern situation” is of relevance.

But since the resolution has no legal power, it didn’t the change the law. If you adhere to the Vattelist definition — born in the country to citizen parents — and claim that is the law of the land, then John McCain, as per your definition, is not a natural born citizen.

You can’t have it both ways.

edit on 30-4-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)

And that is perfectly fine with me because I am not partisan. I am just telling you what happened which you should already know.

Originally posted by JamesGordon
The "principle" is your opinion.

Besides being my opinion, it is also that of the Supreme Court which is the important factor.

You are implying that the term "subjects" and "citizens" are interchangeable.

You’re still not understanding.

What the Court said was that the principle behind natural born subject was the same behind natural born citizen, not that subject and citizen are the same.

Either way it is futile because the SCOTUS are bought and paid for so nothing will come of this. But I think everyone who values freedom should defend the Constitution no matter what outcome they think will happen.

reply to post by aptness


Did you miss this part:

"In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

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."

That was a 1998 Supreme Court ruling. Their words, not mine. Look it up. They cite the words of the men of wrote the 14th Amendment.

By your reasoning, Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad or any other nut case could come over here and get any woman that is a US citizen pregnant and their child could then be President? That is precisely the kind of thing the Founders and Framers were against and why they used the term "natural born citizen" and they meant it to be a child of 2 US Citizen parents.

Originally posted by Twainfan
That is precisely the kind of thing the Founders and Framers were against and why they used the term "natural born citizen" and they meant it to be a child of 2 US Citizen parents.

I am curious.

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish.
Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809),
whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861)
and Chester Arthur (1881-1885),
both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933),
whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.

link

If you just keep saying it, will it eventually become true?

Originally posted by Twainfan
By your reasoning, Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad or any other nut case could come over here and get any woman that is a US citizen pregnant and their child could then be President?

If Bin Laden entered the United States wouldn’t he be subject to US law? Ahmadinejad depends on his status when he came here. If he came as head of state, then he would have diplomatic immunity, if he came as private citizen, he would be subject to US law like any other person.

And if Bin Laden or Ahmadinejad had a US child, and he ran for President, would the people vote him into office? If the people share your sentiments one bit, I think you have nothing to worry about.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by JamesGordon
The "principle" is your opinion.

Besides being my opinion, it is also that of the Supreme Court which is the important factor.

You are implying that the term "subjects" and "citizens" are interchangeable.

You’re still not understanding.

What the Court said was that the principle behind natural born subject was the same behind natural born citizen, not that subject and citizen are the same.

That's not what I'm interpreting it as. The context is different. The case needs to directly relate to the natural born clause in the Constitution specifically applying to POTUS. Otherwise you are stretching the principle to include it. Identical words may have different meanings depending upon context.

So what you are telling me is that this Chinese immigrant born to non-U.S. citizens would qualify for POTUS because we are under English Common Law? Do you think that modern day courts would see it that way?

reply to post by syrinx high priest

not one supreme court justice is aware of this ?

Hell, one swore Obama in.

reply to post by Sinnthia


1. Andrew Jackson was born in 1767, grandfathered in when the Constitution was signed.
2. Thomas Jefferson was born in 1743 , same thing, grandfathered in.
3. James Buchanan's parents were born in the 1760's .. both would have been grandfathered in making them citizens.

The rest I haven't had a chance to look into yet but just look at Wilson. He and his father supported the Confederates in the Civil War. His family owned slaves and fought in favor of slavery. Is it any wonder he was one of the worst presidents in US History?

If Wilson and Hoover had never been elected, this country would be far better off. But that's for another discussion.

found it: www.aipnews.com...

this explains why each and every one of those men were legally able because their parents became cititzens or they were grandfathered in by the Constitution itself.

Originally posted by aptness

So, the laws mean what they say at the time they were written.

Stating that laws “mean what they say” when they are written is self-evident, the question here is not “what they mean” when they were written, but what they mean now.

