U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-13-2012, 09:34 AM
 
9,105 posts, read 5,616,936 times
Reputation: 3852

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
that's not even close to being a relevant comparison. for starters the US state dept does not allow a 6-10 year old to renounce US citizenship, something that would be required for indonesian citizenship. exactly how could a 6-10 year old renounce US citizenship illegally?
This is YOUR straw man argument. I've said nothing about renouncing citizenship, because you cannot renounce what you don't have. The argument assumes that he was at one time a natural born citizen. Not very clever. This is a Sesame Street tactic ... and does not work on adults.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
his elementary school registration lists his citizenship as indonesian. it also lists his place of birth as honolulu. at the time obama was ineligible for indonesian citizenship for multiple reasons under indonesian law. also the US state dept does not allow a 6 year old to renounce US citizenship nor can a parent or step-parent.
I'm not saying he was or was not legally an Indonesian citizen, because I really couldn't care less about Indonesian law. I just pointed out that there is a document from a foreign country that claimed him as a citizen. And that is true.

And again you go on with the "renouncing" crap. Give it up. You are trying to claim as facts things that aren't proven. 1) that being born on US soil (Hawaii) automatically makes him a Natural Born Citizen regardless of the status of his parents ... and ... 2) you assume he was born in Hawaii, yet the only evidence is a FORGED Birth Certificate. #1 is provably false ... #2 can be assumed to be false given the only evidence is a manufactured fraud and forgery.

FAIL ... FAIL on both counts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2012, 10:06 AM
 
20,333 posts, read 9,877,056 times
Reputation: 4392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Exposer View Post
Excuse me but William Rawe was just one man with a opinion.
yes, a man that was a contemporary of the founding fathers, a legal expert, a constitutional scholar and an appointee of george washington. i'd say this "one man's opinion" holds a considerable amount of weight on the topic.

Quote:
Let us take this man's opinion named John Bingham,....
you are now taking on mario apuzzo's argument that there is a third class of US citizen beyond natural born and naturalized. apuzzo put forth this argument in purpura/moran v obama......... and lost.

2012-04-10 -NJ - Purpura|Moran v Obama - Initial Decision of ALJ Masin - (Apuzzo)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,663,365 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Exposer View Post
Excuse me but William Rawe was just one man with a opinion. Let us take this man's opinion named John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”,. <snip>
Excuse me but John Bingham was also just one man with an opinion. And unlike William Rawle, he was not even born at the time the Constitution was framed.

To call him the “father of the 14th Amendment” is in this context a deliberate deception, since he was not the author of the citizenship clause. That was authored by senator Jacob Howard.

And as Senator Howard himself believed, the 14th Amendment did not change US citizenship law as understood under the Constitution as originally framed in 1787. When introducing the clause for the first time, he observed that (emphasis added):

Quote:
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
So the only question here is what "the law of the land already" was. And that question was settled by the US Supreme Court in 1898 in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark , to whit (emphasis added):

Quote:
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, 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.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
To this date, Wong Kim Ark is the only Supreme Court decision that has ever been cited as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen. And in the context of the Birther movement, it has been directly cited by several courts to explicitly declare Barack Obama a natural born citizen, and eligible for the position he now holds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Exposer
Obama's father owed allegiance to the British Crown. He is not a Constitutional natural born Citizen.
There does not exist and has never existed a single US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that would support such an assertion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 10:21 AM
 
20,333 posts, read 9,877,056 times
Reputation: 4392
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
I just pointed out that there is a document from a foreign country that claimed him as a citizen. And that is true.
yes, i've never questioned that ( and i specifically pointed out what the document is ). the document also points out that place of birth is honolulu.

Quote:
And again you go on with the "renouncing" crap.
it's not crap. indonesia does not allow for dual citizenship. to obtain indonesian citizenship any other citizenship would have to be renounced.

or do you believe the POTUS was born in indonesia?

Quote:
.... yet the only evidence is a FORGED Birth Certificate.
evidence to date of hawaiian birth:

- 2007 COLB
- 1961 birth data index
- 1961 newspaper announcements
- 1967 state dept investigation into lolo soetoro's visa extention request
- 1967 elementary school registration
- 2011 LFBC ( copied from the 1961 LFBC )
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,124 posts, read 22,048,483 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
evidence to date of hawaiian birth:

- 2007 COLB
- 1961 birth data index
- 1961 newspaper announcements
- 1967 state dept investigation into lolo soetoro's visa extention request
- 1967 elementary school registration
- 2011 LFBC ( copied from the 1961 LFBC )
They are holding out for the kindergarten records.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,663,365 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Exposer View Post
This appeals decision wisely does NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen.
That's okay, because several subsequent courts have done so and used the Ankeny decision as precedent for that purpose. In fact, every court and administrative body to consider the issue has held that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen who is eligible to serve as President.

