The legal case against Obama’s eligibility
Berg doen’t get into the definition of “natural born citizen” here. The Constitution requires that a person to be eligible to be President,must be a “natural born citizen”. The Court would have to decide what that term means as it is ambiguous or uncertain. To do this it would look at the intent of the legislators at the time as disclosed by what they have written. The Federalist papers clearly say that such a person must be born to two U.S. citizens. Obama’s father was not a US citizen. Obama has spent $2 million to avoid a Court dealing with this issue and the Indonesian issue. T. Belman
By Phillip Berg
OBAMA and his “SUPPOSED” LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE
WHAT ABOUT OBAMA’S INDONESIAN CITIZENSHIP?
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 04/28/11) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama on August 21, 2008 challenging Obama’s lack of “Constitutionally Eligibility” to serve as President of the United States stated that Obama’s release of this document that Obama calls his long form Birth Certificate raises further questions of the legitimacy of the document itself. Moreover, even if it were a legitimate birth certificate, which it is not, it still does not answer the question of Obama’s Constitutional Eligibility.
Berg said, “The Birth Certificate issued by Obama on national Television, have missing factors: Mother’s address; length and weight of baby; and where the signature of Stanley Ann Dunham appears, it says “mother or informant”. Additionally, the authenticity of the document itself is already being questioned for many reasons”
Berg continued, “Even if Obama could produce a long form Birth Certificate, which is highly doubted, it fails to answer the questions into Obama’s adoption in Indonesia.”
Berg said, “I have received many calls claiming Obama could not have lost his U.S. citizenship by his mother’s acts of expatriation. In part this is true, however, the Nationality Act of 1940, revised 1952, Section 318(a) states,
-
“A former citizen of the United States expatriated through the expatriation of such person’s parent or parents and who has not acquired the nationality of another country by any affirmative act other than the expatriation of his parent or parents may be naturalized upon filing a petition for naturalization before reaching age of Twenty-Five [25] years and upon compliance with all requirements of the naturalization laws with the following exceptions:
(b) No former citizen of the United States, expatriated through the expatriation of such person’s parent or parents shall be obliged to comply with the requirements of the immigration laws, if he has not acquired the nationality of another country by any affirmative act other than the expatriation of his parent or parents, and if he has come or shall come to the United States before reaching the age of twenty-five years.
(c) After his naturalization such person shall have the same citizenship status as if he had not been expatriated.”
Berg continues, “Renewing an Indonesian Passport after the age of 18 is an affirmative act, as you are swearing allegiance to another Country. Soetoro/Obama renewed his Indonesian Passport when he traveled to Pakistan that is why he had to stop in Indonesia first. Remember, in 1981, Dunham was divorcing Soetoro in Hawaii and was not in Indonesia. Obama/Soetoro admits to traveling to Indonesia first and then onto Pakistan. Soetoro/Obama claims in his book “Dreams from my father” that he stopped in Indonesia to visit his mother. But again, his mother was not in Indonesia, she was in Hawaii with Maya, divorcing Lolo Soetoro. In addition, the State Department has stated in response to a FOIA [Freedom of Information] request that they do not have a U.S. Passport application on file for Barack H. Obama.”
Berg said, “Despite the above however, Indonesia required Obama/Soetoro to do a bit more upon his 18th birthday. In fact the Indonesian law gives until the age of Twenty-One [21]. Soetoro/Obama would have had to sign an Affidavit relinquishing his Indonesian citizenship and said Affidavit had to be sent to the Indonesian Government before reclaiming any U.S. citizenship he may have once held.
When it comes to the citizenship of individuals in other countries, we are prevented from interfering, Hague Convention 1930. During the late 60?s all the way up until 2006 Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. In 2006, Indonesia changed their laws to permit dual citizenship; however, Indonesia has had its battles with enforcing their new law permitting dual citizenship.
From the legal research we have done, it appears that Soetoro became an Indonesian citizen. When Soetoro/Obama was approximately four [4] years old his parents divorced and thereafter, Soetoro/Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia. Evidence points to the fact that Lolo Soetoro either signed a government form legally ‘acknowledging’ Soetoro/Obama as his son or ‘adopted’ Soetoro, either of which changed any citizenship status Soetoro/Obama had to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia.
