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

Originally Posted by rahl

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

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!

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or 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!

Originally Posted by WongKimArk

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.

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!

Originally Posted by KenyanBornObama

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!

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.

Originally Posted by KenyanBornObama

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!

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.

Originally Posted by WongKimArk

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.

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

"27. Friday. “In unforeseen cases, that is, when the state of things is found such as the author of the disposition has not foreseen, and could not have thought of, we should rather follow his intention than his words, and interpret the act as he himself would have interpreted it, had he been present, or conformably to what he would have done if he had foreseen the things that happened. This rule is of great use to Judges. Vattel p. 230; book 2, ch. 17, s. 297. If a case be presented in which one cannot absolutely apply the well known reason of a law or a promise, this case ought to be excepted. Book 2, ch. 17, s. 292. Every interpretation that leads to an absurdity, ought to be rejected.” Page 222, book 2, ch. 17, s. 282. Every impossibility, physical and moral, is an absurdity.*"

He also wrote in his diary in 1763:

Books,—we read five sermons in Dr. Sherlock, and several chapters in the Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful. The chapter upon sympathy they all disapprove. The author says,—we have a real pleasure in the distresses and misfortunes of others. Mem. To write a letter to Sewall, or Quincy, or Lowell, on the subject of that chapter. I employed, however, too little of my time in reading and in thinking; I might have spent much more. The idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me. The Works of John Adams, vol. 2 (Diary, Notes of Debates, Autobiography) [1850]

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,

"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting."

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!

[quote=KenyanBornObama;10611021 71]

Originally Posted by rahl

You have not even seen the evidence and any judge that reads it, will not be able to say that I am wrong because it's all sourced with Government documents and congressional records!

MY CASE which you can not dispute:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/86426592/M...rom-the-ballot

And for the record, not one of our cases have been heard on the merits, so you can not fail, until you get to the merits of the case!

yeah sure....meanwhile every court and election commission continues to say you are wrong.

Originally Posted by KenyanBornObama

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!

KBOA, over here in Ireland that issue came up in our Presidential Election last year. Dana Rosemery Scallon was running for president, and her sister came out and clained that she was no longer an irish Citizen as she had taken the US Oath of Aliegence to be a naturalised Citizen. Ergo the clain was that she had renounced Irish cirtizenship and "alliegence"

Basicly the argument you are making.

UNFORTUNATLY for you, everyone and every lawyer just said "She was born here, she's a citizen" and left it at that. Jus Soli, just like it is everywhere in the ex British empire.

So if someone can run for the head of my country, after reciting your pledge of aliegence and still having her US citizenship, and after regegting all "alliegence" and never having taken any pledge to "regain" Irish citizenship, then that means that at least 2 countries on both sides of the Atlantic think you are full of sh--. And no, nobody ever asked her if she had "regained" Irish citizenship. Its a given.

So dual citizens can be President of a country. What a shock.