Orly Taitz is about the only Lawyer that I've heard who seems not to be corrupted by the powers that be, Hey William, go look at the Irish Presidential elections, elections closed at 10pm last night (GMT) But the new President was announce at 1:00pm news on the radio. I honestly believe that all Judicial systems around the world are as corrupt as the day is long. Peace to you and yours, You're one of the few good men left on Earth.
@cbr6864 No they can't. THat would be unlawful. Besides, he is doing what he was elected to do: End the unlawful and unjust Iraq war, American intervention resulted in the killing of Ghadaffi, protect the middle class against the rapacious rich, jobs bill, Lowering rates for repayment to student loans, etc.
@cbr6864 I answer about 100 of 140 comments a day on 1300 uploads, do you think I can even remember which one 5 months ago? Thanks for the confidence in my Memory.
Sir, i wanted to ask you if i can upload these videos of court regarding the Obama certificate to my channel, i find it most important and need to be spread.
@ronnoten - Gary Kreep was indicating that 26 states as well as DC have laws that prevent electors within the electoral college from voting for a candidate other than the one selected by popular vote. This he argues, prevents them from vetting the eligibility of candidates. It's unclear, however, whether such laws prevent eligibility challenges or whether such laws are even constitutional. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
@quill6211 - lol. By that same poll, you are 100% in the 5% of people who think Obama wasn't born in this country :) of people with definite opinions you are outnumbered 9:1 :)
@quill6211 - lol. I don't have to ask them because every local election board in the country placed Barrack Obama on the ballot with complete knowledge that his father was a non-citizen from Kenya (common knowledge at the time). You are correct in that 1401 doesn't define whether the citizens can be president or VP, but the law doesn't preclude the possibility either.
Just because you are placed on the ballot doesn't make you legitimate.
-That is why eligibility bills are springing up across the Country including Lawmakers in 40 states drafting model language for state legislatures to pass laws ending birthright citizenship. Anchor Babies.
Now if Born on U.S. soil was the only requirement to be an Article 2 natural born Citizen, 40 States would not be drafting legislation against it.
Like I said before natkitz your logic is not logical.
@quill6211 - Well, you bring up an interesting point with the anchor baby point. I'm not convinced its germane to the conversation, as most of them are along the premise of two parents here ILLEGALLY having a baby, where as Pres. Obama's mom was a US citizen and his dad was here legally. In short, the anchor baby bills deal with US births that legally should not be happening.
@napkatz-posted: "Obama's mom was a US citizen and his dad was here legally".
DOUBLE TALK.
His father needs to be a U.S. citizen including his mother. Not only here " legally"
FYI - His reported father's visa ran out and he did not leave the country. So Barry's/Soebarka's//Harrison J Bounel aka Barack Hussein Obama's father was an ILLEGAL ALIEN for that period. He was forced out of the Country and back to Kenya.. LOL :):):D
@quill6211 - That said, any such bills (if they became law), would run counter to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and would be DOA once the federal gov. sues. My guess is the motivation behind the authorship of the bills is 1) so the legislators can convince the people who vote them into office that they share their values (even though they won't get passed), and 2) put pressure on the federal government to pass an amendment dealing with births involving two illegal aliens.
@napkatz-posted "would run counter to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment"
Notice how you say " current " interpretation. This is DOUBLE TALK.
Congress need to apply the " ORIGINAL " AND STILL EXISTING DEFINITION AND CONTEXT OF THE LAW, AND STOP THE LIES.
Norton v Shelby County, Tennessee, 118 US 425, 442; 6 S Ct 1121; 30 L Ed 178 (1886) reveals that "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; creates no office..."
@napkatz-posted "any such bills (if they became law), would run counter to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and would be DOA once the federal gov. sues."
That is the best that could happen. The STATES WIN no matter if the gov sues or not. If the gov sues the truth about the 14 Amendment will be settled in favor of the States within the SCOTUS because it was never intended for aliens or foreigners. It was ment for the children of slaves. No slaves, no born on us soil citizens.
@quill6211 Courts once ALSO held that one man could OWN another person as a slave. Just because they
are the Court, does NOT mean they are correct. No One should be President or in Congress unless they can prove they were born in and their parents were both born IN the USA.
As long as both parents are U.S. citizens, born on U.S. soil or naturalized, and the birth of the child takes place on U.S. soil, that child is an article 2 natural born Citizen eligible to run for U.S. Presidency.
Because the 14 Amendement has been perverted, the naturalized part of it will remain but it was never intended to give birth Right citizenship to foreigners or aliens. So God willing the States legilatures will hold true to their oaths and end this Repugnant act.
@williamwagener There shouldn't actually be nations to begin with, but you're on the right track. To have the interest of the body in mind, the heart must be of that body. When we have nations. it then has the brain competing with the liver and lungs and other organs for blood and nutrients, and the body dies.
@quill6211 - Well, the latest Gallop poll (conducted May 5th - 8th) shows that those leaning toward President Obama being porn in another country is at 13% (down from 24% last year).
According to a new Gallup Poll May 13, 2011 reported by USA Today, only 47 percent of those surveyed say they think Obama "definitely" was born in the United States. Less than 1/2 of Americans say USURPER 'definitely' born in U.S.
-Obama is 100% USURPER and you are 100% in the MINORITY who still believe Barry/Soebarkah/Harrison J Bounel aka Barack Hussein Obama was " DEFINITELY " born in the United States
To use an analogy, it would be like me stealing someone's drivers license number, putting it on my card along with my name and address, and then going to the DMV to get a renewal. Off course, as soon as someone pulls up a record based on the number, they would know its not me.
A key rule with any social security # theft is you take the name with the number, and if you can help it, avoid interaction with the federal government.
@napkatz-posted: "A key rule with any social security # theft is you take the name with the number, and if you can help it, avoid interaction with the federal government".
What do you think Barry Soetoro/Soebarkah/Harrison J Bounel aka Barack Hussein Obama got in his position all by his little self. You are even more NAIVE then I originally thought.
@quill6211 - lol. honestly, I think its cooky to think 30+ years of randomly assigned IRS and social security personnel working in the fed. government on tax returns would be along for the ride in a supposed conspiracy dating back to the days where Barrack Obama sold ice cream.
I'm not going to get into the specifics of the SS# allegation except to say the premise is ridiculous. Traditionally when someone steals an SS#, they do so in order to access comprehensive info on someone and then impersonate them in order to open credit cards, apply for loans, etc...
The allegation against Pres. Obama is that he made up / stole a SS# and used it in conjuction with his name, including filing federal taxes with it over for 30+ years.
Meanwhile (as a nation laughs at birther futility), the President goes about his business (with a competent, steady James Bond-like cool) of getting America's top enemies (finally) & turning around the Bush nightmare economy; which took 8yrs to crash and will need more than 2.5 yrs to fix.
Wow. Birther psychosis will be well documented in psychiatric journals and severely mocked & ridiculed in history classes by future students. I hope Birtherism gives comfort in the face of a reality they cannot cope with (Blk man in Oval Office) It must be a gut-wrenching pain. Imagine the punch in the gut from his 2012 re-election. I pity the fools. I really do. smh
What you disclose as the ruling in wong is WRONG. You are misleading intentionally or by ignorance. The RULING of the court only sites 14 Amendment (c)itizen. You are misleading, by siting DICTA:
YouTube search: " Jerome Corsi Smacks Down Liberal Radio Host Over 14th Amendment - 5/19/11 "
@quill6211 lol. Last time I heard, Jerome Corsi isn't a federal or state judge. His opinion is of indefinitely lower legal value than the judge in say, Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana. I suggest you read their opinion, as its pretty interesting. I agree with you that a clearly written law is better than judicial interpretation of law; failing to have the former though, the constitution places the duty of interpreting the laws ultimately in the court system.
Obviously you haven't read Corsi's book. The LEGAL DOCUMENTS within do exactly what they are created to do, hold a person accountable. You look foolish with you ignorant comment without reading the book.
@quill6211 - I'm not paying $ for his book when lots of reviewers call it a summary of what he's already written on WnD. Written law is not conclusive in this case. The original constitution defined three types of citizens:
1) natural born
2) naturalized
3) conversion from subject to citizen at time of nation's founding
The 14th amendment defined all those born in the US as citizens, however it failed lump those citizens into one of the three existing categories or explicitly define a 4th.
@quill6211 - I aim to mislead on one, I simply point to important specific court cases that define natural born status, as well as follow on cases that uphold that understanding such as Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, which I suggest you read. Jerome Corsi lies about the discussion of eligibility being in the dicta. If you read it you will see it's firmly in the opinion (page 10). Corsi has been known to lie off the cuff when it suits him.
@napkats posted - "I aim to mislead on one, I simply point to important specific court cases that define natural born status".
That in itself is misleading. Not one court case was ever held in The United States do define an Article 2 natural born Citizen and who is eligible for U.S. Presidency. You Lie.
@napkatz-posted double talk: " Well OK, both Corsi and I were wrong a bit. The discussion of "natural born citizen" is firmly in the court opinion (Corsi's wrong), however it is considered "obiter dicta" (I'm wrong),
It can't be both-Dicta is DICTA, not a Ruling of the court.
@napkatz posted "I simply point to important specific court cases that define natural born status".
Now you say "natural born [STATUS] " DOUBLE TALK.
You conveniently left out Supreme Court Minor v Happersett, even though the case was not to define NBC: " it was never doubted that all children born in a country of PARENT(S) who were its CITIZEN(S) became themselves,upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or NATURAL BORN CITIZENS..."
