bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index bumrejects.myfreeforum.org
Open discussion on just about any topic
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

CITIZENSHIP
Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> We the People
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 6:20 pm    Post subject: CITIZENSHIP  Reply with quote

Article II Super PAC

Constitutional Attorneys and Advocates Respond to Brett Baier’s Unconstitutional Definition of Natural Born Citizen


Hello ,

Following is a snapshot from constitutional voices from across the web who weighed in on Fox News Brett Baier’s unconstitutional definition of “natural born Citizen”. These statements are concise, factual and rooted in constitutional law. After reading them, keep them and use them to help advance Article II Super PAC’s goal to educate a majority of voters before the November elections. The electorate must be informed and we are counting on you to help us educate a majority of the voters with the facts.  

Herb Titus, Esq.
William J. Olson, P.C.

“Bret Baer commits a common error.  He assumes that "natural born citizen" means the same thing as "citizen by birth."  They are not the same.  A citizen by birth is one who by constitutional or statutory provision is made or recognized as a citizen based upon where or to whom he was born.   Under Mr. Baer's view, a natural born citizen, then, is a citizen of a particular nation only by positive law.  If a natural born citizen is defined by statute, as Mr. Baer claims he is, then by statute Congress can take away his natural born citizenship status, subject only to the 14th Amendment's definition of citizenship by birth.  And even that citizenship can be taken away by an amendment to the constitution.  Indeed, according to Mr. Baer, no one could have been eligible to be elected president UNLESS Congress passed a statute designating one's citizenship by birth, or until the 14th amendment definition of citizenship by birth was ratified.”

“A natural born citizen, by contrast, is not dependent upon Congress passing a statute or the constitution being amended.  A natural born citizen is a citizen of a specific nation by the law of nature of citizenship.  The law of nature of national citizenship is written into the very nature of the universe of nation-states, and is universal as to place, uniform as to person, and fixed as to time.  By definition the law governing natural born citizenship exists independent of any human power, legislative or otherwise.  That is why "natural born citizenship" is not defined in the Constitution.  Such citizenship exists whether recognized by positive law or not.  Such citizenship is God-given.  To qualify one must be born to a father and a mother each of whom is a citizen of a particular state in order for the person to be "natural born" citizen of that state.”

###

Van Irion, Esq.
Liberty Legal Foundation

“Many of you have e-mailed about Fox News anchor Brett Baier’s claim that Obama is constitutionally qualified simply because he was born here. It should be clear that Mr. Baier is speaking beyond his knowledge. He is quite wrong. His comments displayed his ignorance about the basic structure of our government.”

“Congress cannot override the Constitution, or re-define any term in the Constitution, without going through the entire Amendment process. Anyone that claims that Congress re-defined “natural born citizen” as anyone born on U.S. soil, simply demonstrates their ignorance of how our government works. Congress simply doesn’t have the authority to re-define Article II “natural born citizen” without Amending the Constitution. Any attempts by Congress to do so are without effect. Congress has authority to make anyone born here a citizen, but they cannot re-define “natural born citizen” without Amending the Constitution.”

“Secondly, the 14th Amendment expanded who could be a citizen, not who could be a natural born citizen. If the framers of the 14th Amendment had wished to redefine "natural born citizen" they would have used that term in the Amendment. They did not. Therefore the 14th Amendment ONLY applies to the larger class of citizens, not the smaller class of "natural born citizens."

###

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Apuzzo Law Firm

“He fails to understand that “Citizens of the United States” and their “natural born Citizen” children already existed since after July 4, 1776 and before the Constitution was adopted in 1787. The Founding generation knew who those citizens were. That generation abandoned the English feudal and monarchial notion of subjecthood and perpetual allegiance to the King. They replaced the notion of membership in the civil society by calling their members “citizens” and “natural born Citizens” rather than “subjects” and “natural born subjects” and providing that children followed the political condition of their parents who by free will selected that condition for them until their age of majority at which time they were free to accept or change that choice, not that of some King without choice and for life. While the Constitution itself does not define a "natural born Citizen," historical evidence and case law from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts do so. That evidence shows that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the United States to parents who at the time of their birth were both either "natural born Citizens" or "citizens of the United States." See my blog at http://puzo1.blogspot.com  for a discussion of this historical evidence and case law.”

