Obama Presidency... Unconstitiutional?

GoodbyeFreedom

GoodbyeFreedom

Well-Known Member
"The text of the law states that the U.S. Congress "acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum" (U.S. Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510))."

Apology Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So since Hawaii isnt an official state... Obama who was born in Hawaii cant be the president... right? Let me know what you all think.

More reading:
United States Public Law 103-150. 103rd Congress Joint Resolution 19. Nov. 23, 1993

Or just google: United States Public Law 103-150
 
GoodbyeFreedom

GoodbyeFreedom

Well-Known Member
Oops... forgot to add this;



Specifically, the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, reads...
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
​
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
The U.S. considers Hawaii a state. As such, under U.S. law, he is qualified to run.

If the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement gets its wish and Hawaii goes completely independent, anyone born after such an action would be ineligible to run for President of the U.S.

If the movement resulted in Hawaii being named a Sovereign Nation Reservation, like on the Native American Nations on the mainland, anyone born after such an act would be eligible to run for President.
 
Florida Girl

Florida Girl

Well-Known Member
GoodbyeFreedom said:
So since Hawaii isnt an official state... Obama who was born in Hawaii cant be the president... right? Let me know what you all think.
Click to expand...

I don't know about all that legalese mumbo jumbo, but Hawaii is in fact a State. Admitted into the Union in 1959. Obama born in 1961. Seems pretty clear cut that he meets the requirements to run.

Now, if one really wants to push the issue that Hawaii isn't a State, then perhaps Hawaii should be required to officially secede from the Union and we should remove one star from the US Flag.

LOL.... sorry but I don't see that happening.
 
GoodbyeFreedom

GoodbyeFreedom

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
The U.S. considers Hawaii a state. As such, under U.S. law, he is qualified to run.

If the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement gets its wish and Hawaii goes completely independent, anyone born after such an action would be ineligible to run for President of the U.S.

If the movement resulted in Hawaii being named a Sovereign Nation Reservation, like on the Native American Nations on the mainland, anyone born after such an act would be eligible to run for President.
Click to expand...
No disrespect but i dont think you read a damn word of what i posted. lol.

UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW number 103-150 states:
U.S. Congress "acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum" (U.S. Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510)).

The United States overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii, (Look it up) and they admit it. In their own words, they say that Hawaii never gave up its sovereignty. Therefore, as of 1993 Hawaii is no longer a state. Please correct me if im wrong...
 
GoodbyeFreedom

GoodbyeFreedom

Well-Known Member
Florida Girl said:
I don't know about all that legalese mumbo jumbo, but Hawaii is in fact a State. Admitted into the Union in 1959. Obama born in 1961. Seems pretty clear cut that he meets the requirements to run.

Now, if one really wants to push the issue that Hawaii isn't a State, then perhaps Hawaii should be required to officially secede from the Union and we should remove one star from the US Flag.

LOL.... sorry but I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...
PLEASE READ US PUBLIC LAW 103-150 BEFORE RESPONDING!!! LMAO!

typical of obama lovers. :roll: lol... j/k

And actually, a lot of Hawaiian natives DO support succession... considering how good ole uncle sam INVADED their land.

*shrugs*

just the truth.
 
Florida Girl

Florida Girl

Well-Known Member
GoodbyeFreedom said:
PLEASE READ US PUBLIC LAW 103-150 BEFORE RESPONDING!!! LMAO!

typical of obama lovers. :roll: lol... j/k

And actually, a lot of Hawaiian natives DO support succession... considering how good ole uncle sam INVADED their land.

*shrugs*

just the truth.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to read it because I don't really care that much. I was just offering my opinion. If they want to secede from the Union then I don't care.... let em. Until they do .... they are recognized as a State in the Union.... no matter what legal statue you post.

For the record.... I don't like Obama or McCain and won't be voting for either of them. I don't think either one of these candidates will make a good President.

BTW..... This isn't the first time this argument about HI and Obama's right to run has come up. Hillary Clinton is a lawyer..... don't you think if there was a chance in hell this could be challenged legally that she would have fought it to the death in court?
 
GoodbyeFreedom

GoodbyeFreedom

Well-Known Member
Dankdude said:
Same can be said about McCain, he was born in Panama.
Click to expand...
Yeah... uhhh... i dont support McCain either. Lol. Sorry to seem like i had an agenda, I was seriously just asking a question.

I guess i should edit the title and say;

BOTH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

wow. this is pretty fucked up.
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Well-Known Member
GoodbyeFreedom said:
"The text of the law states that the U.S. Congress "acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum" (U.S. Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510))."

