2 of 34
2
LEGAL PROOF OBAMA IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT
Posted: 25 July 2009 01:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  136
Joined  2009-07-25

Sorry, made a mistake and posted twice.

[ Edited: 25 July 2009 02:09 PM by Jedi Pauly ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 02:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  136
Joined  2009-07-25
fotobits - 25 July 2009 01:40 PM

It only took about 30 seconds of searching to find this from the Cornell University Law School web site:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Obama was born in Hawaii, thus he is eligible to serve as President of the United States. QED.

You are way off base quoting IRRELEVANT STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  The issue is not who qualifies for CITIZENSHIP, the issue is what are the qualifications for PRESIDENT.  It is not Obama’s citizenship that I have questioned, it is his PARENTS’ citizenship that is the issue, as REQUIRED BY ARTICLE II.  It is only HOW he obtains his citizenship that is the issue.  He must obtain it from INHERITANCE by parents who are citizens.  I have DEBUNKED YOUR ILLEGAL ATTEMPT OVER AND OVER, which is a violation of the rules of process, which states that the Constitution is the Supreme Statutory authority, and IT defines the STATUTES, not the other way round.  You can not REDEFINE NBC in Article II qualification from what it means which is NBC(parents) to mean NBC(soil), by a judges’ opinion, or statutory construct.  That requires a Constitutional Amendment.  You have no argument since you only spent seconds thinking about the issue, wake up and get a clue, or get a legal education.  It takes more than spending just seconds to find an irrelavent statutory authority, that proves nothing but your ignorance, to understand this issue.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 02:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4850
Joined  2007-10-05

Let me quote the Constitution:

Article II, Section 1:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Obama is a natural born citizen as shown earlier in the U.S. Statute I quoted, therefore he is eligible to serve as president.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 02:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4850
Joined  2007-10-05
Jedi Pauly - 25 July 2009 02:07 PM

You are way off base quoting IRRELEVANT STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  The issue is not who qualifies for CITIZENSHIP, the issue is what are the qualifications for PRESIDENT.  It is not Obama’s citizenship that I have questioned, it is his PARENTS’ citizenship that is the issue, as REQUIRED BY ARTICLE II.  It is only HOW he obtains his citizenship that is the issue.  He must obtain it from INHERITANCE by parents who are citizens.  I have DEBUNKED YOUR ILLEGAL ATTEMPT OVER AND OVER, which is a violation of the rules of process, which states that the Constitution is the Supreme Statutory authority, and IT defines the STATUTES, not the other way round.  You can not REDEFINE NBC in Article II qualification from what it means which is NBC(parents) to mean NBC(soil), by a judges’ opinion, or statutory construct.  That requires a Constitutional Amendment.  You have no argument since you only spent seconds thinking about the issue, wake up and get a clue, or get a legal education.  It takes more than spending just seconds to find an irrelavent statutory authority, that proves nothing but your ignorance, to understand this issue.

Go tell it to Fox News. That is probably the only organization in this country with the institutional stupidity to care about your arguments.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 02:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

You know the funniest thing about this? Where was all this Constitutional Authority before the Election?
Why didn’t someone with the power prevent Obama’s campaign from even starting? Why didn’t Bush, or Cheney, or Congress or the Attorney General say:“Oops, sorry Barak, no hard feelings, but you’re ineligible to run, see, it says it right here in the Constitution”
Why didn’t you Jedi, you and the rest of these wackaloons get any traction before the election? What with your all-encompassing proof, and Papers to prove!!??
Huhn Jedi? Can you answer that? Huhn?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 02:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  136
Joined  2009-07-25
fotobits - 25 July 2009 02:08 PM

Let me quote the Constitution:

Article II, Section 1:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Obama is a natural born citizen as shown earlier in the U.S. Statute I quoted, therefore he is eligible to serve as president.

