Thanks heaps for this!… if anyone else has anything, it would be much appreciated. Great website HOT Pianoforte Links http://www.en.Grand-Pianos.org Enjoy!…

Donofrio, Pidgeon on Quo Warranto:
Eligibility, Illegal Use of Funds, Exercise of Authority

The 14th Amendment was a Constitutional Amendment.

The Supreme Court made a ruling about the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins.

I thought there were only 2 ways such a ruling could be overturned:

1) A Supreme Court ruling in a new case which overturned the ruling in the prior case.

2) A new Constitutional Amendment

So, how why was an act of Congress (the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) allowed to overturn a Supreme Court ruling (Elk v. Wilkins)?

Could an act ov Congress overturn Roe v. Wade?

The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

The exclusion of native Americans from citizenship was eventually eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

1) Elk was deemed not a Citizen because he was “subject to the jurisdiction” of something other than the United States.

2) Obama was born subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain. He was born a British subject.

3) Obama very intentionally had himself adopted by an Indian Chief and his wife (against the wishes of the wife, Obama’s “new mother”), on an Indian Reservation. While I don’t believe Obama takes direction from the Chief, Obama was choosing to put himself “subject to the jurisdiction” of this Chief and Indian nation.

“I was already around Wyoming someplace. He called me and said we’re going to have to rush right back,” Mary said. “He said, ‘You’re going to have to adopt Barack Obama.‘ ”

They were tentative about taking on the sudden responsibility. “I couldn’t comprehend it for a while,” Mary said.

On the day Obama arrived at the reservation, she froze.

“When my alarm came on, I didn’t want to go through with it. ‘I would like to go sleep another eight hours,’ I said. ‘Not me. I don’t want to go,’ ” she recalled telling Hartford. But, “my husband got after me.”

Explain that one. Why did they “have to” adopt Obama? Why was she forced against her will to adopt Obama?

Then Obama walked in and greeted the dignitaries, before the room was mostly cleared out.

“He started walking toward me. Oh man, I was kind of tongue-tied, and he said, ‘Are you my new mother, Mary?‘

So, Chap, if Elk was deemed not a U.S. citizen, did Obama relinquish any claim to U.S. citizenship when this adoption was performed?

Elk was found not to be a citizen entirely due to the fact that he was born into a native American tribe, a sovereign entity. I believe the case specifically said it would be the same regardless of whether or not he was born on a reservation or not.

Care to address the adoption?

But an adoption is no slapdash honorary degree or campaign prop. It’s a revered compact that has linked the first family with five generations of First Americans. Obama’s daughters, Sasha and Malia, beamed as they met their adoptive grandparents over the summer.

Four of those generations of Black Eagles came to Washington to witness their new relative’s elevation.

All right then…I am pretty sure I have settled all of RedPill’s questions about Obama’s citizenship.

Right?

Right?

No.

English common law considered a person born in the country to alien parents was still a natural born subject, AND THAT THAT LAW CARRIED OVER TO THE US EVEN AFTER THE CONSTITUTION.

You cannot deny that, Red Pill.

Taken literally, you are saying that even after the Constitution, English common law carried over and a person born in the country to alien parents was still a natural born subject of the British crown.

You can’t show a single U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared that a person born in the U.S. to alien parents is a natural born citizen of the U.S.

Obama must first prove conclusively where he was born, by releasing his long-form birth certificate.

Then, the Supreme Court must once and for all make a clear statement of what is, and what is not, a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

John McCain was born at Colon Hospital in Colon, Panama, (and not on a U.S. military base, as some believe). I don’t believe that John McCain qualifies as a natural born citizen, either. Citizen, yes, by statute, but not by natural law. Citizen, yes, natural born citizen, no.

The WSJ points out that Butler was “twice rejected by Wisconsin voters for a place on the state Supreme Court:”

Then Obama rides in and tells us what is good for us…just like he has done with the economy, war on terror, etc.

Right?

Right?

I imagine the Court would say, illegals have subjected themselves to the liegence of the United States merely by their presence.

Yes, the would probably say that.

And no one would laugh derisively since everyone fears crazy judges.

Ok, then why do illegals’ babies get to be citizens?

Because, I imagine the Court would say, illegals have subjected themselves to the liegence of the United States merely by their presence. Ambassadors have not. In any case, babies of ambassadors have specifically been an exception, statutorily and in common law, in this country and many others for a long time.

If the wife of the English Ambassador has her baby at GW hospital, that baby is NOT a US citizen.

Ok, then why do illegals’ babies get to be citizens?