See, e.g.,

Allen v. Obama et al, No. C20121317 (Ariz. Pima County Super. Ct. Mar. 7, 2012) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 ballot; finding that Obama is a ”natural born citizen” under Wong Kim Ark; and expressly rejecting argument that Minor v. Happersett holds otherwise), appeal filed (Ariz. App. Ct. 2d Div. Mar. 8, 2012);

Farrar v. Obama
, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALlHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton Cty. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), recons. denied (Mar. 14, 2012), appeal denied, No. S12D1180 (Ga. Apr. 11, 2012);

Freeman v. Obama
, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012);

Galasso v Obama, No. STE 04588-12 (N.J. Office of Admin Law Apr. 10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama's 2012 nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a "natural born citizen" eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark), decision adopted as final (NJ Secy of State Apr. 12, 2012);

Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012);

Kesler v. Obama, No. 2012-162 (Ind. Election Comm’n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”);

Powell v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216823-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211528 (Ga. Fulton Cty. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1077 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012);

Purpura et al v. Obama, No. STE 04534-12 (N.J. Office of Admin Law Apr. 10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama's 2012 nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a "natural born citizen" eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark), decision adopted as final (NJ Secy of State Apr. 12, 2012);

Strunk v. NY Bd. of Elections et al, No. 006500/2011 (N.Y. King County Supr. Ct. Apr. 12, 2012) (dismissing complaint challenging, among other things, President Obama’s eligibility to his office; expressly rejecting the birther claim that Obama is ineligible on the basis of his father’s citizenship as frivolous, and issuing a show cause order as to why sanctions should not be imposed upon plaintiff);

Swensson v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216218-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Swensson v. Obama, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton Cty. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1076 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012);

Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “[i]t is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”), appeal pending, No. 12-1124 (4th Cir. filed Jan. 30, 2012);

Welden v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215137-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton Cty. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1059 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Exposer
The court in Wong Kim Ark did NOT pronounce the plaintiff to be a natural-born citizen. IOW, the Supreme Court didn’t follow this so-called “guidance.” Ankeny claims that this inconvenient fact is immaterial.
And of course the Ankeny court (consisting of three judges representing almost a century of legal experience) understood that the issue of Wong's natural born citizen was not before the court and so its absence from the ruling final ruling is irrelevant. The court still, in order to reach the conclusion of Wong's citizenship had to exhaustively review the history of birthright citizenship in the United States, and this included the origin and definition of natural born citizenship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Exposer
Minor does NOT say anything about considering anything in the light of the common law.
Oh? Here is what the Minor decision says verbatim:

Quote:
"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."
How did you miss that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Exposer
The NBC definition is uses is from the Law of Nations, as it matches verbatim.
This is of course a complete lie. At the time of the Constitution's framing, no edition of the Law of Nations in any language even included the phrase. It was not inserted into the text for the first time until 1797... 10 years too late to have been the source of the Constitutional meaning.

And of course as we all know, Minor v. Happersett is completely irrelevant to this entire discussion.

1. It offers no definition of natural born citizen. Those who inists it does are committing to logical fallacy of "denying the Antecedent."

2. It was not a citizenship case at all. It was a suffrage case and ultimately decided that citizenship was irrelevant to Virginia Minors' ability to vote.

3. Just as Wong was not declared a "natural born citizen" by the court (a point covered in exhaustive detail above), the court never declared Minor a "natural born citizen" either. So to accept it as relevant represents complete hypocrisy on the part of Birther apologists.

4. The court explicitly left open the issue of the citizenship status of the children of aliens born on US soil.

5. Unlike Wong, the Minor case has never once been cited by any subsequent court as precedent for the definition of natural born citizen.

The rest of the post is merely more prolix repetition of Birther talking points that have been rejected by every court that has had the opportunity to hear them
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Steeler Nation
6,868 posts, read 3,948,215 times
Reputation: 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310 View Post
He’s a birther, racial profiler, and deceiver. He exhibits the lowest of the low in a authority figure. Should I go on or is that enough to classify someone as garbage.
If you knew the crap that comes across the border, you might thank Sheriff Joe
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Va. Beach
6,396 posts, read 4,409,984 times
Reputation: 2278
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Why is he a piece of trash?
Because he does his job, and people don't like it.

bwaaaahahahahahahahahaha

What's even funnier, is that the federal government will spend million upon millions of dollars based on the word of convicts that are upset they were caught, and then it will all get either dropped or he will be found not guilty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Va. Beach
6,396 posts, read 4,409,984 times
Reputation: 2278
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310 View Post
He’s a birther, racial profiler, and deceiver. He exhibits the lowest of the low in a authority figure. Should I go on or is that enough to classify someone as garbage.
We get it, he is bad, because you don't agree with him..

I don't like Obama... Can I classify him as garbage, using the same criteria you used to base your decision? I don't like him because he lies, he says one thing to suit him, and then changes his stance, because the previous doesn't suit him. He's driving our country broke. Etc Etc, ad nauseum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 12:06 PM
 
20,333 posts, read 9,877,056 times
Reputation: 4392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
....based on the word of convicts that are upset they were caught, .....
many of the allegations, according to the DoJ, are coming from non-incarcerated US citizens.

A list of allegations in lawsuit against Arpaio
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:10 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top