Posted on 04/13/2011 9:17:46 AM PDT by Windflier
Just heard WBAP morning host, Mark Davis, say that only one US citizen parent is required for a person to be a Natural Born Citizen.
That is just blatant misinformation, and Mark needs to be called on it.
He went on to give the rest of his weird definition, but I was already so angry, I couldn't hear him. I went looking for a link to send him email, so that I could correct him.
Here's a link to his show, if any of you feel the urge to do so: http://www.wbap.com/showdj.asp?DJID=1397
That child would be a citizen of Mexico. Because that was the citizensip he was naturally born with.
I would argue further that such a child would not be a Natural Born Citizen of Mexico, due to his having been born in a foreign country. He would be equal to his fellow Mexicans in every way, except that.
Oh, so dependents of servicemen born in foreign hospitals don't qualify??? Does John McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone qualify?
Now then, in the case of The Won, the official narrative is that he was born to Stanley Durham and BHO (Senior)-- in Hawaii. But BHO (Senior) was not a citizen at that time. Therefore, that would be a prima facie case that The Won is not constitutionally qualified to be President under your definition. Yet Mrs. Clinton's campaign refused to try to make this case. And...it would mean that the Birth Certificate would be irrelevant.
Here's one for you fantatics on this: What if you don't know who the father is? Suppose a U.S. Citizen gives birth on U.S. soil-- but doesn't know the citizenship of the child's father? Does the Consitution forbid a bastard of unknown progeny to become President?
plenty of bastards have become US Presidents
What would Ben Franklin do?
I think he’d pretty much have freaked if, in 1788, you argued that the son of a British citizen could be “born” an American citizen.
Just sayin’.
They might have been ignorant three years ago and they might have gotten a pass THEN but NOT now.
Amen. It is simply unconscionable that people in such powerful opinion leader positions remain so dismally uneducated about this vitally important subject.
Of them all, Levin is the biggest disappointment, given the fact that he has a better understanding of the US Constitution than most scholars (let alone, talk radio hosts).
The soft dictatorship we're living in is getting harsher and more intimidating by the day. The Conservative media is the first to stare at the muzzle.
And apparently, it doesn't even take real bullets to make them surrender. Pathetic...
I think I’ll disagree with that.
I’d be more inclined to argue that the child was BORN a citizen of Mexico. Period. Therefore, he was a “naturally born” Mexican citizen.
Beyond that, his citizenship could be defined or classifed by Mexican law.
You’re not wrong. But the practical reality is that this is a discussion that can only reach a “final answer” when SCOTUS weighs in, on the precise question, on these facts.
Until then . . . lots of monkeys will fly out of posteriors.
No, the left is pretty consistent in reminding everyone that his mother was an American citizen, which also 'cements his claim to eligibility.'
They've been fairly vocal about it.
XYZ dictator visits the UN for some “peace talks” and while staying at the Ritz-Carlton impregnates a US citizen.
So, thirty five years later their son/daughter could run for POTUS as long as he/she was born on US soil?
That's an excellent illustration of how the One Parent theory falls apart. It's PRECISELY what the Framers were trying to prevent, by inserting the NBC requirement for president.
Anyone who argues against that, is either woefully uneducated on the subject, or they're a tool of the left.
Again, I differ with you on the legal/constitutional import of the child’s place of birth. (Not saying you may not be right; you may be.)
But you have pointed out what I think is the absolute key here: did the Sovereign have to do something (such as allow a common law to be establish or affirmatively enact a law) to make the grant of citizenship?
All forms of citizenship except the citizenship you are, quite literally, BORN with require an affirmative act by a Sovereign.
But if no Sovereign acts, or reaches your situation, according to natural law -— recognized everywhere -— you would still be the citizen of the country of your parents. This accords with the principle that “no man can be stateless,” that is, without a country.
Indeed, that was the principle the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to clarify as to the former slaves. Otherwise, they might be considered “stateless,” and natural law won’t countenance that.
A man must have a country. He naturally has the country of his father (it’s open to interpretation whether modern notions of lineage changed that natural law principle). That is his citizenship before he is born and upon his birth.
The fact that a Sovereign may grant him a different citizenship at the time of his birth by operation of law does nothing to displace the citizenship he was BORN with, i.e., the citizenship of his father (or, perhaps, his father OR mother??).
Elsie, would you mind posting what you sent to Mark Davis on the thread?
IIRC, the whole ‘his mother is an American’ meme only started since Trump brought up the issue three weeks ago. Before that, they barely touched any of it, except to cast those who questioned his eligibility as kooks.
