Posted on 09/14/2012 6:03:33 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Less than two months before Election Day, a group of Kansas Republicans, led by a voter ID law advocate, is moving on a withdrawn challenge which may result in President Obama being removed from the ballot.
Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has embraced forcing voters to produce ID at the polls, said Sept. 13 that he will preside over a Kansas Board of Objections Sept. 17 meeting where a Manhattan, Kans. veterinary professor Joe Montgomery, questioned Obama’s birthplace and the citizenship of his father.
Kobach said that the board is obligated to do a thorough review of the questions raised by Montgomery about Obama’s birth certificate and not make “a snap decision."
However, Montgomery on Sept 14 withdrew his objections, stating that the Kansas roots of Obama’s mother and grandparents, apparently in his opinion, satisfies the U.S. Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” requirement for the presidency,.
The president's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and maternal grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, were Kansas natives.
The complaint withdrawal came after Kobach made requests to officials in Hawaii, Arizona and Mississippi for copies of the president’s birth records. The birth certificate controversy has been settled in those states and Obama is on those states’ ballots.
In spite of the withdrawal, Kobach said he nevertheless doesn’t believe the matter is dead. "I don't think it's a frivolous objection,” according to Kobach, an unofficial advisor to GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney’s campaign. "I do think the factual record could be supplemented."
The objections board includes Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, both Republicans. Current polls indicate that in Kansas, Romney is the current favored candidate at this point in the presidential race.
You have proof of this? I'd like to see it. Monroe claims he was born in the United States.
More interestingly, yours is the first suggestion I “ve read that a man born of American slaves in, say 1864, would have been legally barred from running for President. Are you sure of that?
That is my understanding of the Dred Scott v Sanford ruling. If my understanding is in error, point out my error please. Supreme court decisions stand until overturned by New Law or subsequent court rulings. In this case, the 14th Amendment overturned this decision.
I saw a video early in 2008 showing her friend in Seattle talking about Ann’s visit in August, 1961 with the baby. She said Ann didn’t even know how to diaper little Barry.
I had a baby 2 wks before I turned 19. I was in the hospital 2 1/2 days. When I went home, I was bleeding heavily. I did nothing strenuous, but being young and healthy, I saw no harm in being up, making formula, etc. Within 2 days, I was suffering with flu like symptoms. This turned out to be exhaustion. My doctor told me if I did not go to bed and let someone else care for the baby, he was putting me back in the hospital. I rested for another week while my aunt cared for the baby.
Because of this experience, I thought the most likely place for Ann to be 3 wks after giving birth was close to Seattle.
I then thought about a young rebellious pregnant teenager deciding to buck the adult system, keep her baby, and go to college in Washington all on her own and show everyone how adult she was and how she could manage without them.
This is my theory. I wish someone would try and find some evidence of her in Canada or Washington prior to the birth.
1) The United States did not exist when Elldred wa born.
2) A man born of Anericann slaves could not have tried to run for President until after the 14th amendment was ratified (not old enough).
My question is: would that have been illegal in, say,1920, on the grounds that our hypothetical candidate would not have been an NBC?
Thanks for the link to the Will column! It was quite edifying and interesting. Our federal judges, federal representatives and senators have lost their spine and permitted citizen birthright to illegals. It seems no one wants to stand up for the Constitution any more...
You are a fool, just as your namesake, who thought himself smarter than the some of the greatest philosophical minds in history.
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are quoted often, to this day.
Diogenes is rarely quoted, except as a joke or an example of a social misfit. There is even a mental illness by that name, now.
You? You will never be quoted.
You are wrong.
You have nobody on your side, of any weight.
Not in history.
Not among the dead, but they can not speak for themselves.
Surely, not among the living. You have no support, as your views are foolish and border on insane.
BTW you have posted a citation about the “law of Virginia” which proves your incompetence.
States have NO authority, today, over the subject of granting or denying US Citizenship.
If he wasn’t born a citizen at all, it’s impossible for him to have been a natural born citizen. His children born after his becoming a citizen would be under the law at that time, since his wife would have derived her citizenship from his, making it a moot point.
Slaves were not citizens at all until after the Civil War, and some were being denied citizenship right up until the 14th Amendment.
The express intent of the 14th Amendment was to rectify this denial of citizenship to former slaves.
The Constitution gives little or no power to the Courts to decide eligibility issues for POTUS.
Those powers are given to the States, to the Electors, and to Congress.
Congress has a CO-EQUAL power to interpret the Constitution.
Only liberals and uninformed “conservatives” think otherwise.
Congress says that the Radical Birthers are wrong.
