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Less than two months before Election Day, a group of Kansas Republicans, led by a voter ID law advocate, is moving on a withdrawn challenge which may result in President Obama being removed from the ballot.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.
Thank you. Your response has helped settle some things, at least in my mind, in regard to the legal and practical ramifications here. We sure do have a mess on our hands with this President.
I read Klayman's letter to Mrs. Maoist. It was good as he has an understanding about the issues surrounding Obama's BS birf certificate.
He put Mrs. Maoist on notice.
You know exactly nothing!
Three types of citizenship are recognized by our government: native born; naturalized; and citizen-by-statute (derived citizenship from parents). All have equal rights. All can serve in Congress, either as a Representative in the House, or as a Senator in the Senate.
The following link will take you to the government’s own Immigration Service web page describing the three types of citizenship.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD
Natural born Citizen is NOT a type of statutory citizenship.
Natural born is ONLY an eligibility requirement for the U.S. Presidency per Article II, Section 1, clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution, and requires the President to be born in the United States (jus solis) AND of two citizen parents (jus sanguinas).
The definition of natural born Citizen appears in the holding of SCOTUS’s unanimous decision on Minor v. Happersett (1874).
Virginia Minor sued to be included as a candidate for U.S. President based on her eligibility under the 14th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. SCOTUS rejected her argument and examined her eligibility, concluding that she belonged to the class of citizens who, being born in the U.S. of citizen parents, was a natural born Citizen, and not covered by the 14th Amendment. This holding has been used in 25 consequent SCOTUS decisions since 1875.
No one has the RIGHT to be President. The eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegiance for any President of the United States.
This is called Rule of Law.
You would be laughed out of any immigration hearing
You would be laughed out of any legal school
You are a Know-nothing crackpot and you are wrong.
There are but TWO forms of Citizenship:
Natural Born
Naturalized
No other form is recognized by US Law.
Born of US parents on US soil is all I would ask. We do not have such a President today.
We already covered that. The US courts are either liars mostly by omission and by misconstruction. It is no wonder why.
Your error is that the 14th Amendment naturalizes or in other words, it makes citizens by statute at birth.
You are correct ... and little barry bastard commie still isn’t a true American citizen, much less a Natural Born Citizen. He does have legitimate citizenship in Indonesia though, and that’s on this world, so he’s good enough for the criminal enterprise folks and his butties who post his defense at FR and lie saying they can’t stand him. There are a few vermin who get a kick out of stirring the issues and spitting on folks for questioning the little affirmative action demigod.
John Bingham, “father of the 14th Amendment”, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.
The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2925347/posts -—post 31
“There are but TWO forms of Citizenship:...”
Nope. Per the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services online site:
CITIZENSHIP
If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.
To become a citizen at birth, you must:
(1a) Have been born in the United States (native born citizen) or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
(1b) had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements (derived citizen)
To become a citizen after birth, you must:
(2) Apply for “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents
(3) Apply for naturalization
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Obama has NEVER claimed to be a natural born Citizen, only a native born citizen.
Native born citizen - Gov. Bobby Jindal was born in Louisiana just four months after his parents began college here in the U.S.A.
Derived citizen - Sen. John McCain: whether born in the nation of Panama, or born in the Panama Canal Zone, he isn’t a natural born Citizen as neither place is considered part of the U.S.A. If born in the nation of Panama, his citizenship derives from his parents U.S. citizenship. If he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, because it is an unincorporated territory, his U.S. citizenship is statutory (granted by Congress), and he is not natural born.
Naturalized citizen - Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger, born in Austria, naturalized as a U.S. citizen.
All three men above are eligible to serve in Congress. The eligibility requirements for Congress, in Article I, sections 2 and 3, of the U.S. Constitution, clearly state that Representatives and Senators are only required to be citizens.
“Article II, section 1, clause 5 clearly states: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible who has not attained to the Age of Thirty-five years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Notice the requirement for President is different, not merely a ‘citizen’, as for Congress, but a natural born Citizen.
The U.S. Constitution is U.S. law, and SCOTUS defines that law, as they did with Minor v. Happersett (1874).
A natural born Citizen is born in the USA of citizen parents.
Nice try, Jude. It was repealed in 1795.
“The First U.S. Congress included in the 1790 Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department to the fact that Americans born abroad are (“natural born” citizens” and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth. They were not granted citizenship via that US statute rather their automatic citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by immigration authorities. They were not citizens by any other means than natural law, and statutory law was written to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized.”
This is not a reasonable explanation. It fails to recognize that Congress only has powers over naturalization. Congress has no power to define “natural born Citizen”, which has nothing to do with naturalization. Furthermore, if Congress wants to tell the State Department something, they don’t have to enact legislation to do it.
But more important is that all of the following naturalization acts, 1795, 1802, etc., were also passed to naturalize the children of U.S. citizens born abroad. And the words “natural born” were repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act and never returned again.
I see that you’ve responded to others whose posts came after mine but glazed right past my simple question.
Have you read Klayman’s letter, posted at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf ?
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))” "
I may add, when the Constitution was written in 1787, there was not debate or discussion over the natural born citizen clause as they all understood the same as Congress did in 1866.
You've watered down the real meaning of natural born and made it the same as a lesser standard, something the FFs likely wouldn't do.
From what I've read, history doesn't agree with your lesser definition, but obviously some say it does.
Since you can't convince me, nor I you, we'll just go on knowing how utterly wrong each other is.
From my research, I think the FFs are with me on this one, just like they would be with me on Roe v Wade not being Constitutional or Kelo not being Constitutional or obamacare not being Constitutional, but it is what it is.
I doubt they'd recognize the place the way it's being rewritten and redefined.
obumpa
With your position then the children of the current President of Egypt who were born in the USA and he has such children and any child of a south of the border mom who returned to her native country to live could any day be POTUSA. I don’t believe that the records of the Founding Fathers supports such a position in any shape or form as to the intention for the Constitution.
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.