@quill6211 - That statement from Minor v Happersett is meant to frame up certainty around a subset of citizens who definitely would be considered NBCs, not serve as an exclusionary statement. I'm familiar with that case; the judges' attitude in the opinion was simply that they didn't need to deduce the NBC status of citizens who had less than two citizen parents. There's nothing in that opinion that explicitly denies them NBC status.
@quill6211 - What you and I clearly have are very different readings on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which is the case cited in the Congressional Research Service study as well as the Dicta for the Indiana case as to why President Obama is a NBC. And my guess is you and I won't come to terms on it, but it seems that anyone with an opinion on it who matters (Congress, the courts), seem to agree with me :)
@napkatz-posted "but it seems that anyone with an opinion on it who matters(Congress,the courts),seem to agree with"
Typical far fringe anti-Constitution MINORITY response to think the opinion of the United States Citizens do not matter.A Redress of Grievance is in The 1st Amendment of The Bill of Rights
"Only a MINORITY of Americans believe that the pResident was born in this Country"
-MSNBC Chris Matthews
View @ Real Clear Politics: "Matthews: Birthers Trying To Destroy Obama Personally"
@quill6211 - You're discussion of whether he was born in this country is immaterial to our constitution/law discussion. I'm simply saying that both the elected people in Congress and current judicial opinion weigh very heavily toward Barrack Obama being an NBC. But as I've said before, there's a good chance a court case will be allowed on the merits in the next election, and we both can have our definitive answer then. Pray it's Gary Kreep and not Orly initiating it :)
@napkatz-posted "...both the elected people in Congress and current judicial opinion weigh very heavily toward Barack Obama being an NBC"
Congress went ROGUE before with NIXON.
REPUBLIC v DEMOCRACY
The Individuals within a Democracy composing any Minority,have no protection against the unlimited power of The government.
The purpose of a Republic is to control government strictly as well as all others among the people,primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given unalienable rights
@quill6211 - I will freely admit that my understanding of Corsi's dicta statement was wrong, and that he was being factual in that one sentence. His follow-on statement about English common law however was completely wrong.
DICTA: "Dicta are regarded as of little authority, on account of the manner in which they are delivered; it frequently happening that they are given without much reflection, at the bar, without previous examination.
One judge said; " It is great misfortune that dicta are taken down from judges, perhaps incorrectly, and then cited as absolute propositions ".
@quill6211 - Well OK, both Corsi and I were wrong a bit. The discussion of "natural born citizen" is firmly in the court opinion (Corsi's wrong), however it is considered "obiter dicta" (I'm wrong), as it wasn't the primary reason for why the case was dismissed; In short, the plaintiff's case was so flimsy in terms of standing that the discussion wasn't necessary. That said, I think just about all judges will interpret Wong Kim Ark the same way.
@quill6211 - sigh. Again with the name calling. I was only trying to brief people on how SS# crime usually goes down, and how it reasonably doesn't fit the allegation. I think that was the first time I did that on this thread, so I don't think I was being redundant. But maybe people have told you the same thing before, and if so, I apologize for repeating what they said.
@quill6211 - I think you're lying to yourself. I'm not combining definitions, the CRS report is in the last paragraph. You seem to be cherry-picking quotes but ignoring the report's final conclusion.
@quill6211- A centralized government determining eligibility over who can run in elections sounds to me a lot like Iran or any other totalitarian state. Our current system where candidates can sue each other in active elections over such matters isn't perfect, but seems safer to me. I don't think the government being replaced should rule on who can replace them.
That said, the same report concluded President Obama is a natural born citizen.
@quill6211 - The same 2009 CRS (Congressional Research Service) memo you mentioned, from April 3, 2009 - "Qualifications for the Officeof President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate" I hesitate to cite it, as it looks like it was leaked and not officially released to the public (therefore I cannot guarantee its authenticity). That said, it ends as follows:
@quill6211 "The constitutional history and relevant case law thus indicate that one born "in" the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, that is, when one's parents are not official diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation in the U.S., would be considered a U.S. citizen "at birth" or"by birth," and thus a "natural born Citizen"of the United States, regardlessof the citizenship statusof that individual's parents"
Actually the CRS memo states prior: [[[[ " As such, any person physically born "in" the United States, regardless of the citizenship of one's parents (unless such parents are foreign diplomatic personnel not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), would [[ APPEAR ]] to be a "natural born" citizen eligible to be President of The United States ". ]]]]
Have you not read it in it's entire context??? You double talking liar
@quill6211 - Yes I have. They use the word "appear" because the CRS actually doesn't have authority to state directly what a natural born citizen is. They can only cite evidence (in this case strong academic and judicial evidence) of what it means to be an NBC. What exactly are you accusing me of lying of? Not sure I follow? Obama Sr. wasn't a foreign diplomat, hence that part of your quote doesn't apply here.
The CRS memo sites the 14 Amendment. (anyone born on u.s. soil or naturalized is a U.S. (c)itizen). A 14 Amendment (c)itizen is not the same and never will be an Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 natural born (C)itizen.
No where within the 14 Amendment is natural born (C)itizen even written. A 14 Amendment (c)itizen (naturalized or born on U.S. soil) can run for any office [[ EXCEPT ]] the Presidential and Vice President.
@quill6211 - The document covers what it means to be natural born is a separate section: Common Understanding of the Legal Term "Natural Born"in 1700s. In short, you're natural born if you are born within the US and are subject to its laws.
The document defines "natural born" and "citizen at birth" separately (both of which are true if you are born in the US and subject to its laws. In short: "natural born" + "citizen at birth" = "Natural born citizen"
@napkatz - The FACT IS: MARTIN VAN BUREN was the first Art 2 Sec1 Cl 5 natural born Citizen President in the history of The United States. He was born in 1782 in the State of New York to 2 U.S Citizen parents.
He was the FIRST President qualified under the natural born Citizen clause by the simple FACT He was born in the USA to TWO (2) U.S. CITIZEN PARENTS. His parents were original Citizens in 1776.
Why do you think history shows Mr. BUREN was the 1ST Art 2 natural born Citizen President?
@quill6211 - Martin Van Buren is considered the 1st natural born citizen to become president primarily because he was the first president who was born as a citizen (after the Declaration of Independence). Parentage might enter the discussion, because in that dark time in our history, people could own people and the children of slaves were not granted citizenship at birth. The 14th amendment changed that, and our understanding of natural born evolved following United States v. Wong Kim Ark
@napkatz Well I disagree in part , but thank you for raising the bar of discussion. Was wonder how long
before the US v ARK would be raised or some others. thanks for thoughtful comment. Lets hope it gets to a JURY trial and all these is thoroughly hashed out.
@williamwagener - Thank you for hosting the party :) I think we can all agree the worst part of this situation is that the appeals court probably won't rule on this for another 2 - 4 months (based on their average expediency). Ah, the suspense :)
@williamwagener - I wish the thread would actually get back to the case :) This stuff about taking birthrights away from hundreds of thousands of people seems to be dominating it right now. I find Gary Kreep's discussion on the political question to be far more interesting; it certainly hooked the two dude judges a bit :)
@quill6211 - That video cites opinions hat have no force or power under law. I'm not surprised that some framers of the 14th amendment didn't foresee their words would lead to children of of one or more aliens being given presidential birthright, but intentions don't matter. There's nothing in the 14th amendment itself which prevents natural born status being granted to children of foreigners.
I doubt the framers of the ninth amendment thought it would pave the way for legalized abortion.
@napkatz - posted "There's nothing in the 14th amendment itself which prevents natural born status being granted to children of foreigners"
14th Amendment actually points out to the contrary of your opinion. The 14 Amend: All persons born or naturalized in the United States [[ AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF ]] ,ARE (c)ITIZENS of the United States and of the State wherin they reside.
To be a 14 Amendment (c)itizen you must be a subject. The subjects were SLAVES NOT FOREIGN ALIENS.
Van Buren was the first American-Article 2 natural born Citizen President or rather the First President to serve who was not of British decent or of any other foreign decent. Both his Parents were U.S. Citizens, and we know citizenship is passed to the child from the parents, so his loyalty was w/one country [[ sole ]] allegiance to the United States making him a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Unlike Barry Soetoro/Soebarkah/USURPER aka Barack Hussein Obama who was born a DUAL citizen.
@napkatz posted: " The document defines "natural born" and "citizen at birth" separately (both of which are true if you are born in the US and subject to its laws. In short: "natural born" + "citizen at birth" = "Natural born citizen".
Are you serious????? " "natural born" + "citizen at birth" = "Natural born citizen" " -napkatz
You're a laughing stock and proof positive a DOUBLE TALKING liar.
Thanks for proving my point again :) :) :) LOL!!!! You're a joke.
@quill6211 - I think you are lying to yourself. I'm not combining definitions; the CRS report defines "natural born" and citizenship at birth separately, and then combines the two in its final paragraph, stating the weight of legal and academic evidence indicates anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen. I recommend you read the final sentence of the report, which serves as its final summary.
@napkatz -US v ARK A person born within the limits of the United States, whose father and mother were both persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China, but at the time of the birth were both domiciled residents of the United States, Is a [(c)itizen] of the United States, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
NOT AN ART 2 NBC ELIGIBLE FOR POTUS. Tin Sing, 21 Fed. 905, 10 Sawy.353,and Gee Fook Sing v.U.S.,1C.C.A.211,49 Fed.146,7U.S.App.27, followed.
@quill6211 - Once again, you miss the passage in US v ARK where they define what "natural born" is, but believe me, it's there. If you're really sincerely curious, read the Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana opinion. It cites that Supreme Court case as to why President Obama is a natural born citizen.