The decision of Congress holds as much weight as any Supreme Court Ruling on this matter, and that is a big reason why the Courts do not want to rule: The Courts KNOW they were not given much power over these issues!
You are a LIBERAL if you disagree with that statement.
Title 8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (c) provides that children born abroad after December 24, 1952 to unmarried American mothers are U.S. citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year at any time prior to the birth. Having obviously met that requirement, Anarchist Annie would have been fully able to pass on citizenship to Little Barry Bastard wherever she dropped him.
Of course, that fact is strictly for entertainment value, since it's perfectly clear "Stanley had a baby" on US soil, and therefore her (and the father's — be he BHO or FMD or X) citizenship does not matter.
Calling people names when you disagree with them is not a valid form of debate and should avoided. If someone disagrees with the opinions you express, your posts do not refute their argument by presenting evidence to the contrary, your posts just use ad hominem attacks to attack the character of the person who posted a comment. Calling your opponents names does not refute their logic, nor does it establish your position as convincing. You call your opponents "uninformed" or "liberals" or "radical birthers", or "judicial supremacists" with no backup to those statements. Yeah, everyone who doesn't agree with you is a "liberal" or a "radical". That sounds like something a commie might say. Conservatives are above that so let's try to raise the conversation level here, ok?
Congress has a CO-EQUAL power to interpret the Constitution.
Who says the three branches are Co-equal? I know modern progressives say that, but where can it be implied that they actually are equal in interpreting the Constitution? The founders did not see them as equal. In Federalist paper 51 James Madison, the Father of the Constitutions said: “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
If a branch of government is predominant, it is by definition false that the other branches are Co-equal. The branches are only equal in the sense that they are sovereign when acting in the sphere constitutionally delegated to them. They are not equally powerful branches nor do they entirely share the same powers.
Furthermore, Alexander Hamilton went on to reaffirm that the branches are not co-equal. In Federalist Paper 78 Hamilton declares says:
“It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the Legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments.
From Hamilton's above declaration, it is obvious that the founders did not consider the three branches to be co-equal. (Otherwise, one branch would not be weaker than the others.) It is also clear that Hamilton intended the power of the judiciary (i.e. that is interpreting the law and the constitution) to be separate from the powers of the legislative and executive branches.
Furthermore, the Constitutional view concerning the judiciary in the above mentioned Federalist papers is a well established principle in Constitutional Law. This principle has not been opposed by Congress, nor has Congress as a body acted to deny SCOTUS this constitutionally delegated power to interpret the constitution. It is true that Congress has some degree of ability to interpret the Constitution, but since Congress does not have the judicial power, it must follow that Congress does not have the final say in judicial matters of interpreting the laws. However, the judicial power is specifically given to SCOTUS rather than SCOTUS, and so it must then be that the Constitution did not intend Congress to be able to exercise the judicial power. Marubury v. Madison (1803) establishes that Congress cannot create laws that contradict the Constitution and Article III of the US Constitution and United States v. Nixon (1973) establishes that the Supreme Court have the FINAL say on what the Constitution says, not Congress. US v. Nixon spells this out clearly when it declares:
"Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution."
Notwithstanding the deference each branch must accord the others, the "judicial Power of the United States" vested in the federal courts by Art. III, § 1, of the Constitution can no more be shared with the Executive Branch than the Chief Executive, for example, can share with the Judiciary the veto power, or the Congress share with the Judiciary the power to override a Presidential veto. Any other conclusion would be contrary to the basic concept of separation of powers and the checks and balances that flow from the scheme of a tripartite government. The Federalist, No. 47, p. 313 (S. Mittell ed. Page 418 U. S. 705 1938). We therefore reaffirm that it is the province and duty of this Court "to say what the law is" with respect to the claim of privilege presented in this case.
The definition of Natural born citizenship clause is a provision of the US Constitution, therefore, in pursuance with Article III and the above mentioned Constitutional Law cases, the Supreme Court alone has the final say on what that term means.
BTW, Congress has not acted to clearly define the term natural born citizen as you imply. The Senate did declare via a non-binding resolution that they believed McCain was a NBC, but a non-binding resolution passed by only the Senate hardly counts as an act of Congress with authority to define a constitutional term.
The point is that the founders vested ALL JUDICIAL Power in the SCOTUS. Neither you, nor the Congress, nor the president have the Constitutional authority to say any differently. The Constitution gives no power to the courts to elect the president, but it certainly gives the SCOTUS the power to decide the constitutional eligibility of the President under the provisions of Article II. Sure, if SCOTUS makes a bad decision, the Congress should use its checks and balances to protect the constitution by repelling the injustices of the judicial branch. The problem is that lately Congress doesn't stand up for itself, and thus allows itself to get steamrolled by the president and SCOTUS.
