Google+ Followers

Showing posts with label BO eligibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BO eligibility. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Hawaii Birth Certificate fraud

Still hard to say whether or not BO's records are real and legal or not. If any of this is accurate, BO needs to be investigated by congress and the FBI (they say it is not necessary for them to vet politicians and they won't unless ordered) and his accomplices treated as criminals.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Another Discussion of Citizenship

> Subject: Obama eligibility "natural born citizen"
> ------
> Natural Born Citizen
> Their has been many allegations with regard to our present president of these
> United States has to where he was born. They have been called "Birthers".
> They have questions about the birth certificate and social security number or
> numbers. Are they real or valid? There are many questions, investigations and
> opinions by experts on the subject.
> The impact of a determination that Barack Obama was not born in this country
> would be profound. Every act, every appointment he has made in every
> department, every bill he has signed into law, including spending bills,
> every executive order, any proclamations would all become null and void. For
> this very reason the evidence needed, the proof provided would have to be so
> iron clad, slam dunk, spot on and overwhelming that it would be easier to
> convict Casey Anthony of her daughter's Caylee's death. Unless we had a
> confession.
> But what if we had court rulings and not just court rulings but federal court
> rulings and not just any federal court rulings but supreme court rulings
> along with a confession that makes Barack Obama ineligible to run for and be
> elected president of the United States. That this was known and that the
> knowledge was censored, hidden, along with attempts to scrub this information
> from the public to access. Would these actions be treasonous and those who
> perpetrated these action traitors.
> We all know that Barack's farther was not born in this country because
> Barack has said as much, many times. That is the confession. Below is article
> 2 of the U.S. constitution.
> Article. II.
> Section. 1.
> The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
> America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and,
> together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as
> follows:
> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
> direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
> Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
> Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit
> under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
> The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for
> two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same
> State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted
> for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and
> certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United
> States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate
> shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all
> the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the
> greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority
> of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who
> have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of
> Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President;
> and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the
> said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the
> President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each
> State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or
> Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall
> be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President,
> the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the
> Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes,
> the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
> This paragraph was changed with AMENDMENT XII
> Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.
> The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on
> which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the
> United 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.
> In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death,
> Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said
> Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by
> Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of
> the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as
> President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be
> removed, or a President shall be elected.
> This paragraph was changed with AMENDMENT XXV
> Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.
> The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a
> Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the
> Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within
> that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
> Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following
> Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
> execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of
> my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
> States."
> Eligibility to run and be elected President of the United States is contained
> in the fourth paragraph that has not been amended, it states a follows;
> 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.
> Question; What is or who is a natural born citizen? The constitution
> doesn't say, but the federal supreme court did, and affirmed that decision
> many times afterward by siting that ruling in other decisions. Setting a long
> precedent or stare decisis a Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere:
> "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed." This is understood
> to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb
> settled matters.. The ruling that determined what a natural born citizen is,
> by the supreme court and every other ruling of the court where that ruling
> was sited is what some if not many have attempted to censor, hide and scrub
> from public access.
> U.S. Supreme Court
> MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
> 88 U.S. 162 (Wall.)
> v.
> October Term, 1874
> This is the case where the federal supreme court determined what constitutes
> a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen. It case involves a woman in
> the State of Missouri being denied the right to register to vote as a citizen
> of that State because she was a woman. Supreme Court of Missouri upheld that
> decision so it was then petitioned to the federal supreme court. The court
> took the case because of this part of the argument;
> "Mr. Francis Minor (with whom were Messrs. J. M. Krum and J. B. Henderson),
> for the plaintiff in error, went into an elaborate argument, partially based
> on what he deemed true political views, and partially resting on legal and
> constitutional grounds. These last seemed to be thus resolvable:
> 1st. As a citizen of the United States, the plaintiff was entitled to any and
> all the 'privileges and immunities' that belong to such position however
> defined; and as are held, exercised, and enjoyed by other citizens of the
> United States."
> As part of the opinion given by the chief justice of the court is this, in
> quotation marks as those in quotes above.
> "The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the
> fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of
> the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the
> provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right
> of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other
> grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it
> was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has
> been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole
> purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident
> propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a
> decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at
> once to its determination.
> It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State
> of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to
> men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore
> void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United
> States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United
> States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage
> as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State
> cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
> There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the
> fourteenth amendment 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States
> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' are expressly declared to be
> 'citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' But, in
> our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
> Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms
> prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several
> States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.
> There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political
> community, such as a nation is, implies an [88 U.S. 162, 166] association of
> persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons
> associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes
> it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection
> are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation
> for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance."
> "For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this
> membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation
> he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words 'subject,' 'inhabitant,'
> and 'citizen' have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made
> to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly
> employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the
> description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by
> nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was
> afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution
> of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying
> the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.
> To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the
> adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons
> originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were
> afterwards admitted to membership.
> Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and
> established by 'the people of the United States,'3 and then going further
> back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had
> before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain,
> and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth,4 and
> that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took
> the name of 'the United States of America,' entered into a firm league of [88
> U.S. 162, 167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the
> security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding
> themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made
> upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any
> other pretence whatever. 5
> Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the
> Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-a
> member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons
> associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its
> original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have
> arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons
> were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if
> they were.
> Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two
> ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from
> the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that 'no person except a
> natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the
> adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,'7
> and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of
> naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by
> naturalization.
> The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
> Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the
> nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was
> never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its
> citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were
> natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or
> foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born
> within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88
> U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as
> to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve
> these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that
> all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves
> citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used
> in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last
> they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied.
> In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
> Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as
> early as 1790, provided 'that any alien, being a free white person,' might be
> admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such
> persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under
> twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be
> considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens
> of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits
> of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. 8 These
> provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the
> naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was
> somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born
> out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers
> were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States,
> were declared to be citizens also.9
> As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had
> declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died
> before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be
> considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and
> privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath;10 and in 1855 it was
> further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the
> existing laws, married, or [88 U.S. 162, 169] who should be married to a
> citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. 11
> From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon
> this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by
> naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have
> been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors
> were already citizens by birth."
> According to this ruling and other cases siting this ruling, Barack Obama
> whose farther was not a citizen but because his mother was, he became a
> citizen by naturalization, period! As such he is not eligible to run for or
> become president of these United States.
> For more information on the courts rulings here is a link to start with.
> [1]
> Note; When you go to this site take time to click on the posts dated December
> 08 and January 09. Very interesting!
> [1]
> ------
> To view and reply to this discussion visit the following page:
> If you would like to stop recieving email updates for group activity, please
> visit the notifications page in your account settings:

BO eligibility,president,socialists,democrats,dishonest,citizens,natural born