The Holy Grail of All “Natural Born Citizen” Law Review Articles

Posted on August 28, 2009 by

Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point. But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times. But that’s exactly what has happened this week. A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UCONN…

The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.

The article is written in a clear and concise manner, easily understood by lawyers and lay persons alike. I will now introduce each relevant issue confronted in this article and then present the article in full for your review.

OBAMA POTUS ELIGIBILITY MYTHS DESTROYED BY MR. GEORGE COLLINS

MYTH #1: Chester Arthur’s British birth was known and accepted by the American people.

…

MYTH #2: Lynch v. Clark ( a New York State case, not federal) is legal precedent for Obama to be considered a natural born citizen.

…

MYTH #3: Common law states that being born on the soil – Jus Soli – makes one a “natural born subject” and therefore every person born on US soil is a “natural born citizen”.

…

MYTH #4: Vattell’s definition of a natural born citizen was not considered by the framers.

…

I hope the following piece of history serves as a wake up call to the snarky sarcasm being leveled at this very serious legal question. There is nothing funny about this issue. The repercussions for generations to come are potentially disastrous.

And with that I leave you with the Holy Grail of all natural born citizen law review articles…

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Holy Grail of All “Natural Born Citizen” Law Review Articles

  1. Frin says:
    August 30, 2009 at 9:42 pm

    Mr Pill,

    You should really read the referred article by George D Collins. You will quickly find out that it is a racist screed solely aimed at arguing that the children of Chinese immigrants are not actually citizens.

    An example quote is:

    “Now it is evident that such persons [the Chinese] are utterly unfit, wholly incompetent, to exercise the important privileges of an Amorican citizen, a title which it was the aim of our ancestors to make as proud as that of king; and yet under the common-law rule they would be citizens. ”

    On point indeed – if the point that Leo is trying to make is that he is a racist.

  2. itooktheredpill says:
    August 30, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”
    “Racist!”

    We’ve grown so accustomed to hearing Democratic Socialist Communists claim others are racist, that you have become a broken record that we no longer listen to.

  3. Frin says:
    August 31, 2009 at 1:48 am

    Mr Pill,

    So I take it you agree with the statement that the Chinese are wholly incompetent and unfit to be American citizens, by the fact that you failed to acknowledge the point of my argument?

    While I think you are many things, racist was not a label I had applied to you. Maybe I should rethink that in the light of your failure to acknowledge that Collins was not on-point at all.

  4. itooktheredpill says:
    August 31, 2009 at 10:36 am

    Frin,

    I’ve had enough of the “racist” straw man argument. You can call me any name you want (although I’ll warn you in advance that vulgarity will get you banned from my blog). If you really want to know my thoughts on “race”, read my following posts:

    Who’s Racist?

    Ditto That

    One Human Race

    There are plenty of racists in this country, but I am not one of them.

    And the question of whether or not George D. Collins was a racist is irrelevant.

    What is relevant is the Constitution of the United States of America.

    What is relevant is that the Constitution of the United States of America says:

    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.

    And:

    No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    What is relevant is what the founders intended by these requirements. There is a clear distinction made between “Citizen” (sufficient to be a Senator, or President if and only if you were a “Citizen” in 1787) and “natural born Citizen” (necessary to become President if you were born after 1787), and it is vital that we understand and enforce that more stringent requirement that the President be a “natural born Citizen”.

    “Race” has nothing to do with that.

    The founders were familiar with the Law of Nations, as evidenced in Article 1 Section 8.

    And by the Law of Nations, natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    The reason why there is a more stringent requirement for President is because the President is Commander in Chief of all of our Armed Forces. The man who became the first chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (John Jay), in a letter written July 25th, 1787 to the man who was the Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention and became the first President of the United States (George Washington), made it clear that this more stringent requirement for President was wise because the President would also be Commander in Chief:

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    Race has nothing to do with this. It’s an issue of national security to ensure that the Commander in Chief of our military has never had citizenship or allegiance to any other country.

    And Obama fails to meet this requirement, just as Chester Arthur failed to meet this requirement. Arthur’s desire to be President was so strong that he lied and covered up the truth that he was born a British subject. And a strong supporter of Arthur assassinated President James Garfield and said, “Arthur is President now!”