At the time Barry Soetoro was in Indonesia, all Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card identification called a Kartu Keluarga. The Kartu Keluarga is a family card which bears the legal names and citizenship status of all family members.
Soetoro/Obama was registered in a public school as an Indonesian citizen by the name of Barry Soetoronot allow foreign students to attend their public schools in the late 1960’s or 1970’s, and any time a child was registered for a public school, the child’s name and citizenship status were verified through the Indonesian Government.
See no way for Soetoro/Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia legally unless he was an Indonesian citizen, as Indonesia was under tight rule and was a Police State. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Law No. 62 of 1958. These facts indicate that Obama/Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen, and therefore he is not eligible to be President of the United States. and his father was listed as Lolo Soetoro, M.A according to the Indonesian school records. Indonesia did Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Chapter 13, Law No. 62 of 1958 (all citizens of Indonesia have a right to education).
Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Soetoro/Obama, an Indonesian State citizen. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie).
Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once an Indonesian citizen adopts a child, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child and the child takes the name of his step-father, in this case, Soetoro. See Indonesian Constitution, Article 2.
The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual) citizenship. Indonesian regulations recognized neither apatride nor bipatride (stateless or dual) citizenship. Since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship; neither did the United States (since the United States only permitted dual citizenship when ‘both’ countries agree); and since Obama/Soetoro was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, the United States would not step in or interfere with the laws of Indonesia. Hague Convention of 1930.”
As a result of Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian ‘natural’ citizenship status, Soetoro/Obama could never regain U.S. ‘natural born’ status, if he in fact he ever held such, which we doubt. Soetoro/Obama could have only become ‘naturalized’ if the proper paperwork were filed with the U.S. State Department, after going through U.S. Immigration upon his return to the United States; in which case, Soetoro/Obama would have received a Certification of Citizenship indicating ‘naturalized’.
Berg continued, “Regardless, we have been unable to locate any records indicating that Soetoro/Obama attempted to and/or actually did take the proper steps through the State Department in order to be here in our Country legally”
Further, there is no evidence that Soetoro/Obama ever ‘legally’ changed his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama – therefore his legal name is still ‘Barry Soetoro’.
Re post 10:
Refusing to hear charges does not necessarily close a matter; especially if a petition is denied WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
And denial for lack of “standing” is not a reflection on the merits of the case, but only on the (perceived) appropriateness of the specific petitioner to the issues raised.
Furthermore, and more significantly, where SCOTUS (in particular) is concerned, the Supreme Court is presented each year with literally thousands of civil Petitions for Certiorari (not to mention the huge numbers of criminal Petitions for Cert. also received annually). They can’t POSSIBLY hear more than a small fraction of them. The mere fact that they decline to grant certiorari [viz., review] is not of itself intended to connote unworthiness.
There are numerous other considerations that go into the decision to hear, or not hear, a matter.
You can’t impeach a president for being a moron, especially a president who, like a blind squirrel finding an acorn, just got Bin Laden. He would have never gotten him under his own wishy-washy, politically correct philosophy of interrogation, which is a polite conversation over a cup of tea with pita and hummus for a snack. As it turns out, the leads on the courier who eventually led them to Bin Laden were developed in 2007 under the previous administration using waterboarding on KSM and Al Libi.
I was a little disappointed that they gave Bin Laden a religious ceremony, followed by a NY Goodfella burial to sleep with the fishes. I would have opted for dragging him through the streets of NY followed by hanging him from the Brooklyn Bridge for all to see. Now the kooks and deniers are going to say his killing was a hoax.
The Republican creep Newt Gingrich was behind starting the impeachment of Bill Clinton. But look now. Bill Clinton is arguably the most popular man in the world, met by adoring crowds wherever he goes. Chris Matthews called him President of the World. Newt is still the mean spirited snivelly trouble maker he’s always been. My point is a president has to do something really bad to be impeached and having an affair is not it. There is nothing Obama has done that reaches the level of impeachment. I’m going to ignore conspiracy theories unless it’s a doozy. Some people must have drama in their lives and if it’s not there, they’ll make it.