Sorry, it is not quite that simple Ace.  There is more than one type of NBC.  There is NBC(soil), which is a privilege of citizenship from government.  Then, there is also NBC(parents), which is an INHERITED citizenship from your citizen parents, and soil makes no difference at all. You can be born any place in the world and you are still an American citizen, as long as your parents are American citizens so you can INHERIT your citizenship from them.  I am sorry if you are not aware of this fact of life.  It is a fact of life that only NBC(parents) can protect the President from Blackmail, and Empower him in TREATY NEGOTIATIONS.  It is a FACT of life that you only INHERIT loyalty through your father, according to the NATURAL LAW OF INHERITED LOYALTIES (see proof above), which is an OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC AND LEGAL FACT, and is not my OPINION.  I am just REPORTING THE FACTS.  You can not inherit loyalty to America, from a foreign BRITISH and KENYAN DAD. The first and most IMPORTANT test for the qualifications of President, is to see if you are loyal to your FATHER’S PEOPLE (American interests) by seeing if your dad is an American citizen, this is also so a background check can be made.  How can you look into the criminal background of a candidates father’s past, to see what the candidate might be loyal to, or if he has a criminal record with his dad, if you can not even have lawful jurisdiction over the records of his dad, because they are under the sovereign protection of the laws of a foreign countries jurisdiction, because dad is not an American citizen?  Article II is a LOYALTY TEST for President to protect American interests, not a QUALIFICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP TEST!  Its more about your PARENTS citizenship than it is yours.  It already assumes you are a citizen, and just asks HOW DID YOU BECOME A CITIZEN? GET WITH IT MAN!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 02:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  731
Joined  2007-06-20
the PC apeman - 25 July 2009 01:50 PM

Jedi Pauly,
I gather you distinguish your “Natural Born Citizen” argument from the typical “birther” argument that Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen at all.  Are you willing to denounce those other kinds of birthers as, pick one, misguided, wrong, fanatical, crazy?  What do you suppose drives their opposition?

I’m guessing the answer to my first question is no and so my second question hits too close to home.  I do hope we head into a Macduffian “no man born of woman” territory here.  Now that would be entertaining.

 Signature 

PC

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 02:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  324
Joined  2009-04-23

Jedi Pauly, you are kind of a moron, which makes it fun to talk to you!  I know you are aware that we have established, by years and years and years of judges interpreting the constitution, judicial review [THE FIRST TIME:  Marbury v. Madison posed a difficult problem for the Supreme Court, which was incidentally led by Chief Justice John Marshall, the same person who had neglected to deliver the commissions as Secretary of State. If Marshall’s Court commanded Madison to deliver the commissions, he would merely ignore the order, thereby indicating the weakness of the Court. Similarly, if the Court denied Marbury’s request, it would be perceived as weak. In making his ruling, Chief Justice Marshall declared that Marbury was indeed entitled to his commission. He continued, however, that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, as it purported to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases not involving states or ambassadors, thereby establishing that the courts could exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress or the executive branch (Wikipedia)].  We function as a society by means of our courts constantly “interpreting” our Constitution.  Many court opinions, as you cited (“Obamanite supporters attempt to apply judge’s opinions like, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), or Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), or my favorite, Lynch v Clark, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs 236,1 Sand Ch 583 (1844), in an UNLAWFUL APPLICATION OF PROCESS, to try and REDEFINE the meaning and intent of NBC in Article II, to mean NBC(soil), instead of NBC(parents).  This requires a Constitutional Amendment, and cannot be achieved by statute, or judge’s opinion.”), we have all kinds of judicial opinions about NBC.  However, I like this one better than your examples: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the “natural born citizen” clause, the dissent states that such citizenship is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis):  The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
(Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)
  Remember Article 2 states:  No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.  So, NBC is as important as Citizen of the United States.  And you can think that the 14th Amendment is not valid, but it declares:  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.  THEREFORE:  a citizen of the US can be eligible.

Just because you are of the opinion that our judges serve only the purpose of roboticly applying the law, does not mean that you are right.  Judges all day, everyday are attempting to apply laws and are interpreting the constitution.  If they didn’t we would not be able to function in society.  Our constitution needs to be applicable to our “current” times with out amending it every second!

