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.
I have no choice when that's all you and HD have been doing. You simply have nothing other than the same repetitive citings of a flawed interpretation.
We are waiting for you to take your expertise to court where you surely won't fail.....
Trolololololololololol. You got nothing and since complaining anonymously is pretty cheap...... Lololoololol. You scared of the colored man! Trolololol.
I have no choice when that's all you and HD have been doing. You simply have nothing other than the same repetitive citings of a flawed interpretation.
Well.... nothing except that and the decisions of 22 Article III courts who have officially settled the issue as both fact and law.
Barack Obama is a natural born US citizen, fully eligible for the position he has now held for more than four years.
I've got the 14th Amendment, and Gray's specifically limited ruling:
"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 partieswere 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"
To recap...
"the single question... 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"
Quote:
You scared of the colored man!
Why are you bringing race into the discussion? Are you racist?!?
The circumstances of his birth fail to meet the 14th Amendment's requirements. And his father wasn't permanently domiciled in the U.S. in 1961 so U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark doesn't apply either.
I have no choice when that's all you and HD have been doing. You simply have nothing other than the same repetitive citings of a flawed interpretation.
Oh, you poor baby. My heart bleeds for you.
Here's something you can answer. How is it that the Wong criteria, born of Chinese parents, doesn't apply to anyone, but the Wong criteria, "permanent domicile", applies to everyone? Don't give me the blather about how since Obama doesn't meet the permanent domicile, you can ignore the other criteria. You can't ignore criteria. If you postulate that something is criteria, then you have to address that criteria, and the implications it has for all of us.
Any court citing U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark to claim that Obama was born a citizen is in error. In the ruling, Gray had the perfect opportunity to redefine US born citizen and even 'natural born citizen' as native-born without regard to parents' status. But after all the verbal meandering and quotes, he specifically did not do so.
Gray ruled Wong Kim Ark a U.S. citizen based upon the condition of his permanently domiciled parents, among other specifically named facts.
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.