Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,392 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,050,986
Pageviews Today: 2,723,240Threads Today: 504Posts Today: 11,006
07:03 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment

 
Ganid
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 204982
Canada
02/14/2008 01:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Obama is a lawyer, an 'esquire'.

(Reply)
----- Original Message -----
From: AM
To: "Bellringer"
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:51 PM
Subject: i understand
Patrick,
I understand now. I was not aware of the Titles of Nobility Amendment (the original 13th) in which supposedly has never been officially rattified. a good link is here: [link to en.wikipedia.org]
Thank you for putting up with my long letters.
Why is Paul playing around with this? What is his reason if obviously he is aware of it and claims to live by the constitution?
Is it because it was not rattified by all states required that he doesn't consider it to be constitutional? Amendments must be approved before they can be passed.
Is it set in stone? I mean, is it too late for Paul to recognize this and make note of it to his supporters? This is crazy. I'm definitely curious why he would do this knowing of this "hidden" 13th amendment. Many possibilities come off of this.
Any thoughts are appreciated. Again, thank you for your time.
Love,
AM
(Response)
FROM: Patrick H. Bellringer
TO: AM
DATE: Oct. 20, 2007
SUBJECT: Reply
Dear AM:
Again, thank you for your questions. You are quite wrong in saying the original thirteen Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, called the Titles of Nobility Amendment, was never ratified. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a good source for correct information about this amendment. For your edification I am including three sources at the end of this letter of more accurate information concerning the original Thirteenth Amendment.

This amendment was lawfully ratified by thirteen of the then seventeen existing states, the last being Virginia on March 12, 1819. It is interesting that the War of 1812 was fought at least partially due to this Constitutional Amendment. By restricting the British foreign agent lawyers from holding public office in the United States of America, Britain would lose control of America. History records that the British Army burned both the White House and the Library of Congress in 1814, destroying the government records of the past thirty-eight years, including the original Thirteenth Amendment.

You also asked about Ron Paul's position regarding this amendment. I believe that everyone holding a congressional seat in our Corporate U.S. Congress today is compromised. One does not hold such a position without bowing to the demands of the Secret Agenda of the Secret Government. Ron Paul is allowed certain leeway into the "gray area" in his out-spokenness, but he is careful not to step over the line. He is considered harmless and having no power by the present Congress, so they let him spout off for now.

With NESARA and a sweeping away of the present administration and Congress, the Constitution of the Republic will be re-established, including the original Thirteen Amendment. Will Ron Paul be allowed to participate in the new Government of the Republic? Will he give up his title of nobility? There are many titles of Nobility, such as King, (Sire), Queen(Madam), Knight (Sir), squire, esquire, doctor, reverend, etc. Paul holds the title of doctor. Has his past proven him to be untrustworthy to the people? I do not know.

My friend, Truth is seeping out all over, and the Darkside is frantic. Watch carefully and act in wisdom, as this "play" proceeds to its very end.
In Love and Light,
Patrick H. Bellringer

P.S. Sources:
1. Title Of Nobility Or Honour
autarchic.tripod.com/files/nobility.html
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) prohibited any "titles of nobility."
In the original organic Constitution for the United States of America, Article 1, Section 9 (1788) prohibited any "title of nobility."

Therefore, in 1789 an additional "title of nobility" amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America was proposed, and, again, in 1810. It was finally ratified in 1819. This was the true and positive Thirteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution for the United States of America.

Clearly the Founding Fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honours" that anyone receiving them would lose their citizenship, as was clearly stated in the ratified 13th Amendment, to wit:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any TITLE OF NOBILITY OR HONOUR, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatsoever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." (Emphasis added)

Since this was written in the original Articles of Confederation, the original Constitution, and again in an Amendment to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers must have meant more than just a petty post-revolution stab at the British monarchy.

Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as "Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields as "Esquires." As lances, shields and physical violence gave way to more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier than the sword (and far more profitable), and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold the titles of nobility. The most common title was "Esquire" (used even today by lawyers).

In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys, but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor." There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" - a "title of nobility."

"Esquire" was the principal title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principal purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB, CIA, FBI, BATF, and IRS.
Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution for the United States of America sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America.

