So, are Obama birth certificate threads not conspiracy theories anymore?

Wanting the Constitution upheld is being partisan, in your mind?

Again, I have offered evidence that you and yours are unable to address. Should you be able to this might become an interesting discussion. But right now it is simply some people attempting to insult those who have in fact made a factual argument as to why Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen.

All your side is able to do is attempt to insult your way out of it.

Very sad.

 

No facts need to be changed. No SCOTUS case efines it that way.

 

You are wrong

You can deny it all you like, but that doesn't change the fact.

 

I have cited it time and again, you simply seem to ignore it.

Here, in simple language, it is spelled out for you, yet again...

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Moreover, this concept of naturalization is the only one permitted by this Court's consistent adoption of the view that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to supply a comprehensive definition of American citizenship. In an opinion written shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court stated that one of the primary purposes of the Citizenship Clause was "to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State." Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73 (1873). In his study, The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Professor Flack similarly concluded that the Citizenship Clause "put beyond doubt and cavil in the original law, who were citizens of the United States." H. Flack, The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 89 (190. And in Afroyim both majority and dissenting Justices appear to have agreed on the basic proposition that the scope of the Citizenship Clause, whatever its effect, did reach all citizens. The opinion of the Court in Afroyim described the Citizenship Clause as "calculated completely to control the status of citizenship." 387 U. S., at 262. And the dissenting Justices agreed with this proposition to the extent of holding that the Citizenship Clause was a "declaration of the classes of individuals to whom citizenship initially attaches." Id., at 292.

Id. at 840-44.

So, according to Wong Kim Ark, McClellan would have been a naturalized citizen. It would then follow a fortiori from Wong Kim Ark that being a naturalized citizen, he could not be a “natural born Citizen.” But we do not see any mention of any of that by those lawyers or Dr. Conspiracy. I do not know any of the political affiliations of any of the Boston lawyers interviewed for the story nor do I have the desire to go looking it up. But I guess it must have been politics as usual also in 1903.

But the disqualifying effect of being naturalized “at birth” not only disqualified McClellan, but also disqualifies Obama. Because Obama was not born to citizen parents, assuming he was born in Hawaii, he has to rely on the Fourteenth Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) to be a “citizen of the United States.” First, that amendment and statute do not provide anyone with the status of a “natural born Citizen,” which status is only obtained by satisfying the American “common-law” definition of the clause as confirmed by Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), which, after analyzing American citizenship at length, held:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural- born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

Id. at 168. As we see, only a child born “in a country of parents who were its citizens themselves” can be a “natural-born citizen.” So like Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case (160, who naturalized Calvin “at birth” to be an English “natural born subject,” Wong Kim Ark in effect naturalized Wong “at birth” to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.”

Second, because Obama needs either the Fourteenth Amendment or statute to remove the alienage with which he was born by being born to a non-U.S. citizen father, he is in effect at best a naturalized citizen “at birth,” who automatically becomes a “citizen of the United States” and needs no further naturalization after birth. But the Founders and Framers, as they revealed through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, meant a “natural born Citizen” to be a child whose first breath of life was as a person in allegiance and citizenship only to the United States and to no other country. In other words, to be a “natural born Citizen” it was not sufficient that one was a citizen of the United States “at birth.” Rather, what was needed was that “at birth” one was only a “citizen of the United States” and of no other nation. Because of the possibility of jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from one’s parents) and jus soli (citizenship acquired from the territory on which one is born) providing allegiance and citizenship to a child at the moment of birth, they adopted the “natural born citizen" standard for future presidents which was a child born in the country to citizen parents. This means that a “natural born Citizen” is a child who is born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to a father and mother who are both either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.”

Obama has conceded that his father was a citizen of Great Britain at the time Obama was born. Hence, even assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii, he was not born to a father who was either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.” He was not born as a child whose first breath of life was as a person in allegiance and citizenship only to the United States and to no other country. Obama may be a Fourteenth Amendment "naturalized born Citizen," but he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” As for McClellan, it does not matter for him any more, but there may be more like him who come in the future.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 21, 2012

 

You are citing the biased opinion of a Birther attorney with no actual consitutional credentials, but with a clear agenda.

You are wrong

You can deny it all you like, but that doesn't change the fact.