@napkatz-Posted: " Once again, you miss the passage in US v ARK where they define what "natural born" is, but believe me, it's there. "
Once again napkatz you miss the factual point that no court within the United States EVER HAD A CASE WHERE THE DEFINITION AND CONTEXT OF AN ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 CLAUSE 5 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN WAS DEFINED.
What do you think the outcry of the U.S Citizens REDRESS is about if it was already defined in a court of law nutsack (whoops sorry) napkatz???
@napkatz - Your logic is not logical. You believe Osama Bin Ladin could of sent all of his wives (pregnant) to the United States have his children on U.S. soil and as long as his children were living within the U.S. for 14 years when they come of the ripe age of 35 or older they could run for the Presidency of The United States????????????
You are truly delusional and indoctrinated to believe such a distortion of The United States Constitution and it's founding principles.
@quill6211 - Is that what this is about? 1) I have more faith than you do in the collective wisdom of the 300 million people of live here (voters). 2) For every improbable scenario you can come up with, there are tens of thousands of patriots in this country that had a non-citizen parent at birth, include those serving courageously in our armed forces. I'm amazed you would deny these heroes their full birthright, just to satisfy your xenophobia.
@napkatz-posted: " Is that what this is about? 1) I have more faith than you do in the collective wisdom of the 300 million people of live here (voters)."
300 MILLION PEOPLE DIDN'T VOTE napkatz
Plus much voting fraud is still coming into light, as a matter of fact electronic voting in itself is fraud. There must be a paper trail and the votes need to be counted in view of the public for Constitutional elections to be, not by a electronic machine that has been proven to manipulate the votes.
@quill6211 THANK you for a Sterling comment. Problem is California and most state still using a variety of totally un - reliable electronic voting machines. People must either sue their county or go to county ßupervisors and demand Paper ballots again. But most are too lazy to do either.
I read there is a Lawsuit actually going to trial in Albany NY relating to un-Constitutional electronc voting machines the NYS Board of elections just starting using. The discovery process has been underway for about a year.
@quill6211 - lol. I was allowing for the 35 years it would take for your hypothetical Bin Laden babies to reach the minimal 35 years of age to be in the election :) :) There's a very good chance that by 2046, we'll have 300 million voters. And I agree with you on the paper trail issue.
@quill6211 - The bottom line is you want to revoke the right to run for president for hundreds of thousands of natural born citizens in this country. You're so hateful toward Pres. Obama that you've forgotten who might be hurt. But guess what; neither they nor the courts will let that happen. The days when courts removed the rights of the masses is firmly dated back in the 1800s.
@napkatz -posted " The bottom line is you want to revoke the right to run for president for hundreds of thousands of natural born citizens in this country."
The bottom line is you can't revoke something from someone that they never had in the first place, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to manipulate people with your anti-Constitutional DELUSIONAL THOUGHTS. How un-American of you napkatz. Does your mother and father know your gay?
@quill6211 - I sense we are going around in circles on this, and we both have respective lives to get back to. How about this? If President Obama's reelection survives all the lawsuits tried on the merits challenging eligibility, then I'm right. If a lawsuit claiming he is not a natural born citizen wins, then I will concede you're right. Deal ? :) :)
@napkatz NAZI courts ruled smashing Jewish store windows were NOT a crime, and 2 years later killing and cremating Jews was a virtue..... WHO TRUSTS the Courts anymore? When Carter
had Obama's former LAW FIRM employee as his NEW LAW CLERK when he reversed himself Oct. 09.
Cong. Ron Paul had documentation that he was openly cheated out of votes in New Hampshire, and other places... and he DID NOT trust the Courts, did NOT sue in them corrupt courts.
@williamwagener - I honestly don't find Nazi courts under a totalitarian dictatorship and our courts to be comparable.
With regard to Judge Carter, a low level court employee does not have any bearing on the outcome of any case; I can tell you, the lower court spent far more time than any of the other 16 cases (which were all dismissed), insuring the case was not tossed out due to Orly's filing errors. Other Bush appointed judges have actually fined Orly for frivolous litigation.
@williamwagener - I think Judge Carter's interest in the political question (can the courts unseat a president) followed by his affirmance of the standard of standing (which led to the case being dismissed) is often confused as a "reversal". I would recommend you read his 2009 court opinion. It's actually very generous toward the plaintiffs, dismisses some of the defense's arguments, and laid down enough interest for the Appeals court to take a look.
If the Constitution allowed anyone that was born in The United States to run for the Presidency of the most powerful Nation in the world,we would not be The United States any longer.The founding fathers put a safe guard in place and that safe guard is that ONLY A PERSON WITH SOLE ALLEGIANCE FROM BIRTH TO THE UNITED STATES IS ELIGIBLE TO BECOME PRESIDENT
Barack Hussein Obama born a DUAL citizen does NOT FIT THAT REQUIREMENT AND IS A 100% USURPER. Sorry to say; YOU HAVE BEEN HAD.
Obama will step down before it ever goes to trial to be herd on the merits. The best to happen, to reclaim some dignity in the United States would be for Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein obama to be removed.
If the USURPER was white or black it wouldn't matter to me for there is only one race; THE HUMAN RACE.
@quill6211 - Well, I don't agree with you on multiple levels, but I will let you have the last word on this subject, at least until the appeals court reaches their decision. It was a pleasure, and I thank you for this spirited debate.
@quill6211 - Taken at face value, the report confirms as you say, that the eligibility of the candidates was not vetted at the federal level during the 2008 election (or any election for that matter). It also indicates that at least CA views vetting optional. In short, disqualifying a candidate on eligibility concerns during an election is best done via a lawsuit from an opposing candidate. The report also concludes that President Obama has proven he is a natural born citizen.
@quill6211 - You do raise a good point though over who should vet eligibility. Gary Kreep has a case on the docket in the Supreme Court (10-1351) Alan Keyes vs Debra Bowen claiming it is the States' responsibility to establish eligibility of a candidate before allowing him/her on their ballots. That may prove to be an interesting case, assuming its heard.
@quill6211 Really? Then it must be noted that Pinky and the Brain was the best cartoon in the 90s, VB.NET is an easier language to read than C#, JetBlue unlimited snacks and TV rule, our infatuation with smart phones makes people bump into things, tennis balls should last longer, our K12 education system suffers from scope creep (everyone needs to know calculus??), Diet coke eventually is tastier than regular coke, Calvin and Hobbes has never gotten old, and Jon Stewart is funnier than Jay Leno
Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (2009): The Indiana Court of Appeals applied Wong Kim Ark and upheld the lower court's dismissal of a challenge to President Obama's eligibility
For quill6511 - Lier = Someone who says something true that I don't agree with :) :) :) :)
Every President born before July 4, 1776 were born British natural born subjects. They were under British Rule.Ruled by a king.(a man)
Those Presidents were naturalized to become Citizens of the United States
The Declaration of Independence "NATURALIZED" those Presidents and since those NATURALIZED CITIZENS WERE ALIVE AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE U.S CONSTITUTION THEY WERE GRANDFATHERED IN AND MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ART2 SEC1 CL5 US CONSTITUTION
@quill6211 - It's not like it was ever a secret that President Obama's father was from Kenya; that information was widely available in the primary election and national election. Seriously, Clinton and/or McCain would have torpedoed then Senator Obama if having a foriegn-born parent were an issue.
Lets not forget the requirement in Article 2. Only a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN or a CITIZEN of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution is eligible for POTUS.
Notice a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is NOT the same as a CITIZEN.
A CITIZEN was ONLY eligible to be President if they were "alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution" and still alive today.Since that is not possible now you must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
1ST NBC POTUS WAS Martin Van Buren w/2 CITIZEN PARENT(S)
@quill6211 - As long as you are born on US soil, you are a natural born citizen. Given the Constitution does not define Natural-born citizen, The Supreme Court ruled that the US implementation of English Common law provided the definition of natural-born citizen as someone who is born in the United States. There was dissenting opinion in the court, however the opinion was from a small minority of judges.
@quill6211 "every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established"
Ok napkins, maybe you still live as a "SUBJECT" under a king but we in the United States of America are "CITIZENS" and have a governing rule of law known as the U.S. Constitution that makes us a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY
In Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10 there is a little thing called The Law of Nations and that we must protect those laws from"OFFENSES"against them
The Law of Nations Book 1 Chapter 19 Section 212 & 215 clearly shows children follow the conditions of their fathers
The 14 Amendment discribes anyone born on U.S. soil as a " (c)itizen " NOT an Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 " natural born (C)itizen eligible for U.S. Presidency.
Article 2, absolutely beyond any doubt, distinguishes a differance between being a CITIZEN and a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN inwhich is the requirements for the Presidency of The United States of America.
" The First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 extended the “natural born Citizen” status to persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents.The Third Congress, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, repealed the 1790 Act and declared such children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be considered as “citizens" (ONLY) of the United States” and not “natural born Citizens.”
GOOGLE: " The Citizenship Status of Our 44 Presidents ".
@quill6211 - I hate to inform you, but two presidents from the last century had foreign born parents: Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada. Sorry, being born on US soil means your a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court ruling in 1898 has legal standing, where the Law of Nations is just a bunch of written opinions.
Woodrow WILSON - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1856 in VA. His mother was foreign born U.S. Citizen, English, but when he was born she had become a naturalized Citizen of the United States prior to his birth due to her marriage to Woodrow’s father, a U.S. Citizen. Having a foreignborn parent is OK if the foreign born parent has become a naturalized Citizen of the U.S. prior to the child being born.
@quill6211 Well, I hate to tell you, but Gary Kreep (the attorney on, ya know, your side) agrees with me :) :)
"There's nothing that I'm aware of that says you have to have two American parents," said the executive director of the United States Justice Foundation, Gary Kreep, whose lawsuit alleges Obama was born in Africa and thus is constitutionally ineligible. "My understanding of it is if you're born in the United States, you're a natural-born citizen, period."