Your opinion is not only just that, opinion and not fact, but it is also not the opinion of the majority.  Many judges everywhere, throughout time, have interpreted NBC to be from soil and not blood.  Sorry, but do have a nice day.  cheese

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 02:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  136
Joined  2009-07-25
VYAZMA - 25 July 2009 02:27 PM

You know the funniest thing about this? Where was all this Constitutional Authority before the Election?
Why didn’t someone with the power prevent Obama’s campaign from even starting? Why didn’t Bush, or Cheney, or Congress or the Attorney General say:“Oops, sorry Barak, no hard feelings, but you’re ineligible to run, see, it says it right here in the Constitution”
Why didn’t you Jedi, you and the rest of these wackaloons get any traction before the election? What with your all-encompassing proof, and Papers to prove!!??
Huhn Jedi? Can you answer that? Huhn?

Well Einstein, it is like this.  Many have tried, and the courts, until recently, have been abusing the claims with unlawful process, or the defendants have been refusing service of process, and the news etc have been ridiculing and suppressing the truth, or anyone that try’s to get at the truth.  But, it is finally gaining traction in the courts.  I suggest you get up to speed on the current situation, by going to World Net Daily and reading about the Cook Case, and Fed Judge Carter’s decisions on these matters.  There is going to be a full airing in court of this matter.  As for me, I only realized it myself just b4 the election, and it has taken me many months of research just to get my understanding of the law and facts right, to where I can now teach judges and lawyers the LAW.  I am sorry things are not going fast enough for you, but I bet I have been working my rear end off, trying to learn, and educate, and prevent, this OBAMANATION.  It is not my fault that everyone has the attitude that it does not matter what the law is, and we can just ignore the law whenever it is convenient, or is too lazy to care and make an effort to do anything about it.  At least I am trying.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  324
Joined  2009-04-23
Jedi Pauly - 25 July 2009 01:44 PM

And so, you admit your selfish criminal nature, and you disqualify yourself as a person who should be given the right to vote or have a say, since you do not care if laws are broken, as long as you get what you want.  By definition, this makes you a Nazi Fascist.  I am sorry, but that is all the more reason that our REPUBLIC needs to be restored, and Obama must be removed, thanks to people like you.

Your assertion makes no sense.  Nazi Fascist requires more than just benefiting or getting “what you want”, because someone, somewhere breaks a law.  I think the fact that you are throwing around very loaded terms without any proof or care, proves that your aggressive tone is from a sense of insecurity in your argument.  It is a poor argument, and you can do little to defend it, so call people names.  Good job!  You’ll do well here!  LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 02:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4850
Joined  2007-10-05

I suggest you get up to speed on the current situation, by going to World Net Daily…

I knew it. We are dealing with a full-blown nutcase. oh oh

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15405
Joined  2006-02-14

Folks, let’s please keep the arguments on the facts rather than attacking the members of the thread personally.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 02:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Well Einstein, it is like this.  Many have tried, and the courts, until recently, have been abusing the claims with unlawful process, or the defendants have been refusing service of process, and the news etc have been ridiculing and suppressing the truth, or anyone that try’s to get at the truth.  But, it is finally gaining traction in the courts.  I suggest you get up to speed on the current situation, by going to World Net Daily and reading about the Cook Case, and Fed Judge Carter’s decisions on these matters.  There is going to be a full airing in court of this matter.  As for me, I only realized it myself just b4 the election, and it has taken me many months of research just to get my understanding of the law and facts right, to where I can now teach judges and lawyers the LAW.  I am sorry things are not going fast enough for you, but I bet I have been working my rear end off, trying to learn, and educate, and prevent, this OBAMANATION.  It is not my fault that everyone has the attitude that it does not matter what the law is, and we can just ignore the law whenever it is convenient, or is too lazy to care and make an effort to do anything about it.  At least I am trying.

