Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > The Newsroom > Political Talk
Facebook

Notices

Political Talk Political News


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10  
Old 07-21-2009, 01:52 PM
coadie coadie is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,889
Re: Supreme Court to Hear Case on Obama

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newman View Post
The U.S. Law in effect during Mr. Obama’s birth stated if you are born abroad to one U.S. parent and a foreign national, the U.S. parent must have resided in the United States for ten (10) years, five (5) of which were after the age of Fourteen (14) in order to register the child’s birth abroad in the United States as a "natural born" U.S. citizen, under the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952, United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998), United States v. Gomez-Orozco, 188 F.3d 422, 426-27 (7th Cir. 1999), Scales v. Immigration and Naturalization Service 232 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2000), Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales 401 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005).

Under the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952, is the law that applies to a birth abroad and is in effect at the time of birth, MarquezMarquez a/k/a Moreno v. Gonzales 455 F. 3d 548 (5th Cir. 2006), Runnett v. Shultz, 901 F.2d 782, 783 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that "the applicable law for transmitting citizenship to a child born abroad when one parent is a U.S. citizen is the statute that was in effect at the time of the child’s birth").

Stanley Ann Dunham, Mr. Barry Soetoro’s mother, was only 18 when she gave birth to Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii or anywhere else as a United States "natural born" citizen as she did not meet the residency requirements pursuant to our United States Laws; as such it does not matter that this is a minor technicality, the law is applied regardless -- see United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998).
I have read this many times.
The Obama drama Drones believe they can trump these laws by using a forged/fake docunment.
Today Obama is coming unhinged. His Healthscare bill is choking. His minions are afraid of going home for recess and facing confrontations.
Obama has a little relief since all the living witnesses are dead.
According to twisp, Daffy Duck is elgible for POTUS unless we can prove old daffy isn't. (the only other reason is that every one assumes daffy is elgible because no one has stepped forward to reject the duck)

It seems we need educational reform.
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama's Supreme Court pick... Baron1710 Political Talk 88 06-16-2009 03:13 PM
Stupid Lawsuit Get Supreme Court Conference deacon blues Political Talk 14 12-06-2008 12:08 AM
Craziness in Canadian Supreme Court Pro31:28 Fellowship Hall 1 06-26-2008 07:01 PM
Gun law struck down by Supreme Court Baron1710 Fellowship Hall 17 06-26-2008 11:02 AM
Texas Supreme Court vindicates pastor Pressing-On The Newsroom 3 07-09-2007 12:41 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by jfrog
- by Salome
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.