Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Georgia judge to hear arguments on Obama’s eligibility in presidential election >

Georgia judge to hear arguments on Obama’s eligibility in presidential election

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Georgia judge to hear arguments on Obama’s eligibility in presidential election

Old 01-07-2012, 10:20 AM
  #11  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,929
Default

Originally Posted by bigbulls View Post
If they were to actually do their job they would. Every supreme court cases since the founding of this country has held that "natural born" is defined as ......... born in this country of parents (plural) who are themselves citizens of this country. The fact is that Barrack Obama was not.
I hope you all will forgive me if I post using Stepanie's sign on. It's a pain to sign off and on again and then off and on again.

It would help us to see your view if you were to cite those cases you mention. If I write a brief I have to cite the cases and, usually, quote the actual words of the judge who wrote the opinion.

I'm not insisting that you're wrong, but we do need to be able to read the actual opinions to determine if they are on point.

I'll keep an eye on this thread to see your references.
sachiko is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 06:24 PM
  #12  
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
 
bigbulls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
Default

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina, before the American revolution; and her father adhered to the American cause, and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the revolution, and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father; for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character, as a citizen of that country
Obama not only was born to a father owing allegiance to another country he left the country when he was

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The 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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case Justice Gray gives the opinion and approvingly sites the opinion of Minor Vs. Happersett.


The 14th amendment does not address "natural born citizen" and therefore has no bearing on the constitutionality of the requirement to be "natural born" to hold the office or POTUS. Obama has held that his natural birth father as Barack Hussein Obama I of Kenya. BHO #1 has never been a citizen of the United States of America and as a result of this BHO #2 can not constitutionally be a "natural born" citizen. He is, however, a naturalized citizen but NOT a "natural born" citizen.

Last edited by bigbulls; 01-07-2012 at 07:26 PM.
bigbulls is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 04:26 AM
  #13  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 3,422
Default

Originally Posted by bigbulls View Post
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)


Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Obama not only was born to a father owing allegiance to another country he left the country when he was

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)


United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case Justice Gray gives the opinion and approvingly sites the opinion of Minor Vs. Happersett.


The 14th amendment does not address "natural born citizen" and therefore has no bearing on the constitutionality of the requirement to be "natural born" to hold the office or POTUS. Obama has held that his natural birth father as Barack Hussein Obama I of Kenya. BHO #1 has never been a citizen of the United States of America and as a result of this BHO #2 can not constitutionally be a "natural born" citizen. He is, however, a naturalized citizen but NOT a "natural born" citizen.
Thanks for taking the time to look up those cases, but they're not exactly on point. If you wanted to prove that Obama is not a natural-born citizen because his father was not a citizen, you would need caselaw stating that one born in the U.S. of a non-citizen parent is NOT a natural-born American. I think the reason for mentioning citizenship of the parents is because, in some cases, one can claim the citizenship of a parent.

I looked up the definitions in Black's Law Dictionary.* It defines as follows:

natural-born citizen: A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.

natualized citizen: A foreign-born person who attains citizenship by law.

*Black's is the source that tells you what lawyers consider to be the law. For example, Michigan statutes prescribe various penalties for different kinds of larcenies. But the statutes don't define larceny. If you want to know the elements of larceny, you have to look in Black's.

Let's consider again the question of "anchor babies," that is those children born of non-citizen parents who acquire citizenship simply by virtue of having been born here. They're not naturalized citizens because they weren't foreign born. Therefore, they must be natural-born citizens.

Some have advocated changing the law to require that one's parents be citizens in order to acquire citizenship in the United States. I don't think the Constitution would bar such a statute. But if such a statute had been in effect when Obama was born, it probably wouldn't apply to him anyway since his mother was a citizen.

Now if you could find a court case ruling that a person, both of whose parents were not citizens, is not a natural-born citizen, such a statute would not be needed.

Remember that Obama can't be considered a naturalized citizen because he wasn't foreign-born. And he never went through the naturalization process, so he is either a natural-born citizen or not a citizen at all. In other words, Obama could be considered an anchor baby, but that would make him a natural-born citizen.

