Posted on 09/21/2009 11:32:45 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
The U.S. Foreign Affairs Manual stipulates the following:
Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
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.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
Our own government stipulates that one may be a citizen by birth but may not be a natural born citizen who is eligible to the Presidency. They clearly understand that the law is unsettled on this matter. These citizens are not naturalized, they’re citizens by birth. So it would seem there is a higher requirement to be a natural born citizen than just being a citizen by birth.
So if the goverment believes there is uncertainty as to their eligibility status, it is abundantly clear, to me, that we need a SCOTUS ruling on the clear definition of “natural born.” If Scalia believes that there are only two classes of citizenship, then we know how he’ll vote on this matter, but we need a vote.
That is the way I see it.
I agree that a ruling by the SCOTUS would be nice. And I definitely disagree with the opinion that nobody has “standing” because nobody was “harmed” by the 0bama Presidency. I feel “harmed” every time he opens his mouth and reveals what a bumbling incompetent he is.
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.
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.
Now you see where I am on this issue. There are supporting documents for either side of this argument. So I say let’s get this in front of the SCOTUS and make them give us a definition once and for all. The best argument wins.
It’s ridiculous for the government to be publishing guidelines that further muddy the issue, but what else are they supposed to say? The SCOTUS is the one and only authority on the matter and to date, they’re silent!
So how you going to get it? Through Orly's antics? No standing to sue on the part of her plaintiffs. How else?
Where? Which one?
If lying, deflecting, and dissembling were grounds for banishment then based on your performance here it appears that you'd be long gone.
Certainly not through Orly’s pathetic display of legal ability. She’s a joke.
Since I don’t believe that any of the cases thus far have really had standing, I don’t think directly suing Barack Obama is going to force the SCOTUS to hear the issue. No one except John McCain can demonstate unique injury.
I believe we’re going to have to force the responsible authorities in each state who approve candidate applications for the ballot to obtain a ruling from the courts themselves. That’s what I’m working on in Texas. My complaint won’t seek to address the results of the 2008 election because I think the courts won’t even consider entertaining such a case now. I’ll seek to prevent Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.
Others can focus on Quo Warranto and obtaining Obama’s vital records in Hawaii.
FWIW I agree that the only way anything concerning requiring the president to produce proof of his or her qualification is going to get done is through the states.
Illegal for private citizens unless filed in the D.C. courts.
It sounds to me, as if by this definition, you are saying that any foreigner, student, tourist, etc. can give birth to a baby on American soil and that child is a natural born citizen. Is that right?
I don’t agree. I think “subject to US jurisdiction” is the key point to citizenship.
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.