Posted on 01/11/2016 4:35:32 PM PST by TBBT
“If Obama was born in Kenya and Ann had met the residency requirement - do you believe he would be eligible?”
But Stanley Ann Dunham did NOT meet the US residency requirement, unlike Ted Cruz’s mom. Obama HAD to be born in the USA to be natural-born, Cruz did not.
“If Obama was born in Kenya and Ann had met the residency requirement - do you believe he would be eligible?â€
But Stanley Ann Dunham did NOT meet the US residency requirement, unlike Ted Cruz’s mom. Obama HAD to be born in the USA to be natural-born, Cruz did not.
That wasn’t the point. The condition was that she met the residency requirement...
But you can go more drastic than that..there is an Arab Prince that will soon be eligible to run for President if Cruz can. Well not exactly soon..about another decade.
That is, if his mother was still a US citizen at the time of his birth. There is conflicting info on that.
Yosemitest, are you sure you aren’t also Mr. Rogers?
Your potpourri of claims may contain some true statements. But after “natural born citizen” was removed from the 1790 Naturalization Act, and replaced, among some other qualifiers, with “citizens”, it was never restored, something you haven’t claimed. It is your pattern to provide some truths, but after reading Congressional Records of 1798 and 1802, which I won’t bother to do, readers will realize that you led them on a goose chase.
It appears that your objective is to confuse those who haven’t puzzled over the Congressional Records. Again, no act of Congress can interpret the Constitution, so nothing you’ve said can bear upon presidential eligibility requirements - the topic of this thread. But it can’t hurt to read other records; they simply can have no bearing upon presidential eligibility.
Ankeny, is a joke of a decision, from a State Court, again with no standing to amend the constitution.
It may or may not be true that Congress referred to a 14 year requirement. It is irrelevant to this thread since Congress cannot interpret the Constitution, but Dr. Ramsay, in his 1789 Treatise, explained how the 14 year residency requirement came about, an interesting observation. Between the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution we were a nation for a bit more than 11 years. Since no one was a citizen before 1776, establishing a 14 year residency, combined with the 35 years of age requirement established that a presidential candidate was at least 21 years of age three years before the Declaration. He had experienced and very likely fought in the war for independence. His history would be familiar to many and his record would have been established to founders, electors, and to Congress. That, according to Dr. Ramsay, is the only reason for the existence of the term “resident” in the Constitution. Contrast this with how Obama’s background is still be kept a mystery, and his major influence in life, “Dreams from My Father”, was an alien, enemy of our Constitution, passed on his British citizenship to his son, who carefully and truthfully, never claimed to by a natural born citizen. Neither Cruz nor Rubio has demonstrated the same respect for the Constitution, playing legal games with Congressional acts, knowing that Congress has no authority to interpret the Constitution.
Justice Gray cited and quoted the decision in Minor v. Happersett before rendering Wong Kim a “citizen”. Gray asserted that Wong Kim, made a “citizen” had all the protections and privileges of a “natural born citizen”; the presidency is not a protection or privilege. Being a natural born citizen is the Constitutional requirement for eligibility. Wong Kim was not eligible to be president and Gray never said so. (Marie Elg, born to Swedish immigrants in New York, was eligible, though she was raised mostly in Sweden, to which her parents returned when she was a toddler.) Cite the Supreme Court case in which Wong Kim, not a natural born citizen, was deemed eligible. There is no such claim in the confusing case, where Justice Gray spends many paragraphs talking about British Common Law, talking about “subjects”, about people subjugated by the a Monarch, but clearly renders Wong Kim, who was a subject of China, a “citizen”.
You are clearly an obfuscator, but your pointing out so many events in our history, as long as readers assume that your objective is to mislead, can be a valuable history lesson. My kids were reading “Where’s Waldo” when I first read some of your posts, if this is you. Readers might learn, as did I, by reading your missives and searching for the patently false statements. By misstating a bit of legal history you teach people who read carefully a little about logic, and the need to read “the fine print” in contracts.
obtuse
“Do you believe he is NOT eligible for the Presidency?”
If the question is what would a court decision be, I don’t know but I can tell you that in 1950 pretty much anyone who had been given the basic information as a hypothetical with no name attached would have said unequivocally that that person is ineligible. As a question of what the founders who wrote the requirement into the constitution INTENDED, I don’t think there is ANY possibility that they would have said that Cruz is eligible. There is ZERO possibility that the founders would have said that Obama/Soetoro/whoever/whatever is eligible.
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.