Apology Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So since Hawaii isnt an official state... Obama who was born in Hawaii cant be the president... right? Let me know what you all think.

More reading:
United States Public Law 103-150. 103rd Congress Joint Resolution 19. Nov. 23, 1993

Or just google: United States Public Law 103-150
Click to expand...
GoodbyeFreedom said:
Oops... forgot to add this;



Specifically, the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, reads...
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
​
Click to expand...
That's very interesting, but makes me immediately wonder, what about those who are born in U.S. territories? Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S.V.I.? Once the U.S. gained these territories they did not immediately make the populations U.S. citizens. If I recollect correctly Puerto Ricans did not gain citizenship until sometime in the 1900s (in other words, I'm not sure my own grandparents were born as citizens, even though by the time they were born P.R. had been a U.S. territory for about 20 years).

What about other native peoples who were overrun by the U.S.?

What made you think of this, or where'd you find it?
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
Therefore, as of 1993 Hawaii is no longer a state. Please correct me if im wrong.

Since he was born after Hawaii was made a state and before 1993, I'd have to say he's qualified, so what's the problem here? I'd say in this respect, McSame has more of a problem, Last time I checked, Panama isn't a state or part of the USA, and nowhere that I know of does the constitution include US bases in foriegn lands, but I may be wrong. I doubt being an admirals son precludes the constitution.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
GoodbyeFreedom said:
No disrespect but i dont think you read a damn word of what i posted. lol.

UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW number 103-150 states:
U.S. Congress "acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum" (U.S. Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510)).

The United States overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii, (Look it up) and they admit it. In their own words, they say that Hawaii never gave up its sovereignty. Therefore, as of 1993 Hawaii is no longer a state. Please correct me if im wrong...
Click to expand...
You are incorrect.

I read it and the bulk of your argument rests on an apology to the people of Hawaii in a Joint Resolution of Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993. Basically a proclamation, it does not enact any changes to the pre-existing law.
 
Last edited:
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
Johnnyorganic said:
You are incorrect.

I read it and the bulk of your argument rests on an apology to the people of Hawaii in a Joint Resolution of Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993. Basically a proclamation, it does not does not enact any changes to the pre-existing law.
Click to expand...
Either way, Obama was born in a state of the USA. McCain was not.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
Either way, Obama was born in a state of the USA. McCain was not.
Click to expand...
True, but surely you aware aware of provisions in U.S. Federal Statute which grants citizenship to children born to American Citizens on a U.S. Military reservation, physical location notwithstanding.

If this were an issue, it would have been established when McCain ran for President the first time.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
Johnnyorganic said:
True, but surely you aware aware of provisions in U.S. Federal Statute which grants citizenship to children born to American Citizens on a U.S. Military reservation, physical location notwithstanding.

If this were an issue, it would have been established when McCain ran for President the first time.
Click to expand...
Well blow me down. I assumed as much, although I didn't know the statute, damn. Just as well as McCain is not electable and someone else may be.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Damn, Johnny ... you beat me to it. ~lol~ :mrgreen:

Here's another thought on citizenship ...

Aren't we all citizens of the sovereign republics in which were born and live in? I was born and live in the Republic of California. Aren't I a Republic of California citizen? How did I become a citizen of Washington D.C.? I don't remember signing anything ... did you?

Vi
 
jahman2222

jahman2222

New Member
Seamaiden said:
That's very interesting, but makes me immediately wonder, what about those who are born in U.S. territories? Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S.V.I.? Once the U.S. gained these territories they did not immediately make the populations U.S. citizens. If I recollect correctly Puerto Ricans did not gain citizenship until sometime in the 1900s (in other words, I'm not sure my own grandparents were born as citizens, even though by the time they were born P.R. had been a U.S. territory for about 20 years).

What about other native peoples who were overrun by the U.S.?

What made you think of this, or where'd you find it?
Click to expand...
shit if i was born in puerto rico guam or usvi..id stay there never touch foot in the states and be happy and not give a shit about polotics
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Well-Known Member
No, you wouldn't. Why do you think there are more Puerto Ricans living in the U.S. than on the island? Think abject poverty doesn't exist in the U.S.? Go see the shanty-town below El Morro (but bring protection, this is where carjackings and the like were invented). Don't get me wrong, I love La Isla de Encanta, and I have connections, very good connections, but the local politics alone..? I don't know about the USVI, but in Guam, there is no farm land and there is little work. It's BEAUTIFUL, and I could spend a hell of a lot of time there, but... The mainland is where the opportunity is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top