Obama's hidden birth certificate now exposed

reply to post by timetothink


So all the crying from the right about anchor babies is just made up nonsense then?
What a relief.

reply to post by bknapple32


That has no bearing on the argument......his father was not a citizen of the US....READ THE FACTS I POSTED.

You are not natural born if one parent was never a citizen of the US.

His election was a big punk on all of us because no one knows what the constitution says.

reply to post by LErickson


Not sure what you are inferring with your comment.....the 14th amendment was never supposed to include illegals. Anchor babies are not supposed to be allowed.

Was Obama an American citizen at birth?

Exhibit A: President Barack Hussein Obama

reply to post by timetothink


To quote Title 8, Chapter 9, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1401 of the Constitution:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Obama's mother was a US citizen. Therefore Obama is under US jurisdiction. Your own links say this. And then even if he were born in Kenya this would apply:

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

The entire point is both parents have to be US citizens at the time of the prospective presidents birth. Period.

Just because everyone ignored this fact and elected him doesn't make it legal or right.

The same can be said of Romney....we're both his parents citizens at the time of his birth?

reply to post by Xcalibur254


There is a difference between the right of citizenship and the right to hold the office of president, not all citizens have the right to be president as set forth by the US constitution.

The 14 th amendment did not change the definition of natural born, it only extended citizenship rights to blacks, Indians and Eskimos.

reply to post by timetothink


Lmao. ok. if its so cut and dry then why didnt the republican members of congress who despise him ever do something about this? Perhaps because constitutional lawyers who are far more versed on the subject than you are have said theres nothing there. keep trying, but all you will hear are crickets

Originally posted by timetothink
The entire point is both parents have to be US citizens at the time of the prospective presidents birth. Period.

Just because everyone ignored this fact and elected him doesn't make it legal or right.

The same can be said of Romney....we're both his parents citizens at the time of his birth?

Chester Arthur's father wasn't a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth, but he didn't have any problems being president.

reply to post by bknapple32


What I posted were facts from the constitution, lawyers and the framer of the 14 th amendment......not my opinion.

Sorry if you don't like the facts, but they are what they are.

reply to post by timetothink


Since you cited Wong Kim Ark, why did that cite Lynch v. Clarke as its leading precedence if it did not intend for natural-born citizenship to be applied to anyone born on US soil? To quote the decision from Lynch v. Clarke:

Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by bknapple32

 

What I posted were facts from the constitution, lawyers and the framer of the 14 th amendment......not my opinion.

Sorry if you don't like the facts, but they are what they are.

I love facts, especially when they are on my side....

see the post above yours. and see the millions of articles addressing your argument. its over, you lost. get over it

[edit]Chester A. Arthur Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada.[49][50] This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Arthur's family history, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his presidency. Arthur was born in Vermont to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland, who was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 and 1824,[51] Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880[52] that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications.[53] Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot.

. wikipedia.


His father became a citizen when Chester was 14.....he should not have eligible either....he did become president by default.


2 wrongs don't make a right.......like I said before....ignoring the law doesn't make it right.

Just admit no one gives a $&@) about the constitution.

Don't keep acting like I am not reading what I am reading, just be honest.....we were punked.


I didn't lose.....the country did.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Did you read the last line of your post....he thinks it should be that way, but the supreme court never ruled it to be that way.

Wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

No skin off my nose the constitution was trampled on....the country as a whole loses.

reply to post by timetothink


Lynch v. Clarke was the first case to discuss the definition of natural-born citizenship. It found that anyone that born on US soil is a natural-born citizen. This then became the leading precedent in Wong Kim Ark. Therefore, the Supreme Court recognized the validity of Lynch v. Clarke and incorporated it into their decision.

According to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, no person except a “natural born citizen” (citizen at birth) shall be eligible to the office of President. Until 1866, the citizenship status of persons born in the United States was not defined in the Constitution or in any federal statute. However, under the common law rule of jus soli -- the law of the soil -- persons born in the United States generally acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.

You do also realize that several of the early presidents had both parents born in the old world? Andrew Jackson's parents were born in Ireland and only immigrated to America 2 years before he was born. Simply by the fact he was born on American soil he is a 'natural born citizen', subject to all the rights and laws of this land.

Birthers have mutilated the constitution in an attempt to find some way to exclude an American-born president just on the grounds they don't like him.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by bknapple32

 

That has no bearing on the argument......his father was not a citizen of the US....READ THE FACTS I POSTED.

You are not natural born if one parent was never a citizen of the US.

His election was a big punk on all of us because no one knows what the constitution says.

So that is what the constitution says but not one Republican knew it? Just you? No one in the news, no one overseeing the election? No one knew it but it is a fact that you know? Why is everyone else so ignorant and why are you not telling them now? I am sure if you point this out to your congressman he will get right on it, since you are right and all.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by LErickson

 

Not sure what you are inferring with your comment.....the 14th amendment was never supposed to include illegals. Anchor babies are not supposed to be allowed.

I am not inferring anything. I am saying it quite clearly.

ALL THE CRYING FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT ANCHOR BABIES WAS JUST MADE UP NONSENSE THEN?
Are you telling me you never heard of anchor babies?

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by bknapple32

 

What I posted were facts from the constitution, lawyers and the framer of the 14 th amendment......not my opinion.

Sorry if you don't like the facts, but they are what they are.

The fact is, the Constitution does NOT actually define what constitutes a natural born citizen, but the generally accepted legal opinion is that those born on U.S. soil are natural born citizens.

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements

en.wikipedia.org...

I just wish people would exercise their right to vote Obama out of office fair and square, rather than resorting to lies and manipulation of facts to "get rid of him". Thank goodness, the courts aren't falling for those lies. I actually wish this would make it to the Supreme Court to end this nonsense once and for all. Then, of course the birthers would scream that the justices were bought or threatened - lol.

Originally posted by timetothink
The entire point is both parents have to be US citizens at the time of the prospective presidents birth. Period.

Just because everyone ignored this fact and elected him doesn't make it legal or right.

The same can be said of Romney....we're both his parents citizens at the time of his birth?

Did it ever occur to you that since Obama is president and even Republicans are not buying your crap that there is a chance you are wrong?