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.
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.
Based on what? What do they cite? Wong Kim Ark?
Wong Kim Ark DOESN"T apply to Obama. His father wasn't permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth. The signed legal forms explicitly stating that Obama's father was only a TEMPORARY resident of the U.S. at the time of Obama's birth are a matter of public record. Note the title of this form, "APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME OF TEMPORARY STAY" with Obama's father's request to extend his TEMPORARY stay from August 9, 1961 to August 9, 1962:
I have pointed you to 22 different cases that have decided Wong Kim Ark does apply to Obama.
In case you were unaware, that's how we settle those issues in the real world. In a real court in front of real judges making real decisions in real cases.
"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 parent 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."
There's not a chance in hell Obama's father had a permanent domicile in the U.S. in 1961. The signed legal forms explicitly stating that Obama's father was only a TEMPORARY resident of the U.S. at the time of Obama's birth are a matter of public record. Note the title of this form, "APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME OF TEMPORARY STAY" with Obama's father's request to extend his TEMPORARY stay from August 9, 1961 to August 9, 1962:
All 22 of those cases considered the issue on its merits, and explicitly ruled against you.
Against me? Was I a party to the cases?
Even MORE HD logic fail.
Again, because you're hopelessly slow...
The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling cited in those cases DOESN'T apply to Obama because his father was NOT permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of Obama's birth.
"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 parent 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."
There's not a chance in hell Obama's father had a permanent domicile in the U.S. in 1961. The signed legal forms explicitly stating that Obama's father was only a TEMPORARY resident of the U.S. at the time of Obama's birth are a matter of public record. Note the title of this form, "APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME OF TEMPORARY STAY" with Obama's father's request to extend his TEMPORARY stay from August 9, 1961 to August 9, 1962:
Minor's citizenship was never a question before the court.
SCOTUS had to derive Minor's Constitutional citizenship as it was directly relevantfor them to consider the case which was predicated upon the Constitution's 14th Amendment's: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
The decision came AFTER THE FACT that SCOTUS derived Minor's Constitutional citizenship and was therefore actually entitled to the 14th Amendment's protection: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
SCOTUS subsequently ruled that the right of suffrage was not Constitutionally guaranteed to any U.S. citizen.
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.
