Georgia Courts and The President - Live Feed today 9am, letter from attorney Jan 25th

Originally posted by shackleford38
Article II Section I of the United States Constitution states: 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.

I see that as saying, because not everyone was born in the sates at the time of signing, that anyone determined as a citizen at the time be eligible. From that point on you would have to be "natural born".

So born before 78 and determined to be a citizen in 78, you could be born outside of the states and still be eligibl.e After 78 you'd have to be born In the states to be eligible. Just my opinion.

reply to post by shackleford38


No that's not what it means...it means when it was written if you were a citizen when the constitution was adopted but not born in US you were eligible...meaning you were a citizen of the US at the time of the signing of the constitution...I don't think O is that old! Otherwise...in times after the 1700's you had to be born of US citizens.

reply to post by Vardoger


Thank you, I tried to word it to be understandable too.

reply to post by Libertygal
When will people like you get this through their thick pates!? WE do not have any right to see Obama's paper birth certificate. None. He only needs to show it to someone OFFICIAL for the purposes of getting a driver's license, in certain idiotic states like Nevada, or getting a wedding license, etc. Because it is on record in the archives of the State of Hawaii means he is a Natural Born Citizen. Period. His birth announcement appeared twice in local Hawaiian newspapers...that was 50 years ago! You can't forge a fifty year old birth notice. The papers are no longer available but the microfiche is. That will have to do for us citizens. I daresay most of us, if asked for real proof of our birth might be hard put to come up with anything better than a short form, stamped certificate from the State we were born in, and it would be modern. Unless you hold your original birth certificate, you won't ever get the long-form. Be that as it may, I'll say it again...Really? You think for one moment the Bush-Cheney administration, before giving over the Whitehouse to an "uppity n-word from Chicago who might have been born in Kenya..." would have not had the man thoroughly investigated? Having as they did at their disposal the CIA, NSA, FBI, ARMY and NAVAL Intelligence, Homeland Security, etc. etc...you are saying they didn't investigate thoroughly enough so their boy McCain could have got a leg-up!? So you are all saying, you ignorant Birthers who will NOT let this issue go, that your last President was so stupid, and everyone in the Republican base so dumb that no one ever checked Obama out!? Why do you think he smiles when he hears about the Birther issue!? Because, you dodos, if he got one past that last Administration, then NO ONE will ever find out where he was born, because now HE'S IN CHARGE! It's over! Give it a rest! No Georgia judge is going to keep a candidate off an official Federal ballot. There are rules about that.

reply to post by whisperindave


For the hundredth time this is not about his bc, it is about him not being eligible for the presidency because his father was a British citizen....both parents must be us citizens at the time of your birth....not everyone has the right to be president of the united states!

Originally posted by timetothink
both parents must be us citizens at the time of your birth

repeating a untruth does not magically make it true - both parents do not have to be citizens.

Originally posted by timetothink
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.
www.worldandi.com...




Wow...who does this sound like?

reply to post by spoor


Read the facts I am posting and read the federalists papers.....he is a citizen but not eligible for the presidency......not every citizen has the right to be president......sorry if you don't like it but that's the constitution for you.....

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by spoor

 

Read the facts I am posting and read the federalists papers.....he is a citizen but not eligible for the presidency......not every citizen has the right to be president......sorry if you don't like it but that's the constitution for you.....

If I read what you posted correctly he would have been eligible if [only] his father (instead of his mother) been "natural-born". I remember the constitution also saying black people/women were only worth 3/5 that of white men. Are we arguing on similar antiquated grounds here? Are there any other precedents (he asks facetiously)?

See what I did there?

reply to post by Rren


You are wrong on the meaning of 3/5 also. You are looking for racism everywhere and it is "coloring"your judgement.

Provisions allowed southern states to count slaves as 3/5 persons for purposes of apportionment in Congress

reply to post by Rren


law2.umkc.edu...

Originally posted by timetothink

Provisions allowed southern states to count slaves as 3/5 persons for purposes of apportionment in Congress

reply to post by Rren

 

law2.umkc.edu...

Like I said. From your link:

The Constitution that the delegates proposed included several provisions that explicity recognized and protected slavery. Without these provisions, southern delegates would not support the new Constitution--and without the southern states on board, the Constitution had no chance of being ratified. Provisions allowed southern states to count slaves as 3/5 persons for purposes of apportionment in Congress (even though the slaves could not, of course, vote), expressly denied to Congress the power to prohibit importation of new slaves until 1808, and prevented free states from enacting laws protecting fugitive slaves.

How antiquated, that constitution. I appreciated your support. Your president sends his thanks too, I'm sure.

reply to post by Rren


I am trying to show you you are taking the wrong idea from the 3/5 and it doesn't matter because it was amended. Like I said not everyone has the right to be president....until or if there is an amendment it stands that to be natural born and be eligible to be president BOTH parents have to be citizens at time of the candidates birth...that is how we protect our country. Not gonna say it again...rules are rules laws are laws and not everyone is entitled to everything they want...life is not fair.

Originally posted by timetothink
eligible to be president BOTH parents have to be citizens at time of the candidates birth

No, that is just a false claim you like to keep repeating....

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Rren

 

I am trying to show you you are taking the wrong idea from the 3/5

How's that? Feel free to be specific, I'm well read but, am always willing to read more/change my opinion.

until or if there is an amendment it stands that to be natural born and be eligible to be president BOTH parents have to be citizens at time of the candidates birth..

You have spent too much time on this to still think the language with regard to "both" is unambiguous. Heck, your own provided citation/quote says if only his father were the "natural-born" one he would be legit (by your own reasoning, too)

.that is how we protect our country.

What? Because, the president's father was not born in the US (nor did he raise him) we should be worried about_________ [please finish the sentence.] Not some antiquated ideas about foreign usurper (unless your argument is that President Obama is running some sort of ruse to take over America for the crown/Africa). Like I said I have read on the subject; please make your argument specific and clear (and modern; remember the 3/5ths he cries!)

Not gonna say it again...

Dare to dream!

rules are rules laws are laws and not everyone is entitled to everything they want...life is not fair.

Well atleast you've admitted to not giving this a fair hearing, so there's that. Dollars to donuts, should this ever reach the supreme court, you'll get that ammendment you're looking for. Much to your chagrin, no doubt, but it's inevitable. I for one welcome our new overlord/President Schwarzenegger.

Gonna be all y'alls fault too. Hope you're happy.

An English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise The Law of Nations (original French title: Le Droit du gens), stating that "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens," was quoted in 1857 by Supreme Court justice Peter Vivian Daniel in a concurring opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[17] as well as by Chief Justice Melville Fuller in 1898 in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[18] Alexander Porter Morse, the lawyer who represented Louisiana in Plessy v. Ferguson,[19] wrote in the Albany Law Journal: If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.[20]

reply to post by Rren


And since no of here are the judge.....we must wait to see.

reply to post by Rren


I posted the facts, you posted opinion.....so you have not given it a fair hearing.

Originally posted by timetothink
I posted the facts,

No, you posted an opinion, which is wrong

Natural-Born Citizen Defined One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced. Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.” The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well: Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862)) Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters the allegiance of anyone but only an act of the person acting per written law can alter the allegiance owed.

reply to post by spoor

Natural-Born Citizen Defined One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced. Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.” The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well: Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862)) Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters the allegiance of anyone but only an act of the person acting per written law can alter the allegiance owed.

reply to post by spoor