Author Topic: OBAMA CONFIRMS - NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (Read 4396 times)

Penrod · « **Reply #25 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:02:35 PM »

Quote
â€œThe 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

It is not at all unusual for a later court to clarify or reverse an earlier courts decision and that is what you have here.

A court cannot change a natural law lol

Your quote proves my claim

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

That is natural law

Not something congress or scotus makes up.

Penrod · « **Reply #26 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:05:13 PM »

Jesus even at Hannity all the conservatives agreed on this. Are you sure this a a conservative forum? Your posting exactly what the liberals posted there.

Eupher · « **Reply #27 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:07:20 PM »

Quote from: Penrod on July 04, 2012, 06:05:13 PM

Jesus even at Hannity all the conservatives agreed on this. Are you sure this a a conservative forum? Your posting exactly what the liberals posted there.

Eupher · « **Reply #28 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:08:57 PM »

Just keep beating that horse, Penrod. Maybe you'll wake it up after it starts rotting.

SCOTUS had their crack at the issue in Dec 08/Jan 09. They did nothing with it. It went nowhere. All your flagellating will not change any of that.

Chris_ · « **Reply #29 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:10:19 PM »

Quote from: Penrod on July 04, 2012, 06:05:13 PM

Jesus even at Hannity all the conservatives agreed on this. Are you sure this a a conservative forum?

Great. Another one of these.

Carl · « **Reply #30 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:15:35 PM »

Quote from: Penrod on July 04, 2012, 06:02:35 PM

Quote
â€œThe 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

It is not at all unusual for a later court to clarify or reverse an earlier courts decision and that is what you have here.

A court cannot change a natural law lol

Your quote proves my claim

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

That is natural law

Not something congress or scotus makes up.

What are you talking about?
The SCOTUS routinely weighs in on these things sometimes to our like sometimes to our dislike.
Your statement of natural law comes from where?
The opinions of the various Justices cited all declare that the Constitution makes no declaration as to what a Natural Born Citizen exactly is but needs interpretation.
In Minor the Justice asserts his and in Ark another clarifies with his.

Penrod · « **Reply #31 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:18:55 PM »

Its already been explained to you why they cannot rule or change a natural law.

I guess those at Free Republic dont know what their speaking of

Free Republic
Browse Â· Search News/Activism
Topics Â· Post Article

Skip to comments.
Natural Born Citizen: A Natural Law Cannot that be Changed By Congress, or the Courts..
Free Republic ^ | 30 April 2010 | self

Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:12:50 PM by bushpilot1

Why did the Founders place a Natural Law (natural born citizen) in the Constitution? Could it be to prevent Congress,or the Courts changing it in the future.

Natural Law: The highest rule of human conduct as imposed by God on man.

Natural Law: The law under which we are placed by our birth into the world. Two parents.

Can man change Natural Law with Civil, or Common Laws? Can Congress change Natural Law? Can the Courts?

This is the "strong check" John Jay hinted to George Washington.

They cannot change Natural Law.

Ill ask you again what is the Purpose of the NBC clause?

JohnnyReb · « **Reply #32 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:23:19 PM »

Oh shiite....I think my water just broke.

obumazombie · « **Reply #33 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:26:53 PM »

Penrod, did you ever notice that sometimes theory doesn't match reality ? Sometimes you have to deal with reality, apart from theory.

WinOne4TheGipper · « **Reply #34 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:29:49 PM »

Quote from: chris_ on July 04, 2012, 06:10:19 PM

Great. Another one of these.

Another "true conservative" upset that not everyone buys into liberal conspiracy theories.

Chris_ · « **Reply #35 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:30:28 PM »

Quote from: WinOne4TheGipper on July 04, 2012, 06:29:49 PM

Another "true conservative" upset that not everyone buys into liberal conspiracy theories.

Another jerk coming in here and telling us we're not good enough for him.

Gotta love it.

