Posted on 04/21/2010 8:28:03 PM PDT by MrChips
OK, so I have read a little, listened a little, and figured that the question of Obama's citizenship and birth would never be answered, so why dive into it. But just now, I listened to Anderson Cooper on CNN (I know, I know, why am I watching PRAVDA?) blabber on and on in a very assertive, denunciatory tone to someone from Arizona over that state's recent passage of a bill requiring presidential candidates to prove their citizenship. Cooper went on ad nauseum about how stupid anyone is who questions Obama, how the birth certificate has been PROVEN to be authentic, that the matter should be settled. But the adamancy in his voice bothered me. Why is he so exercised about it if that is really true? He'd be calm, or so I said to myself. Anyway, anybody else watch this?
Feel free to post it three times, but it isn’t the legal definition of the term. It might be what the founders meant, but they didn’t spell it out, and therefore left it open to interpretation. There has not been a legal definition that the court has ruled definitely on, or this wouldn’t be a question, because everyone would have known for sure that Obama couldn’t have run for president.(And yes, I know there are other things that they didn’t spell out; arms, treason, for example) and it still doesn’t change the fact that there is wiggle room in the definition of NBC. Until the USSC says in unambiguous language who is and who is not a NBC, there is room for argument.
The founding fathers documented it. It came from Vattel, law of nations. David Ramsay, founding father, documented it.
Obama is the first President Since the founders to openly violate this constitutional requirement.
The constitution has not been amended. It is simply being ignored for historic purposes, and that being the First Marxist President with natural born inherited rights to Kenyan citizenship.
“If they are born in the US, I do not think that anyone (until recently while trying to figure out a way to get rid of Obama) would consider them anything other than a natural born US citizen.” When you start with the assumption of what you want to prove, you’re playing word games not discussing the issue. Just being born on US soil is not sufficient, according to what the founders placed upon the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. ... And Barry Soetoro was a dual citizen at birth—if Barack Obama was indeed his father, which I actually now doubt, but that is grist for another mill—and then became a legal citizen og Indonesia via Lolo Soetoro, who remained his legal adoptive father even after Barry went to Occidental College and at least into his sophmore year! What you are arguing would open the door to cancel what the founders sought to protect, making anchor babies eligible to be President. Sorry, cannot side with that. And if you actually look at the documents from the era of the founding Constitution, Natural Born Citizen was a person with two American Citizen parents and born on U.S. soil.
Not nothing, it’s part of the entire picture of NBC or non-NBC status.
(As per David Ramsay, a founding fathers documented definition that is contemporaneous with the drafting of the constitution, and consistent with Vattels law of nations. Law of Nations was the book they had on hand during the drafting of the constitution.)
Unfortunately, The only documented facts that we have on the constitution indicate that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. There is no founding document stating that a native born - dual citizen can also be president. Only a natural born citizen, which he is not.
Check out this new thread, in particular, the comment by rxsid, it explains the NBC to a nicety. His informative comment is the first one.
(no courtesy ping to him since he’s gotten too many by now!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2498008/posts
Hey, take a pill. I’ve never demeaned the birthers, I support their efforts...so asking if I celebrate and bathe in ignorance was uncalled for. It just stands to reason that if all that was needed to prove his ineligibility was his parents citizenship status, it would be case closed and there wouldn’t be a need for a birther movement to see his records. How is that logic wrong?
But suppose someone in circumstances like yours does have a Dad who decides he wants to be involved in his son's life and takes said son back to Germany and raises him there. Would you then consider him natural born or want a non-American (having been raised in Germany) occupying the Oval Office???
I would reiterate that no one (including natural born citizens 10 generations long descending from revolutionary war veterans) have a RIGHT to be President. Its an honor, but it is not a right.
Our founders knew this and imposed strict restrictions knowing full well there would be the occasional exception and unusual cases such as yours. It doesn't change the fact that safeguards must be put in place to protect us from other unusual cases that would bring harm to the nation.
On behalf of cat lovers everywhere I object to the suggestion of the feline's lack of judgment. :)
---------------------------------------
doug "in the army" has just outed himself totally. He's in the group of "the Constitution is flawed/written by a bunch of dead white male slaveowners"/it's a living document/let's pi** on it" crowd. Thank you very much, doug "inthearmy" for outing youself. Your position is now crystal clear. That's exactly what 0bama and all leftists think of the Constitution. What the writers actually meant means nothing to them (and that includes people such as yourself), and everything to real conservative constitutionalists.
WOW. That just says it all. The Constitution no longer matters and yet you swore an oath to defend what doesn't really matter? God help us.
He can’t unsay it. FR has no way for people to edit their comments after they post ‘em.
He’s a leftist troll. Clear as day.
Yep. Absolutely. He’s also outed himself as to what he would do should our non-constitutional president demand he open fire on fellow Americans for any number of unconstitutional reasons the maniac in the oval office might have. Since ‘it doesn’t matter’ what our founders thought......doug has outed himself that he probably would open fire.
Thank God for oathkeepers who would then return fire on little dougie who apparently has absolutely no reverence for our founders or our constitution.
He outed himself when I read his first comments. This one just is highlighted, underlined, in italics and bolded. Just in case anyone had any doubts.
