Posted on 11/29/2015 12:34:49 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
NBC is not defined in the Constitution. It was already defined and well known before the Constitution, History is your friend.
Ever notice how all the election season trolls are always in agreement?
If it isn’t in the constitution, it isn’t applicable.
At least he has a birth certificate.
Two wrongs do not make a right. We can beat these morons without becoming them.
Were you born last night?
Liberals care nothing for precedent if it does not profit their cause. If we PROVE that Obama IS INELIGIBLE to be President RIGHT NOW, what good will it do? The legalities would take more than 13 months and end with it being declared a moot case.
As for complaining about Sen Cruz, they DON'T CARE that Obama would be a precedent (not the same but just for the argument!) they would just give that old Clinton meme - "that was then this is now!"
The requirement is in the Constitution, so it applicable.
The questions regarding Baraq H. 0bama weren't properly vetted?
Hmmm. Show me that birth cert again...
5.56mm
Quote:
Prior to 1934, U.S. citizen mothers could not transmit U.S. citizenship to children born abroad; only U.S. citizen fathers could do that. In 1994, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act, which added INA 301(h) (8 USC 1401(h)) which granted citizenship to people born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother before 1934:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
[...]
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
This section was specified to apply retroactively to the date of the person’s birth.
https://www.quora.com/Was-Winston-Churchill-American
I realize that. I was pointing out the precedent that makes any question of Cruz’s eligibility ludicrous.
Actually, all the legislation that Obama signed would be void.
No court has ever found in your favor.
No court has ever ruled against it.
Not with regard to eligibility for the presidency. And actually, the term “natural born citizen” has not been legislatively defined either. A number of Constitutional authorities point to the statutes governing “citizen at birth” and contend that that term is the same as “natural born citizen.” But that is not clear.
I would actually like to see this issue go to SCOTUS in an effort to have “natural born citizen” defined once and for all. But knowing our present SCOTUS, it will probably decline to hear the case or muddy the waters even further.
No court has ever ruled against making Lucky Charms the official breakfast food of Ireland.
“I would actually like to see this issue go to SCOTUS in an effort to have “natural born citizen†defined once and for all.”
It was defined in the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Obama spent his formative years in the Muslim Majority pseudo 3rd world country known as Indonesia.
Cruz Spent his formative years in the 1st world Western countries of the US and Canada.
I trust Cruz a hell of a lot more than Obama to live up to the American/1st world ideal.
Name calling?
If you invest as much effort into logical discourse as you do in attacking people you may notice a slight increase in your intellectual abilities.
I wasn’t talking to you.
No court has ruled in favor making Lucky Charms the official breakfast food of Ireland, how many times do we have to do this?
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.