It doesn’t matter that Osama had a religious burial. He killed thousands of innocent people and will be spending eternity with Satan.
Bill Clinton needed to be impeached for being convicted of lying under oath and obstructing justice as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the country.
Only among liberal hacks and stooges. The rest of us have no way of believing anything this guy, convicted of lying under oath and obstructing justice as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the country, says.
I rest my case. Chris Matthews is one of the foremost Democrat stooges around who almost has orgasms when he watches Obama – by his own admission. You can’t make up what these Democrat hacks are like.
Newt has more brains in his left pinky that Obama and all his advisors combined. He was mainly responsible for the surpluses during the Clinton years by cutting spending through his Contract with America. In addition, the technological and communications revolutions and dot.com bubble came along and increased tax revenues.
Clinton’s first budget presented in 1993 had $200 billion plus deficits throughout in spite of increased taxes and reneging on the middle-class tax cut he had promised during the campaign, which shows he had no idea how to get the budget into a surplus.
This is a classic Democrat stooge talking point. Clinton was not impeached for having an affair but for pleading guilty to lying under oath and obstructing justice. He also lost his law license for this. Wise up.
As I have said previously, we cannot impeach a president for being a moron, so Obama is safe unless Glenn Beck can find some evidence of treason.
He got these religious rites because we are currently being run by politically correct liberal Democrats. He should have been dragged through the streets of NY and then hung from the Brooklyn Bridge for all to see.
I’m sure he’s dead.
That being said, the ‘killing’ may well have been a hoax — kooks & deniers agreeing or disagreeing.
The guy had been on kidney dialysis for a long time; think about it.
I’m not saying the following is true; however
it is entirely conceivable, for example
(and not all that far-fetched either, given the kind of skullduggery this oh-so-’transparent’ character has already shown himself capable of),
that an agreement existed between this Administration & the Pakistan govt (or elements in it)
for the latter to quietly inform the former of the moment when a known-to-be-ailing OBL shuffled off this mortal coil –
such that the Navy Seals & CIA operatives could move in, make the ‘hit’ (on the body of an already dead man), and
promptly dispose of the “evidence.”
Eh, voila! — an easy way of justifying Afganistan withdrawal
to say nothing of a victory at the polls in 2012.
If it actually was a REAL hit, there is simply no rational reason they would not have first squeezed him for intel before introducing him to the virgins.
Even if he was no longer directly involved with the operational end of al-Qaeda, the guy would have been a treasure trove of information that nobody this side of a nuthouse could pass up.
But if he was already dead, that couldn’t be part of the package, could it?
If my musings (or anything like them) are correct, ‘religion’ was simply a convenient cover & diversion for hiding the facts, and had nothing to do with it.
For the past six months, the streets of several major, Mideast cities have been littered with the bodies of Muslims — bodies which STAYED unburied for way more than 24 hours before anybody got to them.
‘Religion,’ my arse.
I saw on Drudge Report that the imam of the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem has vowed revenge for the killing of bin Laden.
Bringing the Office of the Presidency (and with it, the People) of the United States into disrepute IS.
That’s what the expression “high crimes and misdemeanors” is about.
The word “misdemeanors” was used here in its original, literal meaning, as in: “mis-” + “demeanor.”
You don’t really think the drafters of the Constitution had “double-parking” in mind, do you, when they included that language right alongside “Treason” & “Bribery” as legitimate causes for impeachment?
Playing hide-the-salami with a scarcely legal-age twinkie
on Company time, on the Company dime,
and in the office explicitly assigned to you by the Company
certainly WOULD’VE legally qualified as bringing the Presidency and the People into disrepute.
The fact that the House didn’t charge him with that does not mean it wasn’t appropriate to do so.
It merely means that
just as the Democrats had no class,
the Republicans had no balls.
(And what else is new?)
I have seen both words used synonymously in articles linked to on both sides of the debate. If there’s a nuance of difference between them, it most probably isn’t relevant to the discussion here.
