Skip to comments.Judge Wants Definition of 'Natural Born Citizen'
Posted on 04/27/2012 4:48:20 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome
U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define natural born citizen, affirming that the issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.
This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office, Anderson wrote in his opinion. The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.
Van Irion, whose Liberty Legal Foundation brought the case, alleges the plan by Tennessee Democrats to register Obama as their nominee for president opens a case, under state law, of negligent misrepresentation and fraud or intentional misrepresentation because of doubts about Obamas eligibility.
Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.
The court made several very positive statements about our case, he noted.
He cited Andersons statement that the court finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase natural born citizen as a qualification for the presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.
It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obamas qualifications for the office are actually disputed and substantial, the judge said.
Anderson said it also is clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitutions definition of natural born citizen and the Supreme Courts decision in Minor.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
It’s really important for Van Irion to emphasize that the Minor definition of NBC, which was unanimously supported, was also unanimously support by both the majority opinion and dissent in Wong Kim Ark. That’s 18 Supreme Court justices that agreed the only definition for the Article II Constitutional term is “all children born in the country to citizen parents” in exclusion of children born of foreign parents. There’s no legal precedent for any lower court to go against the judgment of 18 SCOTUS justices.
Disagree. All documents (real ones) proving who his parents are and where he was born and any nationality/ies he has held or presently holds would all have to be on the table.
He’s also a huge government globalist.
Rubio Praises U.N., World Bank, IMF for Not Asserting Narrow American Interests
CNS News ^ | 4/25/2012 | Michael W. Chapman
Thanks for the ping, Mel. Can you imagine life in Moonbatville today? Any time a serious, mature adult fails to treat this issue w snide contempt, Obots’ heads implode. Pretty much the outer reaches of their intellectual prowess is mocking Orly. When more than that is required, they resort to flinging foul words and insults like monkey dung. Lol. I wish I had time to pay them a visit today. It would be interesting to see how many times they call this judge a ‘pissant’. They are so very intelligent, you understand.
“What you’re trying to do with your question is BS and contemptible!:
Oops upside the head.
What if Ob is history, now?
I mean, what if, Romney is effectively in? In a way se is. He could win it. He is now appointing staff. Let’s say Ob and Pelosi and all are out. They’re yesterday’s news and they are now just babbling.
Can’t we assume that we now need to be very careful to be honest about what kind of non patriots are getting in there? Even though we don’t have power to change it (we should, but we can see we haven’t so far, in this primary), can’t we look at it and at least say “no, he is not loyal to this country”, when a nominee/prospective appointee alogically appears so?
Can we learn from Ob? Just because he has political affiliations which tend toward anti American-ism, does not logically mean that the GOP-establishment cannot appoint someone with anti American sentiments from a different direction.
Ob might be just done.
His wife is talking about leaving the WH in the media. That’s significant.
She’s moving on, in a sense.
Can we do so?
Little barry bastard commie’s thugs thought the Minor case so important that they took the trouble to amend the files of the website where attornies and judges go to read SCOTUS deceisions/cases. Taking a cue from the criminal enterprise democrat party, what they lie and cheat to hide and alter indicates what is a legitimate restriction on what they want the law to allow them to do.
And Arthur’s actions to hide the truth, appoint a SCOTUS judge to override the law, and destroying his White House files upon leaving office tells us old Chester knew he was not Constitutionally qualified and he wanted to ignore the Constitution, just like the current crop of democrats and feckless pubbies.
Delurking just to say that apparently this case is being argued in federal court here in my hometown. I need to look into this further and see if there might be an opportunity for me to go watch some of the proceedings. I’ve lost all hope that the usurper will be dealt with appropriately, but I do like surprises. It’s all history in the making regardless.
Than we can charge the bastid with electoral and campaign fraud for creating the romantic myth of a poor Kenyan goatherd father upon which many voters were moved to vote for the Usurper.
The Founders did not intend that the Constitution that they drafted would be so complicated and convoluted that the average person would not understand it.
What do YOU believe the Founders meant by the phrase "natural born citizen"?
It should be pretty obvious that the Founders never wished to see our Commander-in-Chief having difficulty with divided loyalties. What other reason could there be?
Now consider from where such divided loyalties might come. Would a President be conflicted should the time ever come that the interests of the United States conflicted with the interests of the President's mother? Of course he would.
Similarly, the President would be conflicted it the interests of his father conflicted with the interests of the nation.
Now ask yourself, would our Founders have deemed it sufficient that only one of the President's parents be a U.S. citizen? Would the possible conflicts of interests be so reduced by having one U.S. citizen parent, that the Founders would accept having one parent of the President be a foreign citizen? Or would it make more sense that both sources of conflict be eliminated?
Why would you need the Supreme Court to explain this to you?
Go ahead, nobody is holding you back.
Even judges who are strict constitutionalists may succumb to “an offer you can’t refuse” from the 0b0z0 regime!
People should know this by now. We live under real communism. The light “European Socialism” never applied to this regime.
>>>Can you imagine life in Moonbatville today?<<<
Yes, today is “Dump Day” in Washington D.C.
The purpose of Article II, Sec. 1 Clause 5 was to minimize the likelihood of undue foreign influence being trasmitted to the office of POTUS by his parents, PARTICULARLY by a father owing allegiance to an alien sovereignty. From Emmerich de Vattel and the Law of Nations fromwhich the framers derived the meaningof NBC and note the last sentence:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not 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 society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”
” Rubio is presently and actively speaking against the US in favor of the UN and IMF.”
I saw that...he is even worse than I thought.
Oh, I AM.
How dare the SCOTUS even take up a case which would challenge the will of the majority!
It is not like we live in a republic that is supposed to respect the rule of law...errr, ummm, hold on a second.
OK scratch that. I seem to have a vague recollection from high school about the USA being a constitutional republic with 3 co-equal branches of government.
Hey, Drew68, do you remember *any* of that civics stuff from high school? If so, do you think *some* of it might be relevant?
obastard needs to be booted, charged with crimes, and dealt with appropriate, and everyone who aided, assisted, planned, funded and otherwise cooperated with his crimes.
Then, real conservatives need to get into DC and clean house with a huge broom and tons of lysol.
Romney is very similar to 0bastard and I fervently hope there is a revolution at the convention.
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.