Posted on 11/02/2011 9:52:02 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Texas Gov. Rick Perry raised the legitimacy question on Mr. Obama’s birth certificates and location, only to recant. A media inquisition whereby one will be labeled a birther is intimidating, but it is standard fair for anyone who is serious about the Constitution and its requirements for the office of President.
The Constitution in Article II defines the duties and qualifications for President of the United States; Section 1, paragraph 5 declares:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
We know that George Washington, the first President of the United States fit the qualifications for President as a “Citizen…at the time of the Adoption of [the] Constitution” and not a ‘natural born Citizen.’
In fact the first seven Presidents, from Washington to Andrew Jackson, met the Constitution qualification of President as a ‘Citizen’ under Article II and not as a ‘natural born Citizen.’
Martin Van Buren was the first ‘natural born Citizen’ meeting the qualifications for President of the United States as well as the next 35 office holders.
The talking heads, in their ignorance have equated ‘citizen’ with ‘natural born citizen’ and insisted that ‘natural born citizen’ has never been defined—which is not true.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1874 defined “Natural Born Citizen” in Minor v. Happersett as children born of two parents who are United States citizens.
Without regard to the location of the child’s birth the court unanimously declared:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
The findings of the Supreme Court in 1874 was unanimous; there was no dissention or opposition among the Justices as to the findings, and the definition has not changed. The issue and question is not where Obama was born, rather “Were both of his parents U.S. citizens when he was born?”
By Obama's own admission, and demonstrated on the questionable documents he has provided the public, the answer is "NO".
Therefore, by Constitutional definition, he is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen” as required, and thus is ineligible to be the President.
Obama has documented that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth and The British Nationality Act of 1772 declares unequivocally that children born of British Subjects regardless of their birth location are themselves British Subjects:
“That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, … are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom:”
Our nation does not recognize dual citizenship and when our naturalized citizens take their oath of allegiance to the United States they renounce any and all allegiance to any foreign land or person.
As weak as some would want The British Nationality Act to be, the Supreme Court’s unanimous definition of Natural Born Citizen remains unchanged.
Our congress and courts have refused to confront this issue and it is a Constitutional crisis for our nation and troops.
The media and candidates refuse to ask the right questions, insisting on affirming Obama was born in the USA while disregarding the Constitutional requirements.
Where Obama says he was born is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the Oath many of us have taken especially those in public office to “… support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Thanks for reading.
He's got his mind right now...
Professor Skidmore is a professor at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Ca. He may be contacted at rskidmor49@excite.com.
Marker
The Congress has the power to define citizenship, and has done so several times since your citation.
The 14th Amendment also came AFTER your Court ruling.
“Natural Born Citizen” simply means you are not a “Naturalized Citizen”.
Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH! Our Founders did not want Congress to “declare” someone a “Citizen” who was not a Citizen at Birth. Our Founders did not want a “Naturalized Citizen” to be President.
No Court will ever hold differently.
Huh!
So, on the one hand, “Congress has the power to define Citizenship”, and yet, on the other hand, “Our founders did not want Congress to ‘declare’ someone a citizen”?
How conveeenient!
Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.
To Propose Amendments
•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
• Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
To Ratify Amendments
•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
•Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once — to ratify the 21st Amendment — repealing Prohibition.
The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within “some reasonable time after the proposal.” Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a “reasonable time” might extend.
Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.
*****
[Natural Born Citizen is one who is born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens.]
0-bot infiltration is obvious
just as obvious as the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen.
2 citizen parents or you’re not eligible. it’s that simple.
cloud the issue all you like, it won’t change the definition. just like you cannot take my G-d given rights, you cannot change the definition of such a basic term.
but hey, keep spewing your bs. your names are being tracked as infiltrators.
thanks for stopping by.
>>>>>> but hey, keep spewing your bs. your names are being tracked as infiltrators.
And I bet you’ll be taking plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, and taking twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence. Pictures of the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that’s not to mention the aerial photography.
See? Undeniable historic evidence Congress can determine who is and who is not a native born, or natural born, citizen.
What's his next trick walking across a swimming pool?
And there is where your lack of attention to detail renders your point moot. "Congress has the power to define citizenship." Congress DOES NOT have the power to RE-DEFINE "natural born citizen". Nor does congress have the power to RE-DEFINE *ANY* constitutional term. Only a constitutional amendment can do that.
The 14th Amendment also came AFTER your Court ruling.
Again with the lack of attention to detail! The 14th Amendment only addressed the term "Citizen", not "natural born citizen." If you think they mean the same thing, then I advise you to look at Article II of the Constitution where the fact that they use BOTH WORDS indicates that they are not interchangeable.
Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH!
I hate to be rude, but you need to STFU because you are completely ignorant about the correct meaning of "natural born citizen." I will give you an example that Absolutely proves your definition so wrong, that even YOU cannot deny that your definition is absolutely wrong. Here is your definition:
"Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH!"
Here is the court case Rogers v Bellei.
To sum it up for you: "The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired a U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). In 1963, he failed to report for induction in the District of Columbia, and had his U.S. citizenship revoked under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of this act. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei."
Get it? He was BORN with American citizenship, thereby meeting YOUR definition, but he LOST it because he didn't adhere to the residency requirements of the statute that BESTOWED citizenship upon him.
He was a "citizen" at birth, but not a "natural born citizen." (Natural born citizens do not HAVE a residency requirement.)
No Court will ever hold differently.
Sure they will. Just as soon as we get rid of all the incompetent judges, their sensible replacements will interpret the law correctly; No more "anchor babies" no more foreign Presidents.
See? Undeniable historic evidence Congress can determine who is and who is not a native born, or natural born, citizen.
I hate to quibble, but there are two points of which you need to be aware.
1. Congress said that they "shall be considered as natural born citizens:" (it means they will be treated the same without being the same.)
2. Congress repealed the Naturalization act in 1795, precisely because they did not like how Europeans were abusing their immigration policy. They SPECIFICALLY removed those words "Natural born citizen." You can research that here to your satisfaction.
The cited court ruling, Minor v. Happersett was AFTER the 14th amendment was adopted. It specifically rejected the argument that Virginia Minor was a citizen by way of the 14th amendment. That court said that she, and women as a class, did not need the 14th amendment to be citizens (if they were born in the country to citizen parents), and more specifically that the 14th amendment did NOT confer citizenship on Virginia Minor. This holding was upheld more than 20 years later in Wong Kim Ark and Ex Parte Lockwood.
“The 14th Amendment also came AFTER your Court ruling.”
Congress declared the 14th Amendment ratified and fully effective on July 21, 1868. That is BEFORE the 1874 Minor v Happersett ruling. Since M v H would have incorporated the effects of the 14th Amendment, if any, your implication (that the 14th Amendment somehow obviates Happersett) is false.
Of your various assertions, the last one is supportable, given that politics, rather than complex arguments of facts, logic, or law, will likely prevail.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
So the child of two illegal alien sworn terrorists temporarily visiting the US who have their baby inside the US can be President?
It was repealed it was not an amendment to the Constituition. A statute never overrides the Constitution See?
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.