 

You are either able to address and refute his facts stated or you cannot.

So far, you cannot.

I am not surprised.

 

Every nutter is being issued with his own fake Presidential birth certificates from at least three countries on earth (the President had multiple births, obviously) and three other planets, so that they can continue these insanely silly threads forever. Rejoice!

 

Also, everything against Kenyan Muslim Hussein Soutero is conspiracy, right?

 

You're not trying to uphold the Constitution...

You're trying to give it your own interpretation, which is not what an honest debater would do...

 

You posted a link with someone's interpretation of what it meant...

 

There was a link to the actual INS Website that in FACT cites 3 types of Citizenship.

You are free to ignore it all you like, but that doesn't mean it is not there.

 

Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs:
Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen

We just spoke with plaintiff Kevin Powell and he reports Judge Malihi has ruled against the Plaintiffs and stated in his order that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore Obama is a natural born Citizen.

The judge refuted him.

 

Yes- everything against that guy is......

Whoever he is.

 

Link please...

It has nothing to do with where he was Born. It has everything to do with who his Father is.

Please try to keep up.

 

I think he is perhaps President of the United States of Racist Nutters, to judge by those who mention him so often.

 

No where does he consider ther language used in any of the original Nationalization Acts passed by Congress, which in fact mention "alliegances" at Birth. He relies solely, it seems, on the arguments made in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, which in fact has the Courts "adding language" to an Amendment, which is supposed to be inadmissable as an argument, and therefore as a judgement, in a Court of Law.

This decision needs to be contested in a "higher Court". Which is to say it should be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and ruled on accordingly.

 

So. . . you're still hanging on to your dishonest statement that the citizenship of ONE parent takes away the birthright of a natural born citizen?

You have coward to avoid acknoweldging the FACTUAL case that I provided that clearly says that ANY child born in US soil is a natural born citizen, no matter the nationality of his parents, no matter if he resides in the US or abroad as a child, as long as he chooses to keep his US citizenship when he turns 18, or as long as he doesn't pledge allegiance, as an adult, to another country.

I guess you are too chicken to face reality!

 

No it doesn't...

 

You need to try to keep up!

Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Says Obama Born In Hawaii ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2842152/posts

Friday, February 3, 2012
Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen

OBAMARELEASE YOURRECORDS ON 1:33 PM


Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs:
Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen

We just spoke with plaintiff Kevin Powell and he reports Judge Malihi has ruled against the Plaintiffs and stated in his order that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore Obama is a natural born Citizen.

 

I gave you a link to the ACTUAL case which says nothing about "Natural Born", it simply states they were a Citizen.

Why do you continue to deny this?

 

I gave you the same link, and if you had read the whole case (or if you had read my posts), you would have seen that,not only the Kids born in AMERICA from a Prussian father, and having spent their childhood in Germany were still deemed "natural born citizens," and the decision even STATED that, in time, if he was elected, the young man would be eligible for the US presidency.

Is that clear enough for you?

Again, I provided the whole case in post #548.

 

Reality:

John Bingham 1866:

"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; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him."

Please note his noting of "allegiance". Obama had other "allegiances" at birth, given to him by his Father, and is therefore ineligible to be President.

 

Wikipedia was the link you provided that said "Natural Born". No where in the actual case does it refer to them as that. And I supplied the link to prove that.

 

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html

Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs:
Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen

We just spoke with plaintiff Kevin Powell and he reports Judge Malihi has ruled against the Plaintiffs and stated in his order that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore Obama is a natural born Citizen.

The judge considered your arguments and didn't find them persuasiive. He did however find the arguments of actual legal experts- the Indiana Court of Appeals to be compelling.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/...al-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

 

The case that I provided (thanks to you!) is more recent (by about 10 to 20 years) than the John Bingham.

And it wasn't JUST an opinion!
In fact, even the John Bingham case states that a citizenship is a birthright and neither Congress not the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.

Both case do not hold a CHILD responsible for his parents' having double allegiance, or allegiance to another country. . .as long as, when the child REACHES MAJORITY, he, as an adult doesn't plege allegiance to the other country.

You need to read for comprehension, dear!
Obama MAY have had allegiance AT BIRTH, but as an adult, he chose to retain his natural born citizenship rights, and NEVER pledged allegiance to another country.