Posted on 01/13/2016 3:46:46 PM PST by conservativejoy
Edited on 01/13/2016 4:06:16 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
If Obama was born overseas, his Mother’s length of Residency would make a difference.
He was born in Hawaii, so it’s a moot point.
I don’t think the continuous Residency is 14 Years. I believe is either 4 or 5 Years.
I’m sure Cruz has a passport.
.
Obama never got to Hawaii until he was a teenager. He definitely was not born there.
Resorting to personal attacks shows you doubt your own position and have to lash out at others with your own frustration. Kind of like those cowardly wife beaters.
>>>Obama never got to Hawaii until he was a teenager. He definitely was not born there<<<
Nobody has proven that yet. If they did, Obama would not be eligible because of his Mother not meeting the Residency Requirement even though she was an American Citizen.
I guess “definitely” doesn’t equal “proven”.
Nice try though. I really wish you were correct.
Says the real troll hiding behind a pseudonym. I’m using my real name. You can’t say the same.
I agree with you. This Trump attacks Cruz line is just the type of thing the media loves. The same questions are going to be asked and litigated by the Democrats and breathlessly reported by the media... Hillary's campaign was responsible for starting the questions about Obama’s eligibility. The difference is that this time around the Democrats will have the media on their side and it will be a factor if Cruz is the nominee.
It doesn't make a bit of difference what Trump says... he has just stated the obvious. This is because this is not a right or wrong argument as much as it is going to be distorted by politics and a sympathetic press. Do we need to remind people here that the media is biased... biased against conservatives like Cruz.
>>> We can’t allow Dems to choose our nominee over a perceived lawsuit. It will go nowhere.
We can only hope it doesn’t.
If it does, we should be able to legally reverse 8 years of Obama signed laws.
I don’t think the dems want that either.
Yes, and in the same case (Kim Wong Ark) SCOTUS also explained that children of citizens born abroad are not citizens at birth (or by birthright, in other words) but by act of Congress and belong to the second category, naturalized.
Read the case. It is long, but not too hard.
Anybody using that law, or any other law passed by Congress, as a basis for their citizenship is screaming in your face..."I'm a naturalized Citizen".
Copies are from a 1796 Law book...”otherwise” 1st paragraph...and parents..3rd page.
From the text of the Bellei case, concerning a person born outside the US to a US citizen parent:
Majority opinion:
But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.
(Quoting Wong Kim Ark which I mis-named upthread. Sorry.)
From the second dissent:
Concededly, petitioner was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute . . . . naturalized overseas . . .
From the first dissent:
The Court in Wong Kim Ark thus stated a broad and comprehensive definition of naturalization. As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization, when used in its constitutional sense, is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization. This inclusive definition has been adopted in several opinions of this Court besides United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra.
Anyone who actually cares can easily look up Bellei and read it for yourself. See if you think the WT article is playing straight. (Bellei is a lot shorter and more recent than Wong Kim Ark.)
It may be intentional. Though I've found with the eligibility topic a healthy amount of legal and historical incompetence exists.
Though the author at least brings the Bellei case into public view. There have been a number of articles, including some by respected legal scholars, that have simply ignored the case (along with Wong Kim Ark) while asserting that "citizen at birth" equates to "natural born citizen" as regards children born abroad to U.S. citizens. It's been a curious thing to observe.
Anyone who actually cares can easily look up Bellei and read it for yourself. See if you think the WT article is playing straight.
Anyone who believes the Bellei case helps Cruz is either reading challenged or is blinded by partisanship.
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.