Posted on 06/19/2009 5:16:14 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President;
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
But the distinction between classes of citizen only really matters for eligibility to the office of President. The Constitutional meaning has never been tested in Court, and this should not be surprising. There have not been many opportunities to hear such a case, and only one other were the person actually became President. But his disability, if he had one, was not discovered until well after he had left office. Chester Arthur did take measures to hide the fact that his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth, although he was born in the US, and of a US Citizen mother... just like BHO may have been. But if BHO was not born in the US, but rather outside of it,then under the law in effect at the time, he wasn't even a "Citizen at Birth", which precludes him being a "natural born citizen". For being a citizen at birth is only a necessary condition for being a "Natural Born Citizen", not necessarily a sufficient one.
Could that possibly be because for their purposes. IT DOES NOT MATTER?
But for the purpose of being eligible to the office of President, under the Constitution, it does indeed matter.
The Speaker laid before the House on the 24th, a letter signed by Messrs. M'Queen, Bonham, Boyce, and Ashmore, of South Carolina, as follows:
SIR,- We avail ourselves of the earliest opportunity since the official communication of the intelligence, of making known to your honorable body that the people of the State of South Carolina, in their sovereign capacity, have resumed the powers heretofore delegated by them to the Federal Government of the United States, and have thereby dissolved our connection with the House of Representatives.
In taking leave of those with whom we have been associated in a common agency, we, as well as the people of our Commonwealth, desire to do so with a feeling of mutual regard and respect for each other- cherishing the hope that, in our future relations, we may better enjoy that peace and harmony essential to the happiness of a free and enlightened people.
bttt
“South Carolina is too small to be a country and too large to be an insane asylum” - James Pettigru, December 1860
Or could the answer be that before granting disability benefits Social Security is required to establish the citizenship of the person making the request? And that the process of verifying that differs in each circumstance? U.S. citizens born in the U.S. have a birth certificate to check. U.S. citizens born abroad may have only an FS-240.
If your town has an equal number of bars and churches, you might live in Kansas
If your process of house hunting starts with kicking the tires then you probably live in mojitojoe's neighborhood in Florida. Stop by for a drink.
If your dad’s suntan stops at a line curving around the middle of his forehead, you might live in Kansas
Because we're hard working son's of the soil, not hard-drinking party animals. But speaking of animals, if it's not unusual to have 150 pound mixed-breed dogs eating at the kitchen table with you then you might be in Mojitojoes neck of Florida.
You are correct. I spoke with the SSA caseworker who is handling my father-in-law’s disability application. That is exactly the purpose of the question. If you were born outside the U.S., your citizenship must be verified. Likewise for naturalized citizenship - it must be verified.
So I don’t believe it would be correct to consider this an example of subdividing natural born citizenship into more than one category. I think that their sole interest is determining where they need to go to for their verification data.
And you're criticizing other people for that kind of behavior? ROTFLMAO!!!!
Agreed. I retract that suggestion.
I still believe a Supreme Court ruling is needed.
I also still believe that the SCOTUS refusal to grant cert. cannot be interpreted to imply that they don’t see a need.
I think that the Supreme Court has already spoken on the subject but regardless, given the track record of the cases winding their way through the courts to date it doesn't look like the court will be taking it up any time soon. Absent solid evidence that Obama isn't what he says he is I don't see that changing. So the debate will go on.
And you’re criticizing other people for that kind of behavior
____________
YEP!!!!!!!!!!! I checked your past posts and you are always accusing people of being a drunk or drinking which tells me that you probably over indulge and assume everyone else does. Go back and read your past posts, it may be a wake up call to see how many FReepers you constantly fight with.
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.