Posted on 02/05/2015 6:37:16 AM PST by wtd
