Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by Bowman

Even if the laws or regulations are changed to permit Obama being President...

As of today, with the election of Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), there are 58 Democratic Senators. If either of the other two contested elections go to the Democrat, that will make 59 Democrats + Sen. McCain who can pass a filibuster-proof resolution making Barack Obama II a "natural born s-s-s-s-Citizen, just as the s-s-s-Senate made s-s-s-s-Sen. McCain a natural born s-s-s-s-Citizen in April, 2008. Fair's-s-s-s fair."

What a bunch of snakes.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by Bowman

Even if the laws or regulations are changed to permit Obama being President...

As of today, with the election of Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), there are 58 Democratic Senators. If either of the other two contested elections go to the Democrat, that will make 59 Democrats + Sen. McCain who can pass a filibuster-proof resolution making Barack Obama II a "natural born s-s-s-s-Citizen, just as the s-s-s-Senate made s-s-s-s-Sen. McCain a natural born s-s-s-s-Citizen in April, 2008. Fair's-s-s-s fair."

What a bunch of snakes.

The measure introduced last spring was a "sense of the Senate" resolution and has no binding effect.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

The job of changing the Constitution requires a constitutional amendment. The job of interpreting the Constitution is for the Supreme Court.
All 100 Senators could vote unanimously that they "shared the same sense" and it wouldn't change the rules of the game by one iota.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

The job of changing the Constitution requires a constitutional amendment. The job of interpreting the Constitution is for the Supreme Court.
All 100 Senators could vote unanimously that they "shared the same sense" and it wouldn't change the rules of the game by one iota.

I might be wrong but I don't think this would require a Constitutional Amendment, all it would take is a bill changing or clarifying who is a "natural born citizen", after all there already exists laws stating who is a natural born citizen, they would just expand on the current laws as needed. Or maybe all it would take is a statement by Obama renouncing any foreign citizenship(s) he may have had or has.

Originally Posted by Bowman

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

The job of changing the Constitution requires a constitutional amendment. The job of interpreting the Constitution is for the Supreme Court.
All 100 Senators could vote unanimously that they "shared the same sense" and it wouldn't change the rules of the game by one iota.

I might be wrong but I don't think this would require a Constitutional Amendment, all it would take is a bill changing or clarifying who is a "natural born citizen", after all there already exists laws stating who is a natural born citizen, they would just expand on the current laws as needed. Or maybe all it would take is a statement by Obama renouncing any foreign citizenship(s) he may have had or has.

Oh let obama try THAT. He would be openly admitting to perpetrating an outright fraud and attempting to seize control of our government through fraudulent means.

And then the question REALLY becomes...moreso than now even.....WHO is he working for and how many others within our government were involved in this.

I don't know Bowman, this whole things gets more troubling by the minute and the ppossibilities we're discussing here seem unimagineable. We are literally talking about NUMEROUS members of our government being involved in a plot to overthrow our system by installing a usurper and revealing themselves as being enemies of the state guilty of treason.

Originally Posted by Lynne

Donofrio v Obama Citizenship
Case Moves To New
Supreme Court Level
By Devvy Kidd
11-19-8

Leo Donofrio's case submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court reagrding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level: the case has been "distributed for conference."

On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to discuss this case identified as:

Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey
United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407

Leo informed me earlier today via telephone about this historic event and wanted to thank everyone who sent their letters to Justice Clarence Thomas.

This is the link to the Supreme Court showing the docket and action:

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

If you go to this link, it will give you the process under Title 18:

http://nocriminalcode.blogspot.com/2007 ... buted-for- conference-on.html

Click on Justices Conference for more history on this process.

This docketing today by the court for this next step should send ripples of fear through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lighenting speed to put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a "natural born citizen."

Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in their best interest at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place on November 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left.

http://www.rense.com/general84/scotus.htm

********
Question: Could infant Obama have legally traveled on a British passport?

1. Obama was supposedly born on Aug. 4,1961.

2. For instance, if Obama's father decided to take infant Obama to Kenya a few weeks later, could baby Obama have traveled on a British passport, because, as I understand it, he inherited British citizenship from his British-citizen father, Obama senior?

Originally Posted by Bowman

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

The job of changing the Constitution requires a constitutional amendment. The job of interpreting the Constitution is for the Supreme Court.
All 100 Senators could vote unanimously that they "shared the same sense" and it wouldn't change the rules of the game by one iota.

