Posted on 08/26/2009 12:40:24 PM PDT by kellynla
If Obama's father was a Kenyan then how could Hussein be eligible to be POTUS?
LOL ... who said they did?
His father was NOT an American citizen
of any kind. And our Constitution calls for
the “natural born citizen” requirement for
president and vice president.
His mother’s citizenship can feasibly have bore
on o’s status, but the fact that he was born of a
Kenyan or British citizen father casts a whole
additional wrench into the issue.
You might want to do some research on the
intentions of the Founders regarding their
strong opinions about dual allegiance/foreign
loyalties, etc. for the presidents and vice
presidents who would follow them.
Ketsu responds to above:
"No. You're the one that's wrong. Here's what title 8, which clarifies the 14th amendment has to say about naturalization vs natural born."
There is no discussion of Natural Born citizenship at your link to title 8.
You're playing word games again. "Moment of birth"? That's cute, but we're discussing 'Natural born' citizenship as written in the Constitution. The founding fathers meant what they said. 'Natural born citizen' means what it says. The founding fathers were clearly using that term as it was defined in the 'Law of Nations' at the time.
Yes, Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen. There is no requirement that EITHER parent be a citizen for someone to be natural born. (see US vs Wong Kim Ark)
Yes, the Constitution calls for a “natural born citizen” to be either President or Vice President; and according to the law, if 0bama was born in Hawaii he is a natural born citizen.
The “wrench” is of your own imagining. As you admitted “Other nations citizenship statues have NOTHING to do if one is a U.S. citizen at birth or not”.
I know both the argument, and the prescibed solution. The solution was that only no ‘johnny come lately’ could come to the US and rise to the highest office in the land. Only someone who was a U.S. citizen from birth could hold that office.
Still waiting...............
see US vs Wong Kim Ark
please show me where in that case it discusses Natural Born Citizen.
My mistake......I thought the post was reffering to presidential eligibility.....not just citizenship.
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
Relevant quotes excerpted and with parenthetical remarks....
“for if he (0bama Sr. in the case under discussion) hath issue (a child for those of you in Rio Linda) here, that issue (Barrack Hussein Obama) is a natural born subject”.
The 14th Amendment did not amend Article II. Hope this helps.Yes it did. Before it, slave owners used to argue that slaves weren't citizens despite being born here. You guys are genuinely crazy. Read this and see if it makes you have a schizo episode.PS. I concur, your ignorant idiocy concerning patrilineal natural citizenship is silly.
Yes, he’s a natural-born subject. That’s the problem.
There’s nothing about slavery in Article 2 of the Constitution. I suggest you read the U.S. Constitution some time.
The simple truth is that the most important safeguard of our national security – the President of the United States – is only eligible to that office if the Constitutional requirement of a natural born citizen is met. But in our entire history of a nation, this issue has never been judicially determined.
SCOTUS in Minor and Wong Kim Ark – both decided years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment – tell us the definition of natural born citizen is not written into the Constitution. Any attempt to simplify the issue by stating that all 14th Amendment native born citizens are also POTUS eligible on that basis is a fraudulent statement.
The issue is in serious need of litigation. It’s in the best interest of the nation to have the issue settled. If Obama’s eligibility is not heard on the merits in our judicial system, then the answer to who is a natural born citizen will be settled by virtue of Obama being President.
See also:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/
The Supreme Court, in Dred Scott v. Sanford, said that people with any amount of African blood, even if born in the U.S., were not citizens at all. This was supposedly based on the original intent of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment was passed to change the result of that case.
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
The majority decision found that he was a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen.
...The majority decision found that he was a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen....
negative, a citizen at birth is not necessarily a natural born citizen they did not decide that issue. Did you see Natural Born Citizen in the decision? NO Was it to determine his eligibility to be President of the US? NO
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No
Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
President;”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.”
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that
someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes
Nope. Neither Panama or the canal zone are U.S. territory, any more than a base in Germany is U.S. territory. The U.S. is there by treaty, and the constitutional guarantees of citizenship outlined by the 14th Amendment don't apply there. McCain is a natural-born citizen because both his parents were citizens, the U.S. law in force at the time made that clear. But by the definition being floated here - born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents - he wouldn't be one.
Oh really. It bound the mouths of 98 Senators regarding his natural born status. That's an accomplishment.
What, that 98 senators voted on a non-binding resolution? That's hardly an achievement. They also passed non-binding resolutions apologizing for slavery and declaring the Iraq war was not in the national interest. Fat lot of good those did.
It was a "resolution" which means a "decision" -- kind of like those things issued by courts of law that are supposed to be binding.
It was a non-binding resolution, nothing like those things issued by a court of law.
And it was a reslution based upon months of study of the issue, the Constitution, the definition of natural born citizen, case law, etc. And their conclusion was that McCain was a natural born citizen because he was born on U S territory and both parents were citizens -- BOTH PARENTS
Why don't you try reading the resolution? It doesn't say he was born on U.S. territory, but on a U.S. military base. And there is some question as to whether that is correct of if he was, in fact, born in a hospital in Colon.
It’s been said before, I’ll say it again.
There is a real need for a sarcasm font.
None of which has any bearing on the qualifications laid out in Article 2.
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.