Evidence reveals Obama's "official " birth certificate was actually photo-shopped! #2

Yes, and Obama doesn't meet one of those requirements, namely the one of Natural Born Citizenship, which I have already proved that Obama isn't one!

And that is what I have been trying to tell you, that the 14th amendment was made to render the Civil Rights Constitutional and that is why he is saying it is "declaratory", because it is pretty much the same thing as the Civil Rights Act, but the Civil Rights Act was not an amendment to the Constitution and this is how they made it a part of the Constitution, by the 14th amendment. This is also why I said "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "not owing allegiance to any foreign power" mean the same thing!

 

LOLOL, where did I mention that the 14th amendment altered presidential eligibility?

Ahhh, you are using Alinsky tactics...

* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

Sorry, but Alinsky rules don't work on me!

 

You just don't seem to get it do you.

When we were colonies we were under british rule and many of the early Constitutions were written from common law, but when we signed the Declaration of Independence, we broke free from british rule and assumed natural law. That is why many of the founders were reading the Law of Nations and probably why GW checked it out of the library and never returned it, because it was so valuable to him!

All you have to do is read the first line of the Declaration of Independence and it's all right there for you!

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..."

It's pretty self evident! Maybe you need to read it a few times!

 

MY DEMAND HERE? lolol, I have no demand here. I am just laying out the facts out for the people to see and they can make their own opinions.

I only ask you to post your evidence, because I know there is none and it makes you squirm! hahahaha

 

Hewwo! I'm Suranis, Ilive In Ireland, limerick to be precise, and I've crossed swords withthis particular individual several times before. Lets get the formalities over with.

(1) She will say people on the fogbow insulted her. Actually she was insulting people on the third post in the thread

(2) She will whine that everyone called her fat. Actually one person wondered how she fit into her leggings (he says they were jeans but they sure looked like Leggings to me)

(3) She will say I am paid but the Obama administration to hide the truth and she KNOWS WHO I REALLY AM! She also has a history of issuing vielded threats to people. Frankly I wish I was paid to read this crap.

(4) She will complain that the fogbow started a thread on her calling her a zombie. In actual fact the thread was called "A thread for the kenya lady." It was changed to "Dick Tracy Fair, Female Zombie" months after she was banned for incessently spamming and insulting posters, not to mention "passing on" a threat of legal action to members of the fogbow. The reason it was changed is that she posted a frankly redicuslous video which she morphed a picture of Dragnet (or Dick Tracy, hell we never got the TV series over here) so that it looked like he was talking with his mouth closed. He looked for all the world like a Zombie, and that was supposed to be her speaking.

5) yes I'm Irish and a forogner, but I know more about actual american law then her

Roght then. Now that we have worked through the ger predictanble attempts to deflect things lets add my thoughts. Wong kim Ark has done a pretty good job refuting her so I'll just add a few thoughts of my own.

A) her claim that Wong Kim Ark, never said that wong was an NBC. Not true. Firstly the dissent stated flat out that the ruling made it possible for Wong to become president, AND STATED THAT AS A REASON TO DENY IT 5 DIFFERENT WAYS

From justice fullers dissent

Ergo its "unreasonable" to allow chinese people to be president

Here he argues that The Chinese do not become US citizens at all at birth. His objection is clear. If they became citizens at birth, they are eligible to become President.

I think you will find muich to admire in the dissent, KOBA. Its pretty much your BS arguments. Which means they were heard in Wong, and it means they lost

And in any case, the ruling does flatly say that children of Aliens do become NBCs. Here it is quoting

And now for some fun poking

First, George Washington never read the copy of Vattels "Le Driot des Gens" he got out. The reason why I know this? The copy was in French, and Washington could not speak a word of french, a fact that made negotiations with the french very difficult as any actual student of that period of history will know.

And you know how many times Vattel was mentioned int he congresional debates? Once. Blackstone was mentioned hundreds of times.

