'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location

Status
Not open for further replies.
I get it. Asking that Constitutional requirements be met is "sad" and "utter bullshit."

There was even a birth announcement in the local paper.

So rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we should rely on birth announcements in newspapers?

A woman can give birth anywhere in the world -- and still send that birth announcement to her hometown's local paper in order to let her friends and family see the good news. :shrug:
 
i haven't read this thread thoroughly (and why would i subject myself to that?) but it seems like double jeopardy is being discussed in a non-criminal matter. i don't think it applies.
Doesn't even apply at all. Jim's busy slamming me for being a Cannuckistani and using the variations of double-jeapodry and how it's interpretted in Canada vs. USA to show that we're wrong about how we apply the law and therefore my argument means nothing.

Pretty roundabout, but there you go.
 
I get it. Asking that Constitutional requirements be met is "sad" and "utter bullshit."



So rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we should rely on birth announcements in newspapers?

A woman can give birth anywhere in the world -- and still send that birth announcement to her hometown's local paper in order to let her friends and family see the good news. :shrug:

I thought we established that the requirement of 10 years of citizen for a birth parent, five of which come after age 16, was the rule for someone born on foreign soil, which is the rule that makes John McCain eligible to run despite being born in Panama, while Obama could have been born to a pair of people who weren't citizens at all and as long as it was on US soil, he's a citizen by natural birth.

We've had a resident of Hawaii testify that the image posted here is what the actual certificates look like when you go to the county clerk's office to get one. That's Hawaii's version of the kind of certificate I got here in California when I needed one to get a passport. So it's good enough for the government to issue a passport, but it's not good enough for you?

I didn't vote for Obama either, but God damn.
 
A picture of him being born with an American flag flapping in the background..and some hula dancers in the foreground...taken by a Fox reporter, on film and certified un-modified.
 
I thought we established that the requirement of 10 years of citizen for a birth parent, five of which come after age 16, was the rule for someone born on foreign soil, which is the rule that makes John McCain eligible to run despite being born in Panama, while Obama could have been born to a pair of people who weren't citizens at all and as long as it was on US soil, he's a citizen by natural birth.

We've had a resident of Hawaii testify that the image posted here is what the actual certificates look like when you go to the county clerk's office to get one. That's Hawaii's version of the kind of certificate I got here in California when I needed one to get a passport. So it's good enough for the government to issue a passport, but it's not good enough for you?

I didn't vote for Obama either, but God damn.

And once again, it's pretty obvious what the real issue is, isn't it?
 
The acquittal/prosecution doesn't finish (conclude) the trial unless there's no appeal. If there's an appeal, the trial (with the verdict listed) is still considered open. If the appeal fails (or if there's no call for appeal), the original trial is closed/concluded. At which point, double-jeopardy applies. If the appeal shows merit, the process starts anew.

Here, the trial is concluded when the vredict is read. According to you, the verdict is merely set aside until someone makes a determination as to whether to appeal or not. Here in the U.S. the prosecution does not have ANY right to appeal a verdict of not guilty.

Appeals don't succeed as often as you'd imagine.

They only have to succeed once to bastardize the system. There should be no power of the state to appeal a not guilty verdict.

Our laws for most of Canada come from the British common law. Quebec also has a civil law. Both fall under the Constitution.

Not ours. The Constitution may have been based on English common law but is nothing like them in scope.

Bet you forgot that your common law is still based under the British common law.

The common law is used in very limited circumstances here. If you are so hot to trot for the common law why don't you demand your common law right to bear arms? Oh, yeah,I forgot. You are a subject. You have no right to bear arms.

REPORT

of the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

of the

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

Second Session
February 1982​

History: Second Amendment Right to "Keep and Bear Arms"

The right to keep and bear arms as a part of English and American law antedates not only the Constitution, but also the discovery of firearms. Under the laws of Alfred the Great, whose reign began in 872 A.D., all English citizens from the nobility to the peasants were obliged to privately purchase weapons and be available for military duty. [1] This was in sharp contrast to the feudal system as it evolved in Europe, under which armament and military duties were concentrated in the nobility. The body of armed citizens were known as the "fyrd".

