According to Romney family lawyers it doesn’t matter if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or even Paris: Because his mother was an American (and not even Donald Trump questions that), he is eligible to be President.
"1000 Legal Questions Answered by the“People’s Lawyer”of the Boston Daily Globe,Harvard Law Sch lib)
A natural born citizen would be 1 who by nature,that is by inheritance,was a citizen,as distinguished from 1 who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen.
The very definition of natural is “fixed or determined by nature” I do not find that our courts have ever passed upon the meaning of the word natural in connection with citizenship,so we must take its ordinary meaning
@kiiifute1 "I do not find that our courts have ever passed upon the meaning of the word natural in connection with citizenship"
You did not read the Wong Kim Ark case? The lower court decision that SCOTUS affirmed, knowing (and mentioning this in the dissenting opinion) full well that would make WKA (born of Chinese parents in the US) eligible for presidency?
Your layman's attempt at redefining legal terms with your own is quite amusing. Just won't hold any water in the real world.
Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred..Your statutes can't deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty,or the locomotive faculty,b/c the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the U.S. as native&naturalized.Our great family is composed of a class forming a single genus,who,to all intents& purposes,are equal,except in the instance specified-that of not being eligible to the presidency
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistably lead us to these conclusions:
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here...if he hath issue here...his child If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen..."
The Court,in the "WKA" case,is COMPARING the U.S. native born of an alien TO the "natural born" child of a U.S. citizen; NOT EQUATING the two--as the sub-ordinating term; "AS", indicates
@kiiifute1 "NOT EQUATING the two--as the sub-ordinating term; "AS", indicates"
"Sub-ordinating"? What part of "is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen" don't you understand? Plain English too hard for you? "is as much an A as B" means "is an A to the same extent as B".
@kiiifute1 As long as you mix up biological terms with legal terms, you will not go anywhere.
Besides, even the biological definition you cite does not create "mixed subjects" - "common ancestor", singular, dude!
There are only two types of citizen: natural born and natural-ized.
Now find me one US citizen born in the country (regardless to what parents) who naturalized in the last 200 years. There is none. So they are all natural born. Your attempts at creating more classes is futile.
@magicmulder ARE YOU REALLY THIS "SINGULARLY " STUPID? The answer to this question, is a resounding---"NO " -- You've plenty of company,sadly..
When what is produced does NOT derive from a common ancestor; it is of the mixed variety -you silly person
A U.S. CITIZEN & A NON-US. CITIZEN DO NOT PRODUCE an ARTICLE II 'natural born Citizen'
THEY MAY PRODUCE A " U.S.CITIZEN" --ie 'STATUTORY' IN NATURE OR IF,AS YOU SEEM TO PREFER, "NATURALIZED"---NATURALIZED, AT BIRTH,or COME THE AGE OF MAJORITY
@magicmulder The term "ancestor", as I have it employed ,simply, refers to what has 'gone before' ; that which precedes cedere----
Since you prefer the term of distinction; "naturalized" when identifying the individual's particular path to U.S. Citizenship--
It might help to understand that "naturalizing" as a U.S. Citizen DOES NOT ,necessarily require one to pass through a formal oath-taking or allegiances renouncement process-
@magicmulder One is considered "naturalized", if while following a course of affairs they rely on man-made, that is; positive law(treaty, statute, etc) to shed encumbrances borne and/or affirm the decision to continue in a certain/'positive' vein To lodge or not lodge formal objection at this stage of the process does not prevent the hand of "man"[the municipal law]from interceding on behalf of the subject
Involvement of civil society to this extent is cultivation eg pruning,artful guidance
@maidenak Yes, and in that class that B.O. Jr helmed --HE uses Emmerich VATTEL's Law of Nations as a text & also, as it so happens, during the course of his "lectures" points to 2 separate cases in which George Collins Secretary of the American Bar Association and renowned Int Scholar and Lawyer Alexander Morse were involved , respectively. Need I remind one of what Collins and Morse have treated with regard to ARTICLE II 'natural born Citizen'?
@kiiifute1 "HE uses Emmerich VATTEL's Law of Nations as a text"
And therefore he has to agree with *every single word* Vattel uses? Like every good Christian would give his daughters to the rapists to protect his foreign guests as they did in Sodom? What kind of argument is that again?
Or, to put it differently, Obama using Vattel's book somehow overrules the Constitutional meaning of NBC? Your argument is quite funny.
Natural Born Citizen is a very simple term that you are trying to make complicated.
It has nothing to do with parentage.
Cite the case law where it has been decided that Natural Born Citizen is two US parents? A letter from Bingham is NOT sufficient. A Senate resolution (511) is not case law.
Okay, let's say for a second that he's not a natural born citizen. Why the fuck is this SO FUCKING IMPORTANT to you? What is going to happen now that he's in Office? I'm sure all these years he's spent in elected positions bettering the future of America has all been some long, convoluted scheme that was crafted by his father (secret from his mother of course), and eventually he will deliver us all to Her Royal Highness on a silver platter.
This birther "movement" is rather similar to a "bowel movement." It will go nowhere because its membership has been appraised already as a bunch of eccentric conspiracy-minded imbeciles.
@impeachobamanow2010 While you're trying your best at comedy, I haven't taken my eye off of my money! That bitch has until 4-22-2011. Not April 23 @ 0001hrs., but April 22, 2011!
Bitch betta have my money! If not, I'll put a wig on that tater of yours and push you out on the stroll, Schleprock. Don't worry, it will be dark. Just tell my customers that it's that time of the month and you can only do ONE thing.
@whiteliberal1 YOU AND YOUR MOM ARE MY BITCHES! LOL I TRAINED YOU WELL BITCH! AND AGAIN TELL YOUR DAD TO STAY OFF MY NUTS. THAT FAG IS ALWAYS TRYING TO GO DOWN ON ME. MAYBE THATS WHY YOUR ARE GAY YOU TAKE AFTER YOUR DAD! LOL YOU ARE A TROLL AND I OWN YOU BITCH!
Btw, what size wig will you need? I'm sure a 11 3/4 should fit that melon of yours. As for your high heels, take a pair from your mammy, because I have a strong feeling that she will NOT need them in the future.
@whiteliberal1 LIKE I SAID TELL YOUR DAD TO STAY OFF MY NUTS! NOW I KNOW WHY YOU ARE SO GAY, YOU TAKE AFTER YOUR DAD. YOUR MOM STARTED COMING OVER TO MY HOUSE AND YOUR DAD BECAME GAY! LOL YOU ARE MY BITCH!
@impeachobamanow2010 Get plenty of rest, Schleprock, because I have a feeling you're going to put a lot of miles on those crusty feet of yours tonight!
@whiteliberal1 SO YOU ADMIRE YOUR MOM? SHE IS PRETTY EASY! I HEARD SHE JUST DID THE WHOLE 49ERS FOOTBALL TEAM. WOW SHE IS A SLUT! KINDA LIKE YOU BUT NOT GAY!
@impeachobamanow2010 Again, I see you're still of afraid of responding "Dienda's" comment. I heard you blocked Dienda from your channel. Are you that much of coward? I guess you were PWND!
The following link lists conditions in which one becomes a U.S. natural-born citizen and the first of these states "anyone born inside the United States". (dot) means '.' usconstitution(dot)net/consttop_citi(dot)html. The exception is anyone born who is not under the jurisdiction of the U.S., such as the child of a foreign diplomat. Foreigners, including British subjects, who do not have immunity, are under U.S. jurisdiction, and their children, according to 1401(a) are U.S. natural citizens.
By the time you birther idiots get done, we'll ALL need to go somewhere else. Luckilly, I DO have another option! Hope you learn Chinese...you'll need it...oh that's right...stupid people can't learn anything, anyway. How's that republican "jobs bill" working out for you? Ha-ha
@KenyanBornObamAcorn You don't know the law of the land. 14th amendment. Section 1, Clause 1 clearly states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It is birthright citizenship. It is the law of the land.
AND your point is? Obama being a CITIZEN is irrelevant! You have to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN to hold the Presidency and Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen because his father was never a US citizen!
@KenyanBornObamAcorn He was born on American soil. It doesn't matter if his father wasn't an american citizen. His mother was an american. If he was born on american soil, he is automatically a natural born citizen.The precedent was set by Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark. He is a natural born citizen end of story.
You don't know the law, so stop screaming about something you have no clue about.
@KenyanBornObamAcorn -- The 1791 'natural born citizen' clause you're referring to DOES NOT APPLY to Obama. That clause was only meant for 'anglo european males'. Their wives didn't even have the RIGHT to vote! The 14th Amendment RE-DEFINED the meaning of a citizen/citizenship. ALL PERSONS born on US soil are citizens(children from diplomats excluded). That 1791 standard NO LONGER APPLIES!! McCain was born in Panama, but his parents were US citizens. So, McCain is covered! This is a non issue.
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --Were you asleep during Am. Govt. in school? You're aware that there are 3 branches of govt.? Right? The only part that gets used from [Article 2,Sect. 1] is'being born in this country, aged 35yrs & 14yrs residency. The rest is referred to the 14th Amendment! The 1791 standard for citizenship(and the NBC) was SUPERSEDED BY THE 14th AMENDMENT!! This was 'backed up' by the US v. Wong Kim Ark. That ruling is where the 'anchor babies' hang their hat! You have NO CASE!! NONE!!
Funny you should ask...When I was in civics class (Mr Thompson, who I did NOT get along with) always messed with me and the MAIN reason I started this ISSUE over a year ago, was because I remember fighting with him the same day he drilled it in my head that you need to be a natural born citizen to be president! We went over why it was different for the Pres and VP than it was for the rest and I was asked to repeat what he just said because he thought I wasn't listening.
