tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5966366807476531152.post3079891032274192276..comments2023-09-27T06:45:43.184-05:00Comments on Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter: MELTDOWN!!! OBOTS DISCOVER BIRTHERS CAN VOTE, TOO!!!!Squeekyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13526929347358296892noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5966366807476531152.post-21325467713511946722010-12-25T18:01:42.901-06:002010-12-25T18:01:42.901-06:00Michael's comment on natural born citizenship ...Michael's comment on natural born citizenship lacks any citation to back it up. This is likely because there are none. His ideas are totally at odds with any authoritative work of constitutional law and the various cases that have touched on the subject. For one, I cite Rawle's <em>A View of the Constitution</em> and the New York Chancery Court decision in <em>Lynch v Clarke</em> that explicitly states that the child of an alien born in the United States is eligible to be President. See also Indiana court of appeals <em>Ankeny v Daniels</em> dealing with Barack Obama specifically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5966366807476531152.post-48756661699139690022010-10-03T20:41:44.804-05:002010-10-03T20:41:44.804-05:00To Michael:
Thank you for your opinion, but that ...To Michael:<br /><br />Thank you for your opinion, but that just isn't what the law case says. Here is the sentence:<br /><br />"“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."<br /><br />Sooo, that is real simple. Can you go to just one law case and find one sentence that says what you say? Because if you can't then you are just wrong, and you have to stop saying this stuff because it is just setting the STUPID OBOTS up to beat our butts.<br /><br />If you want us Birthers to win, then you are just going to have to admit you are wrong and lets get back to basics. Pleeeasasee!<br /><br />Squeeky<br />Girl ReporterSqueekyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13526929347358296892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5966366807476531152.post-22653705560708546892010-10-03T04:02:30.749-05:002010-10-03T04:02:30.749-05:00In English 'common law' the ORDINARY subje...In English 'common law' the ORDINARY subjects (aka citizens in USA) were CALLED 'natural born subjects'.<br /><br />English 'natural born subjects' are the equivalent to US 14th Amendment 'citizens' (nothing to do with Article II 'natural born Citizen'<br /><br />The English 'natural born subjects' were NOT eligible for the highest office of England.<br /><br />The US 'natural born Citizen' IS eligible for highest office of USA.<br /><br />The highest office of England is sovereign, and the eligibility for highest office in England is due to the status of the parents (jus sanguinis)<br /><br />Similarly the in the constitutional republic of United States of America, founded on the US Constitution, it sets the CITIZENS as sovereign.<br /><br />Consistent with English 'common law', the USA draws those eligible for highest office from the sovereign 'Citizens', i.e.. Citizen parents.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233671561360156161noreply@blogger.com