    This time, we know that the man claiming to be President was born a British subject. You can’t be born both a British subject, due to your father being a British subject, and at the same time be born a natural born Citizen of the United States. The two are mutually exclusive. Obama was not born a natural born Citizen of the United States, and is ineligible to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief. He is a usurper, and must be removed from office as quickly as possible.

  5. Frin says:
    September 1, 2009 at 1:54 am

    Mr Pill,

    Your argument on dual citizenship negating natural born status is so completely ridiculous it almost defies belief.

    Firstly, Obama was never a British citizen. He was eligible to obtain citizenship, but there is certainly no evidence that he ever obtained either British or Kenyan citizenship, and as such, no evidence that he ever was a dual citizen.

    Obama was eligible for that British citizenship as a result of British citizenship laws. So effectively you are allowing another country’s citizenship laws to dictate who can and can not run for President in the USA. What happens if North Korea announces tomorrow that all American citizens are also North Korean citizens? You are all dual citizens now, can’t be natural born then.

    What about Israel’s “Right of Return” laws, which state that any child born to a Jewish mother, regardless of where in the world they are born, is eligible for Israeli citizenship. Does that mean that every American Jew is in the same boat as Obama and thus can’t run for President? 8 US Presidents (George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson) were eligible for French citizenship due to their Huguenot heritage –

    Think about it man, on one hand you want to make sure that the President doesn’t have divided loyalties, yet you are prepared to treat the laws of a foreign government as operative in the US, controlling and dictating US law. Ironic much?

  6. Justawhoaman says:
    September 3, 2009 at 9:48 am

    Frin stated:

    “Obama was eligible for that British citizenship as a result of British citizenship laws. So effectively you are allowing another country’s citizenship laws to dictate who can and can not run for President in the USA. What happens if North Korea announces tomorrow that all American citizens are also North Korean citizens? You are all dual citizens now, can’t be natural born then.”

    Your argument is made moot by the foolishness of this paragraph. If a person, in fact, IS SUBJECT TO CITIZENSHIP LAWS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY then the person is a dual citizen. A dual citizen in not, by definition, a natural born citizen. North Korea could edict anything they wanted; however, if it is not in accordance with the Law of Nations, then such laws would not be recognized by the international community.

    You obviously do not like the fact the Oputrid finally got caught in the BIG LIE… one for which, as a “Constitutional Lawyer” he should have seen coming. Of course, since we have no records, we don’t know if he was, in fact, a constitutional lawyer… We do know that he signed an oath when he became a lawyer in Illinois indicating that he never had another name… and even HE has recognized that he was Barry Soetoro at one time.

    Go figure, Frin. Your boy is a fraud.

    Justawhoaman

  7. itooktheredpill says:
    September 5, 2009 at 1:21 am

    Frin,

    there is certainly no evidence that he ever obtained either British or Kenyan citizenship, and as such, no evidence that he ever was a dual citizen.

    “certainly no evidence”?

    Obama’s own campaign, on http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html posted the following:

    his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982

    Now, what’s interesting is that they are quoting “FactCheck.org”, an organization that has been repeatedly shown to not sufficiently check their “facts”.

    After Leo Donofrio exposed one of their errors, “FactCheck.org” was forced to admit that they got a fact wrong.

    Initially, we said that Obama’s citizenship expired in 1982, on Obama’s 21st birthday. In fact, however, the Kenyan Constitution provides a two-year window during which one can decide which citizenship to keep. So, President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1984, not 1982, as we had initially reported.

    We regret the error.

    But go ahead, Frin… keep living in your fantasy world, telling yourself over and over again that

    there is certainly no evidence that he ever obtained either British or Kenyan citizenship, and as such, no evidence that he ever was a dual citizen.

  8. westexan says:
    September 10, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    I am probabely a racist even though i hold no animosity against anyone of a diferrent color than myself. My color is neutral, I am white. I love my white family, my Irish heritage, and most likely my probable link to the biblical tribe of Dan. In this day of enlightenment one may ask “what is color anyway”? Is a red rose still a red rose in a darkened room void of light? In a darkened room is a white person still a white person, or a black person still a black person?– if one is a bigot like Barack Hussein Obama, the answer is a resounding YES.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s