Attorney Reveals The Dirty "Little" Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause (Whitehouse, borders)
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.
Does anyone know the back taxes Obama must owe. I do not mean the US...the UK, Kenya and Indonesia? It must be staggering.
Only the United States taxes earnings from outside the country. Even if Obama was a citizen of all four countries, he would be liable only for US taxes unless he earned money in those other countries.
Great post. This proves Historiandude has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. His aim at twisting factual case law to meet his treacherous un American agenda to cover for Obama's ineligibility has failed. Again, great post.
On the contrary. I think the information posted by Historiandude is clear, concise and credible. I think it is the anti-Obama claims made in this thread that are outlandish and pure fantasy.
If someone is so certain that President Obama is ineligible ... why hasn't he been removed from office? Wasn't it the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that swore Mr. Obama into office in the first place?
When will Obama be removed from office during his term in office?
When?
Personally I think that will never happen.
I guess some people have such a red-hot seething hatred of Obama that they cling to the belief that some miracle will happen and he will be thrown out of office, his appointments invalidated and his presidency erased from history. Well, that's not gonna happen!
I've moved nothing. You have failed to post SCOTUS's opinion complete with citations.
I have also "failed" to present unicorns, abominable snowmen and the Loch Ness Monster. Reasonable people understand however, that the idiot in the equation is the person who asks for them, not the person who fails to produce them.
Leo Donofrio's theories have been judged in court on their merits and rejected as false. The US Supreme Court has affirmed that rejection by denying his petition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Post the decision that discusses those merits.
There you go again, demanding I present the Loch Ness Monster.
Move those goal posts! Move those goal posts!
But since you either too lazy or simply incapable of finding them yourself, here are all the documents for Donofrio v. Wells at all levels of its mercifully short lifetime.
So U.S. citizenship law in fact was NOT the same as the English law that applied to English subjects, because the U.S. was NOT the U.K. and had completely different citizenship issues.
Nothing in that sentence is true. And that's a real accomplishment. I mean... that's a real accomplishment. It's a long sentence, and you should have gotten something right, even if only by accident.
US common law regarding citizenship was identical to British common law regarding citizenship. Native Americans and their status was completey outside of common law. It is astounding that after three years you have never read the decision in Wong Kim Ark, because if you had you would have noticed they tell you that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Yes, it was racist, but it was binding precedent until the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision.
LOL... how is it that you recognize binding precedent when it's convenient, but never when it's not? I have never seen anyone argue with such consistent hypocrisy. It is as if you make a point of deliberately eliminating any argument that is not hypocritical.
Yes... it was binding precedent. It is no longer.
But Wong Kim Ark still is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You're parsing that phrase. The actual quote is:
The fact that you cannot even tell a parsed quotation from a paraphrase is just another sign of the fundamental ignorance upon which all of your arguments are ultimately based. The actual quote agrees with my paraphrase perfectly. But thanks for the otherwise irrelevant demonstration of yet another deficit in your understanding of basic reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
We've already covered the fact that 'subject to their jurisdiction' means "not owing allegiance to anybody else." We know that because it's a documented fact contained in the Congressional record. Obama fails to meet that criterion.
And we have already shown that the only actual body in the universe that possesses the Constitutional authority to tell us what it means says you are wrong.
Why you persist in the lie is inexplicable. Certainly you can't really believe that anybody is still fooled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Nope. And even though there are significant flaws in that case, SCOTUS ruled Wong Kim Ark a 'citizen' because though both of his parents were Chinese citizens, they were both permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth.
It never says "because... they were both permanently domiciled," That part you just made up.
His parent's domicile was merely a fact of the case, as was the fact that he was Chinese. The case no more defines natural born citizenship to require permanent domicile on the part of the parents than it requires one be Chinese.
The definition it offers is this:
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.
Only the United States taxes earnings from outside the country. Even if Obama was a citizen of all four countries, he would be liable only for US taxes unless he earned money in those other countries.
The question is..does he owe back taxes in Kenya, Indonesia and the UK? Do these countries have a legal claim to tax the defendant for income...say...from his salary as an illegal President?
To prevent these countries from making a claim for back taxes..would it be prudent for Obama to slip a little taxpayer foreign aid to these countries. Maybe a government contract.
The question is..does he owe back taxes in Kenya, Indonesia and the UK? Do these countries have a legal claim for income...say...from his salary as an illegal President?
On the contrary. I think the information posted by Historiandude is clear, concise and credible.
Wow. Yet another one who refuses to believe the facts presented in actual laws, the 14th Amendment, and the actual Congressional record of the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the 14th Amendment.
Let's add MORE facts by reviewing the U.S. State Department's statements on dual nationality and its problems:
Quote:
"Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. ...The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law ...dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws"
The Framers of the Constitution purposefully included the 'natural born citizen' requirement clause tospecificallyexclude those born with split allegiances and obligations to obey foreign laws from ascending to the highest office of our federal government and military.
We've been around and around this issue here on c-d on numerous threads. I've already posted the only SCOTUS definition of Constitutional natural born citizen (Minor v. Happersett). I've posted John Jay's July 25, 1787 letter to George Washington. I've posted the historical account of the Constitutional Convention changing the requirement from "citizen" to "natural born citizen" for Presidential eligibility in the Constitution. I've even posted the U.S. State Department's statement that dual citizenship is problematicTO THIS DAY due to split allegiancesand the obligation to obey another country's laws.
I'm quite frankly stunned that so many know so little about our country's historical facts, and so few can understand why owing allegiance to a foreign country and having to obey a foreign country's laws would be problematic for the President of the United States and our military's Commander in Chief.
Example:
Quote:
"Dual nationality has historically led to serious international disputes and even military conflict. Following the doctrine of “perpetual allegiance,” Great Britain considered naturalized American sailors born in Great Britain to be subjects of the British crown and impressed them into military service, thereby, triggering the War of 1812."
Failing to understand why those at the very highest levels of our national government and military having split allegiances and the obligation to obey another country's laws would be a problem, and that the Framers recognized that potential problem and drafted the Constitution to specifically preclude that possibility, completely defies logic.
Wow. Yet another one who refuses to believe the facts presented in actual laws, the 14th Amendment, and the actual Congressional record of the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the 14th Amendment.
D@mn... there went the last of my irony meters. I'm gonna hafta start buying the suckers wholesale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The Framers of the Constitution purposefully included the 'natural born citizen' requirement clause tospecificallyexclude those born with split allegiances and obligations to obey foreign laws from ascending to the highest office of our federal government and military.
You really gotta stop making stuff up. Not a single Framer or Founder ever said anything close.
And there are no eligibility criteria in the Constitution that even mention "split allegiances" or "obligations to obey foreign laws." There aren't any in Jay's letter, either.
I just checked again. They are not there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
We've been around and around this issue here on c-d on numerous threads.
And accomplished nothing.
The Constitution tells us what a President must be, not what a President cannot be.
A President must be 35 years old; Barack Obama is 50.
A President must be resident in the county for fourteen years; Barack Obama has been resident since age ten, or for 40 years.
A President must be a natural born citizen; Barack Obama was born on US soil, and is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation.
Barack Obama meets perfectly the criteria for eligibility to the Presidency as set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
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.