@napkatz posted: "Well, I hate to tell you, but Gary Kreep (the attorney on, ya know, your side) agrees with me :) :) "There's nothing that I'm aware of that says you have to have two American parents."
The TRUTH is Gary Kreep at the hearing in the 9th circuit stated that resolution 511 helps his case because congresses finding states that you need TWO (2) AMERICAN CITIZENS PARENTS BEFORE YOU CAN BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN TO RUN.
Hear it for yourself LIAR starting at min 2:17 thru 2:44
@quill6211 - I think you're missing something (or just didn't read Resolution 511). Resolution 511 only pertains to children born to US Citizens serving in the US military born OUTSIDE the United States. As such it isn't germane to any discussion of births that occur on US soil. Gary Kreep's case centers on proving President Obama wasn't born on US soil; if he were successful in that then R511 might be of some limited use to him; not much though because resolutions have no power under law.
@quill6211 - So, Gary Kreep's earlier quote about birth on US soil and his reference to Resolution 511 in no way contradict each other. I sense you are passionate about this subject, and would recommend you redirect that energy from baseless name-calling to becoming familiar on these issues and/or courting Congress to begin impeachment proceedings. These birther court cases have no future, at least not outside an election scenario.
Herbert HOOVER - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1874 in IA. His mother wasforeign born U.S. Citizen, a Canadian, but when he was born she had become a naturalized Citizen of theUnited States prior to his birth due to her marriage to Herbert’s father, a U.S. Citizen. Having a foreignborn parent is OK if the foreign born parent has become a naturalized Citizen of the U.S. prior to the child being born.
@quill6211 Lynch v. Clarke (1844 - A District Court ruling) also established anyone being born on US soil is a NBC. This lower decision was cited in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
This has already been applied to lawsuits concerning President Obama - Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (2009): The Indiana Court of Appeals applied Wong Kim Ark and upheld the lower court's dismissal of a challenge to President Obama's eligibility
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” and cited Vattel (The Law of Nations) and quoted his definition of “natural born Citizen”
In the Wong case it only established through the PERVERSION of the 14 Amendment that " children born to alien parents on U.S. soil are only 14th Amendment (c)itizen not an Article 2 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ELIGIBLE FOR U.S. PRESIDENCY. Have you not read it LIAR?
@quill6211 - I hate to break it to you, but the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and has THE final say in such things. You're free to disagree with the ruling (many disagree with Roe v Wade), and have your own opinions about what the laws should be. The courts don't have that luxury; they must abide by prior precedents. If you feel strongly about this though, I'd recommend soliciting Congress to begin impeachment proceedings; that's the standard recourse we as citizens have.
I love to break it to you LIAR. Not one single Court within the United States WHAT-SO-EVER EVER ruled on the definition and context of an Article 2 U.S. Constitution NATURAL BORN CITIZEN eligible for U.S. Presidency.
@quill6211 Lynch v. Clarke (1844 - A District Court ruling) also established anyone being born on US soil is a NBC. This lower decision was cited in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
@TerrierToughGuy - lol. the short form was issued by a GOP controlled government, and the Dept of Health employee that found the long form was GOP too.
@napkatz I do not care who issue or released the long form certificate. It is an abstract and contains items from more than one document. It may even have components of an original but the released document is a creation. This does not reflect either one way or the other regarding Obama's legitimacy, it is simply a a fact that the released document is NOT an original or a scan, it is a computer constructed document. It just is.
@TerrierToughGuy - As someone who has scanned plenty of documents, there's nothing irregular with the PDF that was posted; scanning software often breaks down documents into layers so that components can be used in other documents, as well as for compression purposes. The Dept of Health in Hawaii (the office that gave the copies to President Obama's lawyer), has also confirmed they adequately reflect the actual document on file.
@napkatz You speak with a certainty like you were the one who looked at and scanned the document. Such hubris! All scanned documents are able to be separated into layers. They do not have information on several layers, all the information in a simple scan are on 1 layer. The breakdown of the layers in this document has for instance the date 196 on one layer and then the 1 on another layer and the 1 appears differently and a darker color.
@napkatz There is the difference, I trust no one and when I can verify something myself and check it, I do. This is the same with any of my conservative beliefs. I set out to prove them wrong with the tenacity of a pitbull, as a result I am now an independent. I cannot speak of anything in the past regarding Obama, I do not think his ideology or the multitude of people he has placed in positions of power are good for America but aside from all else, this document is not real but an abstract.
@TerrierToughGuy - I certainly understand only wanting to believe in what can personally be verified; many investors now invest in property and not stocks so they can literally touch their investment. That said, in a country of 300 million people, not everyone can be sent the original BC via mail to satisfy their curiosity. But if I understand you right, by your standard of proof, I take it you don't believe any past president was eligible, as you haven't seen their BC's. Right?
@napkatz That is twisted logic as no other President has come from nowhere, hidden all their personal information or had a parent that was not American in a long long time.
@TerrierToughGuy - I do appreciate your civil discourse. I would like to take the moment to recognize the achievement of President Obama's mother for raising a child practically by herself, and President Obama's grandparents as well for all they did. Just because such splendid people are no longer with us doesn't mean President Obama came from nowhere. He came from, and was raised by loyal Americans who did a great service to our country,
The First President of The United States was " Martin Van Buren ".
What do you think made him the first Article 2 "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"??? Because he was born of alien parents on U.S. soil mimicking a British "SUBJECT" law inwhich we had a REVOLUTION to abolish????
Your DOUBLE TALK is so transparent and BORING. ** YAWN ** :-O
@napkatz We go separate ways in this. Obama's mother was at least a cultural marxist and a communist sympathizer. His grandparents belonged to a Unitarian church called "The little red church" because it taught communism. Dunham's dating non-white boys was her attack on American society as told by her clasmates at the time. I will not go into who tutored him, who paif for his college, who his roomates were or his belonging to a racist church for 20 years. He was raised by anti American marxists
he faked his birth place to blow the jew in the white house
THEBRU246 2 weeks ago
Nice.
JosianeMJackson 3 months ago
Orly Taitz is about the only Lawyer that I've heard who seems not to be corrupted by the powers that be, Hey William, go look at the Irish Presidential elections, elections closed at 10pm last night (GMT) But the new President was announce at 1:00pm news on the radio. I honestly believe that all Judicial systems around the world are as corrupt as the day is long. Peace to you and yours, You're one of the few good men left on Earth.
B1N4RYGH0ST 3 months ago 2
@B1N4RYGH0ST I humbly thank you. I will look at the Irish elections today.
williamwagener 3 months ago
It doesn't matter what "court" O'Niggers documents are sitting in, it doesn't matter....they're ALL in his pocket.
TBaker1964 3 months ago
Orly Taitz is awesome and I am trying to follow her quest to unveil this usurper. She has my wholehearted support and prayers.
Donna in New Hampshire
yearofthecat28 8 months ago
NICE NICE NICE !! :)
guioximitsu 8 months ago
Orly is smokiin great
eachtem 9 months ago 3
Kuwait's right! Thank you :)*
SuperLion911 9 months ago
@cbr6864 - I take it you mean by a legally sanctioned election...
napkatz 9 months ago
THE PEOPLE CAN REMOVE HIM WHENEVER THEY WISH BY FORCE
cbr6864 9 months ago
Comment removed
napkatz 9 months ago in playlist BC
@cbr6864 No they can't. THat would be unlawful. Besides, he is doing what he was elected to do: End the unlawful and unjust Iraq war, American intervention resulted in the killing of Ghadaffi, protect the middle class against the rapacious rich, jobs bill, Lowering rates for repayment to student loans, etc.
Beamshipcaptain 4 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain i commented on another video OVER 5 months ago also do you want to respond to that as well?
cbr6864 3 months ago
@cbr6864 I answer about 100 of 140 comments a day on 1300 uploads, do you think I can even remember which one 5 months ago? Thanks for the confidence in my Memory.
williamwagener 3 months ago
@williamwagener below EVERY post it states when it was made
cbr6864 3 months ago
Sir, i wanted to ask you if i can upload these videos of court regarding the Obama certificate to my channel, i find it most important and need to be spread.
in fellowship
Ph4ntom74 9 months ago
whoooaaa, is the old grey beard striking back? you go you good thing, go!
Swordofgnosis 9 months ago
Obama is a total fraud and phony..........sorry. This imposter is unfit for office!!!!!
lcr1955 9 months ago
Wow, thanks so much for sending me this video link. Very interesting
LiquidSmooth 9 months ago
He mentions the 26 states in the district of columbia at the start, what does he mean by that?
ronnoten 9 months ago
@ronnoten - Gary Kreep was indicating that 26 states as well as DC have laws that prevent electors within the electoral college from voting for a candidate other than the one selected by popular vote. This he argues, prevents them from vetting the eligibility of candidates. It's unclear, however, whether such laws prevent eligibility challenges or whether such laws are even constitutional. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
napkatz 9 months ago
Comment removed
quill6211 9 months ago
Correction - in the 5% who definitely think he wasn't born in this country
napkatz 9 months ago
@quill6211 - lol. By that same poll, you are 100% in the 5% of people who think Obama wasn't born in this country :) of people with definite opinions you are outnumbered 9:1 :)
napkatz 9 months ago
Your entire argument looks like swiss cheese because it is full of holes. That is the reason why you have become REDUNDANT.
USC8 Section 1401 Defines (c)itizens at birth.
These 1401 (c)itizens can run for any office [[ EXCEPT FOR THE PRESIDENCY AND VICE PRESIDENT ]].
