Posted on 04/25/2011 1:33:23 AM PDT by Veristhorne
(Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.
Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.
First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.
Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .
The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, .
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Ping!
So, if his (claimed) mother’s husband was his daddy, he isn’t NBC. See how simple that is?
Good posting, V!
The term “natural born citizen” is what has been sadly missing in the various States’ bills and media coverage that seems to be instead aimed on whether he was born in the US. As others have stated... He could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House and still not be eligible to be POTUS, because his father was a British citizen.
re: “natural born citizen” is what has been sadly missing in the various States’ bills and media coverage
Well, in the case of the MSM, of course it’s missing. It’s directly from the playbook of liberal organizations to spin a story in such a way that those who aren’t paying attention, or have been educated in public schools, don’t understand the principles involved and can be sent off on a snipe hunt.
The question is not if he was born in Hawaii, but rather is he a natural born citizen! And that should be pointed out loud and clear EVERY time and ANY time the subject comes up.
“The term “natural born citizen” is what has been sadly missing in the various States’ bills and media coverage that seems to be instead aimed on whether he was born in the US. As others have stated... He could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House and still not be eligible to be POTUS, because his father was a British citizen.”
That’s because they KNOW he’s not qualified. Dirty little secret that is too embarrassing; many blacks don’t really know who their father is..........
We couldn’t really bring embarrassment to our dear leader could we?
PFL
can u post the 4 court cases pls.
Perhaps “those in the know” are asking for the b.c. Because “daddy” ain’t daddy. If Frank Davis is listed as “daddy” then he is eligible. Maybe this was the discovery that led Zero to change his mind about his OWN eligibility. It seems in 2004 even HE recognized he wasn’t.
Now this would mean he IS eligible I suppose but then we get to biological vs paternal role and Lolo, etc. Folks would also want to know just who is this Frank Davis and that would open a can of worms Zero really doesn’t want to deal with.
More evidence supports parentage by Frank Marshall Davis than not. Stanley Dunham was a true believer and pimped his daughter out to a communist big shot. That’s all.
It is illegal to stand up to Islam now, so we are doomed to watch the left advance and parry while we feint and cry foul.
In addition to natural born citizenship, what about a natural born citizen who gave up US citizenship?
“The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, theres a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born Citizen, and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint...
... Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
You are correct.It was pointed out on FR weeks ago that the key issue is whether Obama is a natural born citizen. The MM and their friends have desparately tried to avoid this issue.
When it comes to Jr’s murky family history, one of the major stumbling blocks is most are no longer breathing. The press and his supporters takes it upon themselves to spin a yarn worthy a messiah born away in some manger.
With FMD, Jr’s handlers have less control because their meme wavers upon cooperation by the breathing decendants of FMD who have distinct personalities and human flaws of their own which are not easily or willingly subject to teleprompter scripting 24/7/365.
The actual law has changed a bit since the centuries cited.
This still establishes nothing. try again.
The US Constitution sill says you must be a natural born citizen to be President of the US.How come nobody has come up with a case ON POINT that says otherwise?
LLS
And the sad state is that we have a president whose past is defined by what he wanted to write in two books.
Where else do we get this outright ignorance by the media of doing some real digging to find out if he’s told the truth?
Zippo’s parents divorce proceedings established the Kenyan as the father.
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.