But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank Charter). Therefore, a "title of nobility" Amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789 and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.

The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility" Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor) may be more significant. The archaic definition of "honor" (as used in the 13th Amendment) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another." A contemporary examination of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans (who have become ex-patriots) is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot.

By prohibiting "honours" the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant to some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment is to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone EVEN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens.

While "titles of nobility" are no longer readily recognized in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains relevant. For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens would be enjoying a separate privilege or "honor" and would, therefore, forfeit his right to vote or hold public office (such as the doctrine of "judicial immunity.") Without their current "honor" of immunity, judges would be unable to abuse constitutionally guaranteed rights with impunity.

Government would be forced to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law and liability as the rest of the Nation. Can you imagine? A government truly "OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE. A government accountable to the people, a government which could not systematically exploit it's own people, and steal their livelihood through "breach of contract" quasi-crimes for which the right to trial by one's peers has been unlawfully and arbitrarily removed.

There were seventeen states when the 13th Amendment was proposed in 1810. This would require 13 states to support the Amendment for it to be ratified.

The states that ratified the Amendment are:
Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810
Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811
Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811
Delaware, Feb. 2, 1911
Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811
New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811
Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811
Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811
Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811
North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811
Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812
New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812
Virginia, March 10, 1819

This Amendment was published in many of the States official publications of the Constitution for the United States of America, up through and including the year 1867, when it mysteriously disappeared from almost every state's publications of the Constitution for the United States of America. It appeared, in 1867 Colorado Territory edition, on the same page as the currently listed 13th Amendment freeing the slaves, and the current 13th Amendment was listed as the 14th Amendment in that edition.

Since it was ratified, and is POSITIVE LAW, then it must stand that all lawyers are foreigners, having expatriated themselves by taking a position of honor or title of nobility, in violation of their oath of office, and in contradistinction to the intent and meaning of the 13th Amendment.

The original Constitutions of several states thunderingly forbid lawyers from holding any office in any branch of government, and some went as far as to demand that any lawyer representing a person accused of a crime must swear before the court that they did so for free, as to charge for the defense of a person was reprehensible beyond words. How far we have come. Now, it seems, you are innocent until you run out of funds, and your attorney drops you like a hot potato.

There is ample evidence which proves that lawyers had a great deal to do with the removal and loss of the true 13th Amendment, so that they could remain in the positions of "Nobility" and "Honor" which they hold, to our detriment.
To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which all people now endure, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th "titles of nobility" Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check.

In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the disappearance of the 13th Amendment that the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as "Esquire" and received the "honor" of offices and positions (like district attorney and judge) that ONLY lawyers may now hold. By virtue of these titles and honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of citizens. Where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office.

Since the Amendment was never lawfully nullified, IT IS STILL IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT AND IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.
In George Washington's farewell address, he warned of:
"...change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

In 1788 Thomas Jefferson proposed that we have a Declaration of Rights similar to Virginia's, including freedom of commerce against monopolies. The "legal profession" has become the singly largest monopoly in the United States, written into legislation by lawyers, lobbied by lawyers, passed by lawyers in the Congress and Senate, enforced by lawyers who have become chiefs of police and sheriffs, and litigated and upheld by lawyers, and judges who are lawyers.

Since all lawyers are officers of the judicial branch of government, then it is a blatant conflict of interest for any lawyer to become a legislator or be in the executive branch of government. However, the vast majority of our legislature, both state and United States is now lawyers.
A classic example of the power of lawyers was witnessed in Waco, Texas in 1993, when the top lawyer of the United States, the Attorney General, ordered the slaughter of 86 innocent people, mostly women and children, "for the good of the children."

The authority to create monopolies was judge-made by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, et al, in the early 1800's; Judges and lawyers granted to themselves the power to declare the acts of the People "Un-Constitutional," waited until their decisions were grandfathered, then granted themselves a monopoly by creating the Bar Associations. What happened to the "This Constitution... is the Supreme Law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding?" Thomas Jefferson foresaw this very thing when he stated:

"Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless... the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is now while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion."

Since all members of the American Bar Association, which was formed in Washington, D.C., become citizens of Washington, D.C., which is neither a state nor a territory within the meaning of the laws, and therefore must register in any state they choose to do business in as a resident alien, foreign agent or agency.