Go ask your local board of elections napkatz.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - lol. I don't have to ask them because every local election board in the country placed Barrack Obama on the ballot with complete knowledge that his father was a non-citizen from Kenya (common knowledge at the time). You are correct in that 1401 doesn't define whether the citizens can be president or VP, but the law doesn't preclude the possibility either.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
Just because you are placed on the ballot doesn't make you legitimate.
-That is why eligibility bills are springing up across the Country including Lawmakers in 40 states drafting model language for state legislatures to pass laws ending birthright citizenship. Anchor Babies.
Now if Born on U.S. soil was the only requirement to be an Article 2 natural born Citizen, 40 States would not be drafting legislation against it.
Like I said before natkitz your logic is not logical.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - Well, you bring up an interesting point with the anchor baby point. I'm not convinced its germane to the conversation, as most of them are along the premise of two parents here ILLEGALLY having a baby, where as Pres. Obama's mom was a US citizen and his dad was here legally. In short, the anchor baby bills deal with US births that legally should not be happening.
napkatz 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@napkatz-posted: "Obama's mom was a US citizen and his dad was here legally".
DOUBLE TALK.
His father needs to be a U.S. citizen including his mother. Not only here " legally"
FYI - His reported father's visa ran out and he did not leave the country. So Barry's/Soebarka's//Harrison J Bounel aka Barack Hussein Obama's father was an ILLEGAL ALIEN for that period. He was forced out of the Country and back to Kenya.. LOL :):):D
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - That said, any such bills (if they became law), would run counter to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and would be DOA once the federal gov. sues. My guess is the motivation behind the authorship of the bills is 1) so the legislators can convince the people who vote them into office that they share their values (even though they won't get passed), and 2) put pressure on the federal government to pass an amendment dealing with births involving two illegal aliens.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz-posted "would run counter to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment"
Notice how you say " current " interpretation. This is DOUBLE TALK.
Congress need to apply the " ORIGINAL " AND STILL EXISTING DEFINITION AND CONTEXT OF THE LAW, AND STOP THE LIES.
Norton v Shelby County, Tennessee, 118 US 425, 442; 6 S Ct 1121; 30 L Ed 178 (1886) reveals that "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; creates no office..."
quill6211 9 months ago
@napkatz-posted "any such bills (if they became law), would run counter to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and would be DOA once the federal gov. sues."
That is the best that could happen. The STATES WIN no matter if the gov sues or not. If the gov sues the truth about the 14 Amendment will be settled in favor of the States within the SCOTUS because it was never intended for aliens or foreigners. It was ment for the children of slaves. No slaves, no born on us soil citizens.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 Courts once ALSO held that one man could OWN another person as a slave. Just because they
are the Court, does NOT mean they are correct. No One should be President or in Congress unless they can prove they were born in and their parents were both born IN the USA.
williamwagener 9 months ago 4
@williamwagener
As long as both parents are U.S. citizens, born on U.S. soil or naturalized, and the birth of the child takes place on U.S. soil, that child is an article 2 natural born Citizen eligible to run for U.S. Presidency.
Because the 14 Amendement has been perverted, the naturalized part of it will remain but it was never intended to give birth Right citizenship to foreigners or aliens. So God willing the States legilatures will hold true to their oaths and end this Repugnant act.
quill6211 9 months ago
@williamwagener There shouldn't actually be nations to begin with, but you're on the right track. To have the interest of the body in mind, the heart must be of that body. When we have nations. it then has the brain competing with the liver and lungs and other organs for blood and nutrients, and the body dies.
You're watching the terminal stages as we speak.
jackdtroughton 9 months ago
@quill6211 Citizen at birth is NOT the same as natural born citizen. You might want to consider buying the American cheese.
rdgrass 6 months ago
@napkatz
Honestly, you are in the MINORITY napkatz with the COOKY far lunatic fringe whom still believe Soebarkah's aka Barack Hussein Obama's nativity story.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - Well, the latest Gallop poll (conducted May 5th - 8th) shows that those leaning toward President Obama being porn in another country is at 13% (down from 24% last year).
napkatz 9 months ago
Comment removed
quill6211 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@napkatz
According to a new Gallup Poll May 13, 2011 reported by USA Today, only 47 percent of those surveyed say they think Obama "definitely" was born in the United States. Less than 1/2 of Americans say USURPER 'definitely' born in U.S.
-Obama is 100% USURPER and you are 100% in the MINORITY who still believe Barry/Soebarkah/Harrison J Bounel aka Barack Hussein Obama was " DEFINITELY " born in the United States
[[ ouch ]] DOUBLE [[ ouch ]]
quill6211 9 months ago
To use an analogy, it would be like me stealing someone's drivers license number, putting it on my card along with my name and address, and then going to the DMV to get a renewal. Off course, as soon as someone pulls up a record based on the number, they would know its not me.
A key rule with any social security # theft is you take the name with the number, and if you can help it, avoid interaction with the federal government.
The shoe of the allegation doesn't fit.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz-posted: "A key rule with any social security # theft is you take the name with the number, and if you can help it, avoid interaction with the federal government".
What do you think Barry Soetoro/Soebarkah/Harrison J Bounel aka Barack Hussein Obama got in his position all by his little self. You are even more NAIVE then I originally thought.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - lol. honestly, I think its cooky to think 30+ years of randomly assigned IRS and social security personnel working in the fed. government on tax returns would be along for the ride in a supposed conspiracy dating back to the days where Barrack Obama sold ice cream.
napkatz 9 months ago
I'm not going to get into the specifics of the SS# allegation except to say the premise is ridiculous. Traditionally when someone steals an SS#, they do so in order to access comprehensive info on someone and then impersonate them in order to open credit cards, apply for loans, etc...
The allegation against Pres. Obama is that he made up / stole a SS# and used it in conjuction with his name, including filing federal taxes with it over for 30+ years.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
Your Hypothesis means absolutely nothing and has no credibility among the FACTS PRESENTED.
quill6211 9 months ago
lol. Has anyone noticed that Corsi looks a lot like William Shatner :)
napkatz 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@napkatz - posted " lol. Has anyone noticed that Corsi looks a lot like William Shatner."
REDUNDANT * YAWN *
quill6211 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@napkatz
USC8 Section 1401 Defines (c)itizens at birth.
These 1401 (c)itizens can run for any office [[ EXCEPT FOR THE PRESIDENCY AND VICE PRESIDENT ]].
Go ask your local board of elections napkatz.
Barry Soetoro/Soebarkah/Harrison J Bounel aka Barack Hussein obama is 100% USURPER that has committed a FEDERAL CRIME including Social Security Fraud.
YouTube search: " Obama's Social Security Number Tied To An Alias Harrison J Bounel - 5/18/11"
quill6211 9 months ago
Meanwhile (as a nation laughs at birther futility), the President goes about his business (with a competent, steady James Bond-like cool) of getting America's top enemies (finally) & turning around the Bush nightmare economy; which took 8yrs to crash and will need more than 2.5 yrs to fix.
ThatguyNice 9 months ago
Wow. Birther psychosis will be well documented in psychiatric journals and severely mocked & ridiculed in history classes by future students. I hope Birtherism gives comfort in the face of a reality they cannot cope with (Blk man in Oval Office) It must be a gut-wrenching pain. Imagine the punch in the gut from his 2012 re-election. I pity the fools. I really do. smh
ThatguyNice 9 months ago
YOUTUBE SEARCH: Corsi Will Reveal Details On Media Person Who Helped Forge Obama's Birth Certificate - 5/20/11
TIC TOC
quill6211 9 months ago
Google "Obama having some fun, making some money with birth certificate". lol
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
What you disclose as the ruling in wong is WRONG. You are misleading intentionally or by ignorance. The RULING of the court only sites 14 Amendment (c)itizen. You are misleading, by siting DICTA:
YouTube search: " Jerome Corsi Smacks Down Liberal Radio Host Over 14th Amendment - 5/19/11 "
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 lol. Last time I heard, Jerome Corsi isn't a federal or state judge. His opinion is of indefinitely lower legal value than the judge in say, Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana. I suggest you read their opinion, as its pretty interesting. I agree with you that a clearly written law is better than judicial interpretation of law; failing to have the former though, the constitution places the duty of interpreting the laws ultimately in the court system.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
Obviously you haven't read Corsi's book. The LEGAL DOCUMENTS within do exactly what they are created to do, hold a person accountable. You look foolish with you ignorant comment without reading the book.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - I'm not paying $ for his book when lots of reviewers call it a summary of what he's already written on WnD. Written law is not conclusive in this case. The original constitution defined three types of citizens:
1) natural born
2) naturalized
3) conversion from subject to citizen at time of nation's founding
The 14th amendment defined all those born in the US as citizens, however it failed lump those citizens into one of the three existing categories or explicitly define a 4th.
napkatz 9 months ago
@quill6211 - I aim to mislead on one, I simply point to important specific court cases that define natural born status, as well as follow on cases that uphold that understanding such as Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, which I suggest you read. Jerome Corsi lies about the discussion of eligibility being in the dicta. If you read it you will see it's firmly in the opinion (page 10). Corsi has been known to lie off the cuff when it suits him.
napkatz 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@napkats posted - "I aim to mislead on one, I simply point to important specific court cases that define natural born status".
That in itself is misleading. Not one court case was ever held in The United States do define an Article 2 natural born Citizen and who is eligible for U.S. Presidency. You Lie.
quill6211 9 months ago
@napkatz-posted double talk: " Well OK, both Corsi and I were wrong a bit. The discussion of "natural born citizen" is firmly in the court opinion (Corsi's wrong), however it is considered "obiter dicta" (I'm wrong),
It can't be both-Dicta is DICTA, not a Ruling of the court.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - As such, interpretation falls to the courts, or to Congress, should they wish to pass an amendment to clarify things.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz posted "I simply point to important specific court cases that define natural born status".
