Posted on 04/29/2011 3:15:09 PM PDT by llandres
Some people act like the Framers' original intent on this matter is crystal clear, but it really isn't. There's just not enough evidence to change the minds of the vast majority of legal experts, but you might have some luck with those who just can't let go of the idea Obama is ineligible.
PS- additional comment to my reply...of course if that Black Panther is BHO’s dad, it does mean that BHO is a natural born citizen.
I don’t think he ever thought he’d have a chance to be POTUS, and so made up the elaborate Kenyan father story long ago. It served him well until....oopps he wanted to run for POTUS. Good thing for him that half of America is dumb as a bag of hammers. A very dangerous and sad time for our beloved America though.
What a quandry Barry is in, he lied about his dad who was a Black Panther, but was a father who would have made him eligible. He made up a Kenyan dad, who makes him ineligible.
Oh the tangled web he weaved...
I think it's you doing all the weaving. How did we get to "Black Panther dad" again?
“But the fact remains that there is NOT agreement among legal/constitutional scholars.”
Legal/constitutional scholars agree that native-born citizens are natural-born citizens, potentially eligible to be president. The doubts are about foreign-born children of citizens.
“It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents.” [Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968).]
“It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not. But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.” [Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]
Long ago the eligibility of native-born children of foreigners may have been questionable, about births before the 14’th Amendment, but in our time there was no argument until the long-dead theory got dug up to use against Barack Obama. I’ve pointed this out before, and I’ve learned what reactions to expect. One thing that never happens is anyone citing a counter-example. Maybe this time will be different.
Check out this long running thread, and see the picture at post 1123 and one picture a few posts after that. It is a man who knew Barry’s mother. If you go to that FR link, read that page and the ones before and after. There is way too much info to repeat it here. It’s all on that thread. See if you don’t agree that “Pete” the Black Panther, looks exactly like the person occupying our White House.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2702976/posts?page=1123
Sorry I missed part of the link address in my post to you.
The correct link address to the pictures of the man who has a remarkable resembleance to BHO is at post 1123 and a later post on this FR page...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2702976/posts?page=1123
My my John, you do use big words.
OK, someone answer me this...
I live in the USA. I am married. I have two kids. Can my children grow up to be President?
You are absolutely right.
No, sorry, not unless you and they are “authentic conservatives.”
Were you and your wife both U.S. citizens when your children were born? Were your children born on U.S. soil?
What was your and your wife’s citizenship at the time your children were born, and were they born in the United States? If you both were citizens and they were born in the US, there is no doubt that they are natural born. Anything else, there is doubt.
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen". It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States.
And, a bit more modern, Charles Gordon, a legal scholar writing in 1968:
Under the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution, only "natural-born" citizens are qualified for this highest office. It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents.
“I live in the USA. I am married. I have two kids. Can my children grow up to be President?”
“In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Also, if you read the link to the Lynch case, the judge gives a detailed review of the law concerning natural born subjects and natural born citizens, and concludes:
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 dissent in WKA complained:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
Since NBC is the American form of NBS, and since a NBS could have two alien parents just passing thru, then it seems obvious the original intent of the Founders is yes, if you kids were born in the USA, they could grow up to become President.
Yes!! Please read article!! esp. (Excerpt) "Read more at boston.com" *************************************************************************** Free Republic Skip to comments. Elder Obama denied Harvard PhD The Boston Globe ^ | April 29, 2011 | Sally Jacobs, Globe Staff Posted on April 29, 2011 8:14:48 AM PDT by Gondring (Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ********************************************************* This states that Obama Sr. "did marry" Stanley Ann Dunham.... Thus, this makes Obama Sr. ..... The "Legal"..... father of Obama II . ******************************************************************** This makes Obama II a "Kenyan with British Citizen" !! ....(de Vattel's Law of Nations) ************************************************************** (The Law of Nations was written by Emmerich de Vattel (April 25, 1714 - December 28, 1767). In it he discusses the natural born citizen.) ************************************************************************* (excerpt) The "country of the fathers" is "therefore that of the children"; and these become "true citizens" merely by their tacit consent. *******************************************************************
Are you saying that they know more about what was meant by the phrase in question than John Marshall, Joseph Story, Chief Justice Waite, Justice Livingston, St. George Tucker and Daniel Ramsay? I take it you would argue that their authority as to what was meant is greater than that of the individuals just named and the others of that day who were of the same opinion such as John Jay? I would respectfully disagree and find it arrogantly and unjustifiably presumptuous. I don’t think that you or such constitutional law professors are on an equal footing with any of those just named. I note that Professor Rice of Notre Dame agrees with me.
Below is link to de Vattel's Law of nations ************************************************* http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.birthers.org%2FUSC%2FVattel.html&rct=j&q=vattel's%20law%20of%20nations&ei=D2-7TaqzB4bGsAPb5tTSBQ&usg=AFQjCNG17tZoczORPtRng96wes_xNDRWbQ&sig2=jjVP3SE8lp8RZtCxlOTm1A
Michael Dukakis: qualified?
My pet turtle could draft a better thought out and documented decision than the majority in Wong Kim Ark.
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.