Author Topic: Where is the evidence?  (Read 12872 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,327
  • Gender: Male
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2014, 02:59:19 pm »
Heck, where is the evidence that OPapaDoc is even President of the United States?  Maybe it's all been a very, very bad dream....

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2014, 03:24:56 pm »
Heck, where is the evidence that OPapaDoc is even President of the United States?  Maybe it's all been a very, very bad dream....

You may be onto something massad - when you control the media you can make the movie however you want. I wish I could wake up from this nightmare!
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Online mountaineer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 78,135
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2014, 03:31:02 pm »
Heck, where is the evidence that OPapaDoc is even President of the United States?  Maybe it's all been a very, very bad dream....
Wow. Just like Bobby Ewing getting shot on "Dallas" or Bob Newhart being a Vermont innkeeper?!?!  You just blew my mind!   *bouche*
Support Israel's emergency medical service. afmda.org

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2014, 03:32:54 pm »
Still the same thing.  Hawaii was a state, and Obama is a natural-born citizen, legally even if not in his heart.

In your opinion! I STRONGLY disagree!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2014, 04:59:08 pm »
In your opinion! I STRONGLY disagree!

Well, I did check with Wiki...and Hawaii is definitely a state.   :laugh:

As for the nbc issue, as we've discussed, you'll have to argue that with SCOTUS which already decided it a long time ago.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2014, 07:39:14 pm »
As for the nbc issue, as we've discussed, you'll have to argue that with SCOTUS which already decided it a long time ago.

Nope! Not by a long shot!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2014, 10:15:19 pm »
Nope! Not by a long shot!

 :shrug: :nometalk:
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,802
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2014, 10:45:36 pm »
Obama 'birthday':  August 4, 1961

Hawaii Statehood:  August 21, 1959 
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Offline EdinVA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,584
  • Gender: Male
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2014, 11:12:31 pm »
Quote
Obama 'birthday':  August 4, 1961

Hawaii Statehood:  August 21, 1959

Yes....

What I meant to say, as I understand, was that the law at the time required that the parents be in the US for 3 years prior to the birth of a child for that child to be a Natural Born Citizen.  As BO was born before that 3 year time from was up (HI statehood and birthdate), he is not a NBC.  Congress has since changed that requirement so not sure where that leaves his status.

That being said, the entire issue of who is eligible to be president is fuzzy enough that it needs to be cleared up or BO will set the standards because we still don't know what the real story is.  Did he claim Indonesian citizenship or not?  What about the fact that his father was NOT a citizen?

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2014, 11:21:00 pm »
Yes....

What I meant to say, as I understand, was that the law at the time required that the parents be in the US for 3 years prior to the birth of a child for that child to be a Natural Born Citizen.  As BO was born before that 3 year time from was up (HI statehood and birthdate), he is not a NBC.  Congress has since changed that requirement so not sure where that leaves his status.

That being said, the entire issue of who is eligible to be president is fuzzy enough that it needs to be cleared up or BO will set the standards because we still don't know what the real story is.  Did he claim Indonesian citizenship or not?  What about the fact that his father was NOT a citizen?

Not sure what law you are referring to, but the fact that BHO's father wasn't a citizen might be an issue in France or elsewhere, but not here.  A side issue not relating to whether he is a nbc is whether he may have lied about being a foreign student to get college benefits.  Even if Indonesia awarded him citizenship during his years there, as long as he didn't renounce his citizenship here, he's still a US citizen, assuming he was born here.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline EdinVA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,584
  • Gender: Male
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2014, 11:26:32 pm »
Quote
You may claim US Citizenship on two separate and unrelated grounds:

1. Hawaii became a state in 1959. A child born on American soil automatically gets U.S. citizenship, unless the child is born to a foreign government official who is in the United States as a recognized diplomat.

2. Persons born between 12/24/52 and 11/13/86 - If one parent was a US citizen and resided in the US for at least ten years, at least five of which were after age 16, you are a citizen.


Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2014, 11:30:45 pm »
Not sure what law you are referring to, but the fact that BHO's father wasn't a citizen might be an issue in France or elsewhere, but not here.  A side issue not relating to whether he is a nbc is whether he may have lied about being a foreign student to get college benefits.  Even if Indonesia awarded him citizenship during his years there, as long as he didn't renounce his citizenship here, he's still a US citizen, assuming he was born here.

Yes he is a citizen but not a "natural born" citizen as the Constitution requires one to be in order to become president of the United States.

The two are NOT the same as our founders CLEARLY said in Article II Section I. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;..."

As our founders understood it, for one to be a "Natural Born"  citizen he must be born of parents (plural) who are themselves citizens at the time of his birth.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2014, 11:35:36 pm by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline EdinVA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,584
  • Gender: Male
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2014, 11:36:01 pm »
The other thing that bothers me is the Supreme Court does not write law, they interpret it, and their interpretations set precedence and deviations of precedence are not offenses.  Supreme Court rulings are very narrow focusing only on the specific issue brought before the court.

I still believe there is enough fuzzyness to this that congress should address it rather than football team names....

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #38 on: October 05, 2014, 12:40:05 am »

You may claim US Citizenship on two separate and unrelated grounds:

1. Hawaii became a state in 1959. A child born on American soil automatically gets U.S. citizenship, unless the child is born to a foreign government official who is in the United States as a recognized diplomat.

