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?
Wow! Thank you.
Again, Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. That is the legal definition of the term, and is the definition that has been used by the Supreme Court in many cases. You claim this is not true-PROVE IT. Point to just one Supreme Court decision, in which it states that a natural born citizen is NOT a child born within our nation to US citizen parents.
It seems that you are still confusing citizenship and natural born citizenship. The Constitution clearly states that no except a natural born citizen is eligible to be President. You ask, “Also questioned over the years was whether children born overseas to 2 citizen parents could qualify. Is a child born to an unwed citizen mother, on US soil, eligible? Could Gov. Jindal qualify?”Again, “Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” It does not say that the childs parents had to be married. How could a child that was born overseas qualify? If the child was not born in our nation, to citizen parents, then the child is not a natural born citizen. How could Jindal qualify? Was he born in our nation to citizen parents? No, his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth, so he is not a natural born citizen.
No, show me the language that states that the only natural born citizens are those with two US citizen parents. It is not defined in such limited language anywhere. I am not sure how to prove a negative. Show me the proof of a case that says ONLY two citizen parents = NBC. It hasn’t been stated, as anyone on these boards will tell you. There is a good chance that that is what the founders meant, but that is not explicitly stated. Sorry. That is what everyone on both sides is annoyed about. The USSC needs to make a definitive ruling one way or another.
Hey TE, what do you think of Anderson Cooper telling the congressman that he should NOT believe stuff on the internet, and then demanding that the congressman affirm as “FACT!” that a document image — the COLB — ONLY presented on the internet.
Might you, TE, admit that is severe almost-schizophrenic cognitive dissonance?
“No, show me the language that states that the only natural born citizens are those with two US citizen parents.”
“Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Did you not notice the “S” on the end of the word “parents”? That makes the word plural, which would certainly mean both parents.
There are no cases. The Constitutional clause refers ONLY to President and Vice-President. The clause has never been argued in the Supreme Court for absent a case that turns on such a candidate any other rulings are moot, only theory.
And just why wouldn't I?
Minor v. Happersett
Natural Born status is mentioned in case law: Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168
"'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168."
Under Happersett, a natural born citizen is clarified to mean born citizen without a doubt. Doubt entered the picture due to Obama being born a British citizen under The British Nationality Act of 1948, in effect at the time of his birth. He cannot be, as a state of nature, considered a born citizen of the United States, when he was born British.
There is doubt, but it isn’t conclusive. It says there is doubt, but not that they can’t be NBC’s. We are reading the same thing and inferring two different things.
My argument is about a child who is NOT born in the jurisdiction of another country. I was told my son had no claim to any sort of German citizenship by the German consulate, so he is no more a German citizen than I am. I agree that there can be doubts, I understand they are saying, “you can be sure this type is a NBC, and some people say this type might be a NBC, but we can’t be sure, luckily, we don’t have to decide on that to finish this case.” So, a case like my son’s has not been heard or ruled on. I am saying that I think that my son does not fall into any of the categories that would deny his being a NBC.
This argument annoys me because, yes, I see the S. However, the real quote has the word ‘children’, also plural. Technically, if I was a lawyer, I would argue that when we are talking about one child, and make that singular, we could go through the whole sentence and make it singular. “Child of a citizen parent.” Will we ever agree on that, nope. No point in arguing any further.
And isn’t that quote Vattel, anyway? Was he considered a founder? Yeah, didn’t think so. He was just one of the sources that was read and discussed when the founders drafted the constitution. Not the only source, and he wasn’t even translated into English until after the Constitution was written. I have read many interpretations from the French, and there is still a little fuzziness. When Vattel was translated into English, this was the wording that was used.
There is a lot a lawyer could do to argue against this exact interpretation.
Anyway, I am off to bed, so if I don’t froth back with another reply, don’t write me off as a coward, just someone with a miserable cold who took some benedryl.
Or not. The USSC can sit on their tails, deny hearing every birther lawsuit that comes their way and watch as the Obama administration passes into the dustbin of history, allowing precedent to be firmly established.
About the best way to get SCOTUS to hear this would be to have a lower court rule Obama is ineligible. That's a pretty tall order considering that not a single eligibility case has survived a motion to dismiss.
It is only speaking of doubts about citizenship. It is saying nothing at all about considering them natural-born.
I know, and I thought that was what I said. I was being asked to prove that no cases ruled that someone who was not defined by two US citizen parents = NBC could be a NBC.
(Does that seem as awkward a thought as it seems to me?)
You can define a dog as a mammal that is domesticated, can live in the house, has four legs and a tail, and be correct. However, other things can fall into that definition, too. cats, for example. So, a NBC can be defined using Vattel’s definition, but as doubt was introduced that there might be other ways to be a NBC, we can’t know for sure that that is the only definition.
Smacking head with hand—sheesh, that made sense in my mind, but I just didn’t articulate very well. Maybe you can read what I meant and let me off the hook. Off to bed for me!
How on earth do you read that this means they might not even be citizens? It means that they might not be natural born citizens, but they might be. Show me anyone who says a child born on US soil to parents who are not either in the army of another country, or its diplomatic corps aren’t citizens.
That is what it is saying.
I agree. I can’t see them ruling on it, but until they do (if they do, which again, I agree with you is highly unlikely) there is not a clear definition of NBC. I think the precedent was already set with Cleveland. I think that no one wants to touch the anchor baby issue, whether we have an illegal president, etc. Can you imagine, past the rioting that so many seem to pooh-pooh, the way the rest of the world would take advantage of the fact that we would have US citizens claiming that everything the “fake” president did while in office was invalid and illegal? All the orders for the military were illegal? It would be a major security crisis.
I think a lot of these people (Orly, Berg, etc.) are working for the dems, trying to rile up the far-right base so they can make fun of them. It makes more sense than accusing yourself or myself of working for the DOJ.
I am either misunderstanding you (I did ask a few questions, so I am not sure which you are answering) or we are just in complete disagreement on semantics and reading capabilities.
I do that often on eligibility threads. I won't debate the "2 citizen parent" issue anymore. As far as I'm concerned, those who say I'm wrong can take it up with the gentleman facing the camera.
He knows a thing or two about the Constitution, probably a bit more than the so-called "scholars" who inhabit birther threads.
In modern times, a precedent was established in 2000 of using the courtroom to fight the outcome of presidential elections. It was tried again in 2004 in Ohio. And again here we are, dealing with a group of people unhappy that the voters didn't turn out in their favor, trying once again to have an election overturned in the courtroom, calling the President of the United States an "usurper" which is no different from the "selected not elected" garbage we heard for throughout the previous administration. It'll be the same in 2012 regardless of who wins. Sarah Palin could win and there will be birthers on the left arguing she was born in Canada. The names and faces may change but the tactics will remain the same
I mean, good grief! I didn't want Obama to win! But 53% of my fellow Americans did and that's the way it is. I'll put a "Miss me yet?" bumper sticker on my car and hope the Republicans can lick their wounds and find an electable conservative to run next time. That's the way democracy works.
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.