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --Your teacher was/is misinformed. He knows the truth just like everyone else! The NBC clause was the old law & was SUPERSEDED by the NEW law! It was done to include former african slaves as FULL citizens. The NBC was not repealed. It was RE-DEFINED!! The 14th Amendment re-defined it. It 'formally' includes black africans into the framework of the Constitution. This is 2011--not 1791!!
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --Obama & McCain fall under {Title 8,US Code,Sect. 1401}. It is there where you will get ALL the proof you're looking for. Obama's ONLY issue was where he was born--not WHO HIS PARENTS ARE/WERE!! McCain is NOT eligible based on your NBC position because he was not born on US soil. You're applying 2 standards! WHY?
WRONG! If you had done just one bit of research you would have found resolution 511, which I may add that Obam was a sponsor and signed it. It clearly states in the resolution:
"Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:"
@KenyanBornObamAcorn -- You're walking in circles! You're applying a 1791 standard to Obama and another to McCain. McCain ran 2000-before Obama got to the senate. Was McCain eligible in 2000? ...WELL?? By what standard?
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --McCain IS eligible even though he was born in a military hospital in Panama. The 14th Amendment legitimized his citizenship. Obama was born in Hawai'i(documentation just released to the public). If you accept one & not the other(with the SAME guidelines) means that you're incompetent or stubborn as hell! Which is it?? Who did you vote for?..Ron Paul?? You can't admit McCain without Obama. As stated earlier, this is a non issue. You have NO CASE!! NONE!!
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --Was McCain eligible in 2000-OR NOT??! You're argument on this WHOLE issue(NBC) is WEAK AS HELL!! You have NO CASE!! NONE!! You have no rational thinking in you. You're fueled by emotion! You're weak, and your theory is weak.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens"
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --Minor v. Happersett has NOTHING to do with NBC. That ruling was about if a WOMAN has 'the right to vote'. You're shootin' blanks son!! The 19th Amendment took care of this. I liked how you paraphrased the decision without the 'key element' that it was about WOMEN!! LOL....that's funny!!
@63weezer John Bingham father of 14th Amend, congressman from OH REAFFIRMED the definition of the framers by saying: US Cong Doc & Debates 1774 -1875 Cong Globe, 39th Cong, 1st Ses "I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign soverignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen"
You can't change the FACTS! THis is the DUDE that helped write the 14th amendment...STRAIGHT from the horses mouth! Obama's father's allegiance was to BRITIAN, therefore Obama is NOT even a CITIZEN!
hahahaha, we will win when the TRUTH comes out and you people will LOOK like FOOLS!
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --Take a deep breath & calm yourself! Obama's father is NOT relevent. Mississippi was the last state to abolish slavery. That was in 1995!! You're from the same mold. You refuse to accept the truth for what it is. The facts are CLEAR!
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --You birther crazies had ONE legal move to play and that was DESTROYED on 4-27-11!!! That long form "Certificate of Live Birth" furnished by Obama permanently removed ALL DOUBT of his citizenship status & eligibility requirements. He is the duly elected POTUS!! You want him gone--then VOTE HIM OUT!! Be sure you have your birth certificate when you go to the polls!!! LOL
SHOW ME WHERE it says that the 14th Amendment repealed the Natural Born Citizen ship clause and redefined NATURAL BORN! SHOW ME WHERE it says that the 14th Amendment supercedes Article 2 Section 1!
Go to archives dot gov and and this after the dot com
/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The changes to the Constitution are in RED. Go to Art 2 Sec 1 and you will see that you are wrong and this was NEVER changed. If it were there would be an amendment saying so!
@KenyanBornObamAcorn The Supreme court says in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that a child born on U.S soil, even if both his parents are foreign citizens is a Natural Born American citizen. Plain and simple.
@AndRod29 The law was different then. You yourself "have no argument". No matter the laws to citizenship as they are now. Not to mention that the Constitution states the requirements for all citizens born into the United States and NOT subject to foreign powers. Remembering that in order to travel with a foreign passport you have to deny allegiance to your supposed "Home Land". As such, no matter his contended place of birth, he wouldst then be ineligible.
@liabatud67 Yeah the law was different then, but it was changed by that court ruling which is now used as a precedent for citizenship cases. The ruling has not changed and the law still stands. In fact that ruling is one of the reasons you have anchor babies. He was born in the US (as both certificates prove.) And when in the world did he travel with a foreign passport? When he went to Pakistan? Because that was an outright lie made by the birthers.
@liabatud67 Or perhaps you are alluding to when he lived in Indonesia for four years. Well he was still an American citizen then, and a parent can't reject the citizenship of a child. It is only when they are 18 is when a child declares allegiance to a country IF and only if he has dual citizenship. And since Obama declared it to the United States, the only power he is subject to is that of the US. Your point is moot
@AndRod29 Not quite, the main motivation for the tea party was the way the country is being ran but one of the main motivators that follows closely behind is that Barry/Obama has many questions in his past that are the antithesis of his assertions. The qualifications for the POTUS are stringent for good reason. They show fealty to one nation over others in a well defined way. The original qualifications written into our founding documents. No matter any legal "precedent" after the fact.
@liabatud67 The Birther Issue is a ridiculous charade based on the fact that people don't like him, so they make up reasons to help explain their dislike. It is a shallow arguement that has been refuted time and time again by Bill O'Reilly, Chris Mathews, Snopes and others yet people still cling to this stubborn and ridiculous belief (like people do to any good conspiracy theory) that he wasn't born here. Its full of holes and yet people still scream about it.
@liabatud67 From what I gather(and feel free to correct me) you are saying is the founders wrote down the qualifications and nothing else changes it no matter any revisions or court cases. If you honestly think that, then you don't have any idea how government works. Because by that logic, if that were true blacks would still be considered 3/5s of a person, and presidents could run indefinitely with no term limits. The entire point of the constitution is for it to be changed to suit the times.
@liabatud67 Thats the entire point of the amendment process is to change the constitution to suit the times. Thats also the point of the supreme court, to interpret the constitution. The interpretations change. Thats why some decisions like the Dred Scott, are so different then others, like Brown v Board of Ed. The constitution changes with the times and standards. If it didn't then blacks wouldn't be citizens.
@AndRod29 I'm not speaking of race. (People usually take an argument to that topic to insinuate that "Should you not agree with judges legislating from the bench, then you wouldn't also agree with the 3/5 of a person quagmire being put down." That's a tired argument and lets keep the conversation on topic shall we? (No sarcasm intended). You have admitted that you concur with the idea of the "Constitution" (that's the document of focus here) is a living document. Me, not so much.
@liabatud67 Thats the entire point of the supreme court as the founders intended it. To interpret the constitution and the constitutionality of laws. That is in the Constitution.
Yes, the constitution is a living document. Why would you think the founders would want it to be a static one? The entire point of the country is to progress, and if the Constitution can't change with the times, then how is the country supposed to get anywhere?
@AndRod29 I disagree, there is much latitude within the language already contained within. The documents founders saw this and made it so. They were not full of stodginess of their day but men cutting the way for a new society. In my estimation people give too much undo fealty to their duly elected officials with little regard to the sentiment of the people proportion themselves to represent. I give you the un-ratified 16th amendment that allows perpetual "taxation" just for "being".
@liabatud67 Exactly. Cutting the way for a new society. And how do new societies survive? But evolving and adapting to the changing times. Thats how I feel. but honestly, both views have their merits and I'm sure there were some founders who thought the constitution should be strictly followed and there were others who would think that its open to interpretation.
@AndRod29 Amen! Furthermore let me say with sincerity that you are very well spoken and convey your ideas without vitriol in a way that is ever more rare these days. How many men can come together with different ideas then leave contented and on peaceful terms? Look at the other comments here, there is a focus on the negative rather than the sharing of ideas. I've learned long ago to not so much to try to sway others to my ideas but to share them sincerely and be done with it.
@liabatud67 I appreciate the sentiment. If perhaps people could learn to just debate ideas without making it personal, then the country would not be as divided politically as we are. And you too write rather articulately, its a shame that others in this video take every objection personally and view as if it is a personal attack on
@liabatud67 --Race may not be the focus of YOUR conversation, but it does play a major role in this discussion. Race & gender has always played its part in 'the living document'! If you wanted to channel your conversation, then you should've conducted it in PRIVATE. You wanted your views public. They ARE public-along with the long form birth certificate.
@63weezer Why feel the need for a closet in a public setting. Find a receptive audience for your assertions. You are willfully giving opposing views to my responses to AndRod29. Unless you are one and the same, I find no need for your input. Just as in a public setting at a pub, Church, pool hall, coffee shop, pizzeria, bowling alley, public park, bus, subway or public sidewalk. A conversation between 2 adult individuals that can be "heard" by others is no solicitation for input from.
@liabatud67 --Are you kidding me?? YouTube has TWO ways to communicate-public & private. You brought YOURSELF into an ACTIVE conversation between 3 participants! If you wanted to express your views with a SPECIFIC person, you should've done that directly-IN PRIVATE! AndRod29, KenyanBornObamAcorn, and I were engaged in expressing OUR views before you elected to include yourself. The same rule would apply in a Pub, coffee shop, etc. It's best for you to stay IN THE CLOSET! The darkness suits you.
@63weezer Trolling for insults? That's so original as to deem you seek a patent # from the patent office for your attempt to smear disdain. Should you have seen an initial comment addressed to "63weezer" you'd have said license to entertain yourself with "sharing" your banter. Should I find need to research commentary from stem to stern on youtube to see who may or may not feel themselves "involved" I'd need more free time to pursue inane commentary. Where do you plant mushrooms exactly??
@liabatud67 -- I get my mushrooms from Krogers-thank you! I have no need for the manure based kind. My last post STILL holds true. You 'birthers' want to pick & choose what laws YOU think are relevant and dismiss all related documentation & case law. I give 'KenyanBornObamAcorn' MUCH RESPECT due to the fact that(at least) he was willing & able to engage in dialogue. Our views may differ, but his active participation and willingness to take on ALL posts elevates his status above yours!!
