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

I don't care what they say now...

The INTENT of the Law is what needs to be reconciled. Because it is what our Founding Fathers intended, not what people say currently, that needs to be adhered to.

By your way of thinking, anyone who becomes Naturalized BEFORE they become an Adult should also be eligible, right?

Give me a BREAK!!!

 

He also did something that they did in Wong... He added language that isn't present in the actual Law.

One of our first Chief Justices has rightly said that is not allowed because it goes against the seperation of powers.

This needs to be appealed to the Supreme Court...

 

You really are stubborn in your determination to be wrong, aren't you?

Did you read the "copy and paste" I provided above of the #548 post?

Here it is again, and it is NOT from Wikepedia:

Could you please make an effort to read the above quote for comprehension?

 

Oh please go right ahead.

Birthers could have done that in Arkeny v Daniels- they chose not to....

 

And your understanding of the intent of the Founding Fathers is supposed to be superior to Judge Malithi and the Appeals Court of Indiana and Senator Lindsey Graham and Congress and Chief Justice Roberts......how exactly?

You remind me of those people who declare that Income Tax is unconstutional, and who dismiss all the court cases that conclude otherwise.

 

You can't get naturalized before you become an adult! You can only pledge allegiance to the US when you are an adult.

My daugher was lefrom Korea. She retained her dual allegiance until the age of 18, when she was asked to choose her citizenship. She OFFICIALLY pledged allegiance to the United States at the age of 18, and was THEN naturalized US Citizen, but, since she wasn't BORN in the US, she is not, never will be a Natural born citizen. But her children are!

 

this is your problem. STOP READING BIRTHER BLOGS, and actually read the court cases, and legal opinions of actual legal experts.

no SCOTUS decision has EVER agreed with you. EVER.

 

because it's factually incorrect.

 

the entire judicial system disagrees with you.

 

I just checked the first 5 pages in Current Events and there are only 3, maybe 4 Birther threads. Two of those are about the latest court ruling which states Obama is eligible. One is closed due to its size. There is only 1 remaining that supports the Birther issue.

That is not excessive. Not at this point anyway. In fact, it appears the subject is waning and as it does, these threads get moved off the front pages. That's what I said would happen....naturally...and that is what is happening.

 

Only those that have ruled on it, so far...

And the final Judge (SCOTUS) has yet to rule.

It is not my fault that the Judges so far have over stepped their duties by adding language to an existing Law. Chief Justice Marshall has said they are not allowed to do that, but evidentally they don't care.

 

Then show me where it states they are "Natural Born", I'll wait here...

You can't, because it doesn't.

 

You have no clue as to what you are reading...

Anyone who is on US soil is under US 'jurisdiction'.. not British or any other jurisdiction..... US jurisdiction.

That's why I told you to read the legal definition of jurisdiction several days ago.

The ONLY way Obama's faather was NOT under US jurisdiction would be if he was in the US as a DIPLOMAT.

Its all right there in the law.

 

I know our History, evidentally you do not.

The first few Laws on Naturalization state that people Born to Citizen PARENTS are in fact "Natural Born". They are the ONLY Citizens they ever used that term for. Too bad so many people have lost sight of the intent of our founding Fathers.

Many of them were right when they said if we didn't stay informed and dilligent in knowing our Rights, we would lose them.

We have lost and continue to lose them for well over a Century now. I believe it is time that stopped. But evidentally many are content with it happening.

Very sad.

This once great Country has become just like any other because we have let it.

 

You still don't get it..

The law is very clear.. Obama is a natural born US citizen.. He's NOT naturalized and there is NO other kind of citizen.

 

Yes, I agree that they are under U.S. jurisdiction. But having a Father or Mother with different Citizenship ALSO gives you ANOTHER allegiance at Birth, which is also cited, is it not?

Therefore there are TWO things that must be present at Birth to be "Natural Born". Born on the soil AND PARENTS (plural) who are Citizens. Before the 14th Amendment anyone simply born on the soil that had any other "allegiance" at birth had to be Naturalized. The 14th Amendment simply stopped that from having to happen and recognized them as "Citizens". It says NOTHING about them being "Natural Born" simply because they are not. And no Judge is supposed to be able to add that language or even assume that it does.

 

Nope.. because no other country has jurisdiction in the US.. Only US law applies.

We fought a revolution , remember???

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

 

Are you trying to say that Obama's father was a Citizen?

That is laughable.

I am not surprised that so many don't get it. They are letting those who don't understand our History tell them what is right, rather than learn our History for themself.

One of the first few Naturalization Laws also stated that even those born "across the sea" to U.S. Citizen parents were also "Natural Born Citizens". So it has ALWAYS been a condition that your PARENTS were Citizens in order to be Natural Born in this Country. It is the condition of being born on the soil that has changed over time. I agree that being born on the soil will make you a Citizen but it doesn't make you a Natural Born Citizen, no matter how many people say it does.

When talking about allegiances, our founding Fathers were very clear on thier intent on the matter. If you owed any other allegiance at birth you were NOT a Natural Born Citizen, according to them.

 

No... Obama's father was a British subject in the US on a student visa.. As soon as he set foot on US soil he became subject to US JURISDICTION...

Obama's father was subject to US law and had NO other allegiances because he was not a DIPLOMAT.

There are only two types of citizenship.... NOT three.

 

You make the mistake, just like many others, that saying you are a Citizen at Birth makes you "Natural Born", and it does not. No LAW can change the "Natural Order". The 14th Amendment simply made it that people born on U.S. soil no longer had to "Naturalize" in order to become Citizens, that is all!

You, like many others, read more into it than it does. If they had wanted them to be "Natural Born" they could have written that into the Law, but they didn't.

Why do you suppose that is?

 

Being subject to our Laws and having no other allegiance are two different issues.

He had NO allegiance to the U.S. because he was a British Citizen. Therefore his allegiance was with Brittain, not the U.S.

 

I know this stuff because I have three siblings born overseas like thousands of other Americans over the past 70 years. They are eligible to be president because they are natural born/native born.. SAME THING.. When they were born , their births were registered at the US Consulate and they were issued US passports. They are NOT naturalized.

Naaturalized means you were born a foreign national an applied for US citizenship.

It is written into law, but you have to READ the bloody law... which I have previously posted for you.

 

You are confused.. in law another allegiance would only apply to a DIPLOMAT.. otherwise any foreign national on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction.

 

As I have noted several times now, the Law seems to disagree with you on this point.

The INS notes 3, Natural Born, Native Born and Naturalized.

I have supplied the link to the INS Website many times. You are free to go read it for yourself.

 

Sorry, you are wrong, yet again...

Allegiance has to do with Citizenship and nothing else.

Being subject to our Laws does not change his Citizenship, so it doesn't change his allegiance.