In the first case you quote, even among those on the left arguing for Obama’s eligibility give validation to the argument that the language of the Constitution reflects De Vattel’s definition of NBC to refer to a case where at a minimum one parent (the father, according to Vattel – either parent, according to most 21st century people) is already a citizen. This would exclude eligibility, for example, to a US born child whose parents are both illegal aliens. If you wish to argue otherwise, that is beyond the interest of this particular debate.
About the 2nd case, you are correct but I did not mean to exclude McCain. McCain is either a NBC because he was born on a US military base, which can be viewed as an extension of sovereign US territory. Or he’s a citizen by various amendments or resolutions involving citizens representing their government diplomatically or militarily outside of the US retaining their privileges for their children born elsewhere during this capacity of work. Even if not stated in the Constitution, such a law is obviously the correct thing to do.
The 2nd case would exclude a child born to 2 US citizens overseas who are not in any representative capacity of the US government. To the best of my knowledge, this is the actual law and no one would legally claim that such a child is eligible for the Presidency according to current law.
Well, that settles it!
Nutcase.
You’ve apparently lost track of the REASON for my above comment.
It was directly responsive to Bill Levinson’s (mistaken) assertion in old-#5 that His Wonderfulness could be ‘impeached’ for his conducting a lottery to finance his presidential campaign. That may have been disreputable, as well as illegal; but I hardly think it ‘moronic’ (sounds quite clever, if true).
What makes it unimpeachable is not that it was the act of a ‘moron,’ but — rather — that it was perpetrated not WHILE he was serving in the Office of the Presidency, but actually before that.
Listen. After investigating Bill Clinton for his personal finances and everything else they could think of, the investigators came up with the big doughnut, Nothing! They had to dig into his sex life to find that he lied about sex. This was a frameup, and today the prosecutor Ken Starr wishes he would not have investigated on that. I mean, give me a break! Think of what they could have done to John Kennedy! Bill’s sex life was not a shining moment…agreed.
Newt Gingrich is the lowest of the low. As he was pushing the impeachment, he was cheating on his wife. This was the beginning of Republicans going nuts, of lying and doing everything in excess they could to win. There was the awfulness of the behavior of the religious right which has now been replaced by the awfulness of the Tea Party–people who are without the proper education, a bit of talent and the foresight to lead our country, but they want to run the show. The U.S. now has a Democratic president, and it infuriates them–they don’t want to recognize his authority. Which is a recipe for The End of Times.
Say what you want about Bill Clinton. The World disagrees with you.
Correct terminology is always important. Natural-born and naturalized are the two ways one becomes an American. Being “nationalized” is to be made a part of the federal government.
I believe this child would be eligible, because this child would not have to go through the naturalization process to become an American.
That’s what I said.
Catarin, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. For the Chief Law Enforcement officer in the land to be convicted of lying under oath and obstructing justice is a big fat juicy Chateaubriand tenderloin steak, not a doughnut. He also lost his licence to practice law because of his conviction.
He was screwing a junior employee, during working hours, in his workplace. This is the very definition of sexual harrassment. If he were not a left wing icon for the abortion-feminists, this is also what he would have been convicted of.
John Kennedy was screwing grown women who did not work for him in his private residence and other places. That’s adultery, not sexual harrassment.
However, he was not committing a crime, which is what Bill Clinton was doing.
This is like blaming the prosecutors and absolving the criminal.
This is about the stupidest and most ignorant comment I have heard in a long time. I know dozens of highly educated professional who are members of the Tea Party movement.
We recognize his authority because the moron got elected with the help of 78% of American Jews, I’m sad to say. We also want to boot him out of there because we, the world and Israel, really cannot afford to have an unintelligent, dithering moron like him in this office for four more years.
I agree Bill Clinton is like a clown act in a circus because, as a convicted liar, no one has any idea whether to believe anything he is saying at any given moment.
Suppose you tell us just what the “proper education” consists of.
It’s not the Mahatmabama’s “authority” that’s under scrutiny
but his LEGITIMACY.
The People of the United States — overwhelmingly — disagree with the world.
And the more that the People of the US learn about Bill Clinton, the more overwhelming that judgment becomes.
If this were a ‘fact,’ Martin, you would hardly be “sad” about it; you’d be delighted.
But it’s less a fact than a bit of wishful thinking on your part.