Read the rest of Apuzzo’s statement by clicking – http://puzo1.blogspot.com

###

Jerome Corsi
World Net Daily

“Baier incorrectly interprets that 8 USC Section 1401 was written to define ‘natural born citizen,’ as specified in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution,” he said. “The purpose of 8 USC Section 1401 is to define ‘nationals’ and ‘citizens’ of the United States ‘at birth.’”

Corsi explained that citizens at birth are not “natural born citizens” under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1.

“Nowhere in 8 USC Section 1401 does Congress make any mention of the term ‘natural born citizen’ or to Article 2, Section 1,” Corsi said.

He went onto say “To novices, the distinction between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’ may be trivial. Under law, the distinction is meaningful and important. A mother who takes advantage of ‘birth tourism’ to fly from Turkey or China (or any other foreign country) to have a baby born in the United States might arguably give birth to a ‘citizen at birth,’ under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, extended by 8 USC Section 1401,” Corsi said.”

“But consider that the mother and child return to China and Turkey and raise the child. The child does not learn to speak English and does not learn anything about U.S. history or culture. Yet at age 35, the child returns to the U.S., spends the necessary years here to meet the residency requirements under Article 2, Section 1, and runs for president.”

“He continued, “‘Natural Born Citizen’ is a term of natural law — it specifies that a child must be born in the USA to two parents who were U.S. citizens at birth.”

Read the rest of the Unruh article by clicking
- http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/law-prof-fox-anchor-wrong-on-eligibility/

###

Dan Crosby
The Daily Pen

“Unfortunately, Baier is wrong and misguided.  Those he defines here are not Natural born citizens.  A natural born U.S. citizen is one born in the United States, specifically defined as a geographic location held under the constitutional protection of the U.S., to two U.S. citizen parents, conditions which are well defined by the tenets of natural law and national identity.”

“Again, this is another example of a politically-minded individual desperately seeking an extralegal mooring upon which to anchor their opinion about Obama’s eligibility.  Unfortunately for Baier, that mooring is not found there,” says TDP Editor, Pen Johannson.”

Read the rest of Crosby’s response by clicking  - http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2...ws-baier-typifies-mainstream.html

###

Cindy Simpson
American Thinker

“A recent Human Events article by Michael Zak asserts the same position as Baier's.  No citizen parents are needed, and they can be here illegally.  Even al-Awlaki could have run for president.”

“The Georgia Obama ballot challenge ruling and its likely consequences on citizenship arguments was discussed here, which we now see in action.”

“Baier's assertion places both Obama with his one citizen parent and Rubio with none on the same "natural born" bus -- and that bus ran over not just "birthers" (who actually have been lying under there for quite a while), but also all of the Republicans who have been working for curtailment of the "jackpot" birthright practice as part of effective immigration reform.  Because now it can no longer be denied (which "birthers" have been arguing all along) that birthright citizenship and presidential natural born eligibility are inextricably related.”

Read the rest of Simpson’s article by clicking -  http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/rubio_and_birthright_citizenship.html#ixzz1u2bQXWRm

###

Lastly we hear from Commander (Ret) Charles Kerchner challenging Baier in an “Open Letter” to include constitutional attorney’s who are leaders on Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to have a seat at the table IF Baier assembles such a panel –

Dear Mr. Baier:

I strongly suggest you invite constitutional scholar and attorney Herb Titus and constitutional presidential eligibility attorney Mario Apuzzo on to any debate or discussion panel you put together to debate the true legal and historical meaning of the Natural Law legal term of art “natural born Citizen”. Invite anyone else you wish on to the panel who wishes to argue that the natural law “natural born Citizen” legal term of art is 100% synonymous with the man-made positive law, Congressional Statute Title 8 Section 1401, “Citizen at Birth” legal term, which is what you asserted. Our experts will conclusively prove to you and your listeners in any debate form or forum you choose that those two citizenship legal terms/types are not identically the same.