@63weezer Your fealty to one KenyanBornObamAcorn is fine. I have no aspiration to garner your affections. I'm not seeking your admiration of any kind. So far you have yet to give worthy dialogue without insults for anyone that doesn't mirror your own deeply inspired thoughts. Then again I see your insinuating the want of the sharing of ideas yet I only see volatile comments with little substance. I've seen shadows of good research but the ideas conveyed never strike a cord with me personally.
@liabatud67 --Which means one thing: have PRIVATE debates IN PRIVATE!! If you want to be selective on who you wish share views with, then do it 'privately'. No 'rocket science' needed here. Have a nice day! :)
@liabatud67 --Which means one thing: have PRIVATE debates IN PRIVATE!! If you want to be selective on who you wish to share views with, then do it 'privately'. No 'rocket science' needed here. Have a nice day! :)
@63weezer It wasn't "private" it was exclusive. Should you not be able to recognize such things into the fourth and fifth response to awaken you to proper decorum, allow me to submit a three syllable word for your perusal: Etiquette.
It's a simple concept. Something that should not have to be asked for from any educated individual. The only soul that would deem "His/Her absolute RIGHT to be heard" would need to find willing ears to extol his/her virtues. Otherwise it falls on deaf ears.
@liabatud67 --We can do word games all day. Agree or disagree-your choice. Exclusive?? To read posts from everyone(including my posts) then pick ONLY ONE person to interact with is just fine. The '@' is there for a reason. You were directing your attention to a specific person. But, our posts were NOT private. If you didn't want ANYONE but that specific person to reply, you should've written(in advance)"ONLY THIS PERSON RESPOND PLEASE"-or contacted that person directly! It's a simple concept.
@63weezer You can reply all you want... but insisting that others then respond to you is ridiculous and not well thought out. I'm not going to read all comments in their entirety to see if someone else might consider a comment I made as license to respond for some multiple posts now that from the beginning I've shown no interest in. I posted ONLY to the person I was conversing with & none other. It's a decent principle taught to all youth. I'll henceforth let the facts speak for themselves.
@liabatud67 --What's amusing is while we were going back and forth over this "nonsense', no one has posted anything relating to the removal of Obama. Obama did his job! Let us hope he will continue to do so.
"Obama did his job" HE did exactly as HE set out to do-----Trump the U.S. Constitution and do so in the most powerful way possible
To have the off spring of a NON-IMMIGRANT to the United States, the child of a NON-U.S. Citizen, foreign National , father-- installed as Commander-in-Chief of this once sovereign Nation's Military is the ultimate coup
@kiiifute1 -- Shout it out loud to the heavens-it'll dissipate in the stratosphere!! US v. Wong Kim Ark...I don't have to go any further. Obama is LEGAL-and ALWAYS has been legal. Obama "TRUMPED" those states who wanted to pass legislation on proof of citizenship. That 'birther' ship has sailed. It has already passed the horizon. It's not coming back! Lick your wounds; then try to find a 2nd tier Republican candidate to vote for!!! Good luck. :)
@63weezer The "Wong" case, while highly suspect*, decides/concludes that Wong is.........now ..."shout it out loud to the heavens" ---GET READY, FOLKS----WONG IS......... maestro DRUM ROLL, please................that's right.......... A CITIZEN alas NOT an ARTICLE II 'natural born Citizen' as is req to serve as President of the United States
@kiiifute1 Wrong. WKA affirmed the lower court's decision. And the lower court ruled WKA is a *natural born citizen*. You can't wish that away.
"Horace Gray Chet Arthur connection"
Too bad the ruling was 6-2, so even without Gray it would've been 5-2. But nice to see you're already trying to wish SCOTUS rulings away that contradict your crank legal "theories". Shows how much you respect the law when it's against your desires.
@liabatud67 --Scott v. Sanford ties into the discussion of citizenship & who it applies to. The supreme court ruled that the Constitution didnt apply to black africans & their decendents. They weren't considered qualified/worthy of citizenship. The 14th Amendment changed that. Race is CENTRAL to this issue. It was central in 1791, 1857, 1863, 1866, 1868, 1898.....notice a trend???
Actually, the 14th amendment was adopted so that the slaves could become citizens. It had nothing at ALL to do with REDEFINING article 2 section 1 or it would have SAID SO!
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --The NBC clause was 'specific' on who it would include. Moreover, it was SPECIFIC on who it EXCLUDED!! White women, black africans(enslaved or freed), indigenous americans,etc.-the Supreme Court rulings back that up. The Scott v. Sanford ruling stated that Dred Scott was not eligible for citizenship because the Constitution didn't include his race in the fromework. It wasn't meant for slaves or former slaves. The 14th Amendment RE-DEFINED the CLASSIFICATION OF CITIZENSHIP!
All joking aside, Schleprock, I'm serious about my money! Again, tell that skank (I) said, "bitch betta have my money!" This time I don't want to hear her cries about, "I need to keep some of the money I made (from selling Ass) in order to feed my lil boy, 'impeachobama.' He really looooves those lunchables and twinkies!"
Phillip Berg, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, appeared in the news in August 2008, when he filed suit against Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee, and the Federal Election Commission.
There is no requirement that states in order to be a Natural Born citizen both your parents must be citizens. Natural Born = Those who were achieved citizenship at birth. Bingham's opinion on what is and what isn't a Natural Born citizen isn't the law of the land and certainly isn't consistent with any definition of "Natural Born" in the 1780s.
@EyeLuvUSA It is not that I missed the point of the video, it is that the video's argument is invalid. US law does not make the distinction you cite. It simply does not. The distinction is made between naturalized citizens, and those made citizens from birth, Under USC 1401, Obama IS a "natural citizen" of this country, Do you guys seriously believe that if this were a real issue, it would have been worked out i
Do YOU seriously believe, considering how SMART our founders were and considering they were trying to break FREE from British Rule, that they would actually set it up, so that a BRIT could be President?
Look, his birthplace is a moot point, people. Even if he was born in Australia it would not matter. He IS a CITIZEN by right of parentage (jus sanguinis) even if not by birthplace (jus soli).
So even if you continue to insist (incorrectly) that Obama was born in Kenya, he is STILL a citizen and eligible for candidacy. See USC 1401(d) if you want to read the actual law.
@sauron974 You missed the point of the video... he is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. A 'natural born citizen' is born on American soil to TWO American citizens. His father was NOT an American citizen so he is NOT eligible to be our president.
@KenyanBornObamAcorn I think I finally understand the fundamental argument in play here. Thank you for that. To my mind, Obama IS a "natural born citizen" seeing how he was a citizen AT birth, fulfilling the jus sanguinus requirement under USC Title 8, 1401(d). This would be as opposed to a "Naturalized" citizen, who was NOT a citizen AT BIRTH.
WRONG! There's nothing you can do to change the Fact! Obama is not eligible and no matter what CRAP you try to use to make it SEEM like he is, HE ISN'T!
@KenyanBornObamAcorn The reason why the framers included their exemption clause was, I believe, to allow them to be candidates for President even though they were British nationals at birth: technically NATURALIZED citizens. However, Obama would still be a "Natural Born Citizen" under the definition supplied by 1401, unless there is another definition that could back that up.
(Plus, he IS a citizen jus soli as well, but we won't go into that.)
@sauron974 How are you able to come to that conclusion following logic? You can't.. Go back and reread and view the facts put forth to you. If you do that and STILL come to your illogical conclusion, I believe intelligent conversation is wasted on you.
You are part right. The Declaration of Independence made all British Subjects, "Citizens" but NOT NBC's (Born to 2 Citizen Parents) This is why the Founders had 2 doctor themselves in aka "Citizen at the time of the Adoption". Although Obama's Social Security card says he was born in 1890, that still not old enough for him to be at the signing of the Constitution! They only citizens that were allowed to be Pres are long dead, making this clause OBSOLETE!
@KenyanBornObamAcorn Yeah, I get that part. What I fail to get is the reference to NBCs being "Born to 2 Citizen Parents" -- where did that reference come from? Citizenship by law of blood (jus sanguinis) was NOT included in the Constitution, this is true, but it was later added to US law as a criterion for citizenship. Where does this triple standard of citizenship (NBC, citizen, naturalized citizen) exist in the law? I have only found two categories: "NBC" and "Naturalized Citizen"
@KenyanBornObamAcorn ...and why is it appropriate to grant NBC status to someone born out-of-country to TWO citizen parents (John McCain?) but not to ONE citizen parent (Barack Obama) even though it is expressly stated in the law that citizenship at birth is available to both?
@sauron974 Are you serious? McCain's father was in the armed services, FIGHTING FOR YOUR DAMN RIGHT TO SPEW YOUR HATE and John's mother was there too. She got pregnant with John, SHE WAS ON AMERICAN SOIL (Military Base) so he IS a natural born citizen.
Go to Google, type in "S.Res.511 - A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain" the text says: Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizenS on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.
@KenyanBornObamAcorn -- Senator McCain(in 2008) plainly stated that Obama was eligible to be POTUS. Palin can't remember what happened last week. This is a NON ISSUE! Get over it and move forward.
WAKE UP, a Citizen is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN! Obama may very well be a CITIZEN, but to be a CITIZEN AND be President, you would have had to have been there, when the Constitution was signed and that is impossible!
@Olizimm The only thing good that has come out of having Obama as president is that it has shown people how awful liberals are for our country. His popularity is dropping like a rock because Americans are waking up and seeing that he is destroying our country and our standing in the world. He is doing for Democrats what GW Bush did for Republicans... turned people away from his party! LOL
@Navigator777777 DUMMIES A PAPER BINDS. THE ELITE MADE THE PAPER.....SO HOW FUCKING RETARDED ARE YOU? OBAMA NOT THE CULPRIT. THE ELITES ARE. THANKZ FOR SHOWING AND TELLING ME HOW RACIST U ARE. HE'S BLK HE JUST GOTTA BE THE PROBLEM. NO THE PROBLEM STARTED 1776 WHEN UR KIND CAME.