2. Persons born between 12/24/52 and 11/13/86 - If one parent was a US citizen and resided in the US for at least ten years, at least five of which were after age 16, you are a citizen.


The first one is true and fits with the 14th Amendment.  The second doesn't.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #39 on: October 05, 2014, 12:41:28 am »
Quote
As our founders understood it, for one to be a "Natural Born"  citizen he must be born of parents (plural) who are themselves citizens at the time of his birth.

Not according to the USSC.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2014, 12:45:23 am »
The other thing that bothers me is the Supreme Court does not write law, they interpret it, and their interpretations set precedence and deviations of precedence are not offenses.  Supreme Court rulings are very narrow focusing only on the specific issue brought before the court.

I still believe there is enough fuzzyness to this that congress should address it rather than football team names....

You might want to read US v Wong.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #41 on: October 05, 2014, 01:31:36 am »
You might want to read US v Wong.

Said he was a citizen. Doesn't say a word about whether or not he met the Constitutional qualifications for the presidency.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #42 on: October 05, 2014, 02:12:15 am »
Said he was a citizen. Doesn't say a word about whether or not he met the Constitutional qualifications for the presidency.

Actually quite a bit was written in the majority opinion about just that, a natural born citizen. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #43 on: October 05, 2014, 03:53:40 am »
Actually quite a bit was written in the majority opinion about just that, a natural born citizen.

Can Arnold Schwarzenegger be President of the US?
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #44 on: October 05, 2014, 05:02:53 am »
Can Arnold Schwarzenegger be President of the US?

I'll answer my own question.

Obviously not.

However, this does seem to fly right at the face of the XIV Amendment of the Constitution:

Quote
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, if the XIV Amendment's intent is to erase all differences in "privileges and immunities" between "naturalized" and "born... in the United States" citizens, then why does Federal law prohibit "naturalized" citizens from the "privilege" of holding the office of POTUS?

Doesn't Federal election law in fact create citizenships of differing value in violation of the spirit of the XIV Amendment?

It obviously does, does it not?

So what we have now are two types of citizenships, with one holding a higher standing in tbe eyes of the law than the other. A "born... in the United States" citizen has one protected "privilege" that is not available to the other.

Then comes Section 1, Article 2 of the Constitution:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So, in order for someone to qualify they had to be thirty-five years old and living in the United States since their 21st birthday, AND they had to be born after the ratification of the Constitution, otherwise the "Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" carve out wouldn't be necessary. Only the people who were older than 35 at the time of the ratification, and that mythical  "natural born" citizen qualified to hold the office under the Clause.

So, you had to be alive on September 17, 1787 to qualify for the office of POTUS if you weren't that elusive "natural born" citizen.

Now, the discrepancy between Federal electoral law and the XIV Amendment which disallow a naturalized citizen like Arnold Schwarzenegger (and myself) from holding the office of POTUS makes it obvious that there are difference classes of citizenship: Jus soli (born on the soil) and "naturalized" (citizenship via act of Congress). Section 1, Article 2 tells us that there are two classes of "born" citizens.

The difference between that "born... in the United States" citizen of the XIV Amendment, and the "natural born" citizen of Section 1, Article 2 is how the citizenship is transmitted from child to parent.

A "natural born" citizen acquires citizenship via a bond of blood to the nation where it is born, via the transference of blood where there that blood is not tainted by allegiances to a foreign government.

In the words of John Bingham: "Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." - (Speech delivered to the U.S. Congress, March 9, 1866)

If the man who authored the XIV Amendment drew that line of distinction between being simply born here, and being born here with parents (plural) who owed any measure of allegiance to a foreign government drew that line of distinction, then I don't see how anyone could argue that Barack Obama, who was born with dual citizenship and whose father was a British subject ( as was Barack) at the time of his birth qualifies for the office of POTUS.

P.S. Ann Dunham was not old enough at the time of Barry's birth to confer US citizenship to Barry.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #45 on: October 05, 2014, 08:17:46 am »
What if a baby is born in international waters?

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #46 on: October 05, 2014, 12:30:54 pm »
Luis wrote:

Quote
If the man who authored the XIV Amendment drew that line of distinction between being simply born here, and being born here with parents (plural) who owed any measure of allegiance to a foreign government drew that line of distinction, then I don't see how anyone could argue that Barack Obama, who was born with dual citizenship and whose father was a British subject ( as was Barack) at the time of his birth qualifies for the office of POTUS.

While I don't necessarily give any special weight to the author or sponsor of legislation or in this case an amendment to the Constitution, I do agree with your conclusion.  The question of allegiance though is one used by the birthers to support their case, though that issue has long been settled by both legislation and court cases.  Even the issue of dual citizenship has been settled.

I do wonder where this debate would be if we were talking about Ted Cruz though... :pondering:
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #47 on: October 05, 2014, 12:33:03 pm »
What if a baby is born in international waters?

It automatically gets the citizenship of its parents.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #48 on: October 05, 2014, 12:59:15 pm »
Actually quite a bit was written in the majority opinion about just that, a natural born citizen.

Dicta!

The ruling was and is that Wong was a citizen! Nothing more or less than that!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,327
  • Gender: Male
Re: Where is the evidence?
« Reply #49 on: October 05, 2014, 01:08:27 pm »
I think it's remiss to cite only US v Wong without also noting the relatively obscure but extremely important precedent set in Yu v Wite.  Taken together the two cases lead to the inevitable conclusion:

If loving Yu is Wong I don't wanna be Wite.