It is interesting to note that most states contain laws which require all professions and businesses to obtain a business license to do business in the state, EXCEPT LAWYERS. Doctors, Dentists, Car Dealers, etc., all must get a license from the state. NO lawyer ever gets a business license. They get a certificate to practice law, issued from their private fraternal organization known as the bar association, and it is signed by the clerk of the Supreme Court of the State (probably a lawyer). When did the judicial branch of government obtain power to issue licenses?

THEREFORE, based upon the above, POSITIVE LAW, the prosecuting attorney is a foreign, resident alien, having expatriated himself from the United States, and has no lawful standing before a court.

FURTHERMORE, the judge, a lawyer, having expatriated himself by becoming a lawyer, has further expatriated himself by sitting in a position of honour (Note we are expected to address the judge as "your honor,") and has no authority to sit in judgment of this or any other case, being a resident alien and having proved his loyalty is not "for the people." He has claimed the judicial (lawyer made) doctrine of immunity from lawsuits, he has accepted the position of honor and the title of honor and of nobility voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally, with intent to set himself above the laws and the Constitution for the United States of America.

WHEREFORE, there is no person who may act as prosecution in ANY case, and no judge to try ANY case.
**********************************
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311948


Relative to this quote from an above paragraph:

In 1788 Thomas Jefferson proposed that we have a Declaration of Rights similar to Virginia's, including freedom of commerce against monopolies.

I understand that Jefferson was proposing an Amendment that forbid any corporation owning another corporation. That would have precluded the corporation called the UNITED STATES from forming sub-corporations out of the juristic States forming the Union, which has happened, and is shown by 'all caps' spelling of the State name, and the 2 cap letter abbreviations. For instance, the official abbreviation for California is Cal. The Federal sub-corporate State is abbreviated CA.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 351956
United States
02/14/2008 01:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
So, he is disqualified? What news station did you hear that on? Last I heard he was winning!
Halcyon Dayz
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 337024
Netherlands
02/14/2008 04:32 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Luckily it's SCotUS that gets to decide what the Constitution means.
Not armchair 'scholars'.
book
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
ntisithoj

User ID: 361117
Argentina
02/14/2008 05:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
so, no lawyers can hold public office? Great! Now we can kick them all out (except arnold, and such)
NightWisp

User ID: 372595
United States
02/14/2008 05:40 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
YUP. That would can 3/4 of the Congress and Senate. It was ratified and in print... but somehow got lost and a new 13th added in its place. Neither the 16th or 17th were ratified either.
ambiguity unlimited

User ID: 373485
United States
02/14/2008 07:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
bullshit mental masturbation.....just like those mccain disqualified ones....fuckin' people need a better hobby....
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 243849
Canada
02/14/2008 08:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
The OP is telling the truth. Too bad you are all too lazy to read & study basic law for yourself.
LouisWinthorpeIII

User ID: 373494
United States
02/14/2008 08:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Oh please, the VP & Prez can't claim residense in the same state... Well guess what state the war mongering dick & that idiot son of an asshole claim residence?

Yeah, both claim Texas.

What on earth makes you think they give a damn what that "piece of paper" say?
"I don't know which was scarier...the speech...or the Congress cheering it. He evoked Lincoln. Whenever a President is going to get us into serious trouble...they always use Lincoln."
-2010
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 373450
02/14/2008 08:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!!
ambiguity unlimited

User ID: 373485
United States
02/14/2008 08:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 373450

actually he isnt, moron.....he was born at a us navy base in pananma, of 2 american parents....military bases and embassies are considered american sovereign territory, making mccain a native son of america....so a constitutional provision which forbade the election of foreign lawyers to office applies to all lawyers in this country??? i guess that will be news to all those lawyers holding office now...... if you dont like a candidate, fine, talk all the shit you like about his positions, record, personal life, all the reasons you dont like the idea of that person holding office, but spare me the idiotic attempts at showing why they should be forbidden from running......
Ganid (OP)

User ID: 204982
Canada
02/14/2008 09:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!!

actually he isnt, moron.....he was born at a us navy base in pananma, of 2 american parents....military bases and embassies are considered american sovereign territory, making mccain a native son of america....so a constitutional provision which forbade the election of foreign lawyers to office applies to all lawyers in this country??? i guess that will be news to all those lawyers holding office now...... if you dont like a candidate, fine, talk all the shit you like about his positions, record, personal life, all the reasons you dont like the idea of that person holding office, but spare me the idiotic attempts at showing why they should be forbidden from running......
 Quoting: ambiguity unlimited


Would you please show us all where in the Constitution
that US military bases in foreign countries is considered
to be US territory. An embassy, yes; but a military base,
no. Remember, the Founding Fathers had no intentions
of there ever being a need for US military bases in foreign lands.