Way wrong! Take the word "gay" for example. The word gay now means homosexual. In the distant past "gay" meant happy. Hypothetical scenario: An law written in 1940 states "If a person is not gay they have a right to file a complaint with the Department of Ignored Complaints." Given that in 1940 gay only mean happy it very obviously meant unhappy people may file a complaint. So are you going to tell me that law may legally NOW be used as a way to change around meaning so that homosexual are barred from filing a complaint?! Ridiculous! Legislation has MEANING when it is written. What those words mean 200 years down the road is IRRELEVANT. Understand? Because if I write a law about X and later on the word X means something else, then the law is very likely becomes a ridiculous one. The meaning of words changes over time, and the meaning of laws should NEVER change over time except when it is agreed that the laws should change. Get it? While the meaning of words evolves, the meaning of legislation is not supposed to evolve! Get it?

Once again, the meaning of a word in a law refers to what it meant WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN! What the meaning of the word is later on cannot possibly change the law itself or you'll end up with gross injustices all over the place! I'm not sure why you are such a fan of gross injustice brought about by the policy you advocate of changing the meaning of a law over time to pretty much any random thing depending on trends in the word usage.

This is a simple concept and why people cannot understand it is incomprehensible to me. So easy. If you make a law, then it means what you said at the time it was written... not what it means 200 years later. Its like you actually want laws to be determined by pop culture trends... I don't know.

I can't imagine a scenario where the random changes that occur in language would actually be to the benefit of a law written down on paper. Please please, provide just any old example of it being a good idea. I could go on forever with examples of scenarios where the good idea is to only consider the meaning of a law as it was first written:

Scenario: A new law states: Murder is to be punished by 100 years in prison! The law is still on the books 4,400 years later, but the most commonly accepted definition of murder is telling someone they have bad breath.
Good idea: Considering only the original meaning of the law WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN
Bad idea: Considering the new usage of the word murder as the right when when the judge determines if someone is guilty "of murder".

Scenario 2: A new law states: Humans should be assigned one vote each per election. The law is still on the book in the year 12011. In 12,011, "law" now means what we think of as a "nuclear bomb".
Good idea: Considering only the original commonly accepted
Bad idea: A judge rules since the meaning of the word has changed, everyone must be provided one nuclear bomb as they vote on each issue.

And you know what, I don't need to use a scenario, because there is a real-life issue here that is a problem now. Right now, in today's age, a natural birth could easily be interpreted by a judge as being one that didn't involve a c-section! Are you going to tell me that the proper ruling for a judge is that babies born via c-section are illegible to be president? Are you going to tell me that? Because it WOULD be a valid way, and very reasonable way, for a judge to interpret what it means today to be born naturally! In fact, that is one of the only ways this phrase has been used in modern language!

Go ahead and present me even one case in human history where the meaning of a word had changed in a way that made a law make even more sense. I challenge you. I think you have no ground to stand on and the ONLY valid position is that a law is to be enforced in the way the words originally meant at the time they were written. The idea that changing the enforcement of a law based on completely random language changes is absolutely absurd. Please tell me you get what I'm saying and you understand now that its ridiculous to base our legal system on random changes that occur at any time.

Originally posted by Twainfan
Read the case cited by the Supreme Court that I just mentioned.

I did, but you obviously didn’t.

The Court in the 1998 case you are telling me to read, Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, had a jurisdictional question in the context of what court had jurisdiction to hear a case, not what jurisdiction means, and standing.

Further evidence that you didn’t read the case, that you ironically told me to read, is evident by the fact that in Steel Co., the citation you are quoting — “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” — is from another case, namely, United States v. Vanness (1996) from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. From Steel Co.—

"Jurisdiction," it has been observed, "is a word of many, too many, meanings," United States v. Vanness, 85 F. 3d 661, 663, n. 2 (CADC 1996), and it is commonplace for the term to be used as it evidently was here.

Not only that but, in United States v. Vanness, the phrase you are relying on to claim jurisdiction means allegiance is from a footnote! Not even from the body of the opinion.

Can you tell me how any of these two cases have anything to do with allegiance or the meaning of jurisdiction?

You are not the author of the argument you used in your post, are you?