Posted on 02/05/2016 8:15:25 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy
U R Wrong. That simple.
“Obama, no matter where he was born, is culturally Indonesian moslem, imbued with those ideas in his formative years.”
Yes. It’s true.
And he was tutored by his “mentor” (or bio father) Frank Marshall Davis ie. card carrying commie.
So, Obama is literally a Commie B_tard.
Concur...
The day after Hillary takes office, these guys will be content to say: Well at least she is a NBC...unlike Cruz...
The intent of the NBC clause was about loyalty to this country...
Anybody who thinks Cruz or Rubio has a problem with that attribute are simply insane...
Clearly, it’s up to us- each of us, to guard the basis of our country. Especially, since all three branches of government are failing.
But then, it’s always been up to us (government of the people, by the people, and for the people).
We’ve failed, too, to do our part & keep our God Given rights & freedoms intact. We’ve turned it over to lawyers & those with only their own interests in mind to have their way with those rights & freedoms- excluding us.
So essentially, you don’t care about the Constitution if it impedes your guy from winning some election.
Tells us more about you than it does the article.
Nailed it.
There have been more than 50 lawsuits brought by Berg, Taitz, Keyes and many others trying to disprove O'bama's eligibility.
They were all dismissed. No standing.
I don’t disagree, but I don’t think the Supreme Court will ever agree to even debate not to mention decide the issue. They will just keep tossing it back to lower courts who will decide in favor or any Citizen other who has an American born parent as did Obama and Cruz. I am not saying that is right, but pragmatism (Easy way out) tells me that is the way it will be if it is ever challenged again.
Did you even READ the article, you moron?
The article specifically refrains from addressing Cruz's eligibility.
Not true. The usage by commentators from the Founders on used the terms interchangeably. YOU - TODAY - might draw a distinction, but they did not.
Why is the natural born citizen requirement important?
If you are asking this question please open your wallet, remove your voter registration card, and tear it up because you are to stupid to be trusted with adult responsibilities.
Obama is a perfect example. His mannerisms, personality, disdain of American patriotism & sovereignty, and policies just scream foreigner, beholden to foreign interests.
Having someone as president who is nominally a natural born citizen, but in reality a tool of global interests is no guarantee of sovereignty.
Is there any doubt Paul Ryan is a NBC? Is there any doubt he is a tool of global corporations?
False conclusion on your part. The Constitution is vague and unclear on this entire NBC requirement. Unless and until Cruz/Rubio/Obama/whoever is declared ineligible by the (Supreme) Court, then they are Constitutionally eligible.
See tagline.
Excellent article!
Foreign influence is already here, thanks in big part to the politicians’ intentional violation of the immigration laws, resulting in huge illegal aliens invasions, culminating in the invasion of USA by one obama, closet muslim and USA-hater...........all because the politicians and voters chose to ignore the nbc requirement for the presidency!
Now they try to convince us that there is no worthy nbc to lead USA, and we should welcome those with divided loyalty (such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio) to be our president and CIC.
Way to go!? Wonder why they don’t just outright hand over USA to the Puerto Ricans, or the Cubans, or the Iranians, or the Russians, or the Koreans.....or the globalists ?
Obama will leave office next January. Cruz will not secure the republican nomination and this question will just fade away until we have another Presidential election and some candidate comes along that wasn’t born in the U.S.(Probably not gong to happen anytime soon).
Cruz is NOT eligible BUT if TRUMP loses the nomination, I will vote for Cruz. There is no other option. However, I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR RUBIO...NEVER.
Look, we keep hearing that the “Constitution is vague and unclear” on what an NBC is, but it’s time to accept that that argument is nothing but a cop out.
In all actually, pretty much the entirety of English common law, our Founders, and all our constitutional experts all the way up to the beginning of the 20th century agree practically uniformly that natural born citizenship descends through place of birth (jus soli), with parentage being of much less importance, if they even granted it any at all.
The only - ONLY - reason that this issue is “cloudy” is because of people who purposefully obfuscate it with partial evidence and unhistorical arguments in favour of their favourite politicians, whether Cruz, Obama, or some other. It’s all fluff and nonsense. Someone born on US soil is an NBC, someone not born on US soil is not.
I will repost something I posted the other day on this:
The problem with folks who try to rely on Vattel’s NBC definition drawn from natural law is that Vattel went on to state that each nation typically enacts some form of positive law (which can, in context, refer to common law, since it is basically just made up of accumulated jurisprudence) which more or less overrules the natural law interpretation.
Most people don’t know that.
However, jurists who actually relied upon common law pretty clearly state that natural born citizenship descends from place of birth. For instance, Blackstone unambiguously defined a NBC as “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while “those who are born out of it” are aliens.
James Madison wrote in a letter dated May 22, 1789,
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
So first of all, you want the Founders’ intent - THAT is a pretty good indicator of it, since Madison was a major author and propagandist for the new Constitution, and presumably knew what it’s provisions meant to those who wrote them.
Zephaniah Swift, in his 1810 work A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut wrote,
““It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection...
“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.â€Â
St. George Tucker wrote in 1803 in his commentary on Blackstone,
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence...
“A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. ‘Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.’”
In his Commentaries on American Law, James Kent, the “father of American Jurisprudence,” defined a native-born citizen (which was used by pretty much all writers synonymously with “natural born citizen”) as,
“Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
In William Rawles’ 1829 work A View of the Constitution, he wrote,
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity...Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in 1840 wrote in his A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States using the same definition of “native citizen” as used by Rawles and Tucker,
“It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted sic with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people.”
Earlier, in his opinion in the 1830 case Inglis v. The Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, Story wrote,
“Now, allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the ligeance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also at his birth derive protection from, and, consequently, owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto.”
See also the 1844 case in the New York Court of Chancery Lynch v. Clarke in which the court explicitly stated that natural born citizenship derived from place of birth, AND that this finding is quite in line with English common law, upon which every state’s (except Louisiana) laws, as well as the Constitution, are rooted.
We should also note the simple fact that the 14th amendment as affirmed by several cases postdating, including but certainly not limited to the Wong Kim Ark case, also makes the distinction been those who are born in the USA and those who are naturalised - the former are NBCs, the latter are not.
Another good resources - The Natural Born Citizen Clause as Originally Understood
QUITE clearly, natural born citizenship depends on place of birth in our common law system, not on Vattel’s (non)argument for parentage.
They didn't spell out much of their use of ordinary language, but in this case they did.
In their attempt to assure the CiC would not be subject to foreign influence due to birth or parentage, they specified NBC for this single, undoubtedly most important government office; and by doing so clearly indicated the highest form of citizenship.
The USSC sometime shortly thereafter stipulated the highest form was birth within the U.S. to two citizen parents.
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.