Now set down the Kool-aid pitcher, and step away from the table; that’s a good boy.
It may take you a little longer than some, but you’ll get over this.
Touched a nerve, I see.
The evidence is unmistakable, Yahnkeleh. If you need examples, there is — just for starters — the fact that we had an election last year.
Perhaps you were otherwise engaged, and didn’t notice the outcome?
Present company asking “in the name of heaven“?
How very quaint.
The answer to your question, however, is,
the tone & outlook have changed.
Substantively.
A Bill Clinton couldn’t get elected dog-catcher in the emergent climate.
Well, I don’t know.
Suppose you tell me: can you?
You certainly do seem to get off on trying.
Years ago I was taking an American literature class. We were talking about William Faulkner and other authors who wrote in the first part of the last century. I was surprised to learn that in those times, young men would go to Ivy League colleges, and then return to their small towns across the country to become the judges, lawyers, etc., the leaders of their communities, whereas today I think the Ivy Leaguers mostly head to the big cities and schools. It was these people who ran for office and assumed county and state leadership positions. They had the background.
Today we have the old Joes and Janes who doesn’t know about government, finances, world events, how to negotiate. They think they can bully their way into office and push their own agenda. I’m thinking especially of the woman candidate Angle from Utah who went up against Harry Reid in the senate who said the craziest things and the woman candidate from Rhode Island, Christine, who asked a room full of law students where it said in the Constitution there was a separation between church and state (It’s the First Amendment.) People used to think a person had to be prepared to run for office. Not the Tea Partiers. They pretend to be patriots while they take the money of the Kock brothers.
One of the companies the Kocks own makes kitchen counter tops out of cancer-causing agents like formaldyhide. They back the Tea Partiers to fight the EPA (environmental agency) rather than make environmentally safe kitchen counters. Think of all that formaldyhide mixing with the food…
Bill Clinton spends millions of dollars around the world to help the poor suffering masses. What have you done lately?
The time stamp is a nice touch, Ted. You’re just getting up when I’m going to bed.
Do you think time has sped up as you got older as compared to when you were a kid? The answer is yes. The New Yorker has an article about a 40ish scientist David Eagleman who has been studying brain time since he was a kid. He was an atheist but after working on the brain’s mysteries for years, he has become a Posibilian, a word he coined to reflect his new religious view.
In a nutshell the brain records our memories all over its parts. The recording of time, though, isn’t like the other senses: sight, touch, smell, taste and hearing. When we’re in an environment all these senses head to the brain for interpretation, and the brain doesn’t release them to our consciousness until it has all the information. Sound arrives first with all the info arriving within miliseconds, and scientists know what part of the brain pertains to each, but time clocks in our brain are all over the place. Eagleman has discovered that we actually go unconscious for split seconds of time while the brain is getting it all together, but we are never aware of it.
The brain starts writing memories the moment we’re born, and our brain clocks react accordingly. By the time we’re much older, the brain doesn’t have to rewrite many memories because they are already in storage, so we have fewer and fewer miliseconds of unconsciousness. Old brain clocks work faster.
I suppose we could try learning physics in old age to get more time. But since we don’t know what’s going on anyway, I guess it doesn’t matter.
This article is in the April 25th issue if anyone wants to read more.
My dear lady, I daresay, even you would be hard-pressed to find much similarity between today’s university campus and the one you attended “years ago.” Things have changed substantially, and not for the better.
I suggest you spend some time on campus (especially an Ivy League one).
It will be, I quite assure you, an “education” all unto itself.
Examples of “craziest things,” please?
Actually her question was well-taken.
It’s NOT in the Constitution.
All the First Amendment says in this regard is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
With all due respect, Catarin, there’s nothing there that says such a “separation” is intended.
The idea of an “establishment of religion” referred to a state-sponsored religion (like the Church of England) — which the Founders, quite understandably, sought to avoid.
However, the word “respecting” does NOT, in any event, even mean “giving special consideration to.”
The word, “respecting” means “with respect to,”
or “having to do with,”
or “concerning.”
