quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

Just to clarify the birther positions thus far:
1. A woman does not have the same right to grant citizenship to her children that a man does.
2. A black man does not have the right to be president, as the possiblity was not envisioned by the founders (therefore I suppose a woman can't be president either?)
And just to belabor point 1. Is this because woman is less likely to know the child is hers??? For that matter, if I am reading the arguement correctly, if a Female US officer is serving overseas while pregnant, and she declines to disclose the father, then her child will not be eligible to become president because she put her military service first?
Shitting on Women's rights, African American rights, and the MILITARY, all to try to argue that Obama can't be prez...
People, I give you the Birthers...

quote:

just think he will go down in history as another abe lincoln or fdr!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

Lawsuit claims Obama can't be President because he's Black

quote:

The various legal shenanigans attempted by Birthers all boil down to one very simple premise: Obama cannot be president of the United States because he’s black. Period. Questioning his birth certificate. Questioning whether having an African father makes him not an American citizen. Always some new “question” as to his legitimacy as president. All of these are just window dressing. The problem is, and always has been, he’s black.

Well, at least one Alaskan (no, it’s not Palin) has decided to just go ahead and say.

Earlier this week, Gordon Warren Epperly filed a lawsuit to have Obama removed from the November ballot. His (rather brazen) reasoning?

quote:

Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, a.ka. Barack H. Obama has the race status of being a “mulatto.” Barack Obama’s father (Barack Hussein Obama I) was a full blood Negro being born Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya and raised in the Colony of Kenya. Barack Obama’s mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) was a white Caucasian woman being born in Wichita, Kansas on November 29, 1942 and raised in the state of Washington and in the state of Hawaii...

As stated above, for an Individual to be a candidate for the office of president of the United States, the candidate must meet the qualifications set forth in the United States Constitution and one of those qualifications is that the Candidate shall be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. As Barack Hussein Obama II is of the “mulatto” race, his status of citizenship is founded upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Before the [purported] ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the race of “Negro” or “mulatto” had no standing to be citizens of the United States under the United States Constitution.

As the fourteenth amendment is only a grant of “civil rights” and not a grant of “political rights” Barack Hussein Obama II does not have and “political rights” under any provision of the United States Constitution to hold any Public Office of the United States government.

So, because President Obama is half-black, or more crassly, a Mulatto, he has no “political rights” under the Constitution. This would also include, by the way, the right to vote, the right to peaceably assemble, etc.

Such honesty is refreshing, really. Of course, Mr. Epperly goes into the grand conspiracy of the mysterious birth certificate, but the main thrust of his argument is that black people are not real Americans. It’s about time a conservative just came out and admitted it. Don’t be fooled by right wing protestations of it being an ISOLATED INCIDENT, this is how they think. America, to them, is a White (not white, White) Christian nation that is theirs by right. Obama is just a black usurper. Who do you think they’re talking about when they scream “I want my country back!”?

.PDF of Court filing challenging President Obama being on the 2012 ballot

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

1. A woman does not have the same right to grant citizenship to her children that a man does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
1) yeh and what the hell gives the mother the right to determine that the child is going to be a US citizen anyway?

2) What about his british daddy, (you know the country the constitution intended to keep OUT of our government), wanted him to be a UK citizen?

3) what about his rights?

4) What about the 1802 that states unequivocally that both must be us citizens? That is key to what a natural born citizen is! (among all the other elements of course)

5) Every one chose to focus on race and women and conveniently skip over that little fact.



Atty., Dr. Herb Titus, Esq., Barack Obama's Natural Born Citizen Status, Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIf0GwaAyI8

Atty., Dr. Herb Titus, Esq., Barack Obama's Natural Born Citizen Status, Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm-g8q7Cq_o

Atty., Dr. Herb Titus: Obama Not A Natural Born Citizen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmkmV5scHCQ&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL27153986122565F8


he explains it quite well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
1) yeh and what the hell gives the mother the right to determine that the child is going to be a US citizen anyway?

2) What about his british daddy, (you know the country the constitution intended to keep OUT of our government), wanted him to be a UK citizen?

3) what about his rights?

4) What about the 1802 that states unequivocally that both must be us citizens? That is key to what a natural born citizen is! (among all the other elements of course)

5) Every one chose to focus on race and women and conveniently skip over that little fact.



