Posted on 10/27/2011 8:22:46 AM PDT by GregNH
On 10/25/11 Liberty Legal Foundation filed two simultaneous lawsuits against the Democratic Party. Both lawsuits request injunctions prohibiting the Party from certifying that Obama is Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President in the 2012 election. Without such a certification from the Party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election. (Tennessee TN Complaint) (Federal DNC Complaint)
Neither lawsuit discuss Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to our argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant.
(Excerpt) Read more at libertylegalfoundation.net ...
COINCIDENCE! /sarc
It’s not healthy discussion. You are telling me that you read the 387+ comments in 11 minutes? And SCOTUS HAS RULED! As I and others herein have pointed out.
SCOTUS will not look at the issue because it is too confusing? Hardly.
The court is avoiding this because they don’t want to be the ones that make the call. It’s like an umpire calling someone safe at the plate, for fear of the actions of half the fans in attendance.
Unfortunately, what these umpires don’t realize is this: without someone to make the call and keep everyone playing by the same rules, ultimately the baseball game will disintegrate into anarchy, beatings and death.
Ok, i’ll quit with the baseball metaphor ;)
“a ‘Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution’ is not the same as a ‘natural born Citizen’”
No.
“to be elected to Congress one must be a ‘citizen’ as opposed to a ‘natural born Citizen’ to be elected President.”
Yes.
“Why do you suppose the different terms were used. Were the founders merely sloppy?”
They weren’t, but apparently you are. Different terms were used to control for different conditions. NBC status is one thing, grandfathered presidential eligibility another, and congressional eligibility for naturalized citizens yet another.
No- the framers had to grandfather in those people who “created” America under article II eligibility, as nobody as of yet could possibly have two citizen parents.
Does that help clarify?
The soccer metaphor actually makes your point...
“As the constitution points out there is a ‘natural born Citizen’, and a ‘Citizen’. If you are a 14th amendment ‘Citizen’ you are a just that.”
You fail law. 14th amendment citizens are not “just” citizens. Even if not equivalent to NBCs, they are discernable from naturalized citizens. For instance, they don’t have to jump through hoops to attain their status. Rather, it is their birthright. Now you’re stuck with three categories, at least.
“Natural law determines if you are a ‘natural born Citizen’”
No it doesn’t. There is no U.S. by nature, and as such no U.S. citizenship thereby.
“So for your argument to hold water we went for almost 100 years using the Constitution as ratified in 1788 electing presidents without a definition of NBC?”
This is not so.
Hey genius, I get that. My post was to someone who apparently doesn't see the distinction.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”
That doesn’t contradict what I said.
--snip--
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
incorrect, but thanks for spreading the disinformation
being a citizen is not enough to be qualified for the office. you must be a 'natural born' citizen, which requires both parents be US citizens at the time of birth
“Hey genius, I get that”
Okay, sorry (although, this is why we have sarcasm tags).
What is so hard about my question to the poster I replied to?
I know the difference in the three conditions. I asked the other poster to explain why HE thought the differnt terms were used in the document.
“being a citizen is not enough to be qualified for the office”
Whoever said it was?
“a ‘natural born’ citizen, which requires both parents be US citizens at the time of birth”
Nope.
i can tell you as someone that has designed and developed scanning and imaging software, that the pdf released was not an authentic, unmodified scan of an original BC. it may have started from an original BC, but the layers and deliberate modifications definitely confirm it's been tampered with
additionally, the point of this article/post is moving to the next level that couldn't have happened until barry gave up his BC, the only official document supporting his father's citizenship at the time of his birth.
now that it's official, assuming the BC is authentic, then it's obvious that both parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth, regardless of where he was born.
therefore, he cannot be eligible for office. period.
“I asked the other poster to explain why HE thought that different terms were used and offered one possibility”
I said sorry. Why are we still on this?
We are good
{:0)
it would be very interesting to show a similar document submitted by the DNC in 2004, 2000, 1996, etc. and to show the language change
was the language specifically changed for the 2008 race?
No I posted that before I started reading your reference. I did go there and gave up just now after 150 posts.
Obviously there is a difference between natural born citizen and citizen because the Constitution spells out the qualifications of President and Senator. Senators need not be natural-born and Presidents need to be. That is where the confusion comes in because the writer did not define NBC. Sure we can assume a meaning based upon the writing of a guy named Vattel but we can’t make that assumption with certainty. I do agree however that the SCOTUS decision in Minor v Happersett defined NBC so that should settle it.
So why is Obama President and why was nothing done about it? After mulling this over for a bit (actually as I write this) I now take the birther stand but that places me in the minority and I don’t like being there. What to do?
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.