Blog Rules
Comments are initially moderated, after which you have the opportunity to freely participate in the discussion. I do retain the right to remove postings which are obscene, commercial or which lack in content (trolling).
Argue with facts, provide supporting evidence and links.
And have fun
To NATIVEBORNCITIZEN:
Your re-typed text of In re Look Tin SING (9th Cir 1884) 21 Fed 905, 10 Sawyer 353 is SERIOUSLY defective. At some point you confuse a lengthy footnote with the main text, with the result that the text becomes completely unreadable and confusing. I strongly urge you to make corrections (comparing your typed text with the printed versions in BOTH Fed and Sawyer will make it easier to see where you went wrong). You can use this as an opportunity to provide star pagination to both Fed and Sawyer.
Thanks I will see what I can do to clean it up. Much appreciated.
since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.
The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President. Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.