Atty., Dr. Herb Titus, Esq., Barack Obama's Natural Born Citizen Status, Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIf0GwaAyI8

Atty., Dr. Herb Titus, Esq., Barack Obama's Natural Born Citizen Status, Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm-g8q7Cq_o

Atty., Dr. Herb Titus: Obama Not A Natural Born Citizen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmkmV5scHCQ&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL27153986122565F8


he explains it quite well.

1)  The mother doesn't determine it the law does.
2) They made a piss poor job of it then, what with the first 5 or 6 governments made up entirely of citizens of England and their colonies and other various and sundry enemies of England. 
3)  What sort of rights did daddy claim?  credible citation please.
4)  Simply being passed by both houses is not a law, lets see the actual law signed by the president or voted over his veto.  But we are assured that parts of that law have been repealed, revised AND deprecated.
for example:

The Naturalization Act was supplemented on March 26, 1804, by exempting aliens who had entered the United States between 1798 and 1802 from the declaration of intention. The three year notice was reduced to two years on May 26, 1824. (and oops, there is some reference to this in your copy and paste of the old book.)

5)  That sort of gets rid of whatever useless canard you are trying to elevate to a relevance. He was a Kenyan citizen, a colony of England.  Not quite the same scrambled eggs you make of everything.

and unnumbered, some polliwog on fuckin youtube blathering fucking idocy is no more credible than it is here. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

1) so the state can claim a child JUST LIKE THE FEUDAL KING huh. You cant even do that if a neighbors cow has a calf on your land for shit sake but thanks for admitting we are a feudal society after all.

2) yes the framers are expressly exempted.

3) As you can see daddy has no rights if the sovereign king "USA" can simply interfer and claim the child fuck what daddy wants

4) The initial organic law is the constitution and the SAL is the vehicle to get that done.

So the USC that you claim is superior law is signed by el prazi dante then? hmmm?

Show me the treaty with britain or kenya that the US can stomp on daddies rights and steal the kids citizenship in the first place?

Show me daddies power of attorney to allow mom to make him a US citizen.

Since daddy is a brit or a kenyan or someone who is NOT a US Citizen show me his renunciation of any other government as required by law.

Show me the formal required paperwork that he claimed to be a us citizen.

Show me his naturalization papers.

Show me ANY fucking thing LEGAL that was done to show he is a US citizen let alone a natural born citizen.

No you are ASSUMING that they were repealed and have shown nothing and cannot show anything of that sort because it does not exist!

Show me where a naturalized citizen is eligible to be el prazzi dante.

The most he could EVER be is naturalIZED not "NATURAL BORN".

Kenyan UK makes not difference, DADDY was NOT a US Citizen which is one of the requirements to be "NATURAL BORN" as stated in the 1802 (among others) and NEVER REPEALED.

You can stick that jfk drivel where the sun dont shine.

Your boat dont float and there isnt enough shit to throw at the wall to change that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

1. The state cannot claim a child, the nation can.  lose.
So a nation is not a state! dingaling time to wake up!
2.  Framers only are not specifically exempted.  lose.
I am not going to repost it, yes they are, more of your bullshit without citation.
3.  No can't see that, there was no attempt by the father to change status quo. lose.
DADDY IS A BRIT! THEREFORE OBAMA CANNOT BE NATURAL BORN AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION. GET IT?
5.  Well, it is not in any wise 'organic', it repealed the 4 alien and sedition acts, and in our country only the constitution would be 'organic' law.  And the 1802 2 stat 153 (thats the original USC)  has been revised, deprecated and some of it repealed, by your own citations lose. 

