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.
Again, only two kinds of citizens in the United States: those who were naturalized, and those who are born citizens. There isn't any third kind of citizenship.
In the US Constitution there is a natural born Citizen. A class of citizen Obama is not.... based on at least two US Supreme Court decisions.
A US Senator or a Congressman can be a citizen...but only a President has to be a natural born Citizen
Before you ask, wreckingball, I do not know why Congress and the court has allowed this usurpation. I imagine it is because they fear the consequences from exposing this fraud.
what about before the election, during the campaign? this question would also apply to all those outside of congress and the court system with an advanced knowledge of the US constitution. were they in fear too?
A US Senator or a Congressman can be a citizen...but only a President has to be a natural born Citizen
yep. one can be a citizen by birth or by going thru the naturalization process. one can only be a NBC by birth. or do you know of a congressman, judge, law professor or constitutional scholar that disagrees with that statement?
I don't know why the moderators have let this thread go as long as they have, but you have hijacked it long enough. It's about a reward for the original newspaper ads - no more, no less.
Go back to sleep.
actually it's about the birthers believing a sheriff is going to investigate the matter.
Oh for God's sake, you cannot invent your own reality. Canoe is correct, you are intentionally being obtuse. You know damn well the difference between "natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen. Quit playing games. The President is the only office holder of this country that requires natural born citizenship. That is a special requirement for proof of allegiance. Common sense can tell you that.
Before you ask, wreckingball, I do not know why Congress and the court has allowed this usurpation. I imagine it is because they fear the consequences from exposing this fraud. I fear the consequences of another day of his disloyalty to this country and our Constitution.
Only two kinds of citizens. Those who acquire their citizenship upon birth, and those who are naturalized. Obama never had to be naturalized, therefore he is a natural-born citizen.
In the US Constitution there is a natural born Citizen. A class of citizen Obama is not.... based on at least two US Supreme Court decisions.
A US Senator or a Congressman can be a citizen...but only a President has to be a natural born Citizen
Only two kinds of American citizenship. Those who acquire their citizenship at birth and are, therefore, natural-born citizens. And those who acquire their citizenship by naturalization. Since Obama has never had to be naturalized, it stands to reason he is a natural-born citizen.
Wong Kim Ark was affirmed a citizen. He was not affirmed a natural born citizen.
In that same sense, Virginia minor was not affirmed to be a citizen at all. Please, stop being a hypocrite just long enough to pay attention.
Wong Kim Ark still defined natural born citizen. And that definition is precedential as proven in the 2009 case of Ankeny v. Daniels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe
Your statement "permanent residency of the parents is irrelevant" is factually incorrect and and an outright falsehood.
Where do you find it mentioned anywhere in the Wong Kim Ark definition of natural born citizen?
Here, in case you forgot, is that definition:
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.
In that same sense, Virginia minor was not affirmed to be a citizen at all. Please, stop being a hypocrite just long enough to pay attention.
Wong Kim Ark still defined natural born citizen. And that definition is precedential as proven in the 2009 case of Ankeny v. Daniels.
Where do you find it mentioned anywhere in the Wong Kim Ark definition of natural born citizen?
Here, in case you forgot, is that definition:
I see no mention of domicile.
United States v Wong Kim Ark
"The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, DOMICILED within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
"It necessarily follows that persons born in China, subjects of the Emperor of China but DOMICILED in the United States,"
"His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth DOMICILED residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a PERMANENT DOMICIL and RESIDENCE therein at San Francisco;"
"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a PERMANENT DOMICIL and RESIDENCE in the United States,"
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of PARENTS of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but HAVE a PERMANENT DOMICIL and RESIDENCE in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a CITIZEN of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
Yep that's the case. And here is its definition of natural born citizen:
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.
That this definition is currently reigning precedent was proven again in 2009 during the Birther case Ankeney v. Daniels, where the three judge appeals panel wrote:
Quote:
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.”
Yep that's the case. And here is its definition of natural born citizen:
That this definition is currently reigning precedent was proven again in 2009 during the Birther case Ankeney v. Daniels, where the three judge appeals panel wrote:
An example of deflection.
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.