I think he survives because his competition just isn't strong enough to take more of his listeners. This town really needs some better talent between the hours of 8AM and 11AM.
WBAP is the local home of Rush, Hannity, Levin, and Laura Ingraham. A lot of folks just 'set it and forget it'.
I'm with you, though. I really can't stand the guy.
I do think it makes sense that the Framers would have countenanced only those also born on U.S. soil as born American citizens.
However, the other side of the coin doesn’t make sense — that, therefore, a child of two Americans, who happened to be born abroad, was not born an American citizen.
All that said, it seems to me that the primary question here (besides the PROCESS questions, and don’t get me started on those) are:
1. Can the citizenship one is born with come from the father OR the mother? IOW, if, as surely was once the law, the citizenship one was born with came only from the father, does it make a difference, constitutionally, what the mother’s citizenship was?
2. If the citizenship one is born with can come from the mother, is that natural flow of citizenship from mother to child disrupted if the father is a citizen of another country?
3. If the citizenship one is born with can come from the mother OR the father, or the mother AND the father, does being born a DUAL citizen mean one is or not still considered to be born American?
These questions have been addressed, at least to some extent, in the context of citizenship granted by a Sovereign (by operation of law). But those answers would not apply to a citizenship one is born with apart from operation of law.
Oh, so dependents of servicemen born in foreign hospitals don't qualify?
That's correct. In fact, two of my brothers were born under that exact scenario. They're not Natural Born Citizens, although I and the rest of my siblings are, because we were born on US soil.
You're also reading the case of Obama ineligibility correctly. He's not a Natural Born Citizen because his father was a subject of Kenya at Obama's birth.
It doesn't matter if Zero was born in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House. He's an illegal usurper, under the Framers' understanding of the NBC requirement.
I'm aware of WBAP... it is a very powerful station in Texas, and what a great line-up (except for Davis). I didn't realize Davis is "the morning guy".
Lots of folks in CT also "set it and forget it", too, mostly for WTIC 1080 AM and also WDRC 1360 AM. WTIC has Rush, WDRC has Laura Ingraham, but no Connecticut stations in my area (northern CT) carry Hannity nor Levin unfortunately. I have to listen to them via XM Radio or online.
The 3-6pm show is a local "conservative" talk show: "State and Church" with former Governor John Rowland and Pastor Will Marotti.
I’d be more inclined to argue that the child was BORN a citizen of Mexico. Period. Therefore, he was a “naturally born” Mexican citizen.
Sure, he'd be born a citizen of Mexico, due to the citizenship of his parents, but he wouldn't meet the highest standard of natural birth possible, which would also include his being born on the soil of his home country.
As per your earlier contention, no force of law would be required to make this child a citizen, but he fails the test of absolute, 100% un-alloyed ties to his home country, having been born abroad.
One of the most remarkable aspects about this whole debate is how much pushback there has been to the simple idea of taking steps to ensure our nation is not dragged into controversies such as these in the future.
Seriously, all one can take away from the Rats' posture is that they are mightily afraid that Obama would not be able to meet the requirements of an eligibility law.
And that's just a stupid fear.
First, if he's ineligible, they're okay with that? (I guess so.)
Secondly, just like with passport requirements, the law would have to allow for "proof" mechanisms for the person who may not be able to produce "primary" documents. And, of course, any eligibility law can (and probably SHOULD) be challenged, so we can get a final answer from the Supremes.
If a particular law is too restrictive in terms of the proof it requires, that could be challenged and changed. But to be against even enacting such standards seems fishy to me.
The Rats should have said "bring it on" two years ago. As it stands now, a law may be passed and then Obama will challenge it and the entire election could get hung up. Or maybe that's what the Rats want.
The bottom line is I fail to see how anyone could be against a procedure for verifying, challenging and remedying eligibility issues.
CURRENTLY, "VERIFICATION" OF ELIGIBILITY IS DONE IN SECRET, BY PARTY HACKS, ACCORDING TO AN UNKNOWN STANDARD WITH NO PROCEDURE FOR TRANSPARENCY, CHALLENGE OR REMEDY.
This is the penultimate "TRUST ME, I'M A POLITICIAN" scenario and the American people are just sick of it.
I believe this is the major reason "birtherism" has hung around as long as it has. Even people who don't have a dog in the actual "birther" hunt have become appalled that the political elites still deign to tell them what they can and cannot ask about their president or their presidential candidates.
At some level, "birtherism" is about the American people simply saying "Shut up! We'll ask our president any damn question we please, for as long as we please, until we get an answer to our satisfaction!" End of story.
As someone once said:
Americans barely tolerate being governed. They will not be ruled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.