Title: The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen. Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Feb 2, 2012 Author:. Post Date:2012-02-02 14:09:20 by James Deffenbach Keywords:None Views:14279 Comments:57
I have worked in the law library of the Library of Congress and so I have a somewhat different take on the claim (never justified in your video) that the Library "proves" some legal issue.
The Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service has, in fact, issued a study paper on this very topic and it suggests very different conclusions from your video:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Most significantly, the use of a term ("natural-born citizen") written in 1787 is not interpreted solely on the expressions of a bunch of politicians some 80 years later.
One of the first judicial interpretations was well before the Civil War, in the NY case of Lynch v. Clarke (NY Chancery Ct., Nov. 5, 1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 3 NY Leg.Obs. 236, 1844 WL 4808, in which the court even quoted the Constitutional provision about the President needing to be "a natural-born citizen" and held that the expression applied to the child, born here to two British tourists, who shortly thereafter took the child with them back to England. The court held that the child was a natural-born US citizen notwithstanding that neither parent was a citizen. This decision was cited as precedent by the US Supreme Court in its decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 196 US 649, 42 L.Ed. 890, 18 S.Ct 456, which held that a child born here to two Chinese workers (who were prevented by federal law from becoming US citizens) was himself a native-born US citizen.
The Lynch decision was also cited as precedent in the Circuit Court decision of In re Look Tin Sing (9th Cir., 1884) 21 Fed 905, 10 Sawyer's Ninth Cir Repts 353, which held, similarly, that the child born here to two Chinese was, himself, a "natural-born citizen" of the US so that he could depart for China, spend many years there, and still be entitled to return to the US as a natural- born citizen. And the 9th Circuit used the term "natural-born citizen" to describe the child in the Lynch case.
And, of course, the birthers have to explain away Chester A. Arthur, 21st President (1881-1885), who was born in Vermont to an American mother and a British father.
While, as far as anyone can find, there is no court case dealing explicitly with a President or candidate for President whose character as a "natural-born citizen" was in dispute because he was born here with at least one parent a non- citizen -- and the term "natural-born citizen" appears almost nowhere else but as that qualification for President -- there are enough cases that indicate that the term means the same as "native-born citizen" and applies to a child born here regardless of the citizenship status of either or both parents.
So, what you and your cohorts keep arguing in effect, Shoonra, (and despite all evidence to the contrary) is: If Hitler and Eva Braun had married before he went into politics and she gave birth to their son while they were visiting here as tourists, their child would have been eligible to be President of the United States of America as a natural born citizen -- and that would be in keeping with what our Founders intended? Is that right?
Whenever I see some fag use the misspelled version of "Birther", I know that they're yet another welfare or government check drawing, disruptor. I keep telling myself that these are the people we get to string up from lamp posts after we eventually rid ourselves of the parasite class.