Now you say "natural born [STATUS] " DOUBLE TALK.
You conveniently left out Supreme Court Minor v Happersett, even though the case was not to define NBC: " it was never doubted that all children born in a country of PARENT(S) who were its CITIZEN(S) became themselves,upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or NATURAL BORN CITIZENS..."
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - That statement from Minor v Happersett is meant to frame up certainty around a subset of citizens who definitely would be considered NBCs, not serve as an exclusionary statement. I'm familiar with that case; the judges' attitude in the opinion was simply that they didn't need to deduce the NBC status of citizens who had less than two citizen parents. There's nothing in that opinion that explicitly denies them NBC status.
napkatz 9 months ago
@quill6211 - What you and I clearly have are very different readings on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which is the case cited in the Congressional Research Service study as well as the Dicta for the Indiana case as to why President Obama is a NBC. And my guess is you and I won't come to terms on it, but it seems that anyone with an opinion on it who matters (Congress, the courts), seem to agree with me :)
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz-posted "but it seems that anyone with an opinion on it who matters(Congress,the courts),seem to agree with"
Typical far fringe anti-Constitution MINORITY response to think the opinion of the United States Citizens do not matter.A Redress of Grievance is in The 1st Amendment of The Bill of Rights
"Only a MINORITY of Americans believe that the pResident was born in this Country"
-MSNBC Chris Matthews
View @ Real Clear Politics: "Matthews: Birthers Trying To Destroy Obama Personally"
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - You're discussion of whether he was born in this country is immaterial to our constitution/law discussion. I'm simply saying that both the elected people in Congress and current judicial opinion weigh very heavily toward Barrack Obama being an NBC. But as I've said before, there's a good chance a court case will be allowed on the merits in the next election, and we both can have our definitive answer then. Pray it's Gary Kreep and not Orly initiating it :)
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz-posted "...both the elected people in Congress and current judicial opinion weigh very heavily toward Barack Obama being an NBC"
Congress went ROGUE before with NIXON.
REPUBLIC v DEMOCRACY
The Individuals within a Democracy composing any Minority,have no protection against the unlimited power of The government.
The purpose of a Republic is to control government strictly as well as all others among the people,primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given unalienable rights
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 Darn Well stated the difference between Republic & Democracy. Thanks for clarifying
williamwagener 9 months ago
@quill6211 - I will freely admit that my understanding of Corsi's dicta statement was wrong, and that he was being factual in that one sentence. His follow-on statement about English common law however was completely wrong.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
FYI
DICTA: "Dicta are regarded as of little authority, on account of the manner in which they are delivered; it frequently happening that they are given without much reflection, at the bar, without previous examination.
One judge said; " It is great misfortune that dicta are taken down from judges, perhaps incorrectly, and then cited as absolute propositions ".
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - Well OK, both Corsi and I were wrong a bit. The discussion of "natural born citizen" is firmly in the court opinion (Corsi's wrong), however it is considered "obiter dicta" (I'm wrong), as it wasn't the primary reason for why the case was dismissed; In short, the plaintiff's case was so flimsy in terms of standing that the discussion wasn't necessary. That said, I think just about all judges will interpret Wong Kim Ark the same way.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
* REDUNDANT * It isn't working nutsack ((OOPS)) natkatz
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - sigh. Again with the name calling. I was only trying to brief people on how SS# crime usually goes down, and how it reasonably doesn't fit the allegation. I think that was the first time I did that on this thread, so I don't think I was being redundant. But maybe people have told you the same thing before, and if so, I apologize for repeating what they said.
napkatz 9 months ago
YouTube search: Obama's Social Security Number Tied To An Alias Harrison J Bounel - 5/18/11
Just like Patriot Taitz said; CHECKMATE
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - I think you're lying to yourself. I'm not combining definitions, the CRS report is in the last paragraph. You seem to be cherry-picking quotes but ignoring the report's final conclusion.
napkatz 9 months ago
The CRS (Congressional Research Service) admits that no one in congress ever vetted Barry Soetoro/Soebarkah aka Barack Hussein Obama.
It is wise to look forward to evidence that expands beyond the word of one source.
YouTube search: " BREAKING NEWS! We Told You So! The Congressional Research Service CONFIRMS IT! ".
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211- A centralized government determining eligibility over who can run in elections sounds to me a lot like Iran or any other totalitarian state. Our current system where candidates can sue each other in active elections over such matters isn't perfect, but seems safer to me. I don't think the government being replaced should rule on who can replace them.
That said, the same report concluded President Obama is a natural born citizen.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz posted: " the same report concluded President Obama is a natural born citizen. " (c)
And what report are you referring to Mr.Katz?
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - The same 2009 CRS (Congressional Research Service) memo you mentioned, from April 3, 2009 - "Qualifications for the Officeof President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate" I hesitate to cite it, as it looks like it was leaked and not officially released to the public (therefore I cannot guarantee its authenticity). That said, it ends as follows:
napkatz 9 months ago
@quill6211 "The constitutional history and relevant case law thus indicate that one born "in" the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, that is, when one's parents are not official diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation in the U.S., would be considered a U.S. citizen "at birth" or"by birth," and thus a "natural born Citizen"of the United States, regardlessof the citizenship statusof that individual's parents"
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
Actually the CRS memo states prior: [[[[ " As such, any person physically born "in" the United States, regardless of the citizenship of one's parents (unless such parents are foreign diplomatic personnel not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), would [[ APPEAR ]] to be a "natural born" citizen eligible to be President of The United States ". ]]]]
Have you not read it in it's entire context??? You double talking liar
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - Yes I have. They use the word "appear" because the CRS actually doesn't have authority to state directly what a natural born citizen is. They can only cite evidence (in this case strong academic and judicial evidence) of what it means to be an NBC. What exactly are you accusing me of lying of? Not sure I follow? Obama Sr. wasn't a foreign diplomat, hence that part of your quote doesn't apply here.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
@quill6211
The CRS memo sites the 14 Amendment. (anyone born on u.s. soil or naturalized is a U.S. (c)itizen). A 14 Amendment (c)itizen is not the same and never will be an Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 natural born (C)itizen.
No where within the 14 Amendment is natural born (C)itizen even written. A 14 Amendment (c)itizen (naturalized or born on U.S. soil) can run for any office [[ EXCEPT ]] the Presidential and Vice President.
Barry Soetoro/Soebarkah is 100% USURPER
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - The document covers what it means to be natural born is a separate section: Common Understanding of the Legal Term "Natural Born"in 1700s. In short, you're natural born if you are born within the US and are subject to its laws.
The document defines "natural born" and "citizen at birth" separately (both of which are true if you are born in the US and subject to its laws. In short: "natural born" + "citizen at birth" = "Natural born citizen"
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz - The FACT IS: MARTIN VAN BUREN was the first Art 2 Sec1 Cl 5 natural born Citizen President in the history of The United States. He was born in 1782 in the State of New York to 2 U.S Citizen parents.
He was the FIRST President qualified under the natural born Citizen clause by the simple FACT He was born in the USA to TWO (2) U.S. CITIZEN PARENTS. His parents were original Citizens in 1776.
Why do you think history shows Mr. BUREN was the 1ST Art 2 natural born Citizen President?
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - Martin Van Buren is considered the 1st natural born citizen to become president primarily because he was the first president who was born as a citizen (after the Declaration of Independence). Parentage might enter the discussion, because in that dark time in our history, people could own people and the children of slaves were not granted citizenship at birth. The 14th amendment changed that, and our understanding of natural born evolved following United States v. Wong Kim Ark
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz Well I disagree in part , but thank you for raising the bar of discussion. Was wonder how long
before the US v ARK would be raised or some others. thanks for thoughtful comment. Lets hope it gets to a JURY trial and all these is thoroughly hashed out.
williamwagener 9 months ago
@williamwagener - Thank you for hosting the party :) I think we can all agree the worst part of this situation is that the appeals court probably won't rule on this for another 2 - 4 months (based on their average expediency). Ah, the suspense :)
napkatz 9 months ago
@williamwagener - I wish the thread would actually get back to the case :) This stuff about taking birthrights away from hundreds of thousands of people seems to be dominating it right now. I find Gary Kreep's discussion on the political question to be far more interesting; it certainly hooked the two dude judges a bit :)
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
This was just posted for you napkatz.
YouTube search: " ARREST USURPER OBAMA NOW! BARRY SOETORO IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN~100% SOURCED W/ GOVT. " A MUST SEE!!!!!
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - That video cites opinions hat have no force or power under law. I'm not surprised that some framers of the 14th amendment didn't foresee their words would lead to children of of one or more aliens being given presidential birthright, but intentions don't matter. There's nothing in the 14th amendment itself which prevents natural born status being granted to children of foreigners.
I doubt the framers of the ninth amendment thought it would pave the way for legalized abortion.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz - posted "There's nothing in the 14th amendment itself which prevents natural born status being granted to children of foreigners"
14th Amendment actually points out to the contrary of your opinion. The 14 Amend: All persons born or naturalized in the United States [[ AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF ]] ,ARE (c)ITIZENS of the United States and of the State wherin they reside.
