Posted on 07/16/2011 5:14:24 PM PDT by editor-surveyor
A California congressman says voters, Congress and the courts all have cleared Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
The comments come from U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, whose e-mail to a constituent with a question about the eligibility issue was forwarded to WND.
He said, "The Constitution is the starting point for determining eligibility to serve as president. The Constitution requires that to be eligible to serve as president an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least 14 years."
McClintock continued, "Currently, a candidate's eligibility under these requirements is vetted by a number of sources, both inside the government and out. First, candidates go through an intensive political vetting process in both the primary and general election – their histories are carefully examined by their political opponents who have a vested interest in uncovering the facts. At the end of the campaigns, the voting public weighs in. Then, when all the votes have been cast and counted, it is up to Congress to certify the results. A final check-and-balance against eligibility irregularities lies with the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
In the vagaries of the most vicarious life...
>> “That was the majority ruling from The United States vs Wong Kim Ark” <<
.
No it was not. - In WKA they held the same definition for Natural Born as was given in Minor vs Happersett: Two citizen parents.
British had no citizenship under common law; they were “subjects” meaning that they were property owned by the lords. That is the basis of the feudal claims to the product of the subjects’ labor.
I am just posting what the guy wrote to me in his email. I don't agree with him at all, and, I made the "natural born citizen" case in my email to him. It is like he got his response from the DNC.
Natural Born Citizen was not a term in common usage in a way similar to 35 or resident. The fact that James Madison thought that birth was the criterion of allegiance, and that to him, place was more important than lineage, shows that some of the founders did not agree with what you “know” is true. So if there were disagreements about the term, and the Supreme Court ruled in Inglis vs Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor that children of aliens, who are protected by the jurisdiction of the US, owe allegiance and are citizens at birth.
As for your cases, you have it backwards at least in Wong Kim Ark. I have not studied the others, but Im sure you are taking great liberties to try and find a proof for your thesis.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., "I believe that President Obama has met all the requirements of citizenship as set forth by the U.S. State Department, and therefore is eligible for the office of the presidency."
>> “Actually, the US vs Wong Kim Ark supports the opposite” <<
.
No, it was not. Here is the exact wording from WKA:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
That wording was copied from Minor v Happersett.
Two citizen parents was the standard of the time.
Sessions is a moron.
>> “but Im sure you are taking great liberties to try and find a proof for your thesis” <<
.
This can be applied only to you, in as much as all of the court cases and learned writings of the day support the two parent definition.
The question is “Why do you wish to diminish the allegiance constitutionally required of our presidents?”
Im looking at the opinion right now, and that is what it says.
Your statement sounds more like the dissenting opinion. But nowhere does it say 2 citizen parents.
That is only the first part of the ruling, and was not the part in question. All that says is that children of citizens are naturally born. It does not say that children of non-citizens are naturally born. And in WKA, the court went on to say that Ark was a citizen at birth because his parents had been living under the US jurisdiction and not acting as agents for China.
You, sir are a squirming liar!
I clipboarded the text from the decision.
Yeah, and you clipboarded information that was not under consideration in the case. The question to the court was “Was WKA a citizen at birth?” And their answer was yes, he was a citizen at birth because his parents were not working on behalf of the Chinese empire and he was born in the US.
What you are doing is being intentionally deceitful by leaving off the actual ruling that the case was about because it doesnt fit your platform. You are attempting to confuse people by saying that because children of 2 citizens were natural born, that no one else can be. And that is simply not true.
My point is this is the Top Republican on the Senate Judiciary committee who chooses who will sit on the Supreme Court and he appears to be uninformed about NBCs. If Obama has US citizenship, the State Department could tell me if he were a naturalized citizen, but not if he were a natural born citizen.
Why have all the Rs lost their gumption? Every single one of them. They must have all been threatened and now they’re pantswetting eunuchs.
>> “The question to the court was “Was WKA a citizen at birth?” And their answer was yes, he was a citizen at birth because his parents were not working on behalf of the Chinese empire and he was born in the US.” <<
.
No, you missed that one too.
WKA had 14th ammendment citizenship because he was born here legally to a mother that had a valid resident visa.
The WKA decision even coined a name for that level of citizenship, and it was not “natural born,” it was “native citizen.”
Anchor babies born to illegal aliens are “citizens” too. Are those offspring eligible to attain the Presidency? A Natural Born Citizen is one that is born of two American Citizens. No. Divided. Loyalties. It really is that simple.
>> “You are attempting to confuse people by saying that because children of 2 citizens were natural born, that no one else can be. And that is simply not true” <<
.
Then so were the school systems of the entire country, since the textbooks used to teach the US constitution to eigth graders held that very same definition for over 80 years, until they stopped even teaching the constitution.
You must be from the un-taught generation.
Is there any chance that you, as a lay person, are simply mistaken as to what those cases decided and what the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is under current US law?
She has made it clear what her position is on the birther issue, and at NO time has she ever said Obama was ineligible.
In fact, here is her Facebook entry about the issue, which unfortunately didn't keep some of her supporters from continuing to project their opinions onto her instead of simply believing her:
Stupid Conspiracies-Sarah Palin::
"But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.I think that is a very clear statement: AT NO POINT did she suggest Obama wasn't born in the United States. Why any of her supporters would claim that she said the opposite is beyond me.
Believe all the conspiracies you want. But don't drag Palin into it, when she's made it clear what she believes. She fully supports people looking into his birth certificate, and she does not dismiss the birthers, but she is NOT one of them, and has not herself questioned Obama or asked for his birth certificate.
I'm not saying they don't exist, just that no one has been able to produce any.
The ones I've seen just say born in the United States rather than naturalized.
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.