Obama is illegal

Interesting remarks, Mr. Prinze.

Two points;

1. The case Patrick and Keith put up is a case called KimwonArk or sumping along those lines. However, what they don't tell anyone and they may not understand is that Kimwongark has nothing to do with natural born citizenship and the remarks they produce are from something called the dicta of the case -- not the ruling! The the dicta is the discussion in order to reach the conclusion or just tangential discussion while the ruling is the conclusion of the case and the issue at hand. Kimwongark has nothing to do with Natural Born Citizenship unlike the Minor case mentioned by Hprinze. Also,

2. Obama is like the income tax. He is fraud upon layer of fraud and that is his protection. I think Frank Marshall Davis is the bastard Obama's father. He is the one who took those bargain basement playboy pictures of Obama's mother, Stanley.

The cream of the jest is that if Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's real father, then Obama is a Natural Born Citizen; however, if Barack Hussein Obama is the President's father, then Obama is ineligible under the Constitution to be President. We don't have Obama's real birth certificate; ergo, his parentage is not certain.

Hey, did someone mention my name? Greetings, all. Nice to see everyone...I hope everyone's doing well.

This first, case I cited was called "United States v. Wong Kim Ark."

The gentleman in this case was born in the United States to parents who were legally residing in the U.S. but could not become citizens, due to the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Wong Kim Ark most definitely had EVERYTHING to do with natural born citizenship.

In the Opinion of the Court, Justice Horace Gray noted that while the Constitution uses the words "citizen" and "natural born citizen," the Constitution doesn't define them. Therefore, since the Founding Fathers were all British subjects up until 11 years prior to the framing of the Constitution, and since of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional convention, 30 were lawyers, they reasoned that the intent of the framers could be found in common law.

From the Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Horace Gray.

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "seven years a citizen of the United States," and every Senator to have been "nine years a citizen of the United States."

Further on down, it states,

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, ... In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 114 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624, 116 U. S. 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274.

So, they drew upon noted authorities on English common law, to determine what was meant by the term "natural born," including Alexander Cockburn (who was Chief Justice of the British Supreme Court under Queen Victoria) and noted British jurist, Albert Venn Dicey.

Two significant points are these: 1) "Natural born" refers to anyone who acquires their citizenship at birth. If you're born a citizen, you're natural born. 2) A child born in England, even to aliens, is considered a "natural born subject."

Conclusion reached:

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 rulewas 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.

So, with me so far? In England, a child born to aliens was considered natural born. And the U.S. observes "the same rule."

Oh, it had everything to do with natural born citizenship.

In fact, "native born" is properly understood as a subset of "natural born."

The Standard American Encyclopedia of Arts, Sciences, History, Biography, Geography, Statistics, and General Knowledge, defined the term in an entry entitled “Citizenship And Naturalization in the U.S.” reprinted from a series of articles that appeared in the New York Sun. And as Dr. Phillip O'Hanlon explained to his eight-year-old daughter Virginia, “If you see it in The Sun, it's so.”
From the Encyclopedia entry:

“Natural-born citizens are of two kinds: native born—those born of either American or alien parents within the jurisdiction of the United Slates, and foreign born—those born of American parents without the Jurisdiction of the United States.”

Regarding Minor v. Happersett, all that did was explain that it was never doubted that those born in the U.S. to citizen parents were natural born citizens, therefore citizens. There are no qualifiers in that statement. It doesn't say that those born in the United States to citizen parents are "the only" natural born citizens. It simply states that there is no doubt that those born in the United States to citizen parents are citizens.

And the courts can ONLY create precedent on an issue that is before it. Deciding that Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen was not necessary, therefore not precedent. Since the case was about a woman's right to vote, and since voting rights are not different between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens, there is no need for them to create a comprehensive definition of "natural born citizen." They needed only establish that Virginia Minor is a citizen.

For as the Supreme Court said in its unanimous decision of Minor v. Happersett, as delivered by Chief Justice Morrison Waite, "It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

Note: It says that it's sufficient for everything they have to consider that those born in the U.S. to citizen parents are citizens. Not natural-born citizens, but citizens. As I said, they needed only to know that Virginia Minor was a citizen, and they resolved and had no need to go further. Since Minor v. Happersett was not about natural born citizenship, they could not have defined natural born citizenship.

Moreover, the power to decide natural born citizenship is not the province of the Courts. As the court in Minor v. Happersett noted, that is the Constitutionally protected right of Congress, and no one else.

Nice to see you all again.

Yeah.... Dicta counts as a ruling and the voluntary income tax means that you can throw someone in jail if they don't volunteer,eh? Give me a break, fellas.

Putting it in all caps, or otherwise shouting it, will not make it true. Your statement is false. From p. 10, the final words and the holding of the Georgia decision I linked above:

"President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, CONCLUSION President Obama is eligible as a candidate for the Presidential primary"

Go ahead, actually read it. I should add that in addition to this judge determining exactly what you claim a judge never determined, that the Congress of the United States has twice unanimously confirmed Obama without objection. Under the rules, any Congressman can raise any objection, and none did. This had the effect of Congress (the relevant branch for this purpose in any event) unanimously twice affirming that Obama is eligible.

Incidentally, when it comes to collecting liquor taxes you don't hear this voluntary compliance BS. Taxes are considered mandatory and there is no stupid red light story.

The easiest explanation of why the income tax is voluntary is that your tax return can be used against you to jail you. The reason they do that is because the report is considered filed voluntarily per your fifth amendment right not to be a witness against oneself. They also throw people in jail (also illegally) for not filing. The corruption of the lawyer who speaks here is not just regarding Gosnell, birther stuff, and the drive by media trying to cover up for Muslims until it was no longer possible and their involvement in the terror in my neighborhood, but to the income tax as well.

Besides, isn't it a little strange for a Conservative to trash other Conservatives at nearly every opportunity while holding up Alyinskyite Liberals as models of intelligence and decency?

What's wrong with this picture?