To be a 14 Amendment (c)itizen you must be a subject. The subjects were SLAVES NOT FOREIGN ALIENS.
quill6211 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@napkatz-posted "There's nothing in the 14th amendment itself which prevents natural born status being granted to children of foreigners"
Natural born (C)itizen is not even written within the 14 Amendment anywhere what-so-ever.
quill6211 9 months ago
@Paul
Van Buren was the first American-Article 2 natural born Citizen President or rather the First President to serve who was not of British decent or of any other foreign decent. Both his Parents were U.S. Citizens, and we know citizenship is passed to the child from the parents, so his loyalty was w/one country [[ sole ]] allegiance to the United States making him a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Unlike Barry Soetoro/Soebarkah/USURPER aka Barack Hussein Obama who was born a DUAL citizen.
quill6211 9 months ago
@napkatz posted: " The document defines "natural born" and "citizen at birth" separately (both of which are true if you are born in the US and subject to its laws. In short: "natural born" + "citizen at birth" = "Natural born citizen".
Are you serious????? " "natural born" + "citizen at birth" = "Natural born citizen" " -napkatz
You're a laughing stock and proof positive a DOUBLE TALKING liar.
Thanks for proving my point again :) :) :) LOL!!!! You're a joke.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - I think you are lying to yourself. I'm not combining definitions; the CRS report defines "natural born" and citizenship at birth separately, and then combines the two in its final paragraph, stating the weight of legal and academic evidence indicates anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen. I recommend you read the final sentence of the report, which serves as its final summary.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz -US v ARK A person born within the limits of the United States, whose father and mother were both persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China, but at the time of the birth were both domiciled residents of the United States, Is a [(c)itizen] of the United States, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
NOT AN ART 2 NBC ELIGIBLE FOR POTUS. Tin Sing, 21 Fed. 905, 10 Sawy.353,and Gee Fook Sing v.U.S.,1C.C.A.211,49 Fed.146,7U.S.App.27, followed.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - Once again, you miss the passage in US v ARK where they define what "natural born" is, but believe me, it's there. If you're really sincerely curious, read the Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana opinion. It cites that Supreme Court case as to why President Obama is a natural born citizen.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz-Posted: " Once again, you miss the passage in US v ARK where they define what "natural born" is, but believe me, it's there. "
Once again napkatz you miss the factual point that no court within the United States EVER HAD A CASE WHERE THE DEFINITION AND CONTEXT OF AN ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 CLAUSE 5 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN WAS DEFINED.
What do you think the outcry of the U.S Citizens REDRESS is about if it was already defined in a court of law nutsack (whoops sorry) napkatz???
quill6211 9 months ago
@napkatz - Your logic is not logical. You believe Osama Bin Ladin could of sent all of his wives (pregnant) to the United States have his children on U.S. soil and as long as his children were living within the U.S. for 14 years when they come of the ripe age of 35 or older they could run for the Presidency of The United States????????????
You are truly delusional and indoctrinated to believe such a distortion of The United States Constitution and it's founding principles.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - Is that what this is about? 1) I have more faith than you do in the collective wisdom of the 300 million people of live here (voters). 2) For every improbable scenario you can come up with, there are tens of thousands of patriots in this country that had a non-citizen parent at birth, include those serving courageously in our armed forces. I'm amazed you would deny these heroes their full birthright, just to satisfy your xenophobia.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz-posted: " Is that what this is about? 1) I have more faith than you do in the collective wisdom of the 300 million people of live here (voters)."
300 MILLION PEOPLE DIDN'T VOTE napkatz
Plus much voting fraud is still coming into light, as a matter of fact electronic voting in itself is fraud. There must be a paper trail and the votes need to be counted in view of the public for Constitutional elections to be, not by a electronic machine that has been proven to manipulate the votes.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 THANK you for a Sterling comment. Problem is California and most state still using a variety of totally un - reliable electronic voting machines. People must either sue their county or go to county ßupervisors and demand Paper ballots again. But most are too lazy to do either.
williamwagener 9 months ago
@williamwagener
I read there is a Lawsuit actually going to trial in Albany NY relating to un-Constitutional electronc voting machines the NYS Board of elections just starting using. The discovery process has been underway for about a year.
quill6211 9 months ago
@williamwagener
And I Thank You William Wagener for your profound interviews and your Patriotism.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - lol. I was allowing for the 35 years it would take for your hypothetical Bin Laden babies to reach the minimal 35 years of age to be in the election :) :) There's a very good chance that by 2046, we'll have 300 million voters. And I agree with you on the paper trail issue.
napkatz 9 months ago
@quill6211 - The bottom line is you want to revoke the right to run for president for hundreds of thousands of natural born citizens in this country. You're so hateful toward Pres. Obama that you've forgotten who might be hurt. But guess what; neither they nor the courts will let that happen. The days when courts removed the rights of the masses is firmly dated back in the 1800s.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz -posted " The bottom line is you want to revoke the right to run for president for hundreds of thousands of natural born citizens in this country."
The bottom line is you can't revoke something from someone that they never had in the first place, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to manipulate people with your anti-Constitutional DELUSIONAL THOUGHTS. How un-American of you napkatz. Does your mother and father know your gay?
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - I sense we are going around in circles on this, and we both have respective lives to get back to. How about this? If President Obama's reelection survives all the lawsuits tried on the merits challenging eligibility, then I'm right. If a lawsuit claiming he is not a natural born citizen wins, then I will concede you're right. Deal ? :) :)
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz NAZI courts ruled smashing Jewish store windows were NOT a crime, and 2 years later killing and cremating Jews was a virtue..... WHO TRUSTS the Courts anymore? When Carter
had Obama's former LAW FIRM employee as his NEW LAW CLERK when he reversed himself Oct. 09.
Cong. Ron Paul had documentation that he was openly cheated out of votes in New Hampshire, and other places... and he DID NOT trust the Courts, did NOT sue in them corrupt courts.
williamwagener 9 months ago
@williamwagener - I honestly don't find Nazi courts under a totalitarian dictatorship and our courts to be comparable.
With regard to Judge Carter, a low level court employee does not have any bearing on the outcome of any case; I can tell you, the lower court spent far more time than any of the other 16 cases (which were all dismissed), insuring the case was not tossed out due to Orly's filing errors. Other Bush appointed judges have actually fined Orly for frivolous litigation.
napkatz 9 months ago
@williamwagener - I think Judge Carter's interest in the political question (can the courts unseat a president) followed by his affirmance of the standard of standing (which led to the case being dismissed) is often confused as a "reversal". I would recommend you read his 2009 court opinion. It's actually very generous toward the plaintiffs, dismisses some of the defense's arguments, and laid down enough interest for the Appeals court to take a look.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
If the Constitution allowed anyone that was born in The United States to run for the Presidency of the most powerful Nation in the world,we would not be The United States any longer.The founding fathers put a safe guard in place and that safe guard is that ONLY A PERSON WITH SOLE ALLEGIANCE FROM BIRTH TO THE UNITED STATES IS ELIGIBLE TO BECOME PRESIDENT
Barack Hussein Obama born a DUAL citizen does NOT FIT THAT REQUIREMENT AND IS A 100% USURPER. Sorry to say; YOU HAVE BEEN HAD.
quill6211 9 months ago
@napkatz
Obama will step down before it ever goes to trial to be herd on the merits. The best to happen, to reclaim some dignity in the United States would be for Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein obama to be removed.
If the USURPER was white or black it wouldn't matter to me for there is only one race; THE HUMAN RACE.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - Well, I don't agree with you on multiple levels, but I will let you have the last word on this subject, at least until the appeals court reaches their decision. It was a pleasure, and I thank you for this spirited debate.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
You're not very Patriotic.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - Taken at face value, the report confirms as you say, that the eligibility of the candidates was not vetted at the federal level during the 2008 election (or any election for that matter). It also indicates that at least CA views vetting optional. In short, disqualifying a candidate on eligibility concerns during an election is best done via a lawsuit from an opposing candidate. The report also concludes that President Obama has proven he is a natural born citizen.
napkatz 9 months ago
@quill6211 - You do raise a good point though over who should vet eligibility. Gary Kreep has a case on the docket in the Supreme Court (10-1351) Alan Keyes vs Debra Bowen claiming it is the States' responsibility to establish eligibility of a candidate before allowing him/her on their ballots. That may prove to be an interesting case, assuming its heard.
napkatz 9 months ago
lol - meant to say liar. I know my case law, but my spelling needs work :)
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
Everything you post napkatz is being documented. Please continue :)
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 Really? Then it must be noted that Pinky and the Brain was the best cartoon in the 90s, VB.NET is an easier language to read than C#, JetBlue unlimited snacks and TV rule, our infatuation with smart phones makes people bump into things, tennis balls should last longer, our K12 education system suffers from scope creep (everyone needs to know calculus??), Diet coke eventually is tastier than regular coke, Calvin and Hobbes has never gotten old, and Jon Stewart is funnier than Jay Leno
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz posted " Really? "
YES, really :)
quill6211 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (2009): The Indiana Court of Appeals applied Wong Kim Ark and upheld the lower court's dismissal of a challenge to President Obama's eligibility
For quill6511 - Lier = Someone who says something true that I don't agree with :) :) :) :)
napkatz 9 months ago
Every President born before July 4, 1776 were born British natural born subjects. They were under British Rule.Ruled by a king.(a man)
Those Presidents were naturalized to become Citizens of the United States
The Declaration of Independence "NATURALIZED" those Presidents and since those NATURALIZED CITIZENS WERE ALIVE AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE U.S CONSTITUTION THEY WERE GRANDFATHERED IN AND MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ART2 SEC1 CL5 US CONSTITUTION
Now only a NBC is eligible for POTUS.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - It's not like it was ever a secret that President Obama's father was from Kenya; that information was widely available in the primary election and national election. Seriously, Clinton and/or McCain would have torpedoed then Senator Obama if having a foriegn-born parent were an issue.
napkatz 9 months ago
Lets not forget the requirement in Article 2. Only a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN or a CITIZEN of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution is eligible for POTUS.