IF any of this was "perfectly clear" and backed by evidence that was also "perfectly clear", it NEVER would have been a point of contention or reason for discussion.
And because it isn't "perfectly clear" yet, it won't go away until it is. Part of our human nature demands answers and finds mysteries irresistible.
Your post supports the idea that the Legislative Branch DOES have power over the Courts and the Executive Branch.
The Legislative Branch has made clear how they feel about the “Natural Born Citizen” issue.
Birthers are LIBERALS in so much as they want the COURTS to strike down valid acts of the Legislative branch.
The Radical Birthers attack EVERYONE who disagrees with them.
They need to understand how reasonable conservatives think of Birthers.
Birthers are LIBERALS!
I believe the residency requirement is one year AFTER age of 18 in the example and law you presented.
If she was 17 for part of that year, it would not count.
I can think of a reason for the one-year requirement: to keep from spawning generations of US citizens with no connection to the US. However, I can think of no rational reason to exclude children of minors.
Your histrionic and tyrannical posts don’t change anything.
“The Legislative Branch has made clear how they feel about the “Natural Born Citizen” issue.”
How do they feel? Who gives a crap how they feel. They are a TEMPORARY group of people who pass TEMPORARY laws. The Constitution, though battered, is still the supreme law no matter how much unlawful actions are taken against it. Just because a TEMPORARY group of criminals has ignored it doesn’t mean it’s been invalidated.
The legislative branch can’t amend the Constitution alone. They can pass unconstitutional laws but the Supreme Court is supposed to (though rarely does) strike them down.
Congress could pass a slavery law tomorrow and if the Supreme Court didn’t strike it down, and though many would act on it, it wouldn’t alter the Constitution which clearly states slavery is unconstitutional.
Why do you think they keep attempting to alter the term Natural Born Citizen with legislation instead of a constitutional convention? Because they would lose.
If it is so clear why did this bill die in 2004? According to you, this bill just states the obvious and it should have sailed through but it didn’t.
S. 2128 (108th): Natural Born Citizen Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s2128
Tell me, why does Obama’s authorized website describe him as a native born citizen when he was campaigning for president and the Constitution clearly states ONLY a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is eligible?
If they are the same, why wouldn’t they just call him a natural born citizen? They didn’t for a reason.
Oh and by the way, using your logic, Congress and the Supreme Court have spoken on Roe VS. Wade. You must be A LIBERAL if you want it overturned.
WRONG!
Congress has Constitutional Power over Presidential Elections and Certification.
Congress has ACTED!
Disagree all you want, but Congress is far more powerful than the Courts, in this matter.
You are a LIBERAL if you want the Courts to decide everything.
Let me clarify: I said that wedlock did not matter, not exactly true as IF Ann were married to an OLDER citizen it would have helped in the Citizenship of her child. Ann being single, (Obama just said he was born to a single mother, another weird gaff) anyway, Ann being single or married to a foreign person does not matter, the law is the same for a single mother as it is for a mother married to a foreigner. Also, you got your facts screwed up on the law, which is easy to do as the law has changed several times. I believe the law required 5 years residence after the age of 14 to pass automatic citizenship to your child on foreign soil, at the time of Obama’s birth. -—— Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock if the child is the genetic issue of the married couple. Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship. Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father – “New” Section 309(a) A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) of the INA, as made applicable by the “new” Section 309(a) of the INA provided: 1.A blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence; 2.The father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth; 3.The father was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth for five years, at least two of which were after reaching the age of 14. 4.The father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and 5.While the person is under the age of 18 years — ◦the person is legitimated under the law of his/her residence or domicile, ◦the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or ◦the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court. Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father – “Old” Section 309(a) of the INA- A child born out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under the former Section 301(a)(7) of the INA as made applicable by the “old” Section 309(a) of the INA if the U.S. citizen father, prior to the child’s birth, had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for ten years, five of which were after the age of 14, and if the paternity of the child had been established by legitimation prior to the child reaching the age of 21. The “old” Section 309(a) of the INA is applicable to individuals who were 18 on November 14, 1986 and to individuals whose paternity had been established by legitimation prior to that date. Individuals who were at least 15 on November 14, 1986, but under the age of 18, could opt to have their claim determined in accordance with the provisions of either the “old” or the “new” Section 309(a). Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship. Questions: Contact the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services, Office of Legal Affairs (CA/OCS/L) at http://www.travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.
http://www.travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html
Natural Born Citizenship can’t be “acquired” administratively, it occurs as a result of a combination of natural events, the birth to two US Citizen parents on US soil. That’s in the Constitution, and only a Constitutional amendment can change it.
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.