Carl · « **Reply #36 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:31:39 PM »

Quote from: Penrod on July 04, 2012, 06:18:55 PM

Its already been explained to you why they cannot rule or change a natural law.

I guess those at Free Republic dont know what their speaking of

Free Republic
Browse Â· Search News/Activism
Topics Â· Post Article

Skip to comments.
Natural Born Citizen: A Natural Law Cannot that be Changed By Congress, or the Courts..
Free Republic ^ | 30 April 2010 | self

Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:12:50 PM by bushpilot1

Why did the Founders place a Natural Law (natural born citizen) in the Constitution? Could it be to prevent Congress,or the Courts changing it in the future.

Natural Law: The highest rule of human conduct as imposed by God on man.

Natural Law: The law under which we are placed by our birth into the world. Two parents.

Can man change Natural Law with Civil, or Common Laws? Can Congress change Natural Law? Can the Courts?

This is the "strong check" John Jay hinted to George Washington.

They cannot change Natural Law.

Ill ask you again what is the Purpose of the NBC clause?

What makes your case accurate if not for interpretation that says ones parents must be citizens too?
In essence the Justice said he accepts that even though the Constitution does not specifically say so.
Another Justice later interpreted it to mean even more basic or "natural" if you will and that is simply birth on US soil.

You have to declare his opinion adding to the earlier one is null and void for the basic reason that you don`t like it.
Good luck with that one.

Penrod · « **Reply #37 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:47:56 PM »

Do you understand Natural law? Do you know what the US is based on? And once more why did they write the NBC clause. The answer to that proves my point. Ive shown you that Obama himself admitted he wasnt qualified and ive shown constitutional scholars who say the same. And all I get here from most is snide remarks.

obumazombie · « **Reply #38 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:51:53 PM »

Quote from: Penrod on July 04, 2012, 06:47:56 PM

Do you understand Natural law? Do you know what the US is based on? And once more why did they write the NBC clause. The answer to that proves my point. Ive shown you that Obama himself admitted he wasnt qualified and ive shown constitutional scholars who say the same. And all I get here from most is snide remarks.

What replies do you want, and what replies do you expect ?

Carl · « **Reply #39 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:58:22 PM »

You are simply doing what most conspiracy theory people do,throw out anything that proves them wrong,create vague terms that they can only define as needed.

What part of a SCOTUS decision that declares the Constitution does not define what a Natural Born Citizen is and therefore open to interpretation from outside and then goes on to assert his own do you not understand.
His decision never closed down further discussion of the issue and in fact says for the purpose of his decision it simply didn`t matter.

Sorry dude,you have not suddenly stumbled upon a here before now unknown reasoning nor would it matter if you had somehow as it is codified at this point and not been reviewed or overturned by SCOTUS decision or Congressional mandate.

You can scream about it until you are hoarse but it does no good and quite frankly does nothing to advance any kind of conservative agenda.

thundley4 · « **Reply #40 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:59:36 PM »

Why isn't this in the MNS forum yet?

Carl · « **Reply #41 on:** July 04, 2012, 07:10:37 PM »

Quote from: thundley4 on July 04, 2012, 06:59:36 PM

Why isn't this in the MNS forum yet?

I can`t put it there but it is where it belongs.

Honestly,this is not even to my knowledge considered anything but fringe in the birther movement,which as I understood it centered around the question of was he born on US soil or not.

Mike220 · « **Reply #42 on:** July 04, 2012, 07:28:19 PM »

Quote from: chris_ on July 04, 2012, 06:30:28 PM

Another jerk coming in here and telling us we're not good enough for him.

Gotta love it.

