SOme of What Obama is hiding

major bean wrote: Here is the text of the 14th ammendment. Read it in its entirety. It deals strictly with the civil war.

The Declaration of Independence dealt strictly with our break from England, if you take it literally.

Kate wrote: How does it deal strictly with the Civil War? I understand that it was written and adopted at that time, but is this amendment not valid today because of when it was written? Do you interpret this amendment to deny citizenship to those born in the US? Just asking, because I'm unclear on your point.

Kate, you know nothing of law?

I have stated VERY clearly that those born in the U.S. are not U.S. citizens if their parents are not U.S. citizens. The 14th ammendment was not crafted to cover this subject. It was constructed to apply to freed slaves and their offspring.

kresspin wrote:

major bean wrote: Here is the text of the 14th ammendment. Read it in its entirety. It deals strictly with the civil war.

The Declaration of Independence dealt strictly with our break from England, if you take it literally.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!! Read it. It is very specific about its purpose.

Here is the text of the Declaration of Independence.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

major bean wrote: That reminds me that a "natural born" citizen is a child born to 2 natural or naturalized U.S. citizens.

That you believe this statement to be true, shows your complete lack of understanding when it comes to matters such as this.

kresspin wrote:

major bean wrote: That reminds me that a "natural born" citizen is a child born to 2 natural or naturalized U.S. citizens.

That you believe this statement to be true, shows your complete lack of understanding when it comes to matters such as this.

That was my feeling concerning your understanding of the law. My view of your understanding was reinforced by your misuse of the Declaration of Independence. That was a stark display of ignorance.

major bean wrote:

Kate wrote: How does it deal strictly with the Civil War? I understand that it was written and adopted at that time, but is this amendment not valid today because of when it was written? Do you interpret this amendment to deny citizenship to those born in the US? Just asking, because I'm unclear on your point.

Kate, you know nothing of law?

I have stated VERY clearly that those born in the U.S. are not U.S. citizens if their parents are not U.S. citizens. The 14th ammendment was not crafted to cover this subject. It was constructed to apply to freed slaves and their offspring.

Can you cite legal precedent to back up your statement? Otherwise, I will have to assume that this is just your personal interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Can you cite legal precedent to back up your statement concerning the 14th ammendment? Otherwise my assumptions of your personal interpretation will remain the same.

What!? Are we in a court of law? Or are we just discussing, as a form of Sunday afternoon entertainment, the merits of the investigation into Obama legal status to be president. This will be sorted out by those with money, power, and those in the government and courts.

Asking me to present a legal brief is merely a unreasonable request as you try to end this discussion. There are those who have devoted their monies and time who will present a case in the future. You and I will only be interested observers, nothing more. Enjoy the discussion right now and quit trying to use bully tactics to make me withdraw.

And obviously you did not read the 14th ammendment in its entirety.

major bean wrote: Can you cite legal precedent to back up your statement concerning the 14th ammendment? Otherwise my assumptions of your personal interpretation will remain the same.

What!? Are we in a court of law? We are discussing the merits of the investigation into Obama legal status to be president. This will be sorted out by those with money, power, and those in the government and courts.

Asking me to present a legal brief is merely a unreasonable request to end this discussion. There are those who have devoted their monies and time who will present a case in the future. You and I will only be interested observers, nothing more. Enjoy the discussion right now and quit trying to use bully tactics to make me withdraw.

It's not unreasonable. I believe you have made the statement that persons are not US citizens even though they are born on US soil. I asked you to back up your interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which I might point out, is not the universally accepted interpretation.

Here's a case from the turn of the century that gave a man of Chinese parents, born in San Fransisco, US citizenship. It was ruled on by the US Supreme Court.

Again, it's wikipedia, but it does have links to the actual case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ng_Kim_Ark

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about the role of jus soli (birth in the United States) as a factor in determining a person's claim to United States citizenship. The citizenship status of a man born in the United States to Chinese parents was challenged[1] because of a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens,[2] but the Supreme Court ruled that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.[3]

In a 6–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had indeed acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."[14]

I'm sorry, Major Bean, if you think I am bullying you. That is not my intention. I'm just engaging in a discussion here.