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.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all childrenborn 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.
(Minor v. Happersett)
Then perhaps you might take the time to point out in the Constitution, not your interpretation, but in the Constitution, federal statutes or Supreme Court holding that bars a person who is a natural born citizen from being President.
Quote:
You seem to not understand what foreign allegiance and the obligation to obey foreign laws means. Perhaps you should seek the US State Department's guidance.
What you seem to not understand is that at this point in the discussion the British Nationality Act 1948 firmly establishes, without question, that Obama is not a British citizen upon birth unless you have the certification as established by British law hidden in your pocket somewhere. As a result, not only does Obama not owe no fealty to the British law or sovereignty, he has NEVER held dual citizenship. So, my dear confused friend that argument, like all your other arguments, is null and void.
Quote:
Your logic is faulty. Note the "or" in 5.(1)(a). The US State Department acknowledges that foreign countries have jurisdiction over dual nationals. They specifically state dual nationals owe allegiance to the foreign country and are obligated to obey foreign laws. Registration was not necessary for Obama's British citizenship.
See above.
As for your citation of Part 5 of the British Nationality Act, ah yes I do understand what "or" stand for. The fault, once again, is not mine but rather yours because you steadfastly seem to ignore that
(b) that person's birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later;
or
(c) that person's father is, at the time of the birth, in Crown service under His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom; or
[was Barak Obama Sr in the Crown service? NO!]
or
(d) that person is born in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act in which a citizenship law has then taken effect and does not become a citizen thereof on birth.
[was Barak Obama Jr, born in (3) The following are the countries hereinbefore referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon? NO!]
IC, have you seen the 1828 webster's definition of "foreigner" i've posted ?
It's better to go back even further to a more accurate date.
Quote:
"This section differentiates and defines "alien" and "foreigner" and related words using legal, international, and general lexicons available to the First Federal Congress.
..."A 'foreigner' is defined as an individual who: 1) is foreign-born, or more specifically, is a foreign citizen or subject"
What 2010 definition? A website date stamp does not determine its content's inception. If that were so, one could argue that the US Constitution was written in 2010.
It's unbelievable how outrageously far you're trying to reach in a sad attempt to support your unsubstantiated opinion.
umm........... wow.
do you not see the 1828 definition i posted and referred to? honest question.
true, i do not know when the "2010" was first published. was it 2010? 1974? 1902? 1856? dunno.
what i do know was it wasn't the definition in the 1828 edition.
foreigner
FOR'EIGNER, n. for'aner. A person born in a foreign country, or without the country or jurisdiction of which one speaks. A Spaniard is a foreigner in France and England. All men not born in the United States are to them foreigners, and they are aliens till naturalized. A naturalized person is a citizen; but we still call him a foreigner by birth.
Then perhaps you might take the time to point out in the Constitution, not your interpretation, but in the Constitution, federal statutes or Supreme Court holding that bars a person who is a natural born citizen from being President.
It doesn't. Obama, having been born a Brit and therefore a foreigner according to the known definition at the time the Constitution was drafted (see my post above), is not a natural born citizen.
Quote:
What you seem to not understand is that at this point in the discussion the British Nationality Act 1948 firmly establishes, without question, that Obama is not a British citizen upon birth unless you have the certification as established by British law hidden in your pocket somewhere.
Incorrect. Read 5.(1)(a) again
Quote:
...that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—
(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects
Again... The US State Department acknowledges that foreign countries have jurisdiction over dual nationals. They specifically state dual nationals owe allegiance to the foreign country and are obligated to obey foreign laws. Registration was not necessary for Obama's British citizenship at birth to be valid because Obama's birth meets condition 5.(1)(a) of the British Nationality Act of 1948.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all childrenborn 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.
(Minor v. Happersett)
You know... the first time you mined that quotation you could be forgiven for ignorance. The second third and fourth times, you could be forgiven for carelessness.
But now, you are formally lying .
Here is the entire quotation:
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. 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.
In other words:
1. Minor v. Happersett offers two potential definitions for natural born citizen, not just the one you have dishonestly mined from it.
2. The definitions are not mutually exclusive. If the second is true, then the first one is also true.
3. The court explicitly refused to declare the first definition correct.
That was later settled by Wong Kim Ark in which the court did settle the definition. And they picked the second.
to some degree any conspiracy theory will always have followers. i think this has been true since the dawn of man ( pick your dawn ). currently there is still activity on the birther front. orly has resubmitted here case to the supreme court and the lakin trial is still going on. but.......
it almost seems that dabbling in "birther" has become the equal of the drunken hook-up. it appeared the right thing to do at the time but....... now with a little more clearity might not have been the best course of action. both republican and dem.
....or are the birthers still a vital force in the political scene ?
honest question.
Honest answer:
I do not think they ever were a vital force in anything. If they are in decline, I will mourn one less source of amusement, but celebrate a small step towards logical reasoning.
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.