The phrase, “wall of separation,” comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. And he made quite clear in that letter that the idea of the “religion” clauses in the First Amendment was not
to protect the State from the Church,
but, rather,
to protect the Church from the State.
You might want to think about that.
You’d find them more ‘patriotic’ if they took money, instead, from that other humanitarian, George Soros?
Oh, come on, Catarin, where were you during the nineties? The only “millions of dollars” Bill Clinton ever spent on anybody were the millions (billions actually) of other people’s tax funds. Democrats have proven to always be ready to spend other people’s money on any & every project that will assure them the votes of another constituency.
And nothing’s changed for Slick Willy since the days of his presidency.
The ‘charitable’ inclinations of those of the liberal political compulsion are almost never personal, and seem to extend only to what they can force their neighbors to pay via taxes (i.e., implicitly at the point of a govt gun).
The records of political figures’ personal charitable contributions can prove something most revealing about human nature, if you’re willing to look…….
About what, my dear??
Beyond paying my bills (as I’m able) — and keeping the bank & the bill collectors at-bay, what would you suggest?
Learn physics.
Been there, done that.
Why?
And what’s that got to do with Mr Clinton’s millions to help the “poor suffering masses”?
Or, for that matter, with the price of bananas in Buffalo?
If I relearn physics, will it help us all to deal with your non sequiturs in better humor?
Catarin, please take a break from bloviating and go read the First Amendment. It prohibits the GOVERNMENT from interfering in the free practice of religion, it does not prohibit religion from the public square.
What a brilliant observation from a guy whose party is largely funded by George Soros and the major labor unions. At least the Koch brothers are patriots, which is not something anyone with more than half a brain would say of Soros.
Poppycock. Bill Clinton spends OPM. Bill Clinton did nothing for poor countries when he was president. He thought saying “I feel your pain” solved their problems. It was George Bush who provided BILLIONS to fight HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in poor countries – without any fanfare or much coverage by the media until Bob Geldof told the world about it. Read these testimonials and learn something:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/27/bushs-africa-legacy/
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article831812.ece
In addition, Clinton refused to retaliate against Al Qaeda, refused to take Bin Laden from Sudan, refused to give the order to shoot when the CIA had him in their sights in Afghanistan, prohibited the CIA and FBI from sharing intel, banned the CIA from gathering intel from “unsavory characters”, and emboldened Al Qaeda into believing they were a “strong horse” and escalating their attacks to the US mainland on 9/11.
It was Bush who removed the Muslim dictator who had attacked Israel with Scuds and paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, and gave us the only multi-party, multi-ethnic democracy in the Arab world, and it was Bush’s approval of physician-assisted waterboarding that got us the leads that led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
See
http://www.clintonfoundation.org
Just what I said, OPM.
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/how-you-can-help/
Rethink the First Amendment. One of the things utmost in the Founding Fathers’ goals was to insure there was no religious wars in America like that which had taken place in England and the continent for centuries. Christians fighting Christians, Popes fighting Kings, millions of Christians killed. I think this is one reason why Europeans are not very religious today. The old families remember.
Most of the Founding Fathers were Free Masons–they believed in God but not organized religion. I think this too was a result of the centuries of religious wars. Many of the first immigrants to America were refugees from these wars, including my mother’s family who came in the early 1600s. It came down in my family that we were kicked out of France, then we were kicked out of England.
Now if I may have a drum roll… Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relatively regarding gravity has just been proven by scientists. It took almost a hundred years and the invention of new equipment to send a satalite up that could measure the bending of space as he had predicted. The scientists and NASA ran out of money, and in the end were taking contributions from private parties, including one from the son of one of the founders of the original scientific group and one from a physics institute in Saudi Arabia. G-d bless Albert Einstein.
Why? It’s one of the simplest and straightforward of all the amendments. The entire Constitution was written to control the government, not the people.
Interesting. No one kicked me out of anywhere. I came because I chose to, 40 years ago, through Detroit:-))
He’s right, Catarin. Consider:
“[I]n questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man [viz., government BY man -- dweller], but bind [it] down from mischief by the chains of the constitution… ”
[The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 30: 1 January 1798 to 31 January 1799
(Princeton University Press, 2003)]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-6L_hT3QtQ