You made other colorful remarks about Obama in other posts too. You also made reference to a Non-Partisan investigation of these matters. This seems conflicting with some of your other remarks.
I’m glad you’re working your butt off. Get everything in order. Leave no stone unturned. Get to court prepared. We all have thoughts on what matters about the law. I’m not lazy about it. I care. We just have different interests. Is that wrong? Because I don’t care about your specific judicial cares, when I have my own that I’m concerned with?
Anyways keep us posted of the pending court case. We’ll all have a laugh when it’s over. Yeah, if they impeach Obama, or nullify his office, We’ll have a laugh. I’ll truly laugh. I mean genuinely.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 03:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  136
Joined  2009-07-25
the PC apeman - 25 July 2009 01:50 PM

Jedi Pauly,
I gather you distinguish your “Natural Born Citizen” argument from the typical “birther” argument that Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen at all.  Are you willing to denounce those other kinds of birthers as, pick one, misguided, wrong, fanatical, crazy?  What do you suppose drives their opposition?

I have assumed he is a citizen of the U.S., either by Hawaiian birth, which I doubt, but am willing to accept for sake of argument, because it is irrelevant.  Also, he may also be a citizen by his mother, just as a statutory privilege because she is an American citizen, but this would not be by INHERITANCE because the statutes say she was too young, and that only applies if you do not know who Barack’s dad is, so there is probably a privilege of citizenship, defined in a statute, but still would not mean he would qualify for president.  His real problem is the fact that he has INHERITED LOYALTIES from his dad, which is the only place you inherit them from.  You only inherit your last name, and citizenship(political rights), and loyalties to your mom’s people, if you do not know who your dad is.  The problem for O is, he inherited BRITISH AND KENYAN LOYALTIES, and not AMERICAN LOYALTIES as REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, which can only be inherited from dad, unless you do not know who he is.

I can not denounce “birthers”, since it is my understanding that no person, or any court, has seen any proof of where he was born.  It is my understanding that a COLB is not a birth certificate, since anyone can apply for one and just swear out a statement, and there is no doctors signature or any foot, or hand, or finger prints, like on my birth certificate, to tell that it is actually you or not.  Also, it is my understanding that COLB is issued to American citizens, like O’s mom, that give birth when they are outside of the country.  I think these facts, and the fact that Obama has spent a fortune fighting to keep this out of court, and he refuses to show a REAL birth certificate with a doctors signature and biometric prints that prove it is him, is why you are seeing all the controversy. I do not need that information to prove and make my case in Law and Fact, I can do it with only the Constitution, and logic, and law.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 03:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  731
Joined  2007-06-20
Jedi Pauly - 25 July 2009 03:05 PM

I have assumed he is a citizen of the U.S., either by Hawaiian birth, which I doubt, but am willing to accept for sake of argument, because it is irrelevant.  Also, he may also be a citizen by his mother, just as a statutory privilege because she is an American citizen, but this would not be by INHERITANCE because the statutes say she was too young, and that only applies if you do not know who Barack’s dad is, so there is probably a privilege of citizenship, defined in a statute, but still would not mean he would qualify for president.  His real problem is the fact that he has INHERITED LOYALTIES from his dad, which is the only place you inherit them from.  You only inherit your last name, and citizenship(political rights), and loyalties to your mom’s people, if you do not know who your dad is.  The problem for O is, he inherited BRITISH AND KENYAN LOYALTIES, and not AMERICAN LOYALTIES as REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, which can only be inherited from dad, unless you do not know who he is.

I can not denounce “birthers”, since it is my understanding that no person, or any court, has seen any proof of where he was born.  It is my understanding that a COLB is not a birth certificate, since anyone can apply for one and just swear out a statement, and there is no doctors signature or any foot, or hand, or finger prints, like on my birth certificate, to tell that it is actually you or not.  Also, it is my understanding that COLB is issued to American citizens, like O’s mom, that give birth when they are outside of the country.  I think these facts, and the fact that Obama has spent a fortune fighting to keep this out of court, and he refuses to show a REAL birth certificate with a doctors signature and biometric prints that prove it is him, is why you are seeing all the controversy. I do not need that information to prove and make my case in Law and Fact, I can do it with only the Constitution, and logic, and law.


Weeeeee.  General, can you tell us more about the “Republic of Indiana” and your self-appointed title Unofficial, Original Jurisdiction Governor thereof?

 Signature 

PC

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 34
2