|
Post by underzog on May 1, 2013 22:13:38 GMT -5
Another view that if true means that Obama IS a natural born citizen:
|
|
|
Post by hprinze on May 2, 2013 6:10:16 GMT -5
The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen of the U.S. The only legal, binding definition of natural born citizen is the definition made by the Supreme Court in the 1875 case of Minor v Happersett. The Court said that a natural born citizen is a person born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents (plural).
Obama's fake birthcertificate is not a factor because he was not born of U.S. citizen parents (plural). Therrefore he is not a natural born citizen, regardless of the opinions (not rulings) of some ignorant politicians and judges. It is a cold, hard fact that many judges are not only ignorant of the law. Many are political appointees with loyalty to the powers that keep them in office, not to truth and justice.
The Obamabots will continue to try to confuse the issue with smoke screens, twisting, lies and half lies, trying to erase the difference in citizen and natural born citizen, pretense of being educated, but mostly just inaccurate or misapplied beliefs. Some are just egotistical creeps, with no justification for their inflated egos, like a couple I could name.theghostfighters.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/natural-born-citizen-for-dummies/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2013 12:04:41 GMT -5
And some people, whom I will not name, are just liars, plain and simple. Some people might say that no judge has ever said that Obama is or is not a natural born citizen, but when you refer them to Judge Malihi, who did say that Obama is a natural born citizen, they just keep right on lying.
Some people, which I could name, are just so obsessed with hatred for the President that nothing, not even personal integrity or honesty, will stop them from telling lies.
And Minor v. Happersett never established binding precedent as to what a natural born citizen is. For one thing, there is nothing in the language which states that they restricted the term. For another, in that very same ruling, the Supreme Court observed that a natural born citizen is what CONGRESS says it is. The courts could not and did not restrict the term "natural born citizen."
Moreover, it is simply axiomatic that in court rulings, the more recent trumps the older. Even if Minor v. Happersett did establish the definition of natural born citizen, which it did not, Wong Kim Ark was decided 24 years after Minor v. Happersett. Since the more recent ruling trumps the earlier, Wong Kim Ark, not Minor v. Happersett, established that a natural born citizen includes those born in the country, even to alien parents.
It is a self-evident absurdity that Minor v. Happersett, a case about voting rights for women, even could establish a definition of natural born citizen, while Wong Kim Ark, a case about natural born citizenship, did not.
|
|