BC is NOT "proof" of "natural born" citizenship (too bad!)

of course he KNOWS if he is a natural born citizen. He was born in hawaii, just like his birth certificate says.

 

Only when you type. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you between the eyes!

 

And yet...you weren't able to find one example of him lying.....


Ah speculation and innuendo- the stock of trade of Birthers.

 

Well then you truely are an honest Birther.

You are one of the few who just openly says that you think that a Black man can't be President.

Golf clap for that moment of honesty, though of course everything you wrote was(except the naturalized part) and is wrong.

 

see we should have voted in adolf hitler and osama bin laden! LOL

I have never heard such foolishness

 

Thats right and neither can arnold.

senator, governor, yep!

President nope!

I have absolutely no objection to race creed or color, my objection is that if that is what you want then CHANGE THE LAW to reflect it or continue to advocate the lawlessness we have right now as a result of troughers pushing agenda at the destruction of our law of the land.

the constitution and declaration state exactly who can be president and none other.

If you do not like it then amend it

 

The Child born to foreign diplomats in the US would have "other" allegiance...

Otherwise, allegiance is assumed ..

You really should read the law.

 

P-K-B ! Same to you!

 

I did and I also "comprehend" the law, its origin, and its proper usage.

You nor any trougher has provided anything stating law regarding allegiance in fact allegiance cannot be assumed, it is impossible to declare his allegiance is with the US without undermining the law as Titus exaplined and as I have posted, under the circumstances of obama.

I have no agenda but the proper and accurate execution of the law.

Titus explains much of what you all are getting confused.

 

You are reading laws that are not applicable to US citizenship.

Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code defines a national and citizen..

You should also take the time to read the legal definition of jurisdiction and allegiance..

 

lol, this pathetic dodge has been noted.

now, would you like to actuallly provide a direct quote of me lying, or would you like to apologize?

 

not only dented, but completely destroyed. You posted nothing that says obama can't be president. And of course, the voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary say you are wrong. what does that tell you?

the law clearly states obama can be president. he is a natural born citizen, who is over the age of 35, who has resided in the country for more than 14 years. that is the law. every single court that has heard the issue agrees with me. not you.

 

why would we do that? they weren't natural born US citizens like obama is.

 

arnold can't be president, because he isn't a natural born citizen. obama is, that's why he's president.

why would we need to change the law? it clearly states obama is eligible. thats why the voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary said he's eligible.

lol, ONLY the constitution says who can be president. and it says obama can.

proving once again that you are not a lawyer. you haven't read either the constitution, or the decleration.

 

lol, it's sad at this point.

 

you have proven you have exactly zero understanding of the law.

the voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary say you are wrong. what does that tell you?

 

judgment after fact?

No they do not say I am wrong, they do what they do best, sell the whole package on a narrow slice by construction which if you understood what I am saying you would realize that is judicial construction and that means legislation from the bench and you would know that is UNLAWFUL.

Its truly a trougher MO through and through.

It was their duty to prevent this sort of argument from EVER taking place in this country in the general public in the first place.

they DIDNT

That is a crime

This should have been in front of congress before the primaries LONG before he was even elected but it was IGNORED

We The "GUBAFIA"

 

when you want to understand the history you need to consult english law which I posted several pages ago which goes over it in great detail. Pretending the founders meant it any other way is completely absurd and "outlaw".

There is nothing in the law of the land of england (on this subject matter) that is repugnant to the republic and therefor it stands as historically sound law (it was ignored) and that I have proven by the declaration of independence, the constitution and the statutes at large that I have posted earlier.

Troughers simply go for a ride up da nile.

Proving as always you have no idea how the law is structured or the ability to assess any court proceedings. sheesh! polly wanna qwaucker? anyone can do that ad hominem

hey your man is in and thats ALL that counts law be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed

 

British Law doesn't apply in the US.. and you are going back to the late 1700.

You really have to deal with the facts.. Jindal, Rubio and Obama are ALL natural Born US citizens.

 

lol, the current precident on natural born citizenship was decided in 1898. NOBODY agrees with you. not a single legal authority. not one.

you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, as you have proven over and over and over.

 

See what I mean?

you people have no clue about the structure of law and how decisions are determined.

You come out here and argue matters of law at a high school level and that bores me to tears frankly.


Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516 - Supreme Court 1884
He answers the argument drawn from Magna Charta, and says:

"That this method of prosecution no way contradicts that law, for we say this is per legem terræ et per communem legem terræ, for otherwise there never had been so universal a practice of it in all ages."

And referring to Coke's comment, that "no man shall be taken," i.e., restrained of liberty by petition or suggestion to the King or his Council unless it be by indictment or presentment, he says (p. 122):

"By petition or suggestion can never be meant of the King's Bench, for he himself had preferred several here; that is meant only of the the King alone, or in Council, or in the Star Chamber. In the King's Bench the information is not a suggestion to the King, but to the court upon record."

And he quotes 3 Inst. 136, where Coke modifies the statement by saying, "The King cannot put any to answer, but his court must be apprized of the crime by indictment, presentment, or other matter of record," which, Shower says, includes an information.

So it has been recently held that upon a coroner's inquisition taken concerning the death of a man and a verdict of guilty of murder or manslaughter is returned, the offender may be prosecuted and tried without the intervention of a grand jury. Reg. v. Ingham, 5 B. & S. 257. And it was said by Buller, J., in 526*526 Rex v. Joliffe, 4 T.R. 285-293, that if to an action for slander in charging the plaintiff with felony a justification is pleaded which is found by the jury, that of itself amounts to an indictment, as if it had been found by the grand jury, and is sufficient to put the party thus accused on his trial.

The language of Lord Coke applies only to forfeitures of life and liberty at the suit of the King, and hence appeals of murder, which were prosecutions by private persons, were never regarded as contrary to Magna Charta. On the contrary, the appeal of death was by Lord Holt "esteemed a noble remedy and a badge of the rights and liberties of an Englishman." Rex v. Toler, 1 Ld. Raymond, 555-557; 12 Mod. 375; Holt, 483. We are told that in the early part of the last century, in England, persons who had been acquitted on indictments for murder were often tried, convicted and executed on appeals. Kendall on Trial by Battel (3d Ed.), 44-47. An appeal of murder was brought in England as lately as 1817, but defeated by the appellant's declining to accept the wager of battel. Ashford v. Thornton, 1 B. & Ald. 405. The English statutes concerning appeals of murder were in force in the Provinces of Pennsylvania and Maryland. Report of Judges, 3 Binn. 599-604; Kilty on Maryland Statutes, 141, 143, 158. It is said that no such appeal was ever brought in Pennsylvania; but in Maryland, in 1765, a negro was convicted and executed upon such an appeal. Soper v. Tom, 1 Har. & McHen. 227. See note to Paxton's Case, Quincy's Mass. Rep. 53, by Mr. Justice Gray.

This view of the meaning of Lord Coke is the one taken by Merrick, J., in his dissenting opinion in Jones v. Robbins, 8 Gray, 329, who states his conclusions in these words:

"It is the forensic trial, under a broad and general law, operating equally upon every member of our community, which the words, `by the law of the land,' in Magna Charta, and in every subsequent declaration of rights which has borrowed its phraseology, make essential to the safety of the citizen, securing thereby both his liberty and his property, by preventing the unlawful arrest of his person or any unlawful interference with his estate." See also State v. Starling, 15 Rich. (S.C.) Law, 120.

527*527 Mr. Reeve, in 2 History of Eng. Law, 43, translates the phrase, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terræ,

"But by the judgment of his peers, or by some other legal process or proceeding adapted by the law to the nature of the case."

Chancellor Kent, 2 Com. 13, adopts this mode of construing the phrase. Quoting the language of Magna Charta, and referring to Lord Coke's comment upon it, he says:

"The better and larger definition of due process of law is that it means law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice."

This accords with what is said in Westervelt v. Gregg, 12 N.Y. 202, by Denio, J., p. 212:

"The provision was designed to protect the citizen against all mere acts of power, whether flowing from the legislative or executive branches of the government."

