Posted on 04/13/2011 9:17:46 AM PDT by Windflier
Just heard WBAP morning host, Mark Davis, say that only one US citizen parent is required for a person to be a Natural Born Citizen.
That is just blatant misinformation, and Mark needs to be called on it.
He went on to give the rest of his weird definition, but I was already so angry, I couldn't hear him. I went looking for a link to send him email, so that I could correct him.
Here's a link to his show, if any of you feel the urge to do so: http://www.wbap.com/showdj.asp?DJID=1397
here is a copy of what I sent the idiot Mark Davis, a local radio wacko:
“Mark,
You need to get educated on Barack and his lack of documentation.
No birth certificate available for review by the citizens. Remember we live in the United States of America? He is President and not king, so he has no right to privacy.
No school records released. Zero, none, nada. This guy who claims to be the smartest man ever? Really, prove it.
Never thought I would hear you carrying water for the fraud who has been elected.
Why are there no true journalists who pursue the truth? Have you all sold out?
Get with the program of uncovering the fraud that is Obama.
You could even become famous if you just help uncover the truth. “
He will probably delete and not read....
And we'll just have to flood the internet and talk radio with truth about the NBC requirement. We cannot allow them get away with redefining the Constitution like that.
It was 1970, iirc.
I would at least give this radio host (Mark Davis) credit for commenting on the definition of NBC even if he is wrong. I have not heard Rush, Hannity or Levin comment at all on the definition of NBC as if they are afraid to even think about it. Steve Mulzberg is good on the birth certificate issue but I have not heard him comment on the definition of NBC either. The ignorance of conservative talking heads becomes very evident by their stance on this issue.
You can say that again. And again.
He's the biggest RINO in the North Texas radio market, and is as poorly informed as any liberal.
“Natural born” citizenship is not explicitly defined in the Constitution or law. Virtually everyone born in the US, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, at least since the 14th Amendment, is considered to have been born a US citizen.
Some people claim that some of these citizens are something less than “natural born” citizens, depending on their parents’ citizenship, but there is nothing in the law to support such claims.
In fact, the Wong Kim Ark Court treated the parents practically as de facto American citizens, because of their extensive and practically exclusive ties to the U.S. Would a Court find that the child of a person with NO, or only passing/deliberately temporary ties to the U.S., was likewise a natural-born citizen, as opposed to a citizen at birth by operation of law? (The latter being a legal grant that indisputably the Sovereign could choose to withhold).
This discussion is taking place in a legal and constitutional vaccum. Because it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, and the fat lady hasn't sung yet --- because, with the Court's reluctance to involve itself in politics, no one yet has has standing to raise the issue for a decision on the merits, ON THESE PARTICULAR FACTS.
Who is in charge of verifying that a candidate is eligible? What standard do they use? How can their decision be challenged and/or remedied?
Unless Congress takes action on these matters, the only thing that will get the people a final answer is for a state to impose an eligibility law and then go through the legal challenges to it.
This whole debate wouldn't be happening if there were a settled legal standard and a legal procedure for verifying eligibility, challenging eligibility decisions and remedying eligibility violations.
There is absolutely no reason for the country to be dragged through this again in the future --- and it will be if the above points are not addressed.
The only way to get these points addressed is for a state to pass an eligibility law, define natural-born citizen some way, and then see what happens when it is challenged in court.
Then we might get a SCOTUS ruling on what NBC actually means and how Congress might go about enforcing eligibility requirements.
Be prepared for incoming.
Yeah, and that was BEFORE the show even started...
Sad that the first ‘black’ POTUS was not such a man.
Pretty interesting, isn't it? I think it's the height of irony that Obama has NO slave blood, yet he's reflexively supported by the vast majority of American blacks on the sole basis of his race.
It kills me to see my own family members giving their allegiance to Obama, when they've got ancestry that includes slave blood, Confederate blood, Union blood, Colonist blood, and Native American blood.
Right now, federal law and court precedence have twisted the 14th Amendment to mean that even the children of illegal aliens are citizens if they are born on U.S. soil. So the question of whether or not you need only one parent to be a citizen or both parents to be citizens at your birth has been answered differently.
There are no ‘second class’ citizens. You are either a citizen (with voting privileges) or you are not.
With respect to being eligible to become POTUS or CIC of the US Military - there are additional requirements.
Both parents must be US citizens at the time of birth (either native born or naturalized) and that your birth occur in the US, or territories, or jurisdiction, in the case of Military parent(s) on active duty.
>> The term “natural born citizen” is not defined in the constitution <<
Correct. There’s no definition. The power to declare who must be naturalized — versus who is defined as being “naturally” born into citizenship — is specifically delegated to the Congress under the Constitution’s Article One, Section Eight.
>> so it has been up to definition by the courts ever since <<
Not really. The Congress has changed the requirements for naturalization any number of times. In so doing, it has simultaneously changed the definition of who is born “naturally” as a citizen.
I actually believe there is a difference between a US citizen, even a citizen at birth, and a natural born citizen, who needs two parents who are US citizens at the time of birth. There was ample legal commentary for this proposition at the time the Constitution was drafted, but there is also the argument that the 14th Amendment may have changed this.
I am not an expert, but others may have more info. No personal disrespect to you or your family is intended. thanks.
I don't know how he gets his over-inflated ego through the door to the studio.
My wife has WBAP on all day in the office, so I have to endure hearing him stroke his ego for three hours every day.
Mostly, I just tune him out, but sometimes I overhear him say something so stupid that I nearly want to shoot the radio. Today was one of those days.
I also believe the question in that case was only US citizenship, not eligibility for trhe presidency. “natural born citizen” was defined at the time the Constitution was drafted as having been born of two citizen parents.
None taken.
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.