Notice a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is NOT the same as a CITIZEN.
A CITIZEN was ONLY eligible to be President if they were "alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution" and still alive today.Since that is not possible now you must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
1ST NBC POTUS WAS Martin Van Buren w/2 CITIZEN PARENT(S)
quill6211 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quill6211 - As long as you are born on US soil, you are a natural born citizen. Given the Constitution does not define Natural-born citizen, The Supreme Court ruled that the US implementation of English Common law provided the definition of natural-born citizen as someone who is born in the United States. There was dissenting opinion in the court, however the opinion was from a small minority of judges.
napkatz 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quill6211 - Supreme Court of the US in 1898 (United States v. Wong Kim Ark)
napkatz 9 months ago
@quill6211 "every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established"
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
Ok napkins, maybe you still live as a "SUBJECT" under a king but we in the United States of America are "CITIZENS" and have a governing rule of law known as the U.S. Constitution that makes us a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY
In Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10 there is a little thing called The Law of Nations and that we must protect those laws from"OFFENSES"against them
The Law of Nations Book 1 Chapter 19 Section 212 & 215 clearly shows children follow the conditions of their fathers
quill6211 9 months ago
@napkatz
The 14 Amendment discribes anyone born on U.S. soil as a " (c)itizen " NOT an Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 " natural born (C)itizen eligible for U.S. Presidency.
Article 2, absolutely beyond any doubt, distinguishes a differance between being a CITIZEN and a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN inwhich is the requirements for the Presidency of The United States of America.
quill6211 9 months ago
@napkatz
" The First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 extended the “natural born Citizen” status to persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents.The Third Congress, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, repealed the 1790 Act and declared such children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be considered as “citizens" (ONLY) of the United States” and not “natural born Citizens.”
GOOGLE: " The Citizenship Status of Our 44 Presidents ".
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - I hate to inform you, but two presidents from the last century had foreign born parents: Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada. Sorry, being born on US soil means your a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court ruling in 1898 has legal standing, where the Law of Nations is just a bunch of written opinions.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
Now you made yourself a LIAR
Woodrow WILSON - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1856 in VA. His mother was foreign born U.S. Citizen, English, but when he was born she had become a naturalized Citizen of the United States prior to his birth due to her marriage to Woodrow’s father, a U.S. Citizen. Having a foreignborn parent is OK if the foreign born parent has become a naturalized Citizen of the U.S. prior to the child being born.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - I said foreign born parents, which is true. How am I a lier?
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
You are a JOKE!
You redundant double talking LIAR.
George Washington would of shot you a long time ago.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 Well, I hate to tell you, but Gary Kreep (the attorney on, ya know, your side) agrees with me :) :)
"There's nothing that I'm aware of that says you have to have two American parents," said the executive director of the United States Justice Foundation, Gary Kreep, whose lawsuit alleges Obama was born in Africa and thus is constitutionally ineligible. "My understanding of it is if you're born in the United States, you're a natural-born citizen, period."
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz posted: "Well, I hate to tell you, but Gary Kreep (the attorney on, ya know, your side) agrees with me :) :) "There's nothing that I'm aware of that says you have to have two American parents."
The TRUTH is Gary Kreep at the hearing in the 9th circuit stated that resolution 511 helps his case because congresses finding states that you need TWO (2) AMERICAN CITIZENS PARENTS BEFORE YOU CAN BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN TO RUN.
Hear it for yourself LIAR starting at min 2:17 thru 2:44
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - I think you're missing something (or just didn't read Resolution 511). Resolution 511 only pertains to children born to US Citizens serving in the US military born OUTSIDE the United States. As such it isn't germane to any discussion of births that occur on US soil. Gary Kreep's case centers on proving President Obama wasn't born on US soil; if he were successful in that then R511 might be of some limited use to him; not much though because resolutions have no power under law.
napkatz 9 months ago
@quill6211 - So, Gary Kreep's earlier quote about birth on US soil and his reference to Resolution 511 in no way contradict each other. I sense you are passionate about this subject, and would recommend you redirect that energy from baseless name-calling to becoming familiar on these issues and/or courting Congress to begin impeachment proceedings. These birther court cases have no future, at least not outside an election scenario.
napkatz 9 months ago
@quill6211 - Maybe your team needs to get their stories straight before lobbing insults :) :) :) :)
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
YOU LIE!
Herbert HOOVER - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1874 in IA. His mother wasforeign born U.S. Citizen, a Canadian, but when he was born she had become a naturalized Citizen of theUnited States prior to his birth due to her marriage to Herbert’s father, a U.S. Citizen. Having a foreignborn parent is OK if the foreign born parent has become a naturalized Citizen of the U.S. prior to the child being born.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 Lynch v. Clarke (1844 - A District Court ruling) also established anyone being born on US soil is a NBC. This lower decision was cited in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
This has already been applied to lawsuits concerning President Obama - Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (2009): The Indiana Court of Appeals applied Wong Kim Ark and upheld the lower court's dismissal of a challenge to President Obama's eligibility
Sorry, this is settled law.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” and cited Vattel (The Law of Nations) and quoted his definition of “natural born Citizen”
In the Wong case it only established through the PERVERSION of the 14 Amendment that " children born to alien parents on U.S. soil are only 14th Amendment (c)itizen not an Article 2 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ELIGIBLE FOR U.S. PRESIDENCY. Have you not read it LIAR?
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 - I hate to break it to you, but the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and has THE final say in such things. You're free to disagree with the ruling (many disagree with Roe v Wade), and have your own opinions about what the laws should be. The courts don't have that luxury; they must abide by prior precedents. If you feel strongly about this though, I'd recommend soliciting Congress to begin impeachment proceedings; that's the standard recourse we as citizens have.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
I love to break it to you LIAR. Not one single Court within the United States WHAT-SO-EVER EVER ruled on the definition and context of an Article 2 U.S. Constitution NATURAL BORN CITIZEN eligible for U.S. Presidency.
quill6211 9 months ago
@quill6211 Lynch v. Clarke (1844 - A District Court ruling) also established anyone being born on US soil is a NBC. This lower decision was cited in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
napkatz 9 months ago
great
tonydmen1 9 months ago
@TerrierToughGuy - lol. the short form was issued by a GOP controlled government, and the Dept of Health employee that found the long form was GOP too.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz I do not care who issue or released the long form certificate. It is an abstract and contains items from more than one document. It may even have components of an original but the released document is a creation. This does not reflect either one way or the other regarding Obama's legitimacy, it is simply a a fact that the released document is NOT an original or a scan, it is a computer constructed document. It just is.
TerrierToughGuy 9 months ago
@TerrierToughGuy - As someone who has scanned plenty of documents, there's nothing irregular with the PDF that was posted; scanning software often breaks down documents into layers so that components can be used in other documents, as well as for compression purposes. The Dept of Health in Hawaii (the office that gave the copies to President Obama's lawyer), has also confirmed they adequately reflect the actual document on file.
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz You speak with a certainty like you were the one who looked at and scanned the document. Such hubris! All scanned documents are able to be separated into layers. They do not have information on several layers, all the information in a simple scan are on 1 layer. The breakdown of the layers in this document has for instance the date 196 on one layer and then the 1 on another layer and the 1 appears differently and a darker color.
TerrierToughGuy 9 months ago
@TerrierToughGuy - Nah, I didn't scan it, but I recognize the authority of the Hawaii Department of Health in this matter. From them:
I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital
records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.
Done and done. Case closed :)
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz There is the difference, I trust no one and when I can verify something myself and check it, I do. This is the same with any of my conservative beliefs. I set out to prove them wrong with the tenacity of a pitbull, as a result I am now an independent. I cannot speak of anything in the past regarding Obama, I do not think his ideology or the multitude of people he has placed in positions of power are good for America but aside from all else, this document is not real but an abstract.
TerrierToughGuy 9 months ago
@TerrierToughGuy - I certainly understand only wanting to believe in what can personally be verified; many investors now invest in property and not stocks so they can literally touch their investment. That said, in a country of 300 million people, not everyone can be sent the original BC via mail to satisfy their curiosity. But if I understand you right, by your standard of proof, I take it you don't believe any past president was eligible, as you haven't seen their BC's. Right?
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz That is twisted logic as no other President has come from nowhere, hidden all their personal information or had a parent that was not American in a long long time.
TerrierToughGuy 9 months ago
@TerrierToughGuy - I do appreciate your civil discourse. I would like to take the moment to recognize the achievement of President Obama's mother for raising a child practically by herself, and President Obama's grandparents as well for all they did. Just because such splendid people are no longer with us doesn't mean President Obama came from nowhere. He came from, and was raised by loyal Americans who did a great service to our country,
napkatz 9 months ago
@napkatz
The First President of The United States was " Martin Van Buren ".
What do you think made him the first Article 2 "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"??? Because he was born of alien parents on U.S. soil mimicking a British "SUBJECT" law inwhich we had a REVOLUTION to abolish????
Your DOUBLE TALK is so transparent and BORING. ** YAWN ** :-O
quill6211 9 months ago
@napkatz We go separate ways in this. Obama's mother was at least a cultural marxist and a communist sympathizer. His grandparents belonged to a Unitarian church called "The little red church" because it taught communism. Dunham's dating non-white boys was her attack on American society as told by her clasmates at the time. I will not go into who tutored him, who paif for his college, who his roomates were or his belonging to a racist church for 20 years. He was raised by anti American marxists
TerrierToughGuy 9 months ago
@napkatz Regardless of our differences I appreciate the civil discourse.
TerrierToughGuy 9 months ago