Read the rest of Kerchner’s Open Letter by clicking - http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/...of-fox-news-from-cdr-kerchner-ret
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The intentions of the Founders, and their understandings of "natural born" and "citizen" have been the subject of inquiry and argument since BEFORE the current U.S. Constitution was written and ratified.

And Congress and the Courts have made judgments and definitions since.

In this first post, I'm addressing only the early evidence from the Founders.

The phrase first appears in official American Revolutionary and Constitutional documents in the 1774 declaration of inalienable human and civil rights when establishing the first American Congress - I recommend reviewing that portion of U.S. revolutionary and constitutional history at http://bumrejects.myfreeforum.org/about436.html . The entire declaration is the second post on that thread.

"...ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England... [and] by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them."

The key words are "free" (not slaves or endentured servants), "subjects" (sworn allegience to Crown, and in many Colonies sworn allegience to the Church of England), and "natural-born" (not adopted as a device for citizenship, as had been practiced for centuries).

The latter understanding seems to be lacking in the writings of many "birthers," i.e. the centuries-old practice of legally adopting a person in order to provide them citizenship, which in turn allowed them to legally enter into trade and finance, own property, etc. - but whose legal citizenship status didn't automatically pass to his sons and daughters.

The intent in 1774 was to affirm that all the free legitimate descendents of the natural-born British settlers of the Colonies through the years were entitled to the named "rights."

Thirteen years later, when Alexander Hamilton proposed his scheme for amending the previous Constitution in June 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, he used the words in determining the qualifications of the Presidency "now be a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."  

He did NOT use the term "natural-born" - and his "Citizen of one of the States" would have allowed anyone who had resided in and sworn allegience (the two essential elements of "citizen" at that time) in any State/Colony in the previous revolutionary decade to be President, regardless of the nation, state, or realm of birth.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, since his fellow gentleman had not deemed to send him as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, had to bring his ideas for a new government to George Washington via written correspondence. Washington, as President of the Convention could not debate or vote on any proposal, but could bend the ears of the other delegates.

Jay, in his letter, strongly pleaded with Washington to insure that the Commander-in-Chief of the Army be restricted to only native-born citizens in the Constitution being written. Jay's understanding was that in the earlier Declaration.  

Jay's concern was that one of the French (or other European) officers or men who had become citizens while fighting against the British during the Revolutionary War could become President and Commander-in-Chief if the two roles were combined (at the time, the delegates were still arguing which powers would be held by whom).  

Later in August 1787, as the Committee on Detail fine-tuned the wording of the approved Constitutional elements, someone on the Committee (all proceedings were secret) compressed Hamilton's words on the presidential requirement into "a Citizen of the United States."

But mysteriously (sort of like in today's Conferences between House and Senate staffs when earmarks get added) when the final printing came from the final Committee the phrase "native-born" had been added, and the wording - which remains today - was approved in the final draft of the Convention.

However John Jay still wasn't satisfied, and exactly a year after his letter to Washington, on July 25, 1788 when Jay was a delegate to the Poughkeepsie Ratifying Convention he proposed - and convinced that Convention to pass Convention - an amendment to the Constitution, as a condition of ratification:

"That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, or such as held Commissions under the United States during the War, and have at any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be Freeholders, shall be eligible to the Places of President, Vice President, or Members of either House of the Congress of the United States".¹

His amendment was later discarded and the Constitution ratified with his desired "natural born" in it for the requirement for President.

¹ http://sovereignny.org/?p=2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
auntmartymoo



Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 1300

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But the deeper question is ...