Sure as hell is! the USC is a re-write of the SAL and they ALWAYS miss or add or otherwise misconstrue the original law and or the original intent. Try reading it sometime

Here are some more revisions for you  (LOL I got plenty more):

The most important of these revisions occurred in 1855, when citizenship was automatically granted to alien wives of U.S. citizens (10 Stat. 604), and in 1870, when the naturalization process was opened to persons of African descent (16 Stat. 256).

more shit from the asswipe pile

So far you are proven to be batting zero.  You can't seriously expect anyone with an IQ above a slime worm to buy into some document without the effect of law, and keep pushing it as law, without showing us the current law, if it is the current law as you claim it is, especially since I have given you the 8 USC for you to find that language.

and as for the rest, inventive worthlessness.   you can argue daddy all you want, but daddy did not assert any rights he allegedly held, and anything regarding that is frivolous and irrelevant, and just like the rest of the shithouse lawyers, all the cases are dismissed and all are laughinstocks.

daddy is a brit therefore obama cannot be a natural born citizen. period to bad so sad whine cry throw shit at the wall till hell freezes over, nothing will change that.
   

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

1) so the state can claim a child JUST LIKE THE FEUDAL KING huh. You cant even do that if a neighbors cow has a calf on your land for shit sake but thanks for admitting we are a feudal society after all.

2) yes the framers are expressly exempted.

3) As you can see daddy has no rights if the sovereign king "USA" can simply interfer and claim the child fuck what daddy wants

4) The initial organic law is the constitution and the SAL is the vehicle to get that done.

So the USC that you claim is superior law is signed by el prazi dante then? hmmm?

Show me the treaty with britain or kenya that the US can stomp on daddies rights and steal the kids citizenship in the first place?

Show me daddies power of attorney to allow mom to make him a US citizen.

Since daddy is a brit or a kenyan or someone who is NOT a US Citizen show me his renunciation of any other government as required by law.

Show me the formal required paperwork that he claimed to be a us citizen.

Show me his naturalization papers.

Show me ANY fucking thing LEGAL that was done to show he is a US citizen let alone a natural born citizen.

No you are ASSUMING that they were repealed and have shown nothing and cannot show anything of that sort because it does not exist!

Show me where a naturalized citizen is eligible to be el prazzi dante.

The most he could EVER be is naturalIZED not "NATURAL BORN".

Kenyan UK makes not difference, DADDY was NOT a US Citizen which is one of the requirements to be "NATURAL BORN" as stated in the 1802 (among others) and NEVER REPEALED.

You can stick that jfk drivel where the sun dont shine.

Your boat dont float and there isnt enough shit to throw at the wall to change that.

A child can have the right to multiple nation's citizenship. Up to 4 in the US. Imagine a child born of a Mexican, Jewish Mother and a British Father on US soil. This child is a US, British, Mexican, Israeli citizen.
Now, the child turns 18, decides to live in the US, and becomes a Baptist. The now adult has effectively renounced his citizenship in the other 3 nations he could have claimed. If he instead had moved to Wales, he'd be British, if he went to Mexaco City, he'd be Mexican.
and the child will never be anything more than naturalized, what is so hard about this.
It isn't that the state "claims," the kid, it is that a state ALLOWS a child to claim citizenship. The state will not deny a child of one of their citizens the right to "return home," just because the child was born on a vacation, or as I pointed out, while the mother was serving in the military.
Are you honestly claiming that the son of a woman who gives birth in, say, Spain while serving in our Armed Forces should leave her child in Spain? Or perhaps you think she should emmigrate to Spain to raise her child in his nation?
As for the law. The law in question isn't the one you keep quoting, it is the 1790 law, as amended by your law and about 16 others!

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

other than the typical misinformed meanderings, you may cite the constitution in these two areas, since you are such a legal guru, I mean c'mon, you said it, and that means nothing without proof because I am calling you absolutely and completely wrong:

2.  Framers only are not specifically exempted.  lose.
I am not going to repost it, yes they are, more of your bullshit without citation.
3.  No can't see that, there was no attempt by the father to change status quo. lose.
DADDY IS A BRIT! THEREFORE OBAMA CANNOT BE NATURAL BORN AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION. GET IT?


(you have never posted with a credible citation from law that Framers ONLY are exempted.)  I proffer you John Quincy Adams.

You may show me where the constitution tells us that natural born does not include a parent of another country.   I have given you the correct and only definition of natural born before.  And why then, the mother (and not the father) is the provenance of the citizenship in this country.   


It appears as though as always you are floundering. It comes as we have all told you from having no knowledge or aptitude at legal understanding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Only one president was the son of two immigrant parents: Andrew Jackson.
Five presidents ([Thomas] Jefferson, James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover) had just one immigrant parent each