@Navigator777777 the problem started when beings like u showed up befriending ppl only to slaughter them off....and we know who the true sissies r....they came outa Sodom and Gomorrah...white ppl . why u think they call u homo-sapian, erectus....lol monkey hybrid...how the fuck u know what went on over here if u wasnt here? u get lies from ur counter part= white males....they lied to u....now u'll pay for buying
@Navigator777777 into it. HOMO.THEY ONLY DISGRACE WE HAVE IS BEFRIENDING U KIND...I BET U WE LIVE WAY BETTER THAN U MONKEYS...U KNOW LIKE I KNOW , BUT WILL U ADMIT?
@Navigator777777 you see i made videos on exactly what u talking about, at least some one admited....in the begining their was man....not hu-man. ...im sorry i should have stated my dominance in the begining! okay i do it now....NO HOMO= SAPIEN OR ERECTUS...= NOT A CAVEMAN....IM GENUINE! SORRY BOUT THAT THANKZ FOR CORRECTING ME! OH YEA I NOTICED YOU WILL DISCOUNT WHAT I SAY JUST LIKE UR FOREFATHERS DID....U THE ONE WHO'LL PAY ETEERNALLY AND PHYSICALLY FOR IT.
It's unlikely I agree with you on any topic but that's not my point. Your communication skills are so poor, I simply cannot make heads or tails of your argument.
You appear to have a commanding grasp of expletive usage and name calling without producing substance. For that ... you should be given credit.
@Navigator777777 ITS NOT MY COMMUNICATION SKILLS. ITS UR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING....HA HA.AND NOW U DONT KNOW WHAT A HOMO IS RYTE? HOMO ERECTUS/SAPIEN? MY SUBSTANCE ON MY PAGE ITS TO MUCH FOR THESE LITTLE BOXES. BUT EITHER U DUMBED DOWNED WAY PAST DUMBED DOWN OR UR FAKING LIKE U DONT UNDERSTAND....KNOWING U A LESSER SPECIES U SHOULD BE GIVEN CREDIT!
@1eyednewt This deals only with Barry Soetoro's birth. He did become an Indonesian citizen later when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and his mother (alleged mother) dropped him as a dependant. (Barry as a minor had no attachment to the United States and his adoption by a foreign national voided his U.S. citizenship if he ever had it.)
Why wasn't this an issue during the nomination process? O was up against more than one lawyer and plenty of politicians that also know the Law, yet the issue was not only not raised, was not mentioned. The Democratic party would be risking major embarrassment if their Golden Child was fired from his job if his status was in question. Either this is a non issue or the entire Democratic Party are ignorant of the law. Either or Can't be both
@abbetsill Whoopi Goldberg on CNN being interviewed by Piers Morgan stated that " it is a fact that there is a line of people checking the president's qualifications bascially people who are questioning his origin must be crazy , lol. Why Piers did NOT ask her to name one who autheticated barry & michelle? Both sheister attorneys who are engaged in bank fraud against me. The Hollywood production of the presidency was funded from the fraud against me. I am NOT lying it is linked to 911 funding.HR
con......2....land to be desecrated...so all whites die out we dont need you over here. go back to outer space. or die and get your homes evaded here....kids slaughtered and dehumanized you will be if u stay. gods warning ryte is ryte and wrong is wroung they both have their consequences.
@mbclab60 We The People Against Corruption in the Campaign to Remove and Indict Barry and all the others who are frauds and willfullfully engaging in this deceit.
Day 290 in the Campaign.
Saturday April 15/2011
There is an underlying banking fraud by the real mastermind of 911 who is issuing the orders for Barry to create the new world order from the fraudulent estate of me dead with many attorneys including but not limited to Michelle and Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Help me stop them
i say its now whites land nor obama's its us native born land=meaning you ppl have no ryte to govern its is time for ur native born ppl to kill you wet backs out. stop claiming our land. its not yours and never was you parasites were criminals from day one. i myself desecrate your constitution....i wont allow my ppl or home
This has been flagged as spam show
According to Romney family lawyers it doesn’t matter if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or even Paris: Because his mother was an American (and not even Donald Trump questions that), he is eligible to be President.
Case closed
clarity023 8 months ago
Good job on your video I liked it very much!
satellitetune 9 months ago
Good job on your video I liked it very much!
gwk4657 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good job on your video I liked it very much!
TheWholefoodfarmacy 9 months ago
Percy Bridgham 1896
"1000 Legal Questions Answered by the“People’s Lawyer”of the Boston Daily Globe,Harvard Law Sch lib)
A natural born citizen would be 1 who by nature,that is by inheritance,was a citizen,as distinguished from 1 who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen.
The very definition of natural is “fixed or determined by nature” I do not find that our courts have ever passed upon the meaning of the word natural in connection with citizenship,so we must take its ordinary meaning
kiiifute1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kiiifute1 "I do not find that our courts have ever passed upon the meaning of the word natural in connection with citizenship"
You did not read the Wong Kim Ark case? The lower court decision that SCOTUS affirmed, knowing (and mentioning this in the dissenting opinion) full well that would make WKA (born of Chinese parents in the US) eligible for presidency?
Your layman's attempt at redefining legal terms with your own is quite amusing. Just won't hold any water in the real world.
magicmulder 9 months ago
H of Reps 1813-
Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred..Your statutes can't deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty,or the locomotive faculty,b/c the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the U.S. as native&naturalized.Our great family is composed of a class forming a single genus,who,to all intents& purposes,are equal,except in the instance specified-that of not being eligible to the presidency
kiiifute1 9 months ago
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)-
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistably lead us to these conclusions:
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here...if he hath issue here...his child If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen..."
The Court,in the "WKA" case,is COMPARING the U.S. native born of an alien TO the "natural born" child of a U.S. citizen; NOT EQUATING the two--as the sub-ordinating term; "AS", indicates
kiiifute1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kiiifute1 "NOT EQUATING the two--as the sub-ordinating term; "AS", indicates"
"Sub-ordinating"? What part of "is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen" don't you understand? Plain English too hard for you? "is as much an A as B" means "is an A to the same extent as B".
magicmulder 9 months ago
natural~ THE CLASSIFICATION OF ORGANISMS(eg "citizens") ACCORDING TO RELATIONSHIPS BASED UPON DESCENT FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR
1 U.S. CITIZEN + 1 NON- U.S. CITIZEN does NOT yield 1 ARTICLE II 'natural born Citizen'
IT does, instead, produce a "mixed subject"-----ie , at best, a STATUTORY U.S. citizen
kiiifute1 10 months ago
@kiiifute1 As long as you mix up biological terms with legal terms, you will not go anywhere.
Besides, even the biological definition you cite does not create "mixed subjects" - "common ancestor", singular, dude!
There are only two types of citizen: natural born and natural-ized.
Now find me one US citizen born in the country (regardless to what parents) who naturalized in the last 200 years. There is none. So they are all natural born. Your attempts at creating more classes is futile.
magicmulder 9 months ago
@magicmulder ARE YOU REALLY THIS "SINGULARLY " STUPID? The answer to this question, is a resounding---"NO " -- You've plenty of company,sadly..
When what is produced does NOT derive from a common ancestor; it is of the mixed variety -you silly person
A U.S. CITIZEN & A NON-US. CITIZEN DO NOT PRODUCE an ARTICLE II 'natural born Citizen'
THEY MAY PRODUCE A " U.S.CITIZEN" --ie 'STATUTORY' IN NATURE OR IF,AS YOU SEEM TO PREFER, "NATURALIZED"---NATURALIZED, AT BIRTH,or COME THE AGE OF MAJORITY
kiiifute1 9 months ago
@magicmulder The term "ancestor", as I have it employed ,simply, refers to what has 'gone before' ; that which precedes cedere----
Since you prefer the term of distinction; "naturalized" when identifying the individual's particular path to U.S. Citizenship--
It might help to understand that "naturalizing" as a U.S. Citizen DOES NOT ,necessarily require one to pass through a formal oath-taking or allegiances renouncement process-
kiiifute1 9 months ago
@magicmulder One is considered "naturalized", if while following a course of affairs they rely on man-made, that is; positive law(treaty, statute, etc) to shed encumbrances borne and/or affirm the decision to continue in a certain/'positive' vein To lodge or not lodge formal objection at this stage of the process does not prevent the hand of "man"[the municipal law]from interceding on behalf of the subject
Involvement of civil society to this extent is cultivation eg pruning,artful guidance
kiiifute1 9 months ago
@kiiifute1 What source are you quoting here?
Besides, there is no such thing as "naturalized at birth".
And my main point stands that it makes no sense to quote biology definitions for defining Constitutional terms.
magicmulder 9 months ago
What's REALLY funny about Obama is that he taught CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!!!!! Or so he says....
maidenak 10 months ago
@maidenak
He had to learn what he was up against.
But, he lost his law license and had to get into community organizing!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@maidenak Yes, and in that class that B.O. Jr helmed --HE uses Emmerich VATTEL's Law of Nations as a text & also, as it so happens, during the course of his "lectures" points to 2 separate cases in which George Collins Secretary of the American Bar Association and renowned Int Scholar and Lawyer Alexander Morse were involved , respectively. Need I remind one of what Collins and Morse have treated with regard to ARTICLE II 'natural born Citizen'?
B.O.Jr = "smoking gun" HE knows, HE's not nbC
kiiifute1 9 months ago
@kiiifute1 "HE uses Emmerich VATTEL's Law of Nations as a text"
And therefore he has to agree with *every single word* Vattel uses? Like every good Christian would give his daughters to the rapists to protect his foreign guests as they did in Sodom? What kind of argument is that again?