And, yes, all American lawyers have their primary oath
of allegiance to the Temple BAR of the City of London.
Any subsequent oath taken becomes a 'non-oath, just as
the Kol Nidre in Talmudic law allows a Talmudist to
disavow any oath taken in the coming year. That makes
any oath taken by a lawyer-politician about of as much
value as a wet paper sack. And, another thread shows
wher 68 Congressmen have disavowed their oath of office
in voting recently for laws totally contrary to the Constitution.
You will find that most, if not all of these were lawyers.
LS

User ID: 253961
United States
02/14/2008 09:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!!

actually he isnt, moron.....he was born at a us navy base in pananma, of 2 american parents....military bases and embassies are considered american sovereign territory, making mccain a native son of america....so a constitutional provision which forbade the election of foreign lawyers to office applies to all lawyers in this country??? i guess that will be news to all those lawyers holding office now...... if you dont like a candidate, fine, talk all the shit you like about his positions, record, personal life, all the reasons you dont like the idea of that person holding office, but spare me the idiotic attempts at showing why they should be forbidden from running......


Would you please show us all where in the Constitution
that US military bases in foreign countries is considered
to be US territory. An embassy, yes; but a military base,
no. Remember, the Founding Fathers had no intentions
of there ever being a need for US military bases in foreign lands.

And, yes, all American lawyers have their primary oath
of allegiance to the Temple BAR of the City of London.
Any subsequent oath taken becomes a 'non-oath, just as
the Kol Nidre in Talmudic law allows a Talmudist to
disavow any oath taken in the coming year. That makes
any oath taken by a lawyer-politician about of as much
value as a wet paper sack. And, another thread shows
wher 68 Congressmen have disavowed their oath of office
in voting recently for laws totally contrary to the Constitution.
You will find that most, if not all of these were lawyers.
 Quoting: Ganid

The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."[1]
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

5. November 14, 1986 to Present
If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens, and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.
[link to immigration.findlaw.com]

Three major candidates have sought the Presidency who were born outside the United States: Barry Goldwater (ran in 1964) was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory, George Romney (ran in 1968) was born in Mexico to U.S. parents, and John McCain (ran in 2000 and running in 2008) was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Barry Goldwater's case among these three is unique in that although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully incorporated territory of the United States, making it debatable whether or not he was born "outside" the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was under United States sovereignty between 1903 and 1979.[7] Neither Goldwater nor Romney was elected, so it has never been fully addressed whether children born to Americans overseas are "natural-born citizens" and thus eligible for the Presidency. However, McCain is currently seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Ganid (OP)

User ID: 204982
Canada
02/14/2008 10:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."[1]
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

5. November 14, 1986 to Present
If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens, and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.
[link to immigration.findlaw.com]

Three major candidates have sought the Presidency who were born outside the United States: Barry Goldwater (ran in 1964) was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory, George Romney (ran in 1968) was born in Mexico to U.S. parents, and John McCain (ran in 2000 and running in 2008) was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Barry Goldwater's case among these three is unique in that although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully incorporated territory of the United States, making it debatable whether or not he was born "outside" the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was under United States sovereignty between 1903 and 1979.[7] Neither Goldwater nor Romney was elected, so it has never been fully addressed whether children born to Americans overseas are "natural-born citizens" and thus eligible for the Presidency. However, McCain is currently seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
 Quoting: LS


Congress cannot pass laws that contradict the Constitution.
The requirements are very specific in the Constitution -
you know, "That God Damned Piece Of Paper", unless there
is a ratified Constitutional Amendment stating the
change. But even such Amendments have been questioned,
as Amendments can only clarify or elaborate upon the basic
Constitution, not contradict it. The original 13th Amendment
only added a penalty to a provision that was already within the
Original Constitution and Articles of Confederation,
and, expanded those provisions to include the prohibition of 'special honors'.

