Obama is a 14th amend.baby,& Minor v. Happersett says NO 14th's are Natural Born Citizens, guilty perjury?
did he nor perjure himself in attesting that he was a natural born citizen in Arizona and Virginia?
(we'll set aside that at the time of his birth the US citizenship laws stated that his mother was not old enough to confer US citizenship, today she would be)
SCOTUS Minor v. Happersett said a natural born citizen was NOT defined by the 14th amendment, Obama is a 14th baby, meaning his birth circumstance is defined in the 14th amendment, (with one parent being a US citizen).
In SCOTUS Minor v Happersett, a natural born citizen was deemed NOT defined by the 14th and a definition was given which was written 14 years or so prior to Happersett decision (14th amendment 1868).
Happersett said a natural born citizen was obviously jus soli jus sanguinus OR something NOT in the 14th amendment because it's not defined in the Constitution (other than definitely NOT 14th amendment situations), when Obama swore he was a natural born citizen even though by that SCOTUS judgment he was not...is he not guilty of false swearing on Arizona and Virginia?
In short, he perjured himself long before reaching office? He cannot say that he didn't know, as a so-called Constitutional professor would indeed know about Minor v. Happersett.
Minor v. Happersett (Supreme Court) 1874
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
thebabbs Berg is not pursuing anything to do with Minor v. Happersett, so don't be so stupid.
thebabbs: Better a birther than a fraudster like you.
- Whatever4Lv 71 decade agoBest Answer
Read the ruling again. " As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." SCOTUS didn't say that 2 citizen parents are the only option, it's saying it's in doubt, but that we don't have to decide that here anyway. But other cases also matter, such as UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898).
For Everythingspeachy -- look at the video again. Obama is introducing American officials to Medvedev. The last one is Commerce Secretary Locke.
- thebabbsterLv 51 decade ago
Wow more birther tripe. Can't say I'm surprised. Hey you want to know something interesting? Your guy Berg tried to sue Bush/Cheney for 9/11, alleging they were responsible! Yep. Berg's a nut job. So are all the people who keep coming up with more so-called "evidence" to try to unseat Obama. Pretty entertaining, though.
- Legio XVIILv 71 decade ago
Being born in Hawaii makes him a natural born citizen. The rest of your argument is moot.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
he is hiding something...that is for sure...and he has lied from day one...why would this be surprising? He is a natural born liar!
Did you see how the world is snubbing him now? In Russia..no one would shake his hand. At least other leaders shook Bush's hand and we had friends in other countries....this bozo hasn't got the respect of a fly!
It is SAD.....
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Beep BLv 51 decade ago
Please Shepardize your case law-1874 give me a break.Source(s): paralegal A.A.
- candy gLv 71 decade ago
i want my time back..........where is your question in that mess.