I might be wrong but I don't think this would require a Constitutional Amendment, all it would take is a bill changing or clarifying who is a "natural born citizen", after all there already exists laws stating who is a natural born citizen, they would just expand on the current laws as needed. Or maybe all it would take is a statement by Obama renouncing any foreign citizenship(s) he may have had or has.

There are many "assumptions" that natural born citizen must simply mean being born on American soil and that it's OK to just pass a bill to clarify what Congress wants it to mean. Repeat: The job of "clarifying" what the Constitution says is the job of the court.

"Citizen" is a word used in the Constitution but it was not defined in the 1787 timeframe when the Constitution was written. How did it GET defined? In the 14th Amendment, that's how. It took until 1868 for a definition to be written which rose to the same stature ("Supreme" law of the land) as the original document which had used (but not then defined) the word "citizen."

Seems to me that "Natural Born" is pretty self descriptive. They can try and twist this any way they want. I would be shocked if it was determined that Natural Born meant anything other than "one who is born on U.S. soil."

---------------------------------

I might be wrong but I don't think this would require a Constitutional Amendment, all it would take is a bill changing or clarifying who is a "natural born citizen", after all there already exists laws stating who is a natural born citizen, they would just expand on the current laws as needed. Or maybe all it would take is a statement by Obama renouncing any foreign citizenship(s) he may have had or has.[/quote]

There are many "assumptions" that natural born citizen must simply mean being born on American soil and that it's OK to just pass a bill to clarify what Congress wants it to mean. Repeat: The job of "clarifying" what the Constitution says is the job of the court.

"Citizen" is a word used in the Constitution but it was not defined in the 1787 timeframe when the Constitution was written. How did it GET defined? In the 14th Amendment, that's how. It took until 1868 for a definition to be written which rose to the same stature ("Supreme" law of the land) as the original document which had used (but not then defined) the word "citizen."[/quote]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." - Amendment XIV

The natural consequences are:
"All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural born citizens of the United States," and
"All persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
etc. ...

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." - Amendment XIV

The natural consequences are:
"All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural born citizens of the United States," and
"All persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
etc. ...

Bingo ... and in 1868, the sponsor of the "citizenship clause" and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee engaged in recorded debate in Congress to explain their intentions when the 14th Amendment was drafted and being prepped for a vote in Congress and dispatch to the States for full ratification. Among those intentions were that the "jurisdiction" which must be exercised by the U.S. over one who would be a citizen must be EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction. They noted that Indians would not be citizens. (Indeed, it took a later 1924 law to allow Indians to become citizens, whether they were born on a reservation or outside of tribal lands.] They noted that the children of ALIENS would not become citizens, even if born on American soil. A later Supreme Court decision -- which got a 5-4 split opinion and a vehement dissent by the Chief Justice -- was later to decide that the child of two Chinese immigrants who were legally in the country should be seen to have U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil but a strict constructionist would have opined that that particular SCOTUS decision created "bad law".

A strict constructionist, in fact, would take a look at the language of the Constitution itself and its delegation to Congress that which Congress is "allowed" to do, and ponder whether Congress can do ANYTHING more than determine the bounds of allowing people to become NATURALIZED citizens, while not allowing Congress -- through mere legislation -- to tamper with the definition of the word "citizen" itself. "Citizen" is used in the Constitution and became defined by the 14th Amendment, and Article I, Section 8 sets forth the powers allowed to the Legislative branch ...

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

etc. etc. etc.

Establishing "an uniform Rule of Naturalization" doesn't seem to rise to the level of giving Congress unfettered power (absent Constitutional Amendment) to go legislating alternative definitions nor conditions nor interpretations of "citizen" except as to "naturalized citizens" ...

Originally Posted by Lynne

Donofrio v Obama Citizenship
Case Moves To New
Supreme Court Level
By Devvy Kidd
11-19-8

Leo Donofrio's case submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court reagrding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level: the case has been "distributed for conference."

On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to discuss this case identified as:

Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey
United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407

Leo informed me earlier today via telephone about this historic event and wanted to thank everyone who sent their letters to Justice Clarence Thomas.

This is the link to the Supreme Court showing the docket and action:

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

If you go to this link, it will give you the process under Title 18:

http://nocriminalcode.blogspot.com/2007 ... buted-for- conference-on.html

Click on Justices Conference for more history on this process.

This docketing today by the court for this next step should send ripples of fear through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lighenting speed to put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a "natural born citizen."

Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories.

It might be in their best interest at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place on December 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left..!

http://www.rense.com/general84/scotus.htm

Well Stated..!! :P