OBAMA HAS SHOWN THE WORLD THAT HE WAS NOT BORN TO A U.S. CITIZEN FATHER, SO WHY IS HE IN THE WH?

The Post & Email ^ | Apr. 30, 2011 | Neil Turner

[Hotlanta Mike]

Obama has now personally and publicly acknowledged, albeit with the ‘silliness’ of an eight-year-old with a crayon and a piece of security paper*, that he is not a natural born Citizen – as defined by the Constitution:

1. Article II, Section 1:5 says that only a ‘natural born Citizen’ shall be eligible to the Office of President; 2. Article I, Section 8 says that Congress (under the authority granted by the People) shall have the power to… define and punish… Offenses against the Law of Nations; 3. The Law of Nations says that:

1.‘The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens’; 2.‘As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights’; 3.‘The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children’; 4.‘To be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.’ Now that Congress has been made fully (and publicly) aware that an ineligible non-natural born Citizen is occupying the Office of President and Commander in Chief (they could not be so stupid as to not know – see ‘Something Stupid This Way Comes’), it becomes incumbent upon them to begin impeachment proceedings immediately, lest their failure to act previously – or especially now that they and the whole world knows – makes them chargeable with Misprision of Treason.

[Republican Wildcat]

Also, very interesting as to how Bobby Jindal is not considered eligible to run for president due to his parents not being naturalized citizens at the time of his birth.

Who doesn't consider him eligible? Certainly no one credible.

[Halcontent]

Chester Arthur was an unelected President and his lack of qualification was not known until after his term.
He hid the fact that he was a British subject by descent and a dual citizen at birth, if not for his entire life.

[Clara Lou]

Ah. A name-caller. Name-callers should be banned from Free Republic because they are ineffectual, whiny losers who make everyone at FR look bad.

[Republican Wildcat]

Why so prissy? The eligibility issue is well grounded as a Constitutional issue and if nothing else this discussion of natural born needs to take place. But A-holes like you are a dime a dozen amongst the chattering nimobbs of the right, the creepy Krauthammer, O’Reilly, Steyn, Coulter and several others attacking those seeking redress. Next you will be calling fellow freepers RACIST!

No - he's just someone speaking truth, level headedness, and commonsense amidst the craziness.

[Logical me]

He was an anchor baby. That was the law and is the law.

Anchor babies are NOT qualified to be President.

[philman_36]

Please post the pertinent sections of US code which back up the notion that someone who has a father that was born abroad is not a natural born citizen.
How about you post the specific sections of US code which back up your contention that someone who has a father that was born abroad is not a natural born citizen and we'll go from there.

[freedumb2003]

>>Why so prissy? The eligibility issue is well grounded as a Constitutional issue and if nothing else this discussion of natural born needs to take place.<<

Have another look at this post: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2712868/posts?page=16#16

Do you refute the citation? An anchor baby is still a natural born citizen. If that should not be so, then that is an entirely different discussion. But I shouldn’t waste facts on nattering nabobs of naturalized nacenscy.

>> But A-holes like you are a dime a dozen amongst the chattering nimobbs of the right, the creepy Krauthammer, O’Reilly, Steyn, Coulter and several others attacking those seeking redress. <<

Well, Conspiracy Theorists A-holes like you appear to be a penny a pound. And most intelligent and thoughtful Conservatives (including Rush) agree with me.

I am sure you think the Trilateral Committee did this pdf and the Freemasons distributed it?

[philman_36]

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[iopscusa]

Call for banning, sounds like the strategy of the left.

[little jeremiah]

Steyn should post on his site or write an article about all the parts of the Constitution which we shouldn’t follow, maybe there are other useless parts.

[philman_36]

(look upthread -- someone cited the applicable law).
Which reply...exactly?

[orinoco]

Are there records showing a court ruling on someone being a natural born citizen. There must be a case in our legal history somewhere!!

[sourcery]

It is Constitutionally impermissible for the US Code to establish who is Constitutionally a "natural born citizen." The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress does not have the power to pass laws that establish the meaning of the Constitution—no such power is granted to Congress in the Constitution.

Further, Congress is granted the power in Article I, section 8 to establish uniform rules of naturalization, but is pointedly not granted the power to define who is or is not a "natural born citizen." Not in Article I, section 8, nor anywhere else.

[Clara Lou]

Name-calling. The strategy of the weak-minded.

[philman_36]

8 U.S.C. 1401...
The law...

Congress is only authorized to establish laws of naturalization!
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...

Title 8 is that Rule.
TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

Part I: Nationality at birth and collective naturalization
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization

No matter how far down the line it falls, and it falls very far, that "Part" still falls under, everything above it. The Title sets what it governs, as Congress is empowered, and this Title says that the law concerns aliens, not those having other Citizenship.

Read the USC Title names. The Title sets what it governs.
# Title 6 Domestic Security
# Title 7 Agriculture
# Title 8 Aliens and Nationality
# Title 9 Arbitration
# Title 10 Armed Forces

And Title 8 governs aliens. It isn't "Citizens and Nationality", is it?

How hard is that to understand?

[freedumb2003]

>>Ah. A name-caller. Name-callers should be banned from Free Republic because they are ineffectual, whiny losers who make everyone at FR look bad.<<

You are right but, sadly if we did that we would only have about 14 members ;)

*sigh* when people are losing the intellectual argument they go “low” pretty quickly.

Actually this is nothing — go to any thread that mentions Mrs. Palin and DARE to post that she is nothing less than Reagan reincarnated and will win 2012 by a bazillion points and watch the invective. It isn’t Paul-bot level, but it comes close.

[freedumb2003]

Ignorance is OK, when kept private.

Spreading it is just wrong in so many ways.

Read your own citation:

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”

Wait! Are you one of those people who think the USC doesn’t allow an income tax?

That would explain a lot.

[sourcery]

The Presidency of Chester Arthur sets no precedents, neither de jure nor de facto. Without a court decision, there is no legal precedent. Without the public and Congress knowingly allowing Arthur to serve in spite of the fact his father was a British subject, there is no de facto precedent, either. And we know beyond any reasonable doubt that neither the public nor Congress knew about Arthur's father not being a citizen, because of an article published in The American Law Review in 1884, while Arthur was President.

The article was written by George D. Collins, Esq. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association. His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review. The article was entitled "ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?", and was an in depth discussion and review of the legalities of US citizenship.

The article makes a compelling case that "natural born citizen" means exactly what de Vattel meant by "les naturels, ou indigenes": persons born on the soil of a nation both of whose parents were citizens of that same nation. But here's the point: There is no way the article could have been written, or published by the American Law Review, while the current sitting President is shown by the article to clearly fail the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen, unless it was not generally known that such was the case. No way in Dante's Inferno could any such thing have happened, especially not in 1884!

[kabumpo]

That isn’t the definition of natural born. Both parents must be citizens so that there is no divided loyalty.

[I am Richard Brandon]

So many damn lawyers on this thread that I think I will light the fuse ... ... NOW!