Margot; If jurisdiction of parents from another Country is maintained, how can the jurisdiction of a newborn, be other than the parents, then in this case could run for P/VP of the US? While few would have any trouble accepting their citizenship, duel or sole, the intend of the Founders, according to JEFF, my opinion, was to prevent foreign influence within the US Government. JEFF; Obviously there are many others that are now questioning what had been generally accepted years ago and yes I was also taught the general principle 60+ years ago. I would still agree any person born in the US or has become a Citizen of the US, according to State Law could run for State Office, including their representatives to the Federal, BUT NOT for one of two offices, the P/VP.
I haven't seen any of these records you speak of. Where are they? Are they just "images on a screen"? Your hypocrisy is astounding. For Obama, you are given records, and you deny their reality. For Rubio, you have nothing, but you just "know" the facts of his birth. The fact that you don't even see your hypocrisy makes it all that much worse. Your problem, obviously, is that you do not understand what the word "jurisdiction" means. Everyone in the United States - citizen or not - is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, unless they are a foreign diplomat with immunity. Illegal aliens are. Students on visas are. Tourists are. Everyone. And these questions just happen to coincide with the election of the first nonwhite President? You can see the logical conclusion one might draw from that, no?
any child born on US soil is a natural born citizen and eligible to be POTUS. excluding the children of foreign diplomats with immunity. this is settled law.
To BullsLawDan: Go find them if you doubt their authenticity just as eligibility-doubters finally drove Hussein to produce a forged document. To BullsLawDan: No one is disputing the details of Rubios birth regarding his American citizenship. If and when millions question his eligibility over and above the definition of natural born citizen, I will be the first to demand legitimate documents. If you want more right now dont expect me to produce them for you. To BullsLawDan: Your PROBLEMS are beautifully expressed by Monte Kuligowski: April 19, 2012 The Sea Change: Obama's Confirmed Forgeries Are Not Going Away By Monte Kuligowski For several years, an Orwellian-type fear of being "marginalized" held reporters and pundits back from questioning Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the office of the presidency. To raise an eyebrow at the bizarre secrecy of Obama was off-limits. To question whether the historic definition of "natural born citizen" applied to Obama was taboo. The era of fear, however, is happily winding down. It will take some time for this realization to fully take hold. But make no mistake: the tables have turned. Like it or not, the ground has shifted, and it cannot shift back. The evidence of Obama's forgeries is not going away. Up until this point, Mr. Obama controlled everything, including the talking points and burden of proof. Rather than simply produce certified paper copies for state election officials and make the original available for officials to inspect in Hawaii, Obama played games with his purported birth certificate. We were told for three years that Obama's birth certificate had been posted online in 2008 -- though it turns out that it was a scant certification. In 2010, when confronted with the alarming doubts of the American people, Mr. Obama lamented to a sympathetic Brian Williams of NBC: "I can't spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead." The following year, out of left field, on April 27, 2011, Obama "released" the elusive birth certificate by posting a now-discredited file image online. This time he wasn't teasing. It was "proof positive." Mr. Obama, in his robotic style, barked that it was time to stop the "silliness" and move on. No one ever wanted Obama to get all crazy and walk around with his birth certificate plastered on his forehead. But many took the reasonable position of wanting the mysterious birth certificate produced, not plastered or uploaded to a computer. Many wanted Obama to produce certified copies for state officials and make the original available for inspection. But because no authority forced him to comply with basic legal standards, Mr. Obama was able to create a sideshow atmosphere by selecting non-experts to verify his internet postings behind closed doors. His media sycophants were able to make those who questioned Obama's staunch secrecy appear as the unreasonable ones. Somehow the burden of proof was erroneously placed on the citizenry to prove that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Well, the burden never actually rested with the people to prove anything. That was all smoke and mirrors. No conspiracy theories are needed to demand that Obama comply with basic legal standards -- especially in context of a state with a history of certifying foreign births as Hawaiian. After Obama "released" the birth certificate in 2011, nonpartisan computer software experts immediately recognized that the embarrassing image had been computer-assembled. Of course, few in the free press dared to report on the "silliness." Fox News quickly summonsed Adobe-certified expert Jean-Claude Tremblayto to conclude, nothing fishy here (but his ORC explanation has been demonstrably debunked by the control-test findings of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigative team -- see below). It's simply unfathomable to