Tracy, that was 36 years after the franing of the constitution, and 26 years after the first translations of Vattel came out which translated "indignes" as "Natural Born Citizen" So it they were using Vattel as NBC HOW COME THEY DIDN:T TRANSLATE IT TO NBC? And if you have actually read the case (I HAVE) you will know that they took from Vattel the issue of DOMICILE. They didn;t mention a word about vattels defenition of citizenship. Except of course that it didn;t apply to NBCs as they didn;t translate the frenceh that way

The reason they did is that none of the principles were NBCs. they were British who were also naturalised US citizens who were now arguing about their property as the US and England were currently at war. That's it. The fact that a court case quoted Vattel in a case not related to citizenship at all should say something.

 

It's kinda funny how you act so sure of yourself...

First of all, you should do a little research before trying to LOOK so intelligent, because I have several Supreme Court cases that define NBC and just because you want to ignore them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Let's start with Elk v. Wilkins (And get it right this time, I'm not talking about Perkins v. Elg)

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) Chief Justice Gray:

"By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases,16 Wall. 36, 83 U.S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303,100 U.S. 306.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts,or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."


The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Chief Justice Marshall:

“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject, rests on the law of nations as its base. It is, therefore, of some importance to enquire how far the 24 writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character, or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside. "Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, '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 subsistand 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."


The Nereide - 13 U.S. 388 (1815) Chief Justice Marshall:

“It is not for us to depart from the beaten track prescribed for us, and to tread the devious and intricate path of politics. Even in the case of salvage, a case peculiarly within the discretion of courts because no fixed rule is prescribed by the law of nations, Congress has not left it to this department to say whether the rule of foreign nations shall be applied to them, but has by law applied that rule. If it be the will of the government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations which is a part of the law of the land.”


Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino

"As early as 1793, Chief Justice Jay stated in Chisholm v. Georgia that, "Prior . . . to that period [the date of the Constitution], the United States had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the law of nations." 2 U. S. 2 Dall. 419 at 2 U.S. 474. And, in 1796, Justice Wilson stated in Ware v. Hylton: "When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement." 3 U. S. 3 Dall. 199 at 3 U. S.281.

I have more cases, but I think 4 is sufficient against your 1, which if it just so happens that we are right, your 1 would be VOID! Can't you find anything else but WKA, which is pretty much illegal not to mention unconstitutional, that will back your claims?

You Obots hang your hats on ONE case as your evidence, that doesn't even say what you claim it says and we come up with dozens of pieces of evidence to prove you wrong, yet all you see is WKA!

Pertty funny, I think.

 

Finally

Tracy. why are you using an edited quote?

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

See all the comas to seperate out the clauses of the sentance that you left out?

In any case, I come from Ireland. You might know that ireland and England have had a cheqeued past. The fact is, when a country seperates itself from the british empire, the laws of England remain in force till a law overrides them. That's the case in Ireland. Australia and yes KENYA. And its the case in the USA as well. Hell the sentance you cling to in Minor V Hapersett flat out states it.

"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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their

Page 88 U. S. 168

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."

See there, that states that the framers got their definition of NBC from english common law. I'm just quoting the rest so that you can't ignore the fact that court said flat out that it wasnt ruling on the children of aliens. So, if they were going to change the NBC definitoon from common law. they would have said so. As Minor itself said later

Its been fun as ever.

Oh and Eisenhower was German according to their laws. Didn;t see any screaming there...

 

You know I just cant help myself

Regarding all the BS about Natural Law, KBOA, you do know that that term did not originate with Vattel? It was first coined by Cicero, who was a Tribune of the ROMAN EMPIRE before the rise of Julius Ceaser. Wo those quotes could be reffering to Cicero, or anyone of a whole host of Authors who explored natural law...

Including William Blackstone!

And why would I bring up Blackstone?

