Posted on 03/11/2013 12:15:07 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Respected constitutional scholar and lawyer Herb Titus sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is. Herb Titus credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. Titus gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to Herb Titus in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Barack Obama are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
So what?
I am talking about who/what constitutes a ‘natural born citizen’. What the heck are YOU talking about?
Since our first Chief Justice (John Jay), the Supreme Court has consistently refused to offer "advisory opinions" (i.e., opinions that are not necessary to the resolution of a case before them). If you read the constitutional provisions regarding how we choose presidents, you will not find any references to the Supreme Court having any role in ruling on candidates' qualifications to be president.
In other words, selecting presidents and removing presidents is not the job of the Supreme Court. There is thus no occasion for them to offer their opinions on the matter.
I and my only brother who was killed in the battle for Okinawa were born in the USA of immigrant, not naturalized i.e.foreign parents. I cannot speak for my brother but suspect we would be in agreement that our parents’ official status as foreigners precluded us from eligibility for POTUSA. Didn’t matter much to me as being an ordinary citizen was a blessing and obligation at the same time. I still believe that way.
Eligibility is a matter of law.
Ping for later viewing
Are you suggesting that voters and their electors cannot be trusted to determine and be governed by law? Did the authors of our Constitution make a mistake in neglecting to provide the Supreme Court a role in approving candidates and selecting our presidents? Is it possible that they thought that the People of the United States could perform their political roles without help and guidance from the Supreme Court? Is it possible that many of them didn't trust the judiciary?
The Constitution empowers voters and their electors to select presidents. If the authors of our Constitution thought that voters and electors required the Supreme Court's guidance or assistance in performing their political function, they could have provided for Supreme Court involvement.
Just as the Supreme Court is not empowered to remove presidents, it is not empowered to select them.
Well, n00b, it is clear that you do not believe this to be a Constitutional Republic. Go over to DU and obfuscate for your little barry bastard commie. It is not being vote tested if it is not a Constitutional amendment being voted upon. It is exactly in the purview of the unSCOTUS to decide the meaning Constitutionally of Natural Born Citizen. That you cannot grasp that or don’t want it to be that way says a lot about you, n00b. I’m just wondering how one of the individuals mesta named could actually get the issue before the pirate Roberts court!
I do believe this to be a constitutional republic. It is for that reason that I do not believe in government by the judiciary. The Supreme Court does not remove presidents and it does not select them.
You have purposely tried to change the focus of Mesta’s idea. We are not talking about the unScotus removing the criminal bastard fraud. That will be done by marshalls or such. We are addressing the definition of NBC. But you gave it a pretty good shot, and we appreciate you exposing another of the talking point strategies of your masters. BTW, don’t try the ‘well that will get you Biden as president crap, n00b.
The Constitution is law. It specifies presidential eligibility requirements.
Ballot access is a matter of state law.
Suits brought under state or federal are adjudicated by courts.
Your notion that this somehow means courts would be “selecting” candidates is mistaken.
Like a birth certificate, a copy of a Certificate of Naturalization is protected by the Privacy Act. Obtaining and publishing a person’s Certificate of Naturalization without their expressed written permission is a violation of Federal law. Soliciting someone to violate the Privacy Act is a violation of Federal law.
Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization can be obtained legally and used to prove he is ineligible for POTUS with civil suit that survives a motion to dismiss. Once a motion to dismiss is overruled, the discovery process begins. During the discovery process, a subpoena can be issued to DHS to provide a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization. Without a subpoena, the evidence is inadmissible.
They most certainly did imagine these scenarios.
That is why in original Immigration Act of 1790 the founding fathers put into words what they ‘considered as’ a natural-born Citizen.
What they ‘considered as’ was a person born to American parents. Period. Regardless of where the physical birth took place. Place of birth had absolutely no bearing on the being ‘considered as’ a natural born Citizen.
Note the emphasis on ‘considered as’. They were not bold enough to flat out declare a child born to American parents to actually BE a natural born Citizen. But they were to be ‘considered as’ such.
Why did they do this. Because American blue bloods were still traveling to Europe after the formation of the country. And many diplomats were spending time in France. So they wanted their children who may be born overseas to still be eligible for the office of POTUS.
However, in 1975 the language just ‘disappears’ from the updated immigration act. Likely because it attempted to modify the Constitution with a law. And that is not allowed.
So in the raging debates of jus soli or jus sanguinis the founding fathers put into codified law what they thought was more important - it was blood, not dirt.
It is settled.
M v. H
Just no one likes the answer and just ignores it.
And do you have any evidence that any such Certificate of Naturalization even exists? Or are we supposed to just take your word for it?
I believe my brother and I are cases as to your point but we tip the scales of expectancy far away from what your words would seem to establish. My brother killed in the WWII battle for Okinawa and I also served overseas in that war. Both of us were born in the USA of immigrant,not naturalized parents. There was never any doubt that our loyalty was with the USA. However I understand the Founding Fathers who wanted to be assured POTUSA had not the slightest inclination in any way for allegiance wrote the eligibility requirement they did. I am satisfied and pleased to the extent except that the Founders could have been more explicit for future generations.
My guess would be that a thorough study of the meaning of the words at the time would indicate much less ambiguity than some people think is there.
Similarly, the Second Amendment was very clear to our Founders. People just don't want to believe that there were virtually no limits on what arms a person might keep at the time of the ratification. The amendment process allows all the latitude that anti-gunners need to fix any problems.
You are missing the distinction between qualifications to perform the job, and Constitutional eligibility to hold the job.
The Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to interpret and/or define the terms and meanings of all aspects of the Constitution BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF ORIGINAL INTENT.
Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal are all be very well qualified to be President of the United States. The question raised is: are they Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United State.
And, yes, we are well past the time for SCOTUS to settle that question.
Why would I post specifics without personal knowledge? And why are you desperate to discredit any evidence that would expose Obama as ineliglible?
Obama is using the Privacy Act to protect himself from exposure to criminal charges of election fraud. Unless you’re a prosecutor, the method to legally obtain Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization is to file a civil suit against Obama, allege he is ineligible for POTUS, and survive a motion to dismiss. Once a motion to dismiss is overruled, the discovery process begins.
Internet posts and any other evidence obtained and presented to the Court is ignored by the Court until a motion to dismiss is overruled. Furthermore, you don’t want to give OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers an opportunity to discredit the evidence before it is presented to the Court.
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.