Or, to put it differently, Obama using Vattel's book somehow overrules the Constitutional meaning of NBC? Your argument is quite funny.
magicmulder 9 months ago
Natural Born Citizen is a very simple term that you are trying to make complicated.
It has nothing to do with parentage.
Cite the case law where it has been decided that Natural Born Citizen is two US parents? A letter from Bingham is NOT sufficient. A Senate resolution (511) is not case law.
Bring it...
eminentgentleman 10 months ago
@eminentgentleman "Cite the case law" ? lol I'll do better than that----Let US "cite" the dictionary, shall we
natural~ the REJECTION of ALL explanation which makes, allows, or calls for exceptions
kiiifute1 10 months ago
@kiiifute1 No Case Law to back up your claim?
Thought so, more empty rhetoric from an misinformed patriot, or is it racist?
Hard to tell what the motivation behind all these Birthers is
eminentgentleman 10 months ago
Okay, let's say for a second that he's not a natural born citizen. Why the fuck is this SO FUCKING IMPORTANT to you? What is going to happen now that he's in Office? I'm sure all these years he's spent in elected positions bettering the future of America has all been some long, convoluted scheme that was crafted by his father (secret from his mother of course), and eventually he will deliver us all to Her Royal Highness on a silver platter.
Or do you have a logical reason why it matters?
GiveMeItemsYesOMGLOL 10 months ago
This birther "movement" is rather similar to a "bowel movement." It will go nowhere because its membership has been appraised already as a bunch of eccentric conspiracy-minded imbeciles.
imsoto 10 months ago
@imsoto
Well, if that's what you think about our Constitution, you are welcome to LEAVE!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
Birthers give it a rest.
You're too dumb to exist.
AllStarKase 10 months ago
@AllStarKase
Hahahaha, give it REST? Sorry, but we've only JUST BEGUN!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
Whatever. I refuse to argue with crazy people. It's a bridge to nowhere.
AllStarKase 10 months ago
impeachobamanow2010 10 months ago
whiteliberal1 = MY BITCH!
SHE IS EASY AND CHEAP IF YOU WANT TO RENT HER!
impeachobamanow2010 10 months ago
@impeachobamanow2010 While you're trying your best at comedy, I haven't taken my eye off of my money! That bitch has until 4-22-2011. Not April 23 @ 0001hrs., but April 22, 2011!
Bitch betta have my money! If not, I'll put a wig on that tater of yours and push you out on the stroll, Schleprock. Don't worry, it will be dark. Just tell my customers that it's that time of the month and you can only do ONE thing.
The choice is yours, Schleprock.
whiteliberal1 10 months ago
@whiteliberal1 YOU AND YOUR MOM ARE MY BITCHES! LOL I TRAINED YOU WELL BITCH! AND AGAIN TELL YOUR DAD TO STAY OFF MY NUTS. THAT FAG IS ALWAYS TRYING TO GO DOWN ON ME. MAYBE THATS WHY YOUR ARE GAY YOU TAKE AFTER YOUR DAD! LOL YOU ARE A TROLL AND I OWN YOU BITCH!
impeachobamanow2010 10 months ago
@impeachobamanow2010 Your mammy has less than 24hrs., Schleprock!
Btw, what size wig will you need? I'm sure a 11 3/4 should fit that melon of yours. As for your high heels, take a pair from your mammy, because I have a strong feeling that she will NOT need them in the future.
Again, Bitch betta have my money!
whiteliberal1 10 months ago
@whiteliberal1 LIKE I SAID TELL YOUR DAD TO STAY OFF MY NUTS! NOW I KNOW WHY YOU ARE SO GAY, YOU TAKE AFTER YOUR DAD. YOUR MOM STARTED COMING OVER TO MY HOUSE AND YOUR DAD BECAME GAY! LOL YOU ARE MY BITCH!
impeachobamanow2010 10 months ago
@impeachobamanow2010 Get plenty of rest, Schleprock, because I have a feeling you're going to put a lot of miles on those crusty feet of yours tonight!
whiteliberal1 10 months ago
@whiteliberal1 I CAN'T GET NO REST WITH YOUR MOM HERE! SHE IS SUCH A SLUT! LOL I OWN YOU BITCH!
impeachobamanow2010 10 months ago
@impeachobamanow2010 I admire your mom, Schleprock. At least she gets paid to be a slut!
Btw, why won't you respond to Dienda's comment, are you that much of coward?
whiteliberal1 10 months ago
@whiteliberal1 SO YOU ADMIRE YOUR MOM? SHE IS PRETTY EASY! I HEARD SHE JUST DID THE WHOLE 49ERS FOOTBALL TEAM. WOW SHE IS A SLUT! KINDA LIKE YOU BUT NOT GAY!
impeachobamanow2010 10 months ago
@impeachobamanow2010 Again, I see you're still of afraid of responding "Dienda's" comment. I heard you blocked Dienda from your channel. Are you that much of coward? I guess you were PWND!
whiteliberal1 10 months ago
@whiteliberal1
Thanks but I do not block/censor ANYONE, like the OBOTS do. Have your LIAR try to comment and you will SEE that they are not blocked.
NUFF SAID!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@whiteliberal1 NO YOU ARE MY BITCHES! I ALREADY OWN YOU! LOL BOW DOWN BITCH!
whiteliberal1 = MY DUMB BITCH!
impeachobamanow2010 10 months ago
@whiteliberal1 Who the hell is diendra and what is her comment? I have no problem answering the liar's comment, where is it?
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn You keep asking, "who the hell is diendra (sic)" Btw, it's spelled, Dienda....
It's Di Enda this dick! Bwaahahahahahahahahahaa
You're to easy, Schleprock!
One other thing....You're a damn lie! After I roasted your bitch Ass on your channel, you blocked ME and ran away, just like the bitch you are. LOL
Now, allow me to introduce you to the IGNORE button. You have PWND!
....."Di ENDA this dick"....Ahaahahahahahahahahaha Again, you're a complete light-weight, boy!
whiteliberal1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KenyanBornObamAcorn You keep asking, "who the hell is diendra (sic)" Btw, it's spelled, Dienda....
It's Di Enda this dick! Bwaahahahahahahahahahaa
You're to easy, Schleprock!
One other thing....You're a damn lie! After I roasted your bitch Ass on your channel, you blocked ME and ran away, just like the bitch you are. LOL
Now, allow me to introduce you to the IGNORE button. You have PWND!
....."Di ENDA this dick"....Ahaahahahahahahahahaha
whiteliberal1 10 months ago
The following link lists conditions in which one becomes a U.S. natural-born citizen and the first of these states "anyone born inside the United States". (dot) means '.' usconstitution(dot)net/consttop_citi(dot)html. The exception is anyone born who is not under the jurisdiction of the U.S., such as the child of a foreign diplomat. Foreigners, including British subjects, who do not have immunity, are under U.S. jurisdiction, and their children, according to 1401(a) are U.S. natural citizens.
amacombatvet 10 months ago
@impeachobamanow2010 ....yeah, I'm serious, Schleprock! Tell her (I) said, "I want my money!"
whiteliberal1 10 months ago
This is just, STUPID!!
DAPAMMIE1 10 months ago
@DAPAMMIE1
Then move to another country. It's the LAW OF THE LAND and we WILL make sure he is removed!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
By the time you birther idiots get done, we'll ALL need to go somewhere else. Luckilly, I DO have another option! Hope you learn Chinese...you'll need it...oh that's right...stupid people can't learn anything, anyway. How's that republican "jobs bill" working out for you? Ha-ha
DAPAMMIE1 10 months ago
@DAPAMMIE1
Learn Chinese? YOU need to learn ENGLISH! Luckily only has one L!
People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones!
IDIOT!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn GOOD catch!! Did you use spell-check? LOL
DAPAMMIE1 10 months ago
@DAPAMMIE1
No, but you should have!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn You don't know the law of the land. 14th amendment. Section 1, Clause 1 clearly states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It is birthright citizenship. It is the law of the land.
AndRod29 10 months ago
@AndRod29
AND your point is? Obama being a CITIZEN is irrelevant! You have to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN to hold the Presidency and Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen because his father was never a US citizen!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn He was born on American soil. It doesn't matter if his father wasn't an american citizen. His mother was an american. If he was born on american soil, he is automatically a natural born citizen.The precedent was set by Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark. He is a natural born citizen end of story.
You don't know the law, so stop screaming about something you have no clue about.
AndRod29 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn -- The 1791 'natural born citizen' clause you're referring to DOES NOT APPLY to Obama. That clause was only meant for 'anglo european males'. Their wives didn't even have the RIGHT to vote! The 14th Amendment RE-DEFINED the meaning of a citizen/citizenship. ALL PERSONS born on US soil are citizens(children from diplomats excluded). That 1791 standard NO LONGER APPLIES!! McCain was born in Panama, but his parents were US citizens. So, McCain is covered! This is a non issue.
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer
WRONG!
Show me "WHERE" it says that the 14th Amendment SUPERSEDES Article 2 Section 1! YOU CAN'T, because it doesn't EXIST!
Hahaha what a JOKE!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --Were you asleep during Am. Govt. in school? You're aware that there are 3 branches of govt.? Right? The only part that gets used from [Article 2,Sect. 1] is'being born in this country, aged 35yrs & 14yrs residency. The rest is referred to the 14th Amendment! The 1791 standard for citizenship(and the NBC) was SUPERSEDED BY THE 14th AMENDMENT!! This was 'backed up' by the US v. Wong Kim Ark. That ruling is where the 'anchor babies' hang their hat! You have NO CASE!! NONE!!
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer
Funny you should ask...When I was in civics class (Mr Thompson, who I did NOT get along with) always messed with me and the MAIN reason I started this ISSUE over a year ago, was because I remember fighting with him the same day he drilled it in my head that you need to be a natural born citizen to be president! We went over why it was different for the Pres and VP than it was for the rest and I was asked to repeat what he just said because he thought I wasn't listening.