the consensus media that the One they worked so hard to elect could be a fraud -- or, at minimum, could have something to hide. Unfortunately, Sheriff Joe Arpaio's team of law enforcement and investigative experts were able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that forgeries have been committed. It turns out that the sheriff simply confirmed the "open secret" shared by technical document experts across the country. As with many crimes, if not for their abject carelessness, the forgers might have gotten away with it. But the strength of the evidence is such that local law enforcement was able to conclude that "probable cause" exists to show that the White House uploaded a computer-generated forgery of a birth certificate. Ditto with Obama's Selective Service registration form: it is also a crude forgery. Who would have thought that Obama's illegal immigration nemesis, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, could turn the tables on Obama? With the help of his friends in the consensus media, Mr. Obama had been afforded the luxury of effectively remaining silent for years. Obama was able to sit back as a third-party onlooker as the media attacked, maligned, and ignored those who raised valid questions. But the recent findings are similar to the events of a trial in which the burden of proof shifts from one party to the other. In our context, the burden of proof was absurdly placed on the people, but finally it has shifted to Obama. The six-month investigation by trained law enforcement and forensic experts has resulted in a compelling case-in-chief. Anyone who views the video presentations of the law enforcement team can plainly observe the sea change which shifted the burden to rebut to Obama. Even though crimes were allegedly committed, at this point, what is taking place is comparable to a civil trial. As such, it is time for Mr. Obama to produce competent evidence. If he has no evidence to produce, he's in public opinion trouble. If a court or Congress forces the production of his original documents, it's over for Obama. Simple little mistakes: hastily uploading an assembled image without first printing and scanning, and cutting a "2008" rubber stamp to create the appearance of "1980." And the Selective Service forgery alone is enough to end Obama's presidency. Sheriff Arpaio is under personal attack, but curiously, the control-test findings of his team are not being refuted. Apparently oblivious of the fact that the White House tried to cover its tracks by quickly replacing its original file image, NPR naively reports: "For the record, we opened the file using Adobe Photoshop and found that [the birth certificate] contained only a single layer of information." Fortunately, thousands have the original White House posting preserved for perpetuity. The establishment media are trying every way they can think of to discredit Sheriff Joe. As WND.com president Joseph Farah recently wrote, "[t]hey are no longer just protecting Obama. They are now protecting their own reputations." The problem, of course, is that after all the attacks on Joe Arpaio are exhausted and after all the dust settles, the evidence of Obama's forgeries will remain. The problem for Obama and his enablers is that the evidence is objective. And it's there for everyone to see. Generations from now, professors in Adobe Photoshop and journalism classes will be discussing and analyzing the evidence of Obama's forgeries. The very result that timid conservatives and liberal reporters feared will eventually catch up with them: loss of credibility. On the flipside, those who questioned Obama's bizarre secrecy eventually will be vindicated. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...s_confirmed_forgeries_are_not_going_away.html
What forged document? You're still missing the point. The point is that you, and other birthers, are not "disputing the details of Rubio's birth" because you're hypocrites. You have absolutely zero "proof" of any of the circumstances of his birth, yet you accept as fact those circumstances. Meanwhile, Obama has submitted more proof of his eligibility than any other candidate ever, and you continue to make asinine statements like "Hussein" "produced a forged document," which is an outright lie.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizens rahl; I'm making this as a general statement, to any concerned, simply using your direct and clear point, which I disagree with. IMO, folks are mixing words, allegiants, international jurisdiction, Constitutional vs. 14A and so on. Any person on US Soil, without the proper credentials (permission), credentials that have expired, or that have never voiced allegiance to the US Constitution, cannot have a child that then is NBC, much less fit the intent of the founders, for being versed on the culture and traditions of the current society. They can't be subject to jurisdiction, therefore IMO neither could a child of theirs as demanded in the 14A. This was intended to make any/all persons that were indentured servants or slaves, then freed and without a Country Citizens of the Republic or free to return to their country of origin, which some did do... http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html As many of the A's have "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." ends the A and can be cleared up w/o the A being repealed. What people are actually suggesting is that hundreds of thousands of folks around the world, that were born in the US are eligible to run for P/VP, so long as they moved back, are over 35 and have establish residency.
