Comments on: Leo Addresses the Chester Arthur Presidential Eligibility Issue http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/04/leo-addresses-the-chester-arthur-presidential-eligibility-issue/ Questioning everything, in love, for the truth Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:40:44 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Phil http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/04/leo-addresses-the-chester-arthur-presidential-eligibility-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-851 Phil Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:39:57 +0000 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1600#comment-851 Joe, Take a look at my Candidates > Qualifications category for posts related to your question. I think you'll be amazed. Thanks for commenting, -Phil Joe,
Take a look at my Candidates > Qualifications category for posts related to your question.
I think you’ll be amazed.
Thanks for commenting,
-Phil

]]> By: Joe http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/04/leo-addresses-the-chester-arthur-presidential-eligibility-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-850 Joe Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:31:44 +0000 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1600#comment-850 I'm not sure either why or how the Supreme Court could deny this "grant a writ of certiorari" since it goes to the written standards of the US Constitution. Who are the signatories of the authentication and swearing of Mr. Obama at the time he filed documentation certifying his eligibility to even be considered as a viable (legally entitled) contestant for the Office of POTUS? I’m not sure either why or how the Supreme Court could deny this “grant a writ of certiorari” since it goes to the written standards of the US Constitution.
Who are the signatories of the authentication and swearing of Mr. Obama at the time he filed documentation certifying his eligibility to even be considered as a viable (legally entitled) contestant for the Office of POTUS?

]]> By: Phil http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/04/leo-addresses-the-chester-arthur-presidential-eligibility-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-849 Phil Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:05:57 +0000 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1600#comment-849 Landstander, Yours would be a good theory up to the point where Berg filed the motion for injunction, effectively steering his case to be similar to Leo's and Cort's. -Phil Landstander,
Yours would be a good theory up to the point where Berg filed the motion for injunction, effectively steering his case to be similar to Leo’s and Cort’s.
-Phil

]]> By: Landstander http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/04/leo-addresses-the-chester-arthur-presidential-eligibility-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-848 Landstander Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:01:09 +0000 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1600#comment-848 If one were to draw parallels then Berg would be Hinman, hired to distract attention from the real matter... I'm not sure my foil hat is shiny enough to go that far. If one were to draw parallels then Berg would be Hinman, hired to distract attention from the real matter… I’m not sure my foil hat is shiny enough to go that far.

]]> By: American Citizen http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/04/leo-addresses-the-chester-arthur-presidential-eligibility-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-832 American Citizen Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:54:35 +0000 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1600#comment-832 A common misconception regarding naturalization in US law is that in US Law naturalization is an act of renouncing all other loyalties and citizenships, and thus it expressly nullifying the British concept of perpetual subjection to the Crown. Thus, a naturalized US citizen who was born in the UK or one of its colonies, is in US law a US citizen and the citizen of no other, but in British law is a crown subject still. This is why the son of such a naturalized citizen can be a natural born US citizen (when born on US soil of a citizen mother), even though in British law he has a jus sanguinis right to British citizenship. Leo's argument that one cannot have dual citizenship at birth, is in the context of a not-naturalized father, it is not in the context of a naturalized father who holds dual citizenship in virtue of the laws of another country, but not our own. A common misconception regarding naturalization in US law is that in US Law naturalization is an act of renouncing all other loyalties and citizenships, and thus it expressly nullifying the British concept of perpetual subjection to the Crown. Thus, a naturalized US citizen who was born in the UK or one of its colonies, is in US law a US citizen and the citizen of no other, but in British law is a crown subject still. This is why the son of such a naturalized citizen can be a natural born US citizen (when born on US soil of a citizen mother), even though in British law he has a jus sanguinis right to British citizenship.

Leo’s argument that one cannot have dual citizenship at birth, is in the context of a not-naturalized father, it is not in the context of a naturalized father who holds dual citizenship in virtue of the laws of another country, but not our own.

]]> By: Jim http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/04/leo-addresses-the-chester-arthur-presidential-eligibility-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-826 Jim Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:50:43 +0000 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1600#comment-826 Thanks.Leo is a very impressive guy.And has integrity.He was wise to see through Lan Lamphere and avoided being torpedoed by him.And he respectfully confronts the msm NWO shills to set the record straight on their shabby reporting.He looks for flaws in his case to correct them,and constantly is researching this issue in between interviews and all the rest of it.We are grateful,Leo.Thanks Phil. Thanks.Leo is a very impressive guy.And has integrity.He was wise to see through Lan Lamphere and avoided being torpedoed by him.And he respectfully confronts the msm NWO shills to set the record straight on their shabby reporting.He looks for flaws in his case to correct them,and constantly is researching this issue in between interviews and all the rest of it.We are grateful,Leo.Thanks Phil.

]]>