Posted on 11/14/2015 2:48:45 PM PST by ScottWalkerForPresident2016
I wish to NOTIFY you that the bona-fides of four Republican Candidates to be President is hereby DISPUTED. It is claimed that the following persons do NOT meet the United States Constitutional requirement that one be a "Natural-Born Citizen" in order to be President under Article II, Sec. 1.
I am disputing the bona-fides of:
Marco Rubio - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S., however his parents were un-naturalized "permanent resident" Cuban citizens when he was born.
Ted Cruz - NOT an NBC. He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother who may have natualized as a Canadian.
Bobby Jindal - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to parents who were un-naturalized citizens of Indiaa at the time of Bobby Jindal's bitth.
Rick Santorum - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to a father who was an Italian citizen not naturalized at the time of Rick Santorum's birth.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
“By the way, did you know that Tennessee once sent to Washington DC a 28 year old Senator despite the Constitutional requirement that a Senator by 30 years old? So did Virginia. And, then there was Henry Clay, who began serving as a U.S. Senator when he was 29 years old. People were not so picky in those days when it came to Constitutional qualifications.”
Additionally, Herbert Hoover’s Vice President, Charles Curtis was not born in a state of the Union. He was born in Kansas Territory in 1860. Kansas didn’t become a state until1861.
-PJ
Apart from the legal errors, we’ve had Obama as President since 2009. Given that, it is time to give the whole “need two citizens for parents” crap a flush!
This is a tighter requirement than simply citizen or naturalized citizen, just like citizen at least 35 years old is a tighter requiremeet than just citizen. So, natural born is an understood requirement for office, not a Constitutional definition of who is a citizen.
What if Article II were instead written as:
"No person except a Citizen, natural born, 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 don't argue that "citizen over 35" or "14-year resident citizen" are additional forms of citizenship, so why the insistence that "natural born citizen" IS a form of citizenship to be rejected, when the context is clearly to further qualify what type of citizen is eligible to be President?
-PJ
Doesn't help. Want to take another stab at it?
Nah, I figured the entire attempt was going to turn out pointless, so i'll just cut my losses now.
> the Supreme Court of the United States refused to overrule
Barnett, Keyes et. al. v Obama, et. al. was one of many cases denied certiorari without explanation. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061112zor.pdf
Denied certiorari is not the same as “affirmed”
Yeah, that and non-gay marriage are ideas which are just too old fashioned to keep around.
The Oxford dictionary cites the formal (correct) usage as singular and the informal (incorrect) usage as plural. It doesn’t matter that there are multiple candidates since the reference is to the bona fides of each individual candidate, not the sum total of all bona fides of all candidates.
You wouldn’t say “the intellect of the 4 candidates are well-regarded”, but you instead would say “the intellect of the 4 candidates is well-regarded”.
Because it's not hard to define "citizen over 35" or "14-year resident citizen". But you cannot point to a definition of "natural-born citizen". And considering that the Constitution was written at a time when some nations defined it jus solis and some defined it jus sanguinis then your claim that using the "common understanding" should suffice doesn't hold water. Common understanding held by who?
I didn't think you could.
For you, I doubt anyone could.
I like to see things in writing. I've seen too many of your posts to accept "it's true because I say it's true" and just leave it at that.
-PJ
You need to do more reading. Then more stuff would be clear to you.... hopefully.
Which is what I've been asking for all along. Somewhere that lists the "laws of nature and of nature's God" that define natural-born citizen as you claim it does.
Start with Thomas Jefferson, and work your way backward. Thomas Jefferson wrote it. You need to look up where he got the ideas he put into that document.
You are correct. It takes the concurrence of four of the nine Justices to “grant cert” (allow an appeal to proceed to oral arguments). There were not four Justices who wanted to grant cert to Barnett v Obama therefore the lower court’s ruling which dismissed the lawsuit stands.
Judge Carter dismissed the suit. He denied a motion for reconsideration. He denied a motion to transfer the case. He denied a second motion for reconsideration.
The plaintiffs then appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who affirmed the lower court’s dismissal. The plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing was denied. A request for an emergency Writ of Mandamus to allow inspection of Obama’s original birth certificate was denied. A second request for a rehearing was denied. A request for a rehearing “en banc” ( by the full court rather than a three judge panel) was denied.
The plaintiffs then appealed to SCOTUS where the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was denied.
You mean you don't know? I find that hard to believe considering you credit the Declaration of Independence with everything.
Also consider that those countries were European, where countries shared many borders.
In the United States in 1789, foreign travel was much rarer given ocean travel, so a common understanding would likely have meant Americans birthing Americans.
-PJ
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.