1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Obama's Birth Certificate: Not the Issue

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by poncho, Apr 29, 2011.

  1. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Bangkok, Thailand April 29, 2011 - Of course, a candidate must meet legal requirements before running for public office. This is a universally agreed upon concept which has been enumerated in laws in every nation, since the beginning of human civilization. However, for those who deeply examine the United States and how it has drifted from a constitutional republic to the corporate-financier oligarchy it is today, they might realize the futility of arguing over "President" Obama's qualifications for an office that has long been ceremonial, if not entirely theatrical.

    The corporate-financier agenda transcends presidencies. From Reagan to Obama, US foreign and domestic policy has moved in a continuously linear direction toward increasing corporate-financial monopolies and eroding the role and sovereignty of the US Constitution and the people who are supposed to execute it. In 1991, "Neo-Conservative" war monger Paul Wolfowitz stated that the Middle East would be turned upside down and reordered in America's favor - ironically, this operation which has been piecemeal planned and executed year-by-year since then, is finally unfolding in its entirety under the supposedly "liberal" Obama administration.

    < snip >

    Had John McCain won the elections in 2008, you could rest assured he would have taken US policy in the exact same direction Obama is going today. In fact, McCain is one of the key players who has helped fund and organize the current unrest sweeping the Middle East, along with a myriad of other "Republicans" and "Neo-Conservatives." The "Arab Spring" itself was planned and being staged before Obama even took office.

    Ideologically, President Obama's qualifications are important and many are right to question them. Realistically, they are a red herring, as is his entire presidency. He is in charge of exactly nothing, most likely not even the tie he puts on in the morning and surely not the words that come out of his mouth. His entire function is to perpetuate the facade that America is still run by an elected government and not an illegitimate oligarchy of corporations and financial institutions. Arguing over his birth certificate engenders him with legitimacy in and of itself - suggesting that if he had proper qualifications he would be a "legitimate" president. But he, like his predecessor Bush, are both entirely illegitimate, as is the system they purportedly preside over.


    CONTINUE . . .
     
    #1 poncho, Apr 29, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 29, 2011
  2. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    The purpose of this essay is to show that one United States citizen parent is not enough to bestow “natural born Citizen” status upon a child. When interpreting the Constitution, we must decide whether we will look to the document as an original and static one whose meaning has already been established at a given time by the People and its Framers or one that is living and which can be changed over any given time by a court of law. See the address of Justice Antonin Scalia to the 2008 Annual National Lawyers Convention on November 22, 2008, at the Mayflower Hotel, in Washington, D.C. http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp. (advocates originalism rather than living constitutionalism).

    I submit that Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause has a fixed and knowable meaning which was established at the time of its drafting and should therefore be interpreted through the eyes of the original Framers that drafted and ratified the clause so as to determine what they intended the clause to mean (original intent theory). I also submit that we should interpret the “natural born Citizen” clause in a way that reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be (original meaning theory). This is not living constitutionalism but rather originalism or textualism as applied to interpreting the Constitution. It is this latter approach that I will utilize in this article.


    CONTINUE . . .

    Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States' right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.

    The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:

    CONTINUE . . .

     
    #2 poncho, Apr 29, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 29, 2011
  3. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    The Constitution only defines two kinds of citizen: natural born and naturalized. Obama was not naturalized so he is either a natural born citizen or an alien.

    Is a person who was delivered by C-section "natural born?"
     
  4. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    The definition of "natural born citizen" is not found in the constitution, billwald. No not even in the 14th amendment. The supreme court has said this twice since the 14th amendment was adopted.


    See, Minor v. Happersett and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

    The definition of "natural born citizen" can only be found in the U.S. federal common law and the law of nations.

    See section 212 in the law of nations.

    The Founders knew that Vattel defined a "citizen" simply as any member of society. They also knew from reading Vattel that a "natural born Citizen" had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents.

    That is the definition of a "natural born Citizen," as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more) and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401. source

    Obama is not an Article II "natural born citizen" and therefore is ineligible to hold the office of POTUS. I fail to see what's so hard to understand about that.
     
    #4 poncho, Apr 29, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 29, 2011
  5. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Obama has declared war on the Constitution

    It is now the patriotic duty of individual states to rescue the United States.

    Before the 2012 election, we must push our state legislatures to pass laws requiring Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to prove that they are natural born citizens i.e. born in the United States, of citizen parents at the time of birth, in order for them to appear on the state ballot.

    By publicly releasing his long-form birth certificate, Obama has officially announced that he is not a natural born citizen and is arrogantly challenging the legitimacy of the Constitution.

    Not surprisingly, the political elites and the main stream media (MSM) seemed unanimously elated after the release of his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth.

    I imagine that they all had tingles running up their legs.

    Both the Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C. insist that we should put the issue of Obama’s eligibility behind us, so they may focus on the “more serious” issues facing the country.

    First, there is no more important issue for the country than the integrity of the Constitution. Without it, the federal government is null and void and the rule of law is undermined.

    Second, the political elites want to move on because they have been complicit in a flagrant contravention of the Constitution, the Founders intent and judicial precedence by substituting political fiat for the legal processes involved in amending the Constitution.

    The political elites and the MSM have always known that they were promoting an infringement of the Constitution by protecting Obama.

    For the first time in US history, an individual, who is not a natural born citizen, was knowingly elected President of the United States.

    Facts are stubborn things.

    CONTINUE . . .
     
    #5 poncho, May 1, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2011
  6. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Bumperdoodle . . .
     
  7. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Bumperdoodlydoo!
     
Loading...