So if you find a ruling where someone, born in the U.S., but with a non-citizen parent, was determined to not be a natural-born citizen, let me know.
cr422 is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 05:21 AM
  #14  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,196
Default

Let's consider again the question of "anchor babies," that is those children born of non-citizen parents who acquire citizenship simply by virtue of having been born here. They're not naturalized citizens because they weren't foreign born. Therefore, they must be natural-born citizens.
Sorry, different subject but as I understand it, they aren't natural born citizens as the constitution's amendment says. In order to be considered natural born, they must have ( I know I'm going to screw this up) standing/ reason to be subject of the laws of this country. The amendment was for slaves to be recognized as natural born citizens and foreigners, like diplomats who are here on a trip and give birth, their kids would never be considered natural born. Being born here isn't enough for anchor babies to be considered natural born.

I'm going by the excellent opinion of the Great One, Mr. Mark Levin.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 08:53 AM
  #15  
LBR
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
Default

can't wait for the debates when Obama says "well we took your idea Mitt" haha.
That would be just another in a long list of lies--not surprising from bho and the left.

I'm no Romney fan, but he did sign the healthcare legislation in his state based on the will of the people he was serving. Quite a contrast to bho--the bill was not read, it was conceived behind locked doors, and passed against the will of the majority. Not even close to what Romney did, in spite of the left's lies to the contrary.

Chad
LBR is offline  
Old 01-09-2012, 02:37 AM
  #16  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

Excellent point, Chad. That will certainly provide a much clearer conscience if I have to vote for Romney, which appears more and more likely.

As far as the 'natural born citizen' thing....I like the idea of the nullification of Obama's presidency if he's found to be an usurper. Completely and utterly love the idea. Besides lacking a president, it seems that we also lack precedent (sorry !).
We have decisions and commentary which seem to push us in a certain direction, and point to the intention of what should be considered as a 'natural born' citizen, but in no place is it defined as a matter of law. Considering the vagueness of the precedents, I would think that a court might want to rule on the case one way or another, just to establish and put to rest the question of what is and what is not, a 'natural-born' citizen. I can see the huge pressure to vote for status-quo as the amount of chaos to be generated if BHO is invalidated would shake this republic to it's foundations. However, anything is possible, especially with a court determined to remove the ambiguity of the term for future reference.
bergall is offline  
Old 01-09-2012, 02:53 AM
  #17  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,929
Smile

I'm just paraphrasing Honorable Husband here so I hope I get it right. But he says right now there are only two classes of citizen, natural-born, i.e., born in the U.S. and naturalized, i.e., born in a foreign country and becoming a citizen.

He says the court would have to create a third class of citizen, i.e., someone born in the U.S. with one or more parents who were not U.S. citizens. The only effect of that would be to bar such a person from serving as president, since nowhere else is one required to be a "natural-born" citizen.

Because of that and because of the chaos it would create, he believes that the chances of a higher court doing that are zero to nil.

Interestingly my husband would fall into that class since his father was not an American citizen when he was born.
sachiko is offline  
Old 01-09-2012, 02:58 AM
  #18  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

Then he is correct. They will not create a third class of citizen and this lawsuit has no merit. I wonder why the Georgia case was allowed to be pressed rather than thrown out on it's lack of merits ? It seems to me that even if there is a valid question to be asked, you sometimes don't ask a question you don't want an answer to. So sure, they CAN create a third class of citizen, but that won't fly when it gets to SCOTUS so I just don't understand what the merits of the case will be.
bergall is offline  
Old 01-10-2012, 12:27 AM
  #19  
Giant Nontypical
 
Knightia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Wy
Posts: 8,580
Default

Interestingly my husband would fall into that class since his father was not an American citizen when he was born.
Same for me.

What ever 'they' may want to call it.

I was born in the USA & I am a(north) American( and i didnt want to run for prez anyways )Im just glad to be a citizen of the USA.



( had to declare citizen ship(verblly a lot growing up, crossed that border awhole,whole lot(but always glad to i didnt have one of those dumb green cards like my half siblings did to)
Knightia is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 12:30 PM
  #20  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

I suspect Georgia is looking to establish a definition. Once that's established, the law cannot be retroactive, so GOING FORWARD, the citizenship issue would invalidate Barry's attempt at a second term, at least in Georgia. I shudder to think, tho, what the outcome would be if he WAS invalidated, and HITLERY took the nomination in his stead for the demokrat party ? Women are their own worst enemies in many things, and this wold be one of 'em because hitlery would carry the female vote and then the demokratz would crow about the first female president replacing the first black president. cripes what a mess.....
bergall is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.