While a great many of the Saxon rights were abridged following the Norman conquest, the right and duty of arms possession was retained. Under the Assize of Arms of 1181, "the whole community of freemen" between the ages of 15 and 40 were required by law to possess certain arms, which were arranged in proportion to their possessions. [2] They were required twice a year to demonstrate to Royal officials that they were appropriately armed. In 1253, another Assize of Arms expanded the duty of armament to include not only freemen, but also villeins, who were the English equivalent of serfs. Now all "citizens, burgesses, free tenants, villeins and others from 15 to 60 years of age" were obligated to be armed. [3] While on the Continent the villeins were regarded as little more than animals hungering for rebellion, the English legal system not only permitted, but affirmatively required them, to be armed.

The thirteenth century saw further definitions of this right as the long bow, a formidable armor-piercing weapon, became increasingly the mainstay of British national policy. In 1285, Edward I commanded that all persons comply with the earlier Assizes and added that "anyone else who can afford them shall keep bows and arrows." [4] The right of armament was subject only to narrow limitations. In 1279, it was ordered that those appearing in Parliament or other public assemblies "shall come without all force and armor, well and peaceably". [5] In 1328, the statute of Northampton ordered that no one use their arms in "affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by day or by night in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers." [6] English courts construed this ban consistently with the general right of private armament as applying only to wearing of arms "accompanied with such circumstances as are apt to terrify the people." [7] In 1369, the King ordered that the sheriffs of London require all citizens "at leisure time on holidays" to "use in their recreation bowes and arrows" and to stop all other games which might distract them from this practice. [8]

REFERENCES

1. Charles Hollister, Anglo-Saxon Military Institutions 11-42 (Oxford University Press 1962); Francis Grose, Military Antiquities Respecting a History of the British Army, Vol. I at 1-2 (London, 1812).

2. Grose, supra, at 9-11; Bruce Lyon, A Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England. 273 (2nd. ed. New York 1980).

3. J.J. Bagley and P.B. Rowley, A Documentary History of England. 1066-1540, Vol. I at 155-56 (New York 1965).

4. Statute of Winchester (13 Edw. I c. 6). See also Bagley and Rowley, supra at 158.

5. 7 Ed. I c.2 (1279).

6. Statute of Northampton (2nd Edw. III c. 3).

7. Rex v. Knight, 90 Eng. Rep. 330; 87 Eng. Rep. 75 (King's Bench, 1686).

8. E. G. Heath, The Grey Goose Wing 109 (London, 1971).

 
Exactly what evidence will be needed to make everyone happy?

The question still remains, why wouldn't he show this & end the speculation? There's nothing there that disqualifies him & he is almost the President-elect of the United States so not much is secret.

hmmm, I wonder why Kerry refused to show his milirary records.

I sensing a pattern here.
 
The question still remains, why wouldn't he show this & end the speculation? There's nothing there that disqualifies him & he is almost the President-elect of the United States so not much is secret.

hmmm, I wonder why Kerry refused to show his milirary records.

I sensing a pattern here.

You mean the pattern of meaningless, bullshit objections? I've noticed it too. Pretty moronic, IMO.
 
So who ever thinks that he is not a citizen thinks that everybody who helped him run forgot to look if he was a citizen of the US. i am sure of the several thousand people on his staff one of them had the bright idea to make sure he wasa US citizen.
 
"There are many reasons why someone running for the office of President of the United States should be a natural-born citizen but four come to mind as the most immediate: Allegiance, Sovereignty, Foreign Intervention and the Safeguarding of The Charters of Freedom."

And, most importantly, because the Constitution says so.
 
The question still remains, why wouldn't he show this & end the speculation? There's nothing there that disqualifies him & he is almost the President-elect of the United States so not much is secret.

hmmm, I wonder why Kerry refused to show his milirary records.

I sensing a pattern here.


ZOMG!

tin-foil-cat.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top