The Constitution left the terms of 'naturalization' to
Congress, and that is to what your references refer.
"Naturalization' does not mean 'natural born on American
soil, be it a State, territory or embassy.

Here is an article I just posted on the same issue
as McCain's eligibility

Wrong the canal was a us territory at the time. We have already been through this as a country, he is Eligible!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 351956


I strongly suspect that it is you who are WRONG.

Unless, of course, you can come up with a law
that defends your argument.

I can produce the law that says you are incorrect.
McCain is not eligible to be President of the USA.

If you look at 8 USC 1403(a), it addressed McCain’s situation rather clearly:

“(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”

So it’s pretty clear that John McCain is a citizen.

But is he a natural born (jus soli) citizen or a naturalized (lex soli) citizen? This is where it gets tricky.

Because 8 USC 1403(a) uses the term “is declared to be a citizen” (emphasis added), that leans heavily towards a lex soli position (naturalization). And persons born to citizens between November 1903 (when Panama became independent from Colombia with U.S. intervention) and February 1904 are not declared citizens under this section, which indicates that the declaration of citizenship is simply a naturalization and not by birth since it is dependent on the law and a calendar date.

But is there anything more concrete than that? The Supreme Court has never addressed the specifics of a natural born citizen, except once in passing, in the dissent of the infamous Dred Scott case, of all places, so it really has no bearing. Other cases have looked at citizenship, but not specifically the natural born part of it.

Historically, the term “natural born” was put in Article II at the request of John Jay (who later helped write the Federalist Papers, became the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and pointed out in 1796 that jury nullification is a right and duty of the people) to George Washington in a letter from 25 July 1787.

McCain has claimed that the Naturalization Act of 1790 (26 March 1790) covers his status as a natural born citizen. THAT IS NOT TRUE. A close look at the Act indicates that it only covers “admission as a citizen” (meaning naturalization), and that Act was repealed in part 29 January 1795 and again in total 14 April 1802. So that argument does not work because it was repealed and because it creates naturalization instead of natural born citizenship.

That leads us all back to the Constitution. The citizenship definitions of both Article II and Amendment 14 apply in terms of McCain running for President.

But there’s more. If you look at the 14th Amendment, the term “in the United States” is there. What does that mean, specifically?

“In the United States” is generally thought to mean the States, territories, protectorates, and embassies. But the wording is never clear in the law on what exactly the jurisdiction of the United States explicitly is.
[Nowhere is 'military base or installation' mentioned.]

But if you look again at 8 USC 1401(c) and 1403(a), you see a big difference. 8 USC 1401(c) address births outside the U.S., meaning clearly that the “born in the United States” clause of the 14th Amendment cannot apply to this form of citizenship.

Therefore a person that falls under 8 USC 1401(c) has to be a NATURALIZED citizen. 8 USC 1403(a) already “declares” citizenship and implies naturalization. The only logical conclusion is that the Canal Zone was considered to be outside the United States, else these sections (8 USC 1401(c) and 8 USC 1403(a)) never needed to be codified into law in the first place, and 8 USC 1401(a) would apply instead (see above).
Enlilson

User ID: 337505
United States
02/14/2008 10:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
YUP. That would can 3/4 of the Congress and Senate. It was ratified and in print... but somehow got lost and a new 13th added in its place. Neither the 16th or 17th were ratified either.
 Quoting: NightWisp

It called the War of 1812 and it was burned along with many other US documents.
It doesn't matter who I m it's who U R so ChoOse
The Good Reverend Roger

User ID: 330206
United States
02/14/2008 10:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Obama is a lawyer, an 'esquire'.

 Quoting: Ganid


That is a ceremonial title (like calling a PhD "Doctor")not a title of nobility, you fucking moron.

You must really be desperate. Sorry, pal, Hillary is going down.