Who knew there were so many ways to misspell "Bret Baier" ?
_________________
wall street is just a symptom of the disease...washington dc is the petri dish that incubated this pandemic  ~ scrutney
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scrutney
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 1536

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

auntmartymoo wrote:
But the deeper question is ...

Who knew there were so many ways to misspell "Bret Baier" ?


coebul.
_________________
one man's terrorist is another man's folk hero
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coebul



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 3285
Location: Northwest USA

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UP yours! or is it Your's?
_________________
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some folks around here have no creedence at all! Very Happy
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As noted in my last post, and documented by the various diaries and notes of the delegates who attended the Convention in 1787 who actually wrote the U.S. Constitution, the delegates did NOT vote to include the phrase "natural born citizen" as a qualification for the U.S. President.  Some delegate or clerk in a secret "mark up" session added the "natural born."

However that authorship became moot, first when the delegates approved the final draft, and second when the U.S. Constitution was ratified by a sufficient number of States.

Numerous definitions and qualifications of the requirements to be a "citizen" - born in the U.S., born outside, born of citizen parents or of non-citizen parents - and requirements to be a "naturalized" citizen have been implemented into policy and law through the years -- but none of those matter in regard to the qualifications for President, i.e. "natural born citizen."

The latest legal ruling - from Indiana three years ago when both Obama's and McCain's "natural born" citizenship was challenged in court follows.  They are from the extended footnotes, and refer only to Obama's status. Subsequent Appeals were quashed.

---
Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs' argument is that
"[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there's a very clear distinction between a 'citizen of the United States' and a 'natural born Citizen,' and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance."

With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...."

U.S. Constitution has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a "natural born Citizen."

The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that "[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." Minor v. Happersett (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.  

Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.

Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of "whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment..."

We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words "citizen of the United States" and "natural-born citizen of the United States" "must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution."

They noted that "[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

The Wong Kim Ark Court explained: The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, - as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,' - and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at  this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as 'Calvin's Case,' or the 'Case of the Postnati,' decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. The English authorities ever since are to the like effect.

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn... said: By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality."

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore 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.

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.

According to Westlaw, Wong Kim Ark has been cited to in over 1,000 cases.

Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor (1830), that "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."

The Court also cited Justice Curtis's dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856): The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that: All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States "at the time of his birth."

For all but forty-four people in our nation's history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens."


The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs' arguments fall under the category of "conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions" that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen.

During the election of 1880, there arose a rumor "that [Arthur] had been born in Canada, rather than in Vermont as he claimed, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to become the Chief Executive."

Although President Arthur's status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur's father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.
====

Plain, albeit long, quaint, legalesy, but simple.

Anyone born in Hawaii after it became a state, regardless of the nationality of his/her parents is a "natural born citizen," and meets the constitutional requirement for President.

Challenging Obama's qualifications on that constitutional basis only has failed.

Which leaves the other "birther" claim that Obama was born in Africa.

IF that is ever proven it will be a different ballgame.

Let me know when that occurs, as the so-called evidence presented so far is underwhelming.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We still have the question of why false documents were submitted and other documents hidden.
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tsiya wrote:
We still have the question of why false documents were submitted and other documents hidden.


That's true, but that is an entirely different legal issue than being a "natural born citizen."

EVEN IF there are false documents in evidence, Obama still enjoys what in law is called a "positive defense" -- which means the "burden of proof" is on the accuser.

And EVEN IF it was proved that the birth certificate and/or draft card and/or passport and/or whatever? were fake, that still would not establish that Obama was not a "natural born citizen."  

Maybe be grounds for impeachment, maybe not - depending upon the provable culpability, and how many Representatives and Senators wanted to impeach - but would not impact his qualification for President.

The ONLY way that ineligibility could be established is by proof - ruled upon by SCOTUS - that Obama was born in Africa, or some other area outside of the 50 states.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, Obama may not be a citizen at all,  there doesn't seem to be any verifiable evidence, just hearsay. Very Happy


_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> We the People All times are GMT
Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 1 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum