Posted on 04/29/2011 3:15:09 PM PDT by llandres
No wonder so many people are confused, or ignorant, about this subject and its Constitutional importance relative to Presidential eligibility. This first link - http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PlaceR - is a 9 min. interview with Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor, by the day's cspan moderator. Listen to the questions and his answers. Sheesh.
Here's another link to the Washington Journal segment that followed, with call-ins and emails, titled, "Should U.S. presidents be 'natural born' citizens?"
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/OpenPhones7290
Should? Should??? Folks, this is what we're up against - ignorance, misinformation, apathy or a combination thereof.
It’s what the Supreme Court says it is..
(If a case ever makes it that far..)
If Barry renounced his citizenship, he may need to do it thrice: US (Stanley), UK (BHO1), and Indonesian (Lolo adoption).
Once again, we have to remind people here what ‘Natural Born’ means:
When one is born, his citizenship is determined by one of two criteria:
1. Where he was born (the ‘Native’ claim) AND;
2. Of what country was the citizenship of his parents.
If both factors result in the citizenship of only one country, then there are no conflicting loyalties, and the newborn is ‘naturally’ a citizen of where he was born.
Thus the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ was created.
The fawning media has been careful to continue to hide the fact that Obama’s father’s nationality disqualified him all along.
Get it?
Born anywhere to two US citizen parents may qualify but I don’t want a President that grew up in another country.
Your "logic" is highly suspect.
You are quite right that at the founding there were NO natural born citizens. But there were plenty of "citizens" - just not natural born ones. That's why, for at least the first 35 years after the ratification of the Constitution no President could possibly be a natural born citizen of the United States - because no natural born Citizen could have attained the age of 35 years.
But the Founders did not require that the Presidents back in those days be natural born citizens, did they?
No, they did not. Please read the following:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President: ..."
I submit to you that the new Country was well populated with Citizens, proven patriots tested in the revolution, eligible to the office of President in those years, albeit that they were not "natural born". But, their children were, and once that new generation of natural born Citizens - born after the founding - reached the age of eligibility 35 years, they became part of the eligible class along with their citizen fathers and grandfathers.
Blood always had everything to do with it. Place of birth was also essential, but without the blood, place of birth was irrelevant.
The Framers always knew that the fact of being born in a breadbox does not make a kitten into a loaf of bread.
You are ignorant of the history of the United States to the point that you are lying to yourself and others when you call yourself a Conservative.
To be a Conservative you must first know what it is you are conserving. You have no idea, and I’d suggest that you do yourself a really big favor and learn.
To be eligible, B Hussein Obama needed both parents to be Americans (and be born on US soil of course). One parent was not American.
If the electorate was educated, Hussein would have never had the chance to usurp. If elected officials, had what it takes to lead instead of what it takes to take what they can from Americans, they’d have declared Hussein was not eligible due to parentage.
We have a corrupt gov’t and an idiot liberal electorate large enough to elect a usurper, and they don’t even know what “usurper” means. That’s how dumb they are.
That process of education can begin right here on Free Republic. It is astonishing to me that even on this forum, made of of individuals of self-identified conservative values - people with every natural incentive to learn and to understand the Constitution that is our rock and anchor - the level of ignorance and misunderstanding is enormous.
If it is this bad among self-identified conservatives, how bad must it be among the liberal unwashed?
We have a big job to do, all of us, and it has to start here and start now.
As can be seen from reading these threads concerning NBC, there are differing opinions..some seemingly more well-reasoned and better supported than others. But the fact remains that there is NOT agreement among legal/constitutional scholars.
Thus, as is quite apparent, this issue will remain “unsettled” until the USSC eventually settles it.
Don’t confuse my disagreement with ignorance. I’ve read the historical sources and caselaw. I’m familiar with Vattell, Blackstone, Madison, Storey and others. I understand that there are arguments that can be made for both sides of the debate re: meaning of “natural born citizen.” Just because I reach a different conclusion doesn’t mean I’m ignorant, and certainly doesn’t mean I’m not conservative.
It may be unsettled in your mind, but just because this issue has not come before the Supreme Court does NOT mean that it is incapable of normal understanding or is that it is unsettled unsettled in its language and usage, or that the Framers did not know what they were saying or doing.
We do not need to sit by like inanimate lumps waiting for the Supreme Court to “settle” things. We can educate ourselves on the history of the Untied States, and specifically on the matter of the Constitution of the United States, and it’s history and meaning. We can take the matter into our hands.
We can make the effort to understand the Constitution, and we can follow it as it is meant to be followed, and we can do it all without the need of “priestly” guidance.
I think that it is of paramount importance to the future of our Constitutional republic that we do exactly that.
If we were to adopt your rationale - that we need to wait for the Supreme Court to “settle” the issue - then we as a nation would have to wait until a usurper is elected and installed as President, then find someone with “standing” who can manage to get the case heard in a Federal court, then spend million of dollars and years of precious time while the case works through the appeals process, meanwhile standing by watching the usurper do untold damage. THAT would be the price of taking the passive path you recommend.
OH, Wait! Gee, I guess we are already paying that price!
And why? Because too many have taken the view that preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States is SOMEBODY ELSE’s job.
Wake up people! It is OUR job! WE are the SOVEREIGNS! It is OUR job!
It is OUR job.
It means exactly that, unfortunately.
BTW, just so you understand me. I agree with you that there are arguments that can be made for both sides of the debate; I’ve read them all.
It’s just that the arguments of one side, the side you seem to favor, are illogical, weakly reasoned, devoid of factual support, contrary to legislative intent, destructive to the polity of the nation, and inimical to Liberty.
Those arguments you favor lead directly to an “Obama Presidency”, and maybe worse to come. We are living the nightmare our founders sought to avoid - and all because of thinking like yours.
You'll be hard pressed to find a Con law professor at a major law school who has an opinion much different than his.
Yes, and 30,000 Frenchmen can’t be wrong, right?
Someone interested in the meaning of NBC ought to take the time to read this opinion from 1844 - LONG before anyone was an “Obamabot”!
(page 246)
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
The entire decision is a long read, but better thought out and documented than the Wong Kim Ark decision.
ping
ping
Amen to that!
I’ve been on the case of Hussein’s ineligibility since fall of 2008, just like many other FReepers. There is a wealth of information on these pages, as you know.
My most recent find, courtesy of FReeper autumnraine, is a series of pictures of a man who I now believe is the actual father of BHO.
Here is the FR thread, and the first picture of the man is at post 1123. There is another farther down the page where he is wearing full Black Panther garb. I believe it is possible that the person who is now in the White House, is the son of that Black Panther, and he sought to hide that fact with the false story of a Kenyan father whom he looks nothing like at all.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2702976/posts?=1123
See what you think. The man in those pics, named “Pete” the Black Panther looks just like BHO2 to me. Evidently he had contact with Barry’s mother and twisted commie family too.
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.