The principal and true meaning of the phrase has never been more tersely or accurately stated than by Mr. Justice Johnson, in Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235-244:

"As to the words from Magna Charta, incorporated into the Constitution of Maryland, after volumes spoken and written with a view to their exposition, the good sense of mankind has at last settled down to this: that they were intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private right and distributive justice."

And the conclusion rightly deduced is, as stated by Mr. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 356:

"The principles, then, upon which the process is based, are to determine whether it is `due process' or not, and not any considerations of mere form. Administrative and remedial process may 528*528 be changed from time to time, but only with due regard to the landmarks established for the protection of the citizen."

It is urged upon us, however, in argument, that the claim made in behalf of the plaintiff in error is supported by the decision of this court in Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Company, 18 How. 272. There Mr. Justice Curtis, delivering the opinion of the court, after showing, p. 276, that due process of law must mean something more than the actual existing law of the land, for otherwise it would be no restraint upon legislative power, proceeds as follows:

"To what principle, then, are we to resort to ascertain whether this process, enacted by Congress, is due process? To this the answer must be twofold. We must examine the Constitution itself to see whether this process be in conflict with any of its provisions. If not found to be so, we must look to those settled usages and modes of proceeding existing in the common and statute law of England before the emigration of our ancestors, and which are shown not to have been unsuited to their civil and political condition by having been acted on by them after the settlement of this country."

 

This, it is argued, furnishes an indispensable test of what constitutes "due process of law;" that any proceeding otherwise authorized by law, which is not thus sanctioned by usage, or which supersedes and displaces one that is, cannot be regarded as due process of law.

The Constitution of the United States was ordained, it is true, by descendants of Englishmen, who inherited the traditions of English law and history; but it was made for an undefined 531*531 and expanding future, and for a people gathered and to be gathered from many nations and of many tongues.

In this country written constitutions were deemed essential to protect the rights and liberties of the people against the encroachments of power delegated to their governments, and the provisions of Magna Charta were incorporated into Bills of Rights. They were limitations upon all the powers of government, legislative as well as executive and judicial.

so much for your knowledge not to mention total lack of understanding of th elaw eh...

"The Fourteenth Amendment" [as was said by Mr. Justice Bradley in Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22-31] "does not profess to secure to all persons in the United States the benefit of the same laws and the same remedies. Great diversities in these respects may exist in two States separated only by an imaginary line. On one side of this line there may be a right of trial by jury, and on the other side no such right. Each State prescribes its own modes of judicial proceeding."

This court, speaking by Mr. Justice Miller, in Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655-662, said:

"It must be conceded that there are such rights in every free government beyond the control of the State. A government 537*537 which recognized no such rights, which held the lives, the liberty, and the property of its citizens subject at all times to the absolute disposition and unlimited control of even the most democratic depository of power, is after all but a despotism. It is true it is a despotism of the many, of the majority, if you choose to call it so, but it is nevertheless a despotism. It may be doubted, if a man is to hold all that he is accustomed to call his own, all in which he has placed his happiness and the security of which is essential to that happiness, under the unlimited dominion of others, whether it is not wiser that this power should be exercised by one man than by many."

It follows that any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age and custom, or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, in furtherance of the general public good, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law.

The Constitution of Connecticut, adopted in 1818 and in force when the Fourteenth Amendment took effect, requires an indictment or presentment of a grand jury only in cases where the punishment of the crime charged is death or imprisonment for life, and yet it also declares that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property but by due course of law." It falls short, therefore, of that measure of protection which it is claimed is guaranteed by Magna Charta to the right of personal liberty; notwithstanding which it is no doubt justly said in Swift's Digest, 17, that

"This sacred and inestimable right, without which all others are of little value, is enjoyed by the people of this State in as full extent as in any country on the globe, and in as high a degree as is consistent with the nature of civil government. No individual or body of men has a discretionary or arbitrary power to commit any person to prison; no man can be restrained of his liberty, be prevented from removing himself from place to place as he chooses, be compelled to go to a place contrary to his inclination, or be in any way imprisoned or confined, unless by virtue of the express laws of the land."