Well, as all birthers know, there is one line in the constitution that mentions the law of nations, defining one of the powers of Congress

Ooh Berfers scream VATTEL, but do you know what Book 4 Chapter 5 of Blackstone's "Commentaries on the laws of England" is called

"Of Offences against the law of Nations"

And do you know what one of the subjects of that chapter is?

You guessed it, Piracy. The others bieng Infringment of the rights of ambassadors and the rights of safe conduct.

You can have a read of it here

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-405.htm#fn1u

So yeah KBOA. Those quotes you flashed up basicly prove that they loved refering to William Blackstone, as referenced in the US Constitution itself.

You better pray that the court does not laugh your so called evidence out of court and sanction you.

 

You have just abdicated all reasonable expectation of not being mocked for your typos. Just thought youd like to know.

It does not matter how many other nations claim him as a citizen. Since we are a sovereign nation, no other nation can decide for us who is a US citizen. And under our law, he is natural born US citizen.

Again, the US Constitution tells us what a president must be, not what he cannot be. As long as he is a natural born US citizen, he can have a hundred other citizenships and it would make no difference regarding his eligibility.

Now you are just making stuff up. There is no good reason to believe for a second that the Founders and framers did not recognize dual citizenship. As a matter of fact, some of the most prominent Founders were dual citizens themselves.

Take for example Thomas Jefferson who became a naturalized citizen of France while he was US Minister to the French court. His dual citizenship did not later prevent the Congress (composed largely of Founders and Framers) from electing him once to the Vice Presidency and twice to the Presidency. While he was Vice President we were even in an undeclared war with his adopted country of France.

And Congress did not blink.

So, you are in error. Not only did the Framers and Founders clearly recognize dual citizenship, they had no problem whatsoever with a dual citizen President.

 

Actually, the error is entirely yours. You are badly misreading Trumbulls comments.

He does not say "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

And he did not say "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are children of foreigners, children of aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

If he had said either of those things, your claim here might be valid. But he did not, so your claim is not.

Instead he said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." And this use of commas without contractions means that all three exclusions are synonymous.

"(1) Foreigners" = "(2) aliens" = "(3) who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States."

The third clause merely defines what he means by "foreigners" and "aliens."

Well... I've never even mentioned Elk, so your correction of another typo made by someone who is not me is misdirected. But I can hardly care one way or another what Supreme Court decision does or does not quote Vattel.

Vattel never mentioned natural born citizenship once. The first English language edition that even included the phrase was published in 1797, thirty-years after Vattel was dead, and ten years too late to have influenced the Constitution.

All that said... where exactly does Elk v. Wilkins quote Vattel? I cannot find it.

I note first that the Venus case had nothing to do with citizenship, and Vattel is cited for his position on domicile, not citizenship.

I also note that it never mentions natural born citizenship once.

As already established, the United States is a sovereign nation. No other nation's laws can be placed in a position superior to our own. And since under our laws Obama is a natural born US citizen, it does matter how many other citizenships other nations may be willing to grant him.

 

Clearly you have proven no such thing. I understand that you believe it completely. But in just the last three months, eleven cases (bringing the overall total to 12) have declared that President Obama is a natural born citizen.

This is an unlikely circumstance were your "proof" actually valid.

I have no idea how you imagine that discussion supports your position.

And as we know from subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, you are in error regarding your understanding of the jurisdiction clause.

I post again the SCOTUS instruction on that point that you seem to be trying to ignore:

 

I get it completely. I simply share the opinion of every competent jurist that you are wrong.

That's absurd. The Declaration of Independence is itself a detailed catalog of King George's violations of the common law. Under what bizarre scenario would the Founders have denounced the King's violation of that law and then immediately abandon it themselves?

No, Tracy, we abandoned British rule... but the Founders and framers, many of whom were lawyers, loved the common law and considered it a critical bulwark against tyranny. Rather than abandon it, they wrote the Constitution in its language.

Following that, 49 of the 50 United States (to include all of the original colonies) adopted English common law explicitly either in their State Constitutions or in formal "reception statutes." The only exception is Louisiana which preferred Napoleonic law because of its French heritage.

 

Don't be obtuse. Any sentence that begins with the imperative "Show me..." is a demand.

And I am just correcting the more egregious of your errors and falsehoods. I can't get to them all because, frankly, there's an basketball game I want to go watch.

I don't think you know what "squirm" means.

 

It's easy to be sure when one actually is sure.

You are setting up another straw man. My assertion was that no other case has ever been cited as precedent by any subsequent court regarding the definition of natural born citizen. Nothing in this post of yours even begins to contradict that truth.

Why do you keep correcting somebody else in posts supposedly targeted to me? Surely, with your mad skillz you can pay better attention to detail. I have never confused those two cases.

Natural born citizens are never mentioned once in that entire citation.

Elk v. Wilkins has never been cited as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen.

Natural born citizens are never mentioned once in that entire citation.

The Venus has never been cited as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen.

Natural born citizens are never mentioned once in that entire citation.

The Nereide has never been cited as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen.

Natural born citizens are never mentioned once in that entire citation.

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino has never been cited as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen.

Too bad none of the cases you offered manages to do what the Wong Kim Ark case does; set reigning precedence regarding the definition of natural born citizen.

To this point, I don't need anything else. It alone accomplishes what no case you have cited managed; set reigning precedence regarding the definition of natural born citizen.

Your task here is not to list case after case after case none of which have anything to do with the actual issue at hand. It is to find one single case that has been cited as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen other than Wong Kim Ark.

I am happy to wait.

 

Is that because you SAY SO?

That's weird, because Wong Kim Ark actually cites Elk v. Wilkins, the case I am talking about...

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT SAYS "PLACE AND JURISDICTION", that obviously tells you that just being born in THE PLACE (United States) is not the same as JURISDICTION! There is an obvious difference in the two or they would not have put both!

Then you have The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Chief Justice Marshall (This case was closer the the time of the adoption of the Constitution when there were many more founders around, who know we were founded on the Law of Nations, which is why Vattel is citied more than 92 times in Supreme Court cases, as the one below):

“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject, rests on the law of nations as its base. It is, therefore, of some importance to enquire how far the 24 writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character, or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside. “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, '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 subsistand 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."

 

Trumbull wrote the citizenship clause in the Civil Rights act, which means the same darn thing in the 14th amendment and as I showed you before and YES...Howard wrote the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment, but both worked on the reconstruction committee and worked together on all the reconstruction acts. That is why Trumbull is able to answer the other Senators on the intent of the provision and Howard consurs, stating on record:

Now you have the author, stating that Trumbull's intent is also HIS INTENT!
So my saying that Trumbull helped in the "citizenship clauseS", in no way changes my argument, because the author agrees with him.

Moreover, Trumbull, after adding his citizenship clause amendment to the Civil Rights Act, also gets confirmation from the Honorable John Bingham, so they all had the same intent, meaning IT WAS MORE THAN JUST ONE MANS OPINION, it was the 3 men who authored all these laws TOGETHER and knowing their intent, the other Senators voted and adopted the amendment and the bill:

John Bingham (author of the "future" 14th amendment), confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866, in regards to Trumbull's amendment to the bill:

It just doesn't get any clearer than that!

 

It has nothing to do with what I do or do not say. It has everything to do with what either of us can show. I can show at least three cases where US v. Wong Kim Ark was cited as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen.

You to this point have been able to show no other case... ever.

But not regarding the definition of natural born citizen. Please... try to stay with the actual discussion underway.

Yes it does say "place and jurisdiction." But it never mentions natural born citizenship once.

Elk v. Wilkins has never been cited as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen.

And as we have established from SCOTUS decision, the jurisdiction of the united States within its own territory is absolute.

Why do you keep citing cases that we have already established have nothing to do with the discussion underway?