O. J. Simpson’s mouthpieces had nothing on Hussein’s legal eagles. Should Marco Rubio ever need a flock of lawyers he should hire Hussein’s dream team. One lawyer says: Another one of Hussein’s lawyers claimed the opposite: I realize two different states were involved; nevertheless, the basic premise should have been the same in both courts. Either the birth certificate in question is valid everywhere or it isn’t? The question is: Did Hussein’s lawyers talk to one another before going off in different directions? FORGERY-GATE Is Obama disowning online birth certificate? Diana West marvels at judges who decide BHO's 'natural born,' despite lack of evidence Published: 11 hours ago by DIANA WEST Almost exactly one year ago – with Donald Trump on top of presidential polls and author Jerome Corsi on top of Amazon’s best-seller list, both for asking where President Barack Obama’s “real” birth certificate was – Judith Corley, the president’s personal attorney, flew to Hawaii. She went there to pick up two certified copies of the president’s long-form birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health. At least, that’s what then-White House Counsel Robert Bauer told us last April 27 at a White House press briefing called to unveil the new, certified document. Multiple copies were passed out to the press, while NBC’s Savannah Guthrie became the one witness I know of to touch the certified document. (She reported she “felt the raised seal.” A computer image of this Obama long-form birth certificate appeared on the White House website, where now you and I can download it for ourselves as proof of the president’s bona fides. Or is it? It is this same Internet image that the Cold Case Posse, a group of lawyers and former law enforcement professionals assembled by Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio to vet Obama’s identity documents, has concluded is most likely a forgery. At its March 1 press conference, the posse further explained that it believed the online image originated as a computer file. In other words, a paper document did not exist before the image appeared on the White House website. If the posse’s mind-blowing findings are correct, what is it that Judith Corley couriered back to Washington? And what is it that Savannah Guthrie touched? I find such questions most intriguing – even if the rest of the media do not – particularly after last week’s court hearing into Obama’s eligibility to appear on the ballot in the New Jersey presidential primary. After literally dozens of such eligibility cases since 2008 (evidently, the media are waiting for a discernible story trend to emerge before they pounce), I can report, having watched a video of the New Jersey hearing online, that the president’s team is making progress. Only now it’s away from his long-form birth certificate. The curious fact is, President Obama’s attorney, Alexandra Hill, couldn’t have been more adamant about not citing the online birth certificate as a means of proving the president’s identity in this recent challenge – and after everyone went to so much trouble to get it! Indeed, she called the Internet image “legally irrelevant,” arguing that New Jersey law doesn’t specifically call for a birth certificate to qualify a presidential candidate for the ballot. Exactly how a presidential candidate demonstrates he is at least 35 years old and “natural born,” the constitutional requirement New Jersey upholds, Hill didn’t say, but Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin found her arguments persuasive to the point of preventing an expert witness from offering testimony that the online image is a forgery. Even though the Obama team entered no documentation of the president’s identity into the record – not even that “certified” birth document Obama’s personal lawyer traveled so far to retrieve – Judge Masin managed to find that the president was both born in Hawaii and “natural born.” Neat, huh? But note the shift in legal tactics. If, in New Jersey, the online birth certificate was “legally irrelevant,” in January’s Georgia eligibility hearing, the president’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski, considered it legally decisive. Jablonski cited “the documents evidencing the birth of President Obama” that are available online to try to quash a subpoena that “commanded” Obama to come to court and bring “any and all birth records” with him (among other documents). A golden opportunity to show off that certified, hand-couriered birth doc from Hawaii, and be done with it, no? No. When Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi refused to quash the subpoena, Jablonski and Obama ignored it. They just didn’t show up. Not to worry: Flouted subpoena and all, and without any evidence from the Obama team, Judge Malihi found that the president was both born in Hawaii and “natural born,” too. Amazing how that works, and no matter what the president’s lawyers do – so long as they don’t enter tangible evidence of the president’s identity into the court record. As for that new birth certificate that came online last April? Since government and media have abdicated their responsibility to help determine whether it’s the real McCoy or a forgery, what else is there to do but wish it a happy first birthday? http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/is-obama-disowning-online-birth-certificate/
flanders, you really need to stop reading WND. They have been totally discreditted as a news organization. Every story they have come out with in favor of the birthers has been shown to be at best, misleading, and usually a total lie. It would be nice if you actually engaged in debate for once, and address the points being made, instead of pretending they never happened, and acting as if this is your own personal blog.
Not true. Everyone on U.S. soil except those with diplomatic immunity is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Did you miss that the last time I told you, or are you ignoring me? Again, the problem is you do not understand the definition of "jurisdiction." Fortunately, I do, and I'm prepared to explain it to you. Would you like me to? It would be like free legal advice - I don't have your address to bill you. Except that your claim is patently false. None of Obama's lawyers ever claimed it was irrelevant. That's the WorldNutDaily "interpretation" of what was said. The video of the hearing is online and you can watch it yourself if you want, but why should birthers ever bother to get the actual facts?
To BullsLawDan: Take your own advice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWciTokeGwQ&feature=player_embedded Incidentally: http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/obama-attorney-mickey-mouse-could-be-on-ballot/
So Flanders....do you really believe that an internet image is a valid birth certificate? That is what you are essentially arguing. Because Obama's lawyers pointed out that the internet image is not a valid birth certificate- it is only an image of a valid birth certificate- just as much as if it was printed in a newspaper. And that the President has never offered that image as evidence of anything to any authority. Oh and Flanders once again I will point out that in this very case the judge once again said you are wrong. "Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing theseissues, but suffice it to say that the status of natural born Citizen for Mr. Obama hasnot been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed the merits ofthe issue. This is not the place to write a law review article on the full analysis of thesubject, but there is no legal authority that has been cited or otherwise provided thatsupports a contrary position. The petitioners legal position on this issue, however wellintentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr.Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born Citizen regardless of the status of hisfather."
