Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jay's letter DOES NOT MATTER. It's not part of American legal code. You can quote any letter you want. You can quote Vattel ad nauseum. But they won't make a bit of difference, they are irrelevant, because they are not part of AMERICAN LEGAL CODE. The ONLY things that matter are LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS or RULINGS IN FEDERAL COURTS. Neither of which the birther movement has. Which is why they don't have a LEGAL CASE, no matter how many LAWSUITS they bring. They don't have an argument. YOU don't have an argument. It doesn't matter if Obama's father was a British citizen or not. It doesn't matter if the man was from Venus or another galaxy. Because there is NO law on the books, NO rulings by any federal court, that actually define a "natural-born citizen" so that Obama would be disqualified. He was born in the United States to an American mother. Naturally born on US soil to a US citizen parent.
"American Legal Code" is COLOR OF LAW.
The Constitution is THE LAW OF THE LAND.
Color of law is mere testy illegitimacy.
The Federal Reserve Act is NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND.
It is direct evidence of the English language origination of the 'natural born' clause in the Constitution. As such, it matters.
Actually, it doesn't. Not really. The letter has never been used to establish a definition of "natural-born" citizenship because the courts have never felt the need to establish a definition. And that leaves the Birther case adrift. Because what they want is to get a President ruled illegitimate in a court of law, without having any legal reason for that illegitimacy. There is no law that disqualifies Obama. There is no court decision that disqualifies him. And if Congress sees fit to clarify the definition of "natural-born" citizenship, that new law would apply to future Presidents, not to our current one.
Being born on U.S. soil makes Obama a citizen, not a natural born citizen. The disqualifier is his foreign national status at birth.
He doesn't have foreign national status at birth. He has American citizenship at birth. The fact that he might have also enjoyed British citizenship at birth does not disqualify him. There is nothing in AMERICAN LEGAL CODE that says that. Just wishful thinking on your part.
Yet he had no objections to deploying to a Pentagon posting. ("reasonably"?)
The Pentagon is in a foreign country?
If you follow what you reasonably believe to be an illegal order to deploy to a foreign country, and it subsequently does turn out to be illegal because the officer who authorized the deployment is illegitimate, what's to prevent you from being tried for war crimes, or being otherwise imprisoned in the country in which you're illegally present?
Yes he does. U.S. law does not negate the biological father's rights. That's why Obama, et al, admit Obama was born subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948.
And yet you keep insisting that British law negates Obama's rights.
What an odd statement. Not everyone has 'the right' to natural born citizen status, hence the separate distinctions of 'citizen' and 'natural born citizen.'
An order to deploy to the Pentagon is perfectly legal, and order to deploy to Afghanistan is illegal? There's a specific "foreign country" exception in the UCMJ? I am agog, do tell.
Quote:
If you follow what you reasonably believe to be an illegal order to deploy to a foreign country, and it subsequently does turn out to be illegal because the officer who authorized the deployment is illegitimate, what's to prevent you from being tried for war crimes, or being otherwise imprisoned in the country in which you're illegally present?
Hence, Lakin's dilemma.
Oh. That's interesting, I thought Lakin was troubled by his oath. Somebody posted upthread that
Quote:
...there's this little thing called an oath that's clouding that issue. Lakin swore to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Refusing to obey a deployment command issued by a Constitutionally ineligible CIC is an act of defending the Constitution.
Oh, wait - that was you! And so now it's a matter of legal repercussions in Afghanistan. I see.
Why don't you pick a rationale, we'll wait.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