CONT...
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --Your teacher was/is misinformed. He knows the truth just like everyone else! The NBC clause was the old law & was SUPERSEDED by the NEW law! It was done to include former african slaves as FULL citizens. The NBC was not repealed. It was RE-DEFINED!! The 14th Amendment re-defined it. It 'formally' includes black africans into the framework of the Constitution. This is 2011--not 1791!!
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer
SHOW me your PROOF that Natural Born citizen was redefined. Just because you SAY SO, doesn't make it so!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --Obama & McCain fall under {Title 8,US Code,Sect. 1401}. It is there where you will get ALL the proof you're looking for. Obama's ONLY issue was where he was born--not WHO HIS PARENTS ARE/WERE!! McCain is NOT eligible based on your NBC position because he was not born on US soil. You're applying 2 standards! WHY?
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer
WRONG! If you had done just one bit of research you would have found resolution 511, which I may add that Obam was a sponsor and signed it. It clearly states in the resolution:
"Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:"
"BORN TO AMERICAN CITIZENS"
FAIL FRAUD and Obama KNOWS it!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn -- Is McCain eligible, OR NOT?!? By what standard?
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer
Read Senate Resolution 511 and was approved and signed by bobammie
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn -- You're walking in circles! You're applying a 1791 standard to Obama and another to McCain. McCain ran 2000-before Obama got to the senate. Was McCain eligible in 2000? ...WELL?? By what standard?
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer
If the law has NOT been changed by an amendment that it is STILL THE LAW! WAKE UP!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --McCain IS eligible even though he was born in a military hospital in Panama. The 14th Amendment legitimized his citizenship. Obama was born in Hawai'i(documentation just released to the public). If you accept one & not the other(with the SAME guidelines) means that you're incompetent or stubborn as hell! Which is it?? Who did you vote for?..Ron Paul?? You can't admit McCain without Obama. As stated earlier, this is a non issue. You have NO CASE!! NONE!!
63weezer 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --Was McCain eligible in 2000-OR NOT??! You're argument on this WHOLE issue(NBC) is WEAK AS HELL!! You have NO CASE!! NONE!! You have no rational thinking in you. You're fueled by emotion! You're weak, and your theory is weak.
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT SUPREME COURT 88 U.S. 162;
JUSTICE WAITE delivers opinion
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens"
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --Minor v. Happersett has NOTHING to do with NBC. That ruling was about if a WOMAN has 'the right to vote'. You're shootin' blanks son!! The 19th Amendment took care of this. I liked how you paraphrased the decision without the 'key element' that it was about WOMEN!! LOL....that's funny!!
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer John Bingham father of 14th Amend, congressman from OH REAFFIRMED the definition of the framers by saying: US Cong Doc & Debates 1774 -1875 Cong Globe, 39th Cong, 1st Ses "I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign soverignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen"
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
You can't change the FACTS! THis is the DUDE that helped write the 14th amendment...STRAIGHT from the horses mouth! Obama's father's allegiance was to BRITIAN, therefore Obama is NOT even a CITIZEN!
hahahaha, we will win when the TRUTH comes out and you people will LOOK like FOOLS!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --Take a deep breath & calm yourself! Obama's father is NOT relevent. Mississippi was the last state to abolish slavery. That was in 1995!! You're from the same mold. You refuse to accept the truth for what it is. The facts are CLEAR!
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer
Calm as I can be...what does SLAVERY have to do with it? LOLOL
The truth is, is that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, it seems as if YOU can't accept the truth!
But in due time, once the Supreme Court rules that Obama is ineligible!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --You birther crazies had ONE legal move to play and that was DESTROYED on 4-27-11!!! That long form "Certificate of Live Birth" furnished by Obama permanently removed ALL DOUBT of his citizenship status & eligibility requirements. He is the duly elected POTUS!! You want him gone--then VOTE HIM OUT!! Be sure you have your birth certificate when you go to the polls!!! LOL
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer
SHOW ME WHERE it says that the 14th Amendment repealed the Natural Born Citizen ship clause and redefined NATURAL BORN! SHOW ME WHERE it says that the 14th Amendment supercedes Article 2 Section 1!
Go to archives dot gov and and this after the dot com
/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The changes to the Constitution are in RED. Go to Art 2 Sec 1 and you will see that you are wrong and this was NEVER changed. If it were there would be an amendment saying so!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn The Supreme court says in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that a child born on U.S soil, even if both his parents are foreign citizens is a Natural Born American citizen. Plain and simple.
You have no argument.
AndRod29 10 months ago
@AndRod29 --...he's has blinders on. Some people you CAN'T educate.
63weezer 10 months ago
@AndRod29 The law was different then. You yourself "have no argument". No matter the laws to citizenship as they are now. Not to mention that the Constitution states the requirements for all citizens born into the United States and NOT subject to foreign powers. Remembering that in order to travel with a foreign passport you have to deny allegiance to your supposed "Home Land". As such, no matter his contended place of birth, he wouldst then be ineligible.
Research it for yourself.
liabatud67 10 months ago
@liabatud67 Yeah the law was different then, but it was changed by that court ruling which is now used as a precedent for citizenship cases. The ruling has not changed and the law still stands. In fact that ruling is one of the reasons you have anchor babies. He was born in the US (as both certificates prove.) And when in the world did he travel with a foreign passport? When he went to Pakistan? Because that was an outright lie made by the birthers.
AndRod29 10 months ago
@liabatud67 Or perhaps you are alluding to when he lived in Indonesia for four years. Well he was still an American citizen then, and a parent can't reject the citizenship of a child. It is only when they are 18 is when a child declares allegiance to a country IF and only if he has dual citizenship. And since Obama declared it to the United States, the only power he is subject to is that of the US. Your point is moot
AndRod29 10 months ago
@AndRod29 Not quite, the main motivation for the tea party was the way the country is being ran but one of the main motivators that follows closely behind is that Barry/Obama has many questions in his past that are the antithesis of his assertions. The qualifications for the POTUS are stringent for good reason. They show fealty to one nation over others in a well defined way. The original qualifications written into our founding documents. No matter any legal "precedent" after the fact.
liabatud67 10 months ago
@liabatud67 The Birther Issue is a ridiculous charade based on the fact that people don't like him, so they make up reasons to help explain their dislike. It is a shallow arguement that has been refuted time and time again by Bill O'Reilly, Chris Mathews, Snopes and others yet people still cling to this stubborn and ridiculous belief (like people do to any good conspiracy theory) that he wasn't born here. Its full of holes and yet people still scream about it.
AndRod29 10 months ago
@liabatud67 From what I gather(and feel free to correct me) you are saying is the founders wrote down the qualifications and nothing else changes it no matter any revisions or court cases. If you honestly think that, then you don't have any idea how government works. Because by that logic, if that were true blacks would still be considered 3/5s of a person, and presidents could run indefinitely with no term limits. The entire point of the constitution is for it to be changed to suit the times.
AndRod29 10 months ago
@liabatud67 Thats the entire point of the amendment process is to change the constitution to suit the times. Thats also the point of the supreme court, to interpret the constitution. The interpretations change. Thats why some decisions like the Dred Scott, are so different then others, like Brown v Board of Ed. The constitution changes with the times and standards. If it didn't then blacks wouldn't be citizens.
AndRod29 10 months ago
@AndRod29 I'm not speaking of race. (People usually take an argument to that topic to insinuate that "Should you not agree with judges legislating from the bench, then you wouldn't also agree with the 3/5 of a person quagmire being put down." That's a tired argument and lets keep the conversation on topic shall we? (No sarcasm intended). You have admitted that you concur with the idea of the "Constitution" (that's the document of focus here) is a living document. Me, not so much.
liabatud67 10 months ago
@liabatud67 Thats the entire point of the supreme court as the founders intended it. To interpret the constitution and the constitutionality of laws. That is in the Constitution.
Yes, the constitution is a living document. Why would you think the founders would want it to be a static one? The entire point of the country is to progress, and if the Constitution can't change with the times, then how is the country supposed to get anywhere?
AndRod29 10 months ago
@AndRod29 I disagree, there is much latitude within the language already contained within. The documents founders saw this and made it so. They were not full of stodginess of their day but men cutting the way for a new society. In my estimation people give too much undo fealty to their duly elected officials with little regard to the sentiment of the people proportion themselves to represent. I give you the un-ratified 16th amendment that allows perpetual "taxation" just for "being".
liabatud67 10 months ago
@liabatud67 Exactly. Cutting the way for a new society. And how do new societies survive? But evolving and adapting to the changing times. Thats how I feel. but honestly, both views have their merits and I'm sure there were some founders who thought the constitution should be strictly followed and there were others who would think that its open to interpretation.
Agree to disagree (respectfully of course)
AndRod29 10 months ago
@AndRod29 Amen! Furthermore let me say with sincerity that you are very well spoken and convey your ideas without vitriol in a way that is ever more rare these days. How many men can come together with different ideas then leave contented and on peaceful terms? Look at the other comments here, there is a focus on the negative rather than the sharing of ideas. I've learned long ago to not so much to try to sway others to my ideas but to share them sincerely and be done with it.
Well said!
liabatud67 10 months ago
@liabatud67 I appreciate the sentiment. If perhaps people could learn to just debate ideas without making it personal, then the country would not be as divided politically as we are. And you too write rather articulately, its a shame that others in this video take every objection personally and view as if it is a personal attack on
themselves.
All in all a good debate.
AndRod29 10 months ago
@liabatud67 --Race may not be the focus of YOUR conversation, but it does play a major role in this discussion. Race & gender has always played its part in 'the living document'! If you wanted to channel your conversation, then you should've conducted it in PRIVATE. You wanted your views public. They ARE public-along with the long form birth certificate.
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer Why feel the need for a closet in a public setting. Find a receptive audience for your assertions. You are willfully giving opposing views to my responses to AndRod29. Unless you are one and the same, I find no need for your input. Just as in a public setting at a pub, Church, pool hall, coffee shop, pizzeria, bowling alley, public park, bus, subway or public sidewalk. A conversation between 2 adult individuals that can be "heard" by others is no solicitation for input from.
liabatud67 10 months ago
@liabatud67 --Are you kidding me?? YouTube has TWO ways to communicate-public & private. You brought YOURSELF into an ACTIVE conversation between 3 participants! If you wanted to express your views with a SPECIFIC person, you should've done that directly-IN PRIVATE! AndRod29, KenyanBornObamAcorn, and I were engaged in expressing OUR views before you elected to include yourself. The same rule would apply in a Pub, coffee shop, etc. It's best for you to stay IN THE CLOSET! The darkness suits you.
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer Trolling for insults? That's so original as to deem you seek a patent # from the patent office for your attempt to smear disdain. Should you have seen an initial comment addressed to "63weezer" you'd have said license to entertain yourself with "sharing" your banter. Should I find need to research commentary from stem to stern on youtube to see who may or may not feel themselves "involved" I'd need more free time to pursue inane commentary. Where do you plant mushrooms exactly??
liabatud67 10 months ago
@liabatud67 -- I get my mushrooms from Krogers-thank you! I have no need for the manure based kind. My last post STILL holds true. You 'birthers' want to pick & choose what laws YOU think are relevant and dismiss all related documentation & case law. I give 'KenyanBornObamAcorn' MUCH RESPECT due to the fact that(at least) he was willing & able to engage in dialogue. Our views may differ, but his active participation and willingness to take on ALL posts elevates his status above yours!!
63weezer 10 months ago
Comment removed
liabatud67 10 months ago
@63weezer Your fealty to one KenyanBornObamAcorn is fine. I have no aspiration to garner your affections. I'm not seeking your admiration of any kind. So far you have yet to give worthy dialogue without insults for anyone that doesn't mirror your own deeply inspired thoughts. Then again I see your insinuating the want of the sharing of ideas yet I only see volatile comments with little substance. I've seen shadows of good research but the ideas conveyed never strike a cord with me personally.
liabatud67 10 months ago
@liabatud67 --Which means one thing: have PRIVATE debates IN PRIVATE!! If you want to be selective on who you wish share views with, then do it 'privately'. No 'rocket science' needed here. Have a nice day! :)
63weezer 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@liabatud67 --Which means one thing: have PRIVATE debates IN PRIVATE!! If you want to be selective on who you wish to share views with, then do it 'privately'. No 'rocket science' needed here. Have a nice day! :)
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer It wasn't "private" it was exclusive. Should you not be able to recognize such things into the fourth and fifth response to awaken you to proper decorum, allow me to submit a three syllable word for your perusal: Etiquette.
It's a simple concept. Something that should not have to be asked for from any educated individual. The only soul that would deem "His/Her absolute RIGHT to be heard" would need to find willing ears to extol his/her virtues. Otherwise it falls on deaf ears.
liabatud67 10 months ago
@liabatud67 --We can do word games all day. Agree or disagree-your choice. Exclusive?? To read posts from everyone(including my posts) then pick ONLY ONE person to interact with is just fine. The '@' is there for a reason. You were directing your attention to a specific person. But, our posts were NOT private. If you didn't want ANYONE but that specific person to reply, you should've written(in advance)"ONLY THIS PERSON RESPOND PLEASE"-or contacted that person directly! It's a simple concept.
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer You can reply all you want... but insisting that others then respond to you is ridiculous and not well thought out. I'm not going to read all comments in their entirety to see if someone else might consider a comment I made as license to respond for some multiple posts now that from the beginning I've shown no interest in. I posted ONLY to the person I was conversing with & none other. It's a decent principle taught to all youth. I'll henceforth let the facts speak for themselves.
liabatud67 10 months ago
@liabatud67 --What's amusing is while we were going back and forth over this "nonsense', no one has posted anything relating to the removal of Obama. Obama did his job! Let us hope he will continue to do so.
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer That's another subject all together. Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree.
liabatud67 10 months ago
@63weezer You are correct---
"Obama did his job" HE did exactly as HE set out to do-----Trump the U.S. Constitution and do so in the most powerful way possible
To have the off spring of a NON-IMMIGRANT to the United States, the child of a NON-U.S. Citizen, foreign National , father-- installed as Commander-in-Chief of this once sovereign Nation's Military is the ultimate coup
kiiifute1 9 months ago
@kiiifute1 -- Shout it out loud to the heavens-it'll dissipate in the stratosphere!! US v. Wong Kim Ark...I don't have to go any further. Obama is LEGAL-and ALWAYS has been legal. Obama "TRUMPED" those states who wanted to pass legislation on proof of citizenship. That 'birther' ship has sailed. It has already passed the horizon. It's not coming back! Lick your wounds; then try to find a 2nd tier Republican candidate to vote for!!! Good luck. :)
63weezer 9 months ago
@63weezer The "Wong" case, while highly suspect*, decides/concludes that Wong is.........now ..."shout it out loud to the heavens" ---GET READY, FOLKS----WONG IS......... maestro DRUM ROLL, please................that's right.......... A CITIZEN alas NOT an ARTICLE II 'natural born Citizen' as is req to serve as President of the United States
*Horace Gray Chet Arthur connection
kiiifute1 9 months ago
@kiiifute1 Wrong. WKA affirmed the lower court's decision. And the lower court ruled WKA is a *natural born citizen*. You can't wish that away.
"Horace Gray Chet Arthur connection"
Too bad the ruling was 6-2, so even without Gray it would've been 5-2. But nice to see you're already trying to wish SCOTUS rulings away that contradict your crank legal "theories". Shows how much you respect the law when it's against your desires.
magicmulder 9 months ago
@liabatud67 --The Constitution lives and changes as society progresses forward. Get onboard!!
63weezer 10 months ago
@liabatud67 --Scott v. Sanford ties into the discussion of citizenship & who it applies to. The supreme court ruled that the Constitution didnt apply to black africans & their decendents. They weren't considered qualified/worthy of citizenship. The 14th Amendment changed that. Race is CENTRAL to this issue. It was central in 1791, 1857, 1863, 1866, 1868, 1898.....notice a trend???
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer Race was not the focus of my conversation in the least. No matter the need for other to turn stones in an effort to make it so.
liabatud67 10 months ago
@63weezer
Actually, the 14th amendment was adopted so that the slaves could become citizens. It had nothing at ALL to do with REDEFINING article 2 section 1 or it would have SAID SO!
You;ve got a lot of learning to do!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --The NBC clause was 'specific' on who it would include. Moreover, it was SPECIFIC on who it EXCLUDED!! White women, black africans(enslaved or freed), indigenous americans,etc.-the Supreme Court rulings back that up. The Scott v. Sanford ruling stated that Dred Scott was not eligible for citizenship because the Constitution didn't include his race in the fromework. It wasn't meant for slaves or former slaves. The 14th Amendment RE-DEFINED the CLASSIFICATION OF CITIZENSHIP!
63weezer 10 months ago
whiteliberal1 = MY LITTLE BITCH! SHE IS SUCH A SLUT JUST LIKE HER MOM!
impeachobamanow2010 10 months ago
@impeachobamanow2010 Yo Momma= My Bitch! LOL
You're too easy...........
All joking aside, Schleprock, I'm serious about my money! Again, tell that skank (I) said, "bitch betta have my money!" This time I don't want to hear her cries about, "I need to keep some of the money I made (from selling Ass) in order to feed my lil boy, 'impeachobama.' He really looooves those lunchables and twinkies!"
I want all of my money! I mean it!
whiteliberal1 10 months ago
Phillip Berg, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, appeared in the news in August 2008, when he filed suit against Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee, and the Federal Election Commission.
sixletter 10 months ago
There is no requirement that states in order to be a Natural Born citizen both your parents must be citizens. Natural Born = Those who were achieved citizenship at birth. Bingham's opinion on what is and what isn't a Natural Born citizen isn't the law of the land and certainly isn't consistent with any definition of "Natural Born" in the 1780s.
Priebe251 10 months ago
...worked out during the vetting process when he announced his candidacy?
sauron974 10 months ago
@sauron974 it was neither worked out, nor vetted. it was simply swept under the rug by the state run media and not cared about by the sheep.
StewieFavre 10 months ago
@EyeLuvUSA It is not that I missed the point of the video, it is that the video's argument is invalid. US law does not make the distinction you cite. It simply does not. The distinction is made between naturalized citizens, and those made citizens from birth, Under USC 1401, Obama IS a "natural citizen" of this country, Do you guys seriously believe that if this were a real issue, it would have been worked out i
sauron974 10 months ago
@sauron974
Do YOU seriously believe, considering how SMART our founders were and considering they were trying to break FREE from British Rule, that they would actually set it up, so that a BRIT could be President?
I THINK NOT!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn Thank you! I couldn't have said it better ;o)
EyeLuvUSA 10 months ago
Look, his birthplace is a moot point, people. Even if he was born in Australia it would not matter. He IS a CITIZEN by right of parentage (jus sanguinis) even if not by birthplace (jus soli).
So even if you continue to insist (incorrectly) that Obama was born in Kenya, he is STILL a citizen and eligible for candidacy. See USC 1401(d) if you want to read the actual law.
sauron974 10 months ago
@sauron974 Hussein is an ILLEGAL & will be kicked out by Donald Trump, count on it, dumbo!
ImpeachAllCriminals1 10 months ago
@sauron974 You missed the point of the video... he is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. A 'natural born citizen' is born on American soil to TWO American citizens. His father was NOT an American citizen so he is NOT eligible to be our president.
EyeLuvUSA 10 months ago
@sauron974 Citizens are NOT eligible for the Presidency, ONLY "Natural Born" Citizens are!!!!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn I think I finally understand the fundamental argument in play here. Thank you for that. To my mind, Obama IS a "natural born citizen" seeing how he was a citizen AT birth, fulfilling the jus sanguinus requirement under USC Title 8, 1401(d). This would be as opposed to a "Naturalized" citizen, who was NOT a citizen AT BIRTH.
sauron974 10 months ago
@sauron974
WRONG! There's nothing you can do to change the Fact! Obama is not eligible and no matter what CRAP you try to use to make it SEEM like he is, HE ISN'T!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn The reason why the framers included their exemption clause was, I believe, to allow them to be candidates for President even though they were British nationals at birth: technically NATURALIZED citizens. However, Obama would still be a "Natural Born Citizen" under the definition supplied by 1401, unless there is another definition that could back that up.
(Plus, he IS a citizen jus soli as well, but we won't go into that.)
sauron974 10 months ago
@sauron974 How are you able to come to that conclusion following logic? You can't.. Go back and reread and view the facts put forth to you. If you do that and STILL come to your illogical conclusion, I believe intelligent conversation is wasted on you.
WELanning 10 months ago
@sauron974
You are part right. The Declaration of Independence made all British Subjects, "Citizens" but NOT NBC's (Born to 2 Citizen Parents) This is why the Founders had 2 doctor themselves in aka "Citizen at the time of the Adoption". Although Obama's Social Security card says he was born in 1890, that still not old enough for him to be at the signing of the Constitution! They only citizens that were allowed to be Pres are long dead, making this clause OBSOLETE!
Born a BRIT, not LEGIT!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn Yeah, I get that part. What I fail to get is the reference to NBCs being "Born to 2 Citizen Parents" -- where did that reference come from? Citizenship by law of blood (jus sanguinis) was NOT included in the Constitution, this is true, but it was later added to US law as a criterion for citizenship. Where does this triple standard of citizenship (NBC, citizen, naturalized citizen) exist in the law? I have only found two categories: "NBC" and "Naturalized Citizen"
sauron974 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn ...and why is it appropriate to grant NBC status to someone born out-of-country to TWO citizen parents (John McCain?) but not to ONE citizen parent (Barack Obama) even though it is expressly stated in the law that citizenship at birth is available to both?
sauron974 10 months ago
@sauron974 Are you serious? McCain's father was in the armed services, FIGHTING FOR YOUR DAMN RIGHT TO SPEW YOUR HATE and John's mother was there too. She got pregnant with John, SHE WAS ON AMERICAN SOIL (Military Base) so he IS a natural born citizen.
Go to Google, type in "S.Res.511 - A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain" the text says: Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizenS on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.
Obama signed it!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn -- Senator McCain(in 2008) plainly stated that Obama was eligible to be POTUS. Palin can't remember what happened last week. This is a NON ISSUE! Get over it and move forward.
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer
Oh, we're moving FORWARD, but not at getting OVER IT!
Obama will be removed, mark my words!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn --...is that before or after December 21, 2012?? I'm just sayin'....
63weezer 10 months ago
@63weezer
It will be BEFORE the 2012 elections, not to WORRY!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
@sauron974
WAKE UP, a Citizen is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN! Obama may very well be a CITIZEN, but to be a CITIZEN AND be President, you would have had to have been there, when the Constitution was signed and that is impossible!
CASE CLOSED!!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 10 months ago
Wow, you must be a prof. speaker? Great voice.. of course I happen to agree with what you're saying.. ;))
PlainExplosiveTruths 10 months ago
I think you're an idiot because you do not understand how lucky you are to have Obama as president. If you want to send Berlusconi! ah ah ah!
Olizimm 10 months ago
@Olizimm
Can you provide just one example why I should consider myself lucky because Obama is president?
Navigator777777 10 months ago
@Olizimm The only thing good that has come out of having Obama as president is that it has shown people how awful liberals are for our country. His popularity is dropping like a rock because Americans are waking up and seeing that he is destroying our country and our standing in the world. He is doing for Democrats what GW Bush did for Republicans... turned people away from his party! LOL
EyeLuvUSA 10 months ago
@ mbclad60,
The natives lost their land for precisely the same reasons we are about ready to lose our country today!
Native lost their values and morals.
They used their God given gifts for evil.
They brought their destruction upon themselves just as we did with the election of Obama.
Navigator777777 10 months ago
@Navigator777777 DUMMIES A PAPER BINDS. THE ELITE MADE THE PAPER.....SO HOW FUCKING RETARDED ARE YOU? OBAMA NOT THE CULPRIT. THE ELITES ARE. THANKZ FOR SHOWING AND TELLING ME HOW RACIST U ARE. HE'S BLK HE JUST GOTTA BE THE PROBLEM. NO THE PROBLEM STARTED 1776 WHEN UR KIND CAME.
mbclab60 10 months ago
@mbclab60
You pulled out the race card to make a point not me.
True sign of empty logic.
Americans have been taught to hate America and feel sorry for the natives.
The "problem" started when your kind used their God given spiritual powers for evil instead of good.
You know it and I know it.
I don't buy the runny snot nosed logic life in America under native rule was a garden of eden.
Sickness, slavery, death squads, and a brutal existence was the norm.
BTW: Cap locs is for sissies
Navigator777777 10 months ago
@Navigator777777 the problem started when beings like u showed up befriending ppl only to slaughter them off....and we know who the true sissies r....they came outa Sodom and Gomorrah...white ppl . why u think they call u homo-sapian, erectus....lol monkey hybrid...how the fuck u know what went on over here if u wasnt here? u get lies from ur counter part= white males....they lied to u....now u'll pay for buying
mbclab60 10 months ago
@Navigator777777 into it. HOMO.THEY ONLY DISGRACE WE HAVE IS BEFRIENDING U KIND...I BET U WE LIVE WAY BETTER THAN U MONKEYS...U KNOW LIKE I KNOW , BUT WILL U ADMIT?
mbclab60 10 months ago
@mbclab60
Excuse me. For a moment I thought I was communicating with a member of the humans species.
I was mistaken.
Navigator777777 10 months ago
@Navigator777777 you see i made videos on exactly what u talking about, at least some one admited....in the begining their was man....not hu-man. ...im sorry i should have stated my dominance in the begining! okay i do it now....NO HOMO= SAPIEN OR ERECTUS...= NOT A CAVEMAN....IM GENUINE! SORRY BOUT THAT THANKZ FOR CORRECTING ME! OH YEA I NOTICED YOU WILL DISCOUNT WHAT I SAY JUST LIKE UR FOREFATHERS DID....U THE ONE WHO'LL PAY ETEERNALLY AND PHYSICALLY FOR IT.
mbclab60 10 months ago
@mbclab60
You are losing me.
It's unlikely I agree with you on any topic but that's not my point. Your communication skills are so poor, I simply cannot make heads or tails of your argument.
You appear to have a commanding grasp of expletive usage and name calling without producing substance. For that ... you should be given credit.
Navigator777777 10 months ago
@Navigator777777 ITS NOT MY COMMUNICATION SKILLS. ITS UR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING....HA HA.AND NOW U DONT KNOW WHAT A HOMO IS RYTE? HOMO ERECTUS/SAPIEN? MY SUBSTANCE ON MY PAGE ITS TO MUCH FOR THESE LITTLE BOXES. BUT EITHER U DUMBED DOWNED WAY PAST DUMBED DOWN OR UR FAKING LIKE U DONT UNDERSTAND....KNOWING U A LESSER SPECIES U SHOULD BE GIVEN CREDIT!
mbclab60 10 months ago
@1eyednewt This deals only with Barry Soetoro's birth. He did become an Indonesian citizen later when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and his mother (alleged mother) dropped him as a dependant. (Barry as a minor had no attachment to the United States and his adoption by a foreign national voided his U.S. citizenship if he ever had it.)
TheTimeTraveler2025 10 months ago
Why wasn't this an issue during the nomination process? O was up against more than one lawyer and plenty of politicians that also know the Law, yet the issue was not only not raised, was not mentioned. The Democratic party would be risking major embarrassment if their Golden Child was fired from his job if his status was in question. Either this is a non issue or the entire Democratic Party are ignorant of the law. Either or Can't be both
abbetsill 10 months ago
@abbetsill Whoopi Goldberg on CNN being interviewed by Piers Morgan stated that " it is a fact that there is a line of people checking the president's qualifications bascially people who are questioning his origin must be crazy , lol. Why Piers did NOT ask her to name one who autheticated barry & michelle? Both sheister attorneys who are engaged in bank fraud against me. The Hollywood production of the presidency was funded from the fraud against me. I am NOT lying it is linked to 911 funding.HR
HoneySiegalSurvivor 10 months ago
con......2....land to be desecrated...so all whites die out we dont need you over here. go back to outer space. or die and get your homes evaded here....kids slaughtered and dehumanized you will be if u stay. gods warning ryte is ryte and wrong is wroung they both have their consequences.
mbclab60 11 months ago
@mbclab60 We The People Against Corruption in the Campaign to Remove and Indict Barry and all the others who are frauds and willfullfully engaging in this deceit.
Day 290 in the Campaign.
Saturday April 15/2011
There is an underlying banking fraud by the real mastermind of 911 who is issuing the orders for Barry to create the new world order from the fraudulent estate of me dead with many attorneys including but not limited to Michelle and Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Help me stop them
HoneySiegalSurvivor 10 months ago
i say its now whites land nor obama's its us native born land=meaning you ppl have no ryte to govern its is time for ur native born ppl to kill you wet backs out. stop claiming our land. its not yours and never was you parasites were criminals from day one. i myself desecrate your constitution....i wont allow my ppl or home
mbclab60 11 months ago