After all the CRAP, Did Obama Just Admit He is From Kenya???

Be that as it may, it's at least as relevant as any SC ruling.

It was of course repealed in 1795. I don't know why and I doubt you do either; but unless the flaws as perceived at the time have bearing on the issue at hand it doesn't matter, as the act sheds a more authoritative light the original public understanding of natural born citizenship than anything you've presented.

Such an admonition might be at least marginally compelling had you presented anything worthwhile to get my head into.

So how do you square that...

...with this?

 

What do I need to "square"? I stated a fact as found in Article I Section 8, nothing more.

Since "natural born citizen" is a qualification for POTUS and since there is no specific criteria listed in the Constitution for "natural born citizen", an Amendment is required to dispel all doubt. If the intent is for natural born citizens to be physically born in the US and its territories (to US citizens or not) or just born anywhere on the planet to parents who are US citizens, the Amendment should clarify it. That's not my call.

As it is (as another example of a hole in the Constitution) all government servants must take the Oath of Office prior to officially taking office. But what is the point of that if many have no clue what's in the Constitution? There should a constitutional requirement that all those who apply for or are candidates for office must take a rigorous test on the Constitution as a prerequisite to taking any Oath and pass it with a high score. And that means everyone, from police to POTUS.

 

Your claim that Congress has constitutional authority to define natural born citizenship with your claim that it doesn't.

 

There is no reconciliation to be had on my part. Congress has no constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution, the Constitution does not define natural born citizen, Congress has never defined natural born citizenship in any statute and it has the Constitutional authority (among other things):

Article I Section 8 Clause 4

And all the above are 100% correct. Confused? I'm not but obviously there's something wrong with that picture because the Constitution insists a POTUS must be a natural born citizen of the US. In the real world, that conundrum does not exist because the definition has already been ASSumed by the legal industry.

 

Guess I can hardly be surprised at this point that you don't understand your own damn posts.

 

It sounds more like YOU don't understand my "damn" posts.

 

In the pronouncements of those who are oblivious to their self-contradiction, one can hardly expect to find anything that lends itself to understanding.

 

Thanks for confirming my prior post. But neither you or I are the topic of this discussion.

 

One of the most GLARING , STEAMING, PILES of BULLSHIT, in your LONG HISTORY HERE , of STEAMING, PILES OF BULLSHIT.

 

Oh yes
Each branch of government is given some authority over the other two, so that no one of them can come to dominate the entire government. For example, Congress passes a law, but the President can issue a veto (which Congress can then override) and the Supreme Court can decide whether it's constitutional under the power of judicial review.


.

 

How would you know? LOLOL.. Foreign students have to provide up to date student visas and passports to remain eligible and stay enrolled. How could you be so ignorant in this day and age?

 

"How would you know"?

Oh, let me guess, you're also president of a university, in addition to an oil company executive, prized Western female advisor to the Saudi Royal family, vital member of the government of Charlotte, S.C., and a successful children's book author...of course.

Foreign students REGULARLY OVERSTAY their student VISAS in the US with no problems from the universities they attend.

Get educated to the ACTUAL FACTS of an issue, for a change.


The Extensive Abuse of the Student (F-1) Visa


https://cis.org/Report/Extensive-Abuse-Student-F1-Visa

 

Sure they overstay their student visas, but they are kicked out of universities..

 

Then who does adjudicate Constitutional disputes?

 

What you're describing are specific balancing powers granted to each branch of government via Articles I, II and III. None of these include the power to interpret the Constitution. Judicial review is the power to interpret LAWS for constitutional compliance, not the power to interpret the Constitution itself. The power to interpret the Constitution would be the power to amend the Constitution at whim (which is what the Supreme Court granted itself in Marbury v Madison and does regularly in violation of the 10th Amendment).

The disputes are questions of law for constitutional compliance (see above), which are adjudicated by the judiciary.

 

How then is Marbury vs Madison "illegal"? Did any of the Founding Fathers object to it?

Saying a law is not in compliance with the Constitution IS interpreting the Constitution, isn't it?

 

We must go back and reverse ANY law made while Obama was President

And after that we can get to work on invalidating the Constitution, after all, it was WRITTEN by men not one of whom was legally born in the United States of America

Meanwhile, the guy we got in there now incessantly tweets out ravings at 3am because he missed his bedtime call and story from his Russian daddy.

One of the major things Colbert used to complain about was that RW pundits took his "Colbert Report" seriously, several almost regularly quoting him saying things in support of them when in fact he was parodying them

 

Elections have consequences.

 

The power to interpret the Constitution is what's illegal (unconstitutional) because it is not a power granted to the judiciary and it violates the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from asserting powers not specifically granted to it by the Constitution. Those powers belong to the states or The People. If the power to interpret the Constitution was already granted to the judiciary why doesn't it just say that in Article III? Why did the Supreme Court first "discover" they had such a power in Marbury v Madison (1803)? Right, they "interpreted" the Constitution to mean that out of thin air.

The power to interpret the Constitution grants the judiciary more power than the other 2 branches. They can then amend the Constitution regularly, create law (as in case "law"), which only belongs to Congress and even elect a President (Bush v Gore). They can "interpret" the Constitution to mean anything they damn please and already have.

http://takebackthepower.us/MarburyvMadison.html

Why does it matter?

No it's interpreting the law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land by its own mandate, the standard. If you can change the meaning of the Constitution at whim, you're changing the standard to accommodate a question of law or reject it as the case may be (wagging the dog). With that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations (a paper created fiction) have the same protected rights as human beings (the problem is only human beings have rights, other entities only have powers and/or privileges). They also ruled that government servants have qualified and absolute immunity. That means they can violate the law with impunity.

 

That’s because Obama didn’t tell illegal aliens to vote. I responded to you about that with the full video showing his comments in context. You didn’t respond to me, just like you won’t respond to me now.

And there’s nothing in this video to suggest this is anything more than a skip of words. He seemed a bit off right from the beginning. Maybe he’d been drinking.

 

For some reason, I can't recall people demanding Bill Clinton's or W. Bush's birth certificate.

 

I think many Americans were not ready for a mixed race president... and that's a shame. He is a good man.. smart, well-educated, dedicated to the greater good. Trump of the orange hair is the exact opposite. How did we go from Obama to this pig?

 

I've often wondered if Trump was a result of an angry backlash against Obama. As he erases each thing Obama did, Trump's worshipers celebrate. They don't care about politics. They don't even know politics. They just know that they hate Obama and other non-whites.

People say Trump has an obsession about nationality, race, and religion. I think he uses this as a tool of solidarity to shore his xenophobic base.

 

Well.. Trump is famous for revenge.. and a young, better educated, well-spoken black man made him look like a dunce.. Trump hates him.

 

Reported for forum rule violation.