You know Flanders- if you would read actual rulings, and not just act as a schill for WND, you might understand the case better http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/88910250-Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin objection was not challenged.In regard to the first issue, it is undisputed that Mr. Obama has not presented theSecretary of State with any form of birth certificate in connection with the nominatingpetitions, and his counsel in this hearing agreed that she was offering no such document. As such, while the petitioners have noted in their brief their beliefs as to thepossibly illicit nature of the long-form birth certificate released to the public via theinternet, counsel for the petitioners agreed that here the relevant objection is not to the validity of the document, for it is not before the Secretary. The objection is instead that in regard to the need to prove qualification for the Presidency, and that Obama is“natural-born”, the failure to produce any proof is itself fatal to his nomination. And in that regard, the failure to even proffer to the Secretary a birth certificate is legallyconclusive of the lack of qualification to stand for the Office. As such, while the petitioners were prepared to produce a witness, purportedly an expert, to contend that the long-form certificate, as displayed on the internet, was a forgery, after extensive colloquy, it was determined that that issue is not relevant to the petitioners’ objection herein. It would only be so if the certificate were produced in order to meet a specific requirement of the law, and in that instance, its validity could be challenged. It has notbeen offered. There appears to be no affirmative requirement that a person indorsed in anominating petition for the Presidency present to the Secretary of State any certificationor other proof that he is qualified for the Office, at least not at the time when nominating petitions are to be accepted or rejected by the Secretary. This is not meant to suggest that there is any other such occasion when such proof is required, but to the extent that this matter relates to the nominating petitions for the Presidential primary, there is no such requirement. In that case, once a petition is filed endorsing a person and that person has not filed his declination of such indorsement, a party believing that the indorsed individual is not qualified can file a challenge on the grounds of ineligibility. In this matter, as the petitioners’ objection is that Mr. Obama has not provided the Secretary with proof of the place of his birth by means of a birth certificate or otherwise, the lack of any obligation on his part to do so means he has not failed to act in accordance with the applicable law
Thread; If two person's owing their allegiance to a foreign country, as are American's having children overseas, have a child in the US, is that child then denied his parents status? If any child born in the US is considered a NBC and eligible to become POTUS, but has lived, being nurtured and educated in another Country, would then he/she or his/her children also be US Citizens and eligible? Dan, I'd prefer ignoring you before the discussion turns viral, which it's getting very close to, however my post #35 (read it), this thread was directed at all Obama's Sympathizers. I don't mind being called for ignorance, when the accuser IMO is mis-understanding/representing the meaning. With all due respect, my BILL would have been higher, a few years ago. One comment in the OP, was that SCOTUS, might FINALLY be required to rule on the issue, in which case, I feel strongly your going to be disappointed. The 14th A, was never intended to address Anchor Babies or requirements to become P/VP...
I frankly don't understand what your questions are. The 14th Amendment just made it clear that anyone born in the United States is born a citizen- and that everyone not born a citizen is a naturalized citizen. The 14th Amendment didn't need to address 'anchor babies' because under the 14th Amendment...there is no such thing as an "Anchor Baby".
SCOTUS has already ruled on the issue. they decided that according to the 14th A, any child born on US soil is a natural born US citizen. this has been settled law since 1898.
Could it possibly be that unlike President "Transparency" Obama, Rubio isn't hiding anything? I think it was President Obama who said, I'm paraphrasing, people who don't release the records have something to hide. President Obama has, apparently, a lot to hide.
For those that wish arguing with Mathew Spalding's article, "The Constitution doesn't guarantee birthright citizenship", please address your comments to him. I happen to agree and disagree with a few of your "opinion/understandings" of the previous rulings involved. This was brought over from my post #35, having added the last paragraph from the same article, which addresses a comment or two made by JEFF... http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...ldren-citizens If there are any questions about the author (Spalding), or for comparing your qualification to his, here is a good start. I did study American History in school (minor) and have worked with folks to gain citizenship (NOT as an attorney), most legally, but he is far better in articulating comments than I could ever be. http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/s/matthew-spalding rahl; Below is the first "Act" for US Citizenship in the US and it was left up to the STATES to enforce, NOT the Federal Government, which itself was a Court Ruling to give the authority to the Federal, in the 1820's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 Point; Social environment, demographics and public sentiments change and have over the years, along with laws and how they are enforced.. Do you honestly believe the courts of 1898 would find any Constitutionality in folks from around the world for gaining access to rather generous "Welfare System", including free medical service to have the children? Since your arguing the "United States v. Wong Kim Ark" case are you agreeing the "Citizenship was granted exclusively through the FATHER"...say in 1961?