ETA: And posting email forwards is a sign of Limbaughism. Just saying.
HORRIBLE BASTARD.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 365627
United States
02/14/2008 10:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!!

actually he isnt, moron.....he was born at a us navy base in pananma, of 2 american parents....military bases and embassies are considered american sovereign territory, making mccain a native son of america....so a constitutional provision which forbade the election of foreign lawyers to office applies to all lawyers in this country??? i guess that will be news to all those lawyers holding office now...... if you dont like a candidate, fine, talk all the shit you like about his positions, record, personal life, all the reasons you dont like the idea of that person holding office, but spare me the idiotic attempts at showing why they should be forbidden from running......
 Quoting: ambiguity unlimited


You guys are dumb. Military bases are not part of the US in the sense that metters here.

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

[link to www.state.gov]

straight from the state department
LS

User ID: 253961
United States
02/14/2008 10:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!!

actually he isnt, moron.....he was born at a us navy base in pananma, of 2 american parents....military bases and embassies are considered american sovereign territory, making mccain a native son of america....so a constitutional provision which forbade the election of foreign lawyers to office applies to all lawyers in this country??? i guess that will be news to all those lawyers holding office now...... if you dont like a candidate, fine, talk all the shit you like about his positions, record, personal life, all the reasons you dont like the idea of that person holding office, but spare me the idiotic attempts at showing why they should be forbidden from running......


You guys are dumb. Military bases are not part of the US in the sense that metters here.

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

[link to www.state.gov]

straight from the state department
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 365627


November 14, 1986 to Present
If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens, and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.
[link to immigration.findlaw.com]

I WIN, YOU LOSE! your post refers to a child being born to non-US parents on an oversees US military base, such as an iraqi baby born in the green zone.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 365627
United States
02/14/2008 10:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!!

actually he isnt, moron.....he was born at a us navy base in pananma, of 2 american parents....military bases and embassies are considered american sovereign territory, making mccain a native son of america....so a constitutional provision which forbade the election of foreign lawyers to office applies to all lawyers in this country??? i guess that will be news to all those lawyers holding office now...... if you dont like a candidate, fine, talk all the shit you like about his positions, record, personal life, all the reasons you dont like the idea of that person holding office, but spare me the idiotic attempts at showing why they should be forbidden from running......


Would you please show us all where in the Constitution
that US military bases in foreign countries is considered
to be US territory. An embassy, yes; but a military base,
no. Remember, the Founding Fathers had no intentions
of there ever being a need for US military bases in foreign lands.

And, yes, all American lawyers have their primary oath
of allegiance to the Temple BAR of the City of London.
Any subsequent oath taken becomes a 'non-oath, just as
the Kol Nidre in Talmudic law allows a Talmudist to
disavow any oath taken in the coming year. That makes
any oath taken by a lawyer-politician about of as much
value as a wet paper sack. And, another thread shows
wher 68 Congressmen have disavowed their oath of office
in voting recently for laws totally contrary to the Constitution.
You will find that most, if not all of these were lawyers.

The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."[1]
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

5. November 14, 1986 to Present
If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens, and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.
[link to immigration.findlaw.com]

Three major candidates have sought the Presidency who were born outside the United States: Barry Goldwater (ran in 1964) was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory, George Romney (ran in 1968) was born in Mexico to U.S. parents, and John McCain (ran in 2000 and running in 2008) was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Barry Goldwater's case among these three is unique in that although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully incorporated territory of the United States, making it debatable whether or not he was born "outside" the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was under United States sovereignty between 1903 and 1979.[7] Neither Goldwater nor Romney was elected, so it has never been fully addressed whether children born to Americans overseas are "natural-born citizens" and thus eligible for the Presidency. However, McCain is currently seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
 Quoting: LS


bsflag bsflag bsflag

More Bullshit! The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795!

which says:

"And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

Putting people born overseas by citizens, in the same category as children that were born overseas by non-citizens, who were then naturalized. Neither would be Natural-born citizens, as their citizenship is defended through legal naturalization.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 365627
United States
02/14/2008 10:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
November 14, 1986 to Present
If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens, and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.
[link to immigration.findlaw.com]

I WIN, YOU LOSE! your post refers to a child being born to non-US parents on a military base, such as an iraqi baby born in the green zone.
 Quoting: LS


bsflag bsflag bsflag

1986?! McCain was born in the 1930s, idiot!
LS

User ID: 253961
United States
02/14/2008 10:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!!

actually he isnt, moron.....he was born at a us navy base in pananma, of 2 american parents....military bases and embassies are considered american sovereign territory, making mccain a native son of america....so a constitutional provision which forbade the election of foreign lawyers to office applies to all lawyers in this country??? i guess that will be news to all those lawyers holding office now...... if you dont like a candidate, fine, talk all the shit you like about his positions, record, personal life, all the reasons you dont like the idea of that person holding office, but spare me the idiotic attempts at showing why they should be forbidden from running......


