Posted on 04/02/2010 2:13:33 PM PDT by rxsid
I saw that and thought the same! Sour grapes.
That doesn't appear to be the case, now does it?
Info Ping.
Drew will tell you that osama him self could come over here and get an American girl pregnant, take the kid back and raise him in a cave then send him over here and the kid would be eligible.....then defend the kid if he won the election
He also thinks the Founding Fathers sacrificed everything just so we could have a foreign POTUS...ask him.
for later reading
Peaceful Good Friday, my FRiend .. ;)
And still praying and praying.
Here is one library of many which have copies:
http://mirlyn.lib.umich.edu/Record/002854451
Congress would “clarify” the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” so that Obama would be included—anyone who had even one parent born in the US, no matter where the person himself or herself was born, would be considered a natural born citizen.
Good.
Make it stick!
Ping
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
| As we've demonstrated here on FR many times, if you apply EITHER Vattel's Law of Nations (Natural Law) or Blackstone's Commentaries (Common Law) to define Obama's Eligibility in the eyes of the Framers, Obama loses either way.
Vattel's Law of Nations (TWO Citizen Parents required)
Blackstone's Commentaries ("service to two masters" a/k/a Dual Citizenship)
 |
Thanks for the ping.
The site pests seem to be in shock, no?
“I think Congress would just quickly pass a law changing the rules so that Obama would qualify.”
Not quite. No law or statute can change the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is no easy feat.
“Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.
“To propose an Amendment:
“•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
“•Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
“To Ratify Amendments:
“•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
“•Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once — to ratify the 21st Amendment — repealing Prohibition.
“The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within “some reasonable time after the proposal.” Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a “reasonable time” might extend.
“Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.”
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm
The meaning of the term 'Natural Born Citizen' is already perfectly clear. To change it would require two thirds of the state legislatures to ratify.
Barry is clearly not Constitutionally qualified as intended by the framers.
At issue now is...is ANYTHING he signed (laws, agreements with other nations, etc), or any appointment he made (ex. to the SCOTUS bench) Constitutional? Clearly, IMO, everything he's done...including the health care monstrosity is illegal and thus null and void.
Just read you post....and I stand corrected. Three-fourths beats my two thirds.
Arthur may have had cover provided by a journalist, Hinman, who kept the public busy with rumors and a book suggesting that Chester had been born in Northern Ireland.
Arthur's only supreme court apointment, justice Horace Gray, may have known and wrote a naunced, and perhaps intentionally obtuse decision which suggested that there was uncertainty about natural born citizenship, while he referred to Minor v. Happersett, in which the Vattel definition is crystal clear. A careful reading of Wng Kim suggests that Gray clarified the fact that native and natural born citizenship are different. Wong Kim was determined to be a native (jus soli, born on the soil) and not a natural born citizen. But Obama obfuscators use Wong Kim as their authority that native and natural born cititzeship are equivalent. There was really no evidence that Chester Arthur was born in Ireland, but the question effectively silenced the more subtle question of his minister father's naturalization.
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.