The issue is the definition of natural born citizen, and none of these cases have anything to do with that definition. None of them even mention natural born citizenship in the sections you cite.

Your redundant failure to come up with a single other example of any case that has even been cited as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen is of course completely understandable. After all....

US v. Wong Kim Ark is the the only SCOTUS decision that has ever been cited as reigning precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen by any subsequent court. To whit:

Any person born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is a natural born US citizen.

And President Barack Obama meets that definition perfectly.

 

of course he was. there are only 2 types of citizen defined in US law. natural BORN and naturalIZED. that's it. wong was not naturaLIZED, he was declared a citizen at birth. which is the exact definition of natural born citizen.

the fact that you think he was "wrongly" declared a citizen is utterly irrelevant. The SCOTUS declared it, and it's been settled US law for 114 years.

 

of course the founders recognized dual citizenship. Thomas Jefferson, as well as many other presidents, were dual citizens.

second, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary say not only is obama a citizen, but he meets the requirements of article 2 section 1 perfectly.

which is why he's POTUS....DOH!

 

The Civil Rights Act is irrelevant. Statutes cannot trump the Constitution, especially statutes that have actually been superseded by Constitutional Amendment.

SCOTUS has spoken regarding what the Constitution has to say on the issue:

It does not ultimately matter what Trumbull said. It does not ultimately matter what Bingham said. It does not ultimately matter what Howard said.

It matters only what SCOTUS says. And they say that you are wrong.

 

DOH, all the colonists who wanted to be citizens and give full allegiance to the United States were naturalized by the Declaration of Independence, the loyalists were not made citizens and remained British subjects and subject to the jurisdiction of the King, mainly for protection!

Just as it states in the first line of the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance, to become a citizen, you must renounce all allegiance to any foreign soveriegnty, which is the same requirement for any other US Citizen!

FULL ALLEGIANCE or none at all!

The original Naturalization Act of 1790 did not require renouncing all former allegiances, but in was added in during the the 1795 amendment of the Naturalization act and has remained ever since!

Surely you aren't saying that only naturalized citizens are required to have full allegiance, because that would not make us equal.

This again proves that naturalized citizens MUST have full allegiance and Natural born citizens already have full allegiance, passed down to them from their citizen parents.

That there constitutes your two types of citizenship!

Naturalized with full allegiance and Natural Born with natural allegiance!

 

I am citing the cases because they establish the use of Natural Law and show that the Law of Nations was the law of the land along with the Constitution, NOT because they mention natural born citizenship.

The definition of Natural Born is found in Vattel's Law of Nations, which is the exact passage used in the opinion and that is the connection.

ALL MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

 

lol, and yet Thomas Jefferson, as well as many other US presidents, were dual citizens.

here in the US, we don't allow other countries citizenship laws to have any relevance to our own.......DOH!

that's why obama is still president, and why you have lost every single legal challenge to date.

it continues to suck to be a birther.

 

the law of nations did not contain the words "natural born citizen" until 10 years AFTER the constitution was written. None of the cases you mention have EVER been cited as precedent for natural born citizen. the wong court has been.

that's why the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary say you are wrong, and why you have lost every single legal challenge to date.

 

Uh huh, I guess that's why John Quincy Adams recorded this in his diary, February, 1765:

He also wrote in his diary in 1763:

The founders worshipped Vattel, he was highly revered by most!

George Washington checked out Vattel's Law of Nations at the start of the founding and it was never returned.

Thomas Jefferson added Vattel's Law of Nations to the curriculum at William and Mary College, when he was in charge.

Alexander Hamilton referenced Vattel's Law of Nations over and over his defense of Waddington in Rutgers v. Waddington and made it known that the Law of Nations was the law of the land.

Benjamin Franklin received several copies from Charles Dumas. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated,

Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall.

The Law of Nations is the Law of the Land and this proves it! The definition of Natural Born Citizen, can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations as I've shown many times before!