I don’t think the founders would have necessarily thought that babies born in the US to non-US parents wouldn’t have been US citizens with the right to run for president. I understand that this is not good when we have groups of illegals coming over here to get freebies, but, I do not think they would have said, “John and Mary came from England in the year 1800 and had a baby as soon as she stepped off of the boat, but that baby won’t be eligible to run for president in 35 years because his parents were not born in the US prior to the Revolution, and were not yet US citizens at the time of the birth.” This train of thought can’t rule out some ethnic groups, but not others.
America was founded by immigrants, and I don’t think the founders thought excluding any group who was living in the US should be excluded from being part of the government.
As neither of us can go and talk to the founding fathers of this country and as for sure what they meant, we really can’t be 100% sure what they meant.
I think you can find almost anything about what our founding fathers would have thought. They were all tremondous writers and wrote volumes...their letters to each other and spouses gives quite an insight into what you might be curious to know. I love Wallbuilders and David Barton for their keeping the light on the issues the founders spoke of while they struggled to build a free nation.
God bless your mother! I hope she has a long and happy life!
So, lets go down the chronological road ...
1608. Calvin's Case - Calvin was accused of NOT being a natural born subject and, thus, incapable of inheriting. The Court ruled that a natural born subject had to be born within the realm, to parents who owed a PERMANENT allegiance to the sovreign [James I], and that he could not have been born in a land under a different soverign BEFORE James I united the kingdoms. Calvin met those requirements and won.
1730. The British Nationality Act - declared that children born beyond the realm were also natural born subjects - as long as their fathers were ALSO natural born subjects too.
1765-1769. Blackstone wrote a series of commentaries on the laws of England [not the law itself]. In it, he re-iterated the requirement that a natural born subject owe a single, PERMANENT allegiance to the sovreign. He also stated that children born in England to alien parents were natural born subjects - but he added this qualifier to the definition: "Generally Speaking". He specifically exempted the children born in England of foreign ambassadors and such since they owed their allegiance to a different sovreign. But, he also STRONGLY implied that if [for any reason] someone else owed more than one allegiance, they could be a subject - but NOT a natural born subject.
1776-1789. When the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they used much of English Law [they agreed with it]. In fact, they liberally borrowed from the Petition of Right, signed by Charles I, in their writings - prohibition of the laying of taxes without consent, no quartering soldiers in private homes, due process of law, illegal imprisonment, etc. And they DID NOT chuck the English system of laws and write a whole new set - they used the English Laws that they agreed with and DID NOT use the ones that they opposed. Funny how there is no expanded explanation of the terms "eminent domain" and "natural born citizen" in the Constitution? Thats because they used the terms AS KNOWN in English Law.
1896 - Conflict of Laws. Dicey wrote his thesis explaining English Law. He stated that a British Subject owed a PERMANENT allegiance to the sovreign, as opposed to a temporary allegiance due to the sovereign by an alien living in the country [remind you of Blackstone and Calvin?]. He ALSO stated that a Natural Born Subject became so at the moment of his birth. So, a Natural Born Subject was normally born within the realm AND with a single, PERMANENT allegiance at the moment of his birth. However, the British Nationality Act of 1730 extended this to include children beyond the realm - as long as their fathers were Natural Born Subjects themselves.
So, I have gone through chronologically. I will write another post specifically concerning the Supreme Court. But, suffice to say, the Court looks to the past in order to make decisions. However, in this case, the Court has side-stepped the question in every case concerning "natural born citizen" that has come before it. So, it goes all the way back to the Framers of the Constitution [even before Dicey]. What did they know - and when did they know it?
The lawyers and jurists amongst the Founders were trained in English Law. They KNEW Calvin's Case, they KNEW the British Nationality Act of 1730, and they KNEW Blackstone. They also KNEW the writings of Grotius and Vattel - which they heavily referenced. But they made NO attempt to qualify the term "natural born citizen". Why? BECAUSE THEY AGREED WITH IT ...
Now, I've put my cards on the table - grow a pair, man up, show me some documentation - show me court decisions, etc. to support your drivel ... I have.
I really didn’t mean to imply that my son had the right to be president. So, first off, I apologize for not being clear.
In the second case, if the father wanted to take the child to another country for upbringing, I do not think that would preclude someone from running for president legally. Lots of people are raised overseas (sometimes on military bases, sometimes when their parents are in jobs overseas) and I do not think that means they are necessarily un-American.
What about someone who went to school overseas for a short time (Bill Clinton/Oxford)? Or John Quincy Adams (son of a founder, and 6th president himself) who was educated and worked in Europe from the age of 11 until he was 18? Obviously people who were involved in the Revolution did not feel that education and time spent living abroad disqualified someone from being president.
I think, looking at all of the overseas postings so many of the founders enjoyed (John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson to name a few), to say that they were virulently anti-European is to look through a prism of our modern times and put modern notions on people whose world was very different.
Natural born either occurs at birth or it doesn’t. How about someone who was born in the US and lived overseas for a few years, even went to school overseas, and then ran for president when they were seventy. Do those years overseas count more than the rest of the life spent in the US?
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.