Posted on 12/14/2009 7:02:03 AM PST by Danae
Students of history know that history repeats itself, and today we are reliving the past of 1880’s. Some of the similarities between the 21st President and the 44th are startling, and the ramifications are huge.
(Snip)
During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chester’s birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction. Arthur’s father, William Arthur was a British citizen at the time of the future President’s birth. Born in Ballymena, Ireland in 1796 he would not become a Naturalized citizen until August 31st, 1843. No one ever checked into his immigration status at the time of his son’s birth. Chester Arthur, 14 at the time his father was naturalized, and would surely have known this. Sound somewhat familiar?
(Snip)
Today, a direct and startlingly similar situation exists between President Arthur and President Obama. The 44th President was also born to a British citizen, not a naturalized citizen of the United States. For the same reasons both Presidents were not eligible for the office, the only difference lay in Barack Obama’s public admission of his father’s status:
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
it is no different than you trying to twist the definition of NBC or even citizen as adopted by the 14th, one owing no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.
Brilliant post here.
“Everything you say about Obama’s muslim sympathies isn’t about the law. It’s about politics”
It has nothing to do with politics, it has everything to do with national security.
And then he continues: "Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." And he does nothing to ally those doubts for whoever may have them. He does not say that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents are not natural-born citizens. He does not say that only children born in the U.S. of citizen parents are natural-born citizens. The quote is meaningless as support for those who claim multiple forms of citizenship based on the citizenship of the parent.
In order for me to be twisting it you would have to offer some definitive definition of natural-born citizen as outlined in the Constitution or by law. What you claim is 'twisting' is simple disagreement with your unsupported opinions.
In which case that would put the whole natural-born citizenship question to rest, wouldn't it?
They do. It goes back to the definition of natural-born citizen.
Thanks Danae.....reading it now.
Looks like a swarm of non-natural born citizen obama rumpswabs have been busy on this thread ;)
Danae:
Even Leo D'Onofrio, whom you and I both admire, admits that Waite's statement "it is not necessary to resolve these doubts" means that Obama's NBC issue has not been resolved as of Wong. That can only mean that based on Minor and Wong it cannot be stated with certainty that Obama is NOT NBC, only that there is doubt that he is NBC.
That doesn't mean that in the future, perhaps as a result of D'Onofrio's quo warranto, Obama might be declared by SCOTUS to NOT be an NBC. I would expect a 5-4 ruling on that.
Tublecane and Non-Sequitur:
Waite's comments are not meaningless. Waite clearly distinguishes between two potential definitions of natural born citizen.
For one definition (two citizen parents in US jurisdiction) "there is no doubt". That lack of doubt is not meaningless, it is a certainty for this class.
Waite used the descriptor "some" to describe those "authorities" who extend the NBC definition to require only birth within US jurisdiction about which there is "doubt". The words "some authorities" denotes a clear minority and a minority whose opinion is in doubt per Waite.
Thus Obama is now a sitting president whose eligibility is supported by a doubtful minority view. Waite clearly signaled that if the Minor case had required a decision on the definition of what NBC meant, the doubtful minority view would likely have been rejected! Otherwise, why would Waite have called it "doubtful"? Birthers find this to be meaningful and seek clarity from the current SCOTUS.
Defined where?
Potential. And then he does nothing to clarify the matter.
Thus Obama is now a sitting president whose eligibility is supported by a doubtful minority view.
And who says that's the minority view?
“Waite clearly signaled that if the Minor case had required a decision on the definition of what NBC meant, the doubtful minority view would likely have been rejected! Otherwise, why would Waite have called it ‘doubtful’?”
Perhaps because a court has never ruled on the matter. The fact that there is doubt doesn’t mean the other side would’ve won the day. All it need mean is that there’s relative doubt (i.e. when you compare it to jus sangini, jus soli is more doubtful). That’s to be expected, given the longer pedigree.
It is abundantly clear that you didn’t read any of the documentation I provided you.
You know what they say about opinions.
Neither. It's says that while not "foreign born" Obama is also not "natural born" as the Constitution requires for eligibility to the office of President.
It points out that Arthur, the white guy, got away with it only because he successfully hid the critical fact. But Obama has admitted the critical fact. That being, in both cases, their father's lack of US citizenship at the time of their birth. At least Arthur's father did become naturalized, and while it was after Arthur was born, it was also well before he became Vice President, and then President, when Arthur was about 14.
Obama's father died still a citizen of Kenya.
No you are not. It's not that another nation considers you a citizen, but rather that one of your parents was NOT a US citizen at the time of your birth. Given how things were in those days, it would be your father, because if your father was a US Citizen, your mother became one upon their marriage. But by 1961 that was no longer true, AFAIK, and wouldn't have helped Obama anyway, since it didn't work for a foreign man marrying a US citizen woman.
He, if born in the US was a citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen, since his father was not a citizen.
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.