Benny P must've sent out a call for reinforcements.

seahorse513 · « **Reply #43 on:** July 04, 2012, 08:15:28 PM »

The problem is Penrod, is that he wan't vetted thoroughly enough. The fact that his father was born , raised and still a citizen of Africa should have thrown up some red flags!! Wasn't he here on some scholarship??? Then his mum divorced him, the father went back to Africa. He (the father)never intended to become a US citizen(another red flag imo). Then his mother goes and marries an Indonesian, and off they go off to Indonesia(another red flag). But the US government seemed to be okay with this...I wasn't. I don't know hoe old the POTUS is, but I have probably lived in this country physically longer than he has...
I was born of English parents in England, but I have lived here for 44 of my 47 years.
My question is to everyone, if he is so dang patriotic, why the **** is he spending our Day of Independence in France???

Not you maybe, but to me that is a slap in the face to all American Patriots and especially the military!!!

Eupher · « **Reply #44 on:** July 04, 2012, 08:48:02 PM »

Quote from: JohnnyReb on July 04, 2012, 06:23:19 PM

Oh shiite....I think my water just broke.

h5

Eupher · « **Reply #45 on:** July 04, 2012, 08:50:10 PM »

Quote from: Penrod on July 04, 2012, 06:47:56 PM

Do you understand Natural law? Do you know what the US is based on? And once more why did they write the NBC clause. The answer to that proves my point. Ive shown you that Obama himself admitted he wasnt qualified and ive shown constitutional scholars who say the same. And all I get here from most is snide remarks.

I like pie.

Chris_ · « **Reply #46 on:** July 04, 2012, 08:56:26 PM »

Quote from: Penrod on July 04, 2012, 06:47:56 PM

Ive shown you that Obama himself admitted he wasnt qualified and ive shown constitutional scholars who say the same.

Fine. Hire a lawyer and bring it to court.

I'll be waiting.

Big Dog · « **Reply #47 on:** July 04, 2012, 11:02:41 PM »

Quote from: Penrod on July 04, 2012, 06:05:13 PM

Jesus even at Hannity all the conservatives agreed on this. Are you sure this a a conservative forum? Your posting exactly what the liberals posted there.

Don't make me open a can of pie on you, newbie.

Bad Dog · « **Reply #48 on:** July 05, 2012, 01:18:09 AM »

Penrod, I think you could use some advice on forum etiquette. If Frank were here, he would advise you spend a little time perusing other threads & perhaps post a few replies before opening your first thread. This helps you get a realistic idea of the common beliefs & values of the other members (pie, boobies, beer & bacon). It is not considered good form to jump right in with a thread on what you feel is the most important issue ever. It is really bad form to then make accusations & demeaning comments about the forum in general when we don't agree with you.

Quote:"you just dont get it do you?"
Quote:"Are you sure this is a conservative forum?"
Quote:"and all I get here from most is snide remarks."

Others here have addressed your proposal much as I would have so, I won't add to the discussion further.

txradioguy · « **Reply #49 on:** July 05, 2012, 07:21:40 AM »

Quote from: Penrod on July 04, 2012, 06:18:55 PM

Its already been explained to you why they cannot rule or change a natural law.

I guess those at Free Republic dont know what their speaking of

Free Republic
Browse Â· Search News/Activism
Topics Â· Post Article

Skip to comments.
Natural Born Citizen: A Natural Law Cannot that be Changed By Congress, or the Courts..
Free Republic ^ | 30 April 2010 | self

Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:12:50 PM by bushpilot1

Why did the Founders place a Natural Law (natural born citizen) in the Constitution? Could it be to prevent Congress,or the Courts changing it in the future.

Natural Law: The highest rule of human conduct as imposed by God on man.

Natural Law: The law under which we are placed by our birth into the world. Two parents.

Can man change Natural Law with Civil, or Common Laws? Can Congress change Natural Law? Can the Courts?

This is the "strong check" John Jay hinted to George Washington.

They cannot change Natural Law.

Ill ask you again what is the Purpose of the NBC clause?

Did our resident...and recently banned Constitutional "scholar" sneak back in or what?

So tell me troll what's your take on the USGS coverup at Yellowstone?

News:

Author Topic: OBAMA CONFIRMS - NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (Read 4396 times)