Birther brigade going after Rubio now (millionaires, Representatives, candidacy, illegal)

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe

Another false statement by the perpetual Obot. Obama's father was a transient alien student who was deported. He never established a domicile nor was he was permanent resident.

Neither of which is an element in the definition of natural bonr citizen provided by Wong Kim Ark.

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.

Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe

Secretary of State Bayard stated the following it is in the record.

"the son of a German subject, born in Ohio was not a citizen."

Too bad his opinion was rejected by the Supreme Court.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

You could say the same of the billions of other archived government documents, too.

And it would be just as true.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Now post Chester Arthur's father's copy.

What would lead you to believe that Chester Arthur ever had one? More wild speculation by Birthers trying to invent evidence that does not exist for events that never happened.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Not true at all. It's all documented in Gentleman Boss: The Life of Chester Alan Arthur.

Educate yourself for a change, HD. Read it.

I have. None of the alleged "lies" he told about his family history could have possibly concealed his father's citizenship status.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

No, Minor refused to settle the doubts as to whether those born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents were even U.S. citizens at all.

What a pointless quibble.

But that's okay, since the Wong court finally did settle both those issues. Those born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents are natural born citizens.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by claudhopper

Orly gets a hearing!

Orly gets hearings all the time.

In more than three years she has never won a single one.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Wong Kim Ark defined 'natural-born British subject,' yes.

And natural born citizen. For as the court said, "The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Wong Kim Ark ALSO affirmed Minor v. Happersett's SCOTUS definition of Constitutional NBC:United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Actually, that section was cited not to affirm it, but to prove that prior courts were not of the opinion that children of aliens born on US soil were exempt from citizenship.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Right there, the Wong Kim Ark decision admits SCOTUS constructed the definition of Constitutional NBC in Minor v. Happersett.

This is a simple lie. Courts do not "admit" things like they were children caught stealing cookies. They make rulings. And here is the Wong court's definition of natural born citizen.

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.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Wong Kim Ark does NOT redefine Constitutional NBC, NOR does the Court find Wong Kim Ark anything other than... 'a citizen.'

The Minor court never ruled on Virginia Minor's citizenship at all. It never once called her a natural born citizen.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Anyone who misses Wong Kim Ark's AFFIRMATION of Minor v. Happersett's SCOTUS definition of Constitutional NBC is delusional.

Three real judges with a combined 92 years of legal experience apparently think you have your head up your ass. Here is their ruling:

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.”

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

I have. None of the alleged "lies" he told about his family history could have possibly concealed his father's citizenship status.

Two possibilities:
1. You lied about having read it.
2. Your reading comprehensions skills are abysmally poor.

Chester Arthur lied about his family's/father's history several times. All documented in the book.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

What a pointless quibble.

Not a pointless quibble. It's exactly what SCOTUS stated. Reading any more into it like you're trying to do is a novice's classic mistake.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

And natural born citizen. For as the court said, "The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law

You were already shot down on that earlier in the thread, HD.

That passage says nothing about 'natural born citizen.' It specifically referenced British subjects converting to U.S. citizens when the U.S. declared independence.

Context, man, context.

Actually, that section was cited not to affirm it, but to prove that prior courts were not of the opinion that children of aliens born on US soil were exempt from citizenship.

No, the Kim Wong Ark decision very cleary states that the Minor v. Happersett decision CONSTRUCTED the qualifying criteria of the Constitution's NBC provision.

This is a simple lie.

Nonsense. Courts affirm prior decisions frequently.

The Minor court never ruled on Virginia Minor's citizenship at all. It never once called her a natural born citizen.

Reading comprehension, man...

"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.
...The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...8_0162_ZO.html

[wrecking ball]

Originally Posted by claudhopper

Orly gets a hearing!

i'm glad that makes you happy claud but........ that's kind of like being excited about a pitcher taking the mound that not only hasn't won a game but has never thrown a single strike ( and has thrown multiple comically bad wild pitches ). one thing that absolutely amazes me about birthers is that they refuse to get even a moderately competent lawyer to champion their cause. you believe that the constitution has been violated and the best you can do for defense is orly?.......... really?

[from WND]
Taitz has been involved in a long list of high-profile cases over the past few years......

yep, and she's lost every single one of them.

Others say natural-born means both parents must be citizens at the time of the birth.

yep. but not orly. even she doesn't buy into the "2parent" theory.

also, "others say" it is ridiculous to believe that a 5'9" man could have a 6'2" son.

Further, "The most staggering evidence is Mr. Obama's lack of a valid Social Security number and his use of a fraudulently obtained Social Security number from the state of Connecticut,....."

06810 danbury, CT 96810 honolulu, HI . occams razor weeps for orly.

Meanwhile, Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County in Arizona has assigned a special cold case team to investigate...... He's said the investigators have accumulated thousands of pages of evidence......

when did he say that? not saying he didn't but i would like to keep the facts straight in this comedy.

......and his report likely will come early in 2012. [end WND]

i was hoping to have it in time for a demented xmas gift but...... such is life.

It sucks to be an obot! Living in constant fear of exposure,.....

nope. living quite peacefully and content.

.....having to make up all those lies.

ok claud, point out a SINGLE lie i've posted on this forum.

It will all be over soon.

no it won't. it will continue on indefinitely being regurgitated by a small population of conspiracy theorists in much the same way as the moon landing, hollow earth, roswell...........

[claudhopper]

Originally Posted by wrecking ball

oof again. for the sake of your loved ones at least consider getting some help, claud (honestly). either that or try and channel your delusions into some creative writing ala philip k. dick.

will go thru the most recent bit of WND comedy after my morning routine but one thing jumped out right off the bat........ how can this be a hearing if orly is not licensed to practice law in new hampshire?

New Hampshire is an early primary state and it allows anyone to challenge a candidate on the ballot. You do not have to be a resident of NH
Election Challenge to Obama Candidacy in NH | Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

Want him off the ballot, here's a chance to be part of history and restoring this country to greatness, with respect for the rule of law.