Would you please show us all where in the Constitution
that US military bases in foreign countries is considered
to be US territory. An embassy, yes; but a military base,
no. Remember, the Founding Fathers had no intentions
of there ever being a need for US military bases in foreign lands.

And, yes, all American lawyers have their primary oath
of allegiance to the Temple BAR of the City of London.
Any subsequent oath taken becomes a 'non-oath, just as
the Kol Nidre in Talmudic law allows a Talmudist to
disavow any oath taken in the coming year. That makes
any oath taken by a lawyer-politician about of as much
value as a wet paper sack. And, another thread shows
wher 68 Congressmen have disavowed their oath of office
in voting recently for laws totally contrary to the Constitution.
You will find that most, if not all of these were lawyers.

The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."[1]
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

5. November 14, 1986 to Present
If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens, and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.
[link to immigration.findlaw.com]

Three major candidates have sought the Presidency who were born outside the United States: Barry Goldwater (ran in 1964) was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory, George Romney (ran in 1968) was born in Mexico to U.S. parents, and John McCain (ran in 2000 and running in 2008) was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Barry Goldwater's case among these three is unique in that although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully incorporated territory of the United States, making it debatable whether or not he was born "outside" the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was under United States sovereignty between 1903 and 1979.[7] Neither Goldwater nor Romney was elected, so it has never been fully addressed whether children born to Americans overseas are "natural-born citizens" and thus eligible for the Presidency. However, McCain is currently seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]


bsflag bsflag bsflag

More Bullshit! The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795!

which says:

"And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

Putting people born overseas by citizens, in the same category as children that were born overseas by non-citizens, who were then naturalized. Neither would be Natural-born citizens, as their citizenship is defended through legal naturalization.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 365627


November 14, 1986 to Present
If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens, and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.
[link to immigration.findlaw.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 365627
United States
02/14/2008 10:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
bsflag bsflag bsflag

1986?! McCain was born in the 1930s, idiot!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 365627
LS

User ID: 253961
United States
02/14/2008 10:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically addressed the meaning of "natural born citizen," there are several Supreme Court decisions that help define citizenship:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (The majority opinion in this case was mostly overturned by the 14th Amendment.)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen.

Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927): A child born outside the U.S. cannot claim U.S. citizenship by birth through a U.S. citizen parent who had never lived in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. (This is still true today, although the specific statutes upon which the Supreme Court's ruling was based have changed since 1927.)

Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958): Although the 14th Amendment sets forth the two principal modes of acquiring citizenship (birth in the U.S. and naturalization), nothing restricts the power of Congress to withdraw citizenship. (This case was overturned by Afroyim v. Rusk.)

Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth. (Note that the relevant laws have changed considerably since 1906, so this decision does not necessarily apply to later cases.)

Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967): The 14th Amendment's provision that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States" completely controls the status of citizenship and prevents the involuntary cancellation of citizenship.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971): A person who is born abroad to an American mother shall lose his or her citizenship unless he or she resides in this country for at least five years between the ages of 14 and 28. (This is no longer the case; the statute under which Mr. Bellei lost his citizenship was repealed by Congress in 1978.)

Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980): Congress has the power to define acts of expatriation (i.e., loss of citizenship). However, intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship must be established specifically by a preponderance of evidence; such an intent may not be inferred automatically as a result of a person's having performed an act which Congress has designated as an expatriating act. However, when "one of the statutory expatriating acts is proved, it is constitutional to presume it to have been a voluntary act until and unless proved otherwise by the actor."

Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998): A child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 21). This case challenged the law on the grounds that U.S. law requires no explicit acknowledgment of parenthood in the case of a foreign-born child to an American mother and a foreign father (not married).

Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth).
The Supreme Court, through case law, has created a guideline for U.S. citizenship. The following outlines the rulings of the Court:

The 14th Amendment completely controls the status of U.S. citizenship and prevents the involuntary cancellation of citizenship.
All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.
This applies to children born to legal and illegal residents.

This does not apply to children of foreign citizens employed in any diplomatic or official capacity.

Congress has the power to define acts of expatriation (i.e., loss of citizenship).
A person must voluntarily relinquish U.S. citizenship.

It is constitutional to presume it to have been a voluntary act until and unless proved otherwise by the actor.

Congress may revoke citizenship involuntarily if it has been obtained unlawfully.

Congress has the power to define citizenship outside birth in the U.S.

Congress can set different citizenship requirements for children born to American mothers versus American fathers.

Congress can require that U.S. citizenship must be established by a certain age for it to be recognized.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 365627
United States
02/14/2008 10:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Personal account from someone born in the Canal Zone:

"I was born in the Canal Zone to 2 US born Parents working for the Canal Zone Government.
Guess what? I am not a Natural Born US Citizen. At age 3 my parents applied for my Naturalization Papers and my mother guarded them with her life.
When I apply for a Passport, a birth certificate is not good enough, I must pull out that Naturalization Paper work.
My birth certificates state on them Ancon, Canal Zone, Republic of Panama.
Panama is unique. It has never held the same generally accepted laws as US Military bases in other over seas locations. Babies born in Panama are registered w the Panamanian Registro Civil. My marriage was preformed by a Panamanian Judge in a Panama Court house - My marriage to a US Army Soldier and me a dependent of US Civilian Parents.
Do a little real homework before staying the idea is wrong. In the end the US Supreme Court will have to make the ruling. There are enough cases on the books regarding CZ's status that any good lawyer can lay a claim McCain is not eligible by the definition in the constitution."

By the way, LS. How is your last post relavent? Of course there have been different interpretations for different purposes.
The Good Reverend Roger

User ID: 330206
United States
02/14/2008 10:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Personal account from someone born in the Canal Zone:

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 365627


Link?
HORRIBLE BASTARD.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 365627
United States
02/14/2008 11:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Personal account from someone born in the Canal Zone:



Link?
 Quoting: The Good Reverend Roger


It's on a blog somewhere, I copied it from an earlier date.

In any case:

Section 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

THIS LAW DID NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL June 27, 1952.

McCain was not a natural born US citizen at birth! He was not even a US citizen at all until he was naturalized!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 365627
United States
02/14/2008 11:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Personal account from someone born in the Canal Zone:



Link?


It's on a blog somewhere, I copied it from an earlier date.

In any case:

Section 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

THIS LAW DID NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL June 27, 1952.

McCain was not a natural born US citizen at birth! He was not even a US citizen at all until he was naturalized!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 365627


[link to wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us]
The Good Reverend Roger

User ID: 330206
United States
02/14/2008 11:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
It's on a blog somewhere, I copied it from an earlier date.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 365627


Oh, well. That's obviously a reliable source.
HORRIBLE BASTARD.
The Good Reverend Roger

User ID: 330206
United States
02/14/2008 11:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
THIS LAW DID NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL June 27, 1952.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 365627


Does the law specify that it is not retroactive?
HORRIBLE BASTARD.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 365627
United States
02/14/2008 11:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
THIS LAW DID NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL June 27, 1952.


Does the law specify that it is not retroactive?
 Quoting: The Good Reverend Roger


The law tells you when it became effective, nearly 20 years after McCain was naturalized.

No it is not retroactive, you can read the wording for yourself in the link I gave.
skytoucher
User ID: 329948
United States
02/14/2008 11:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
Link for anyone unsure about the original 13th:

[link to www.amendment-13.org]

Check the time line, documents, and rebuttal sections.
The Good Reverend Roger

User ID: 330206
United States
02/14/2008 11:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment
THIS LAW DID NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL June 27, 1952.


Does the law specify that it is not retroactive?


The law tells you when it became effective, nearly 20 years after McCain was naturalized.

No it is not retroactive, you can read the wording for yourself in the link I gave.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 365627



(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States
HORRIBLE BASTARD.

News