Posted on 04/22/2016 10:14:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sadly, I believe that you are correct on all points.
This is a non-starter.
He’s not eligible, but he’s not going to be found ineligible.
We all know this is the case.
“because they do not want to encourage a wave of similar suits.”
That does not sound like a legitimate reason to me!
The sooner it's done, the less weak it will be. What shocked me eight years ago was that there was no process in place to determine if a person is elibible to run for President, including to affirm or deny if a person is a Natural Born Citizen.
I wish I could say that I was shocked that the 'pubs didn't get a procedure in place after Obama's first election. But that would be silly....I expect establishment Republicans to undermine the US Constitution and insult their voting fodder every chance they get.
bkmk
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Just a slip and fall lawyer who wants a name for himself, even if he’s wrong.
This is a classic case of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Looney to think a child of a citizen isn’t really a citizen at all.
Please watch these Still reports. They are truly interesting. We should keep an opened mind.
If his mother was still a US citizen, she could pass citizenship. That does not make him a natural born citizen.
His foreign national father and foreign birth gave him divided loyalties and multiple citizenships.
natural born citizen is an exclusionary term, that was the purpose of using it rather than simply citizen.
Natuarlly a US citizen because one cannot be anything else.
Born here of citizen parents.
So why don’t they just say so?
NJ ALJ Masin didn’t even read parties’ briefs and instead cited law review articles and Penn. judge Pelligrini who cited the same articles. Neither one analyzed the articles and neither one cited law and precedent.
Why doesn't who say what?
There is “no controlling legal authority” as Al Gore once said.
Obama exploited that and Cruz, Rubio, Jindal all thought they would take advantage of the same.
The Supreme Court would have to overturn Obama’s Presidency to find correctly and they simply will not do that.
That’s ass backwards. Lawsuits will continue until the issue is resolved.
________
Agreed; not sure what kind of "legal scholars" the author consulted.
Unfortunately, with a 4/4 balance this is almost certainly not the best court for the decision.
However, my money says if Cruz is the GOP candidate, Trump will certainly have standing and would be sorely tempted to use it.
Barry Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama should be proof enough of the wisdom of the founders when they tried to prevent him from being President by requiring someone who could only be a US citizen and nothing else.
Born here of citizen parents.
Naturally a US citizen because there is no other possibility.
One cannot be anything else and also be a natural born citizen.
Obama told us he was born a British Subject.
Who believes Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Jay, Monroe, Madison, etc. would have found him to be a natural born citizen?
Usurpation Day, January 20, 2009, happened with the complete cooperation of both parties.
They want the Constitution changed without the hassle of amending the Constitution.
Confuse people about the clear meaning of a three word phrase and voila, every anchor baby and Winston Churchill is eligible.
The bench was the reason the GOP went along with the fig leaf resolution for McCain that was used by the Democrats as cover for Obama.
Jindal, Rubio, Haley and Cruz were all up and comers and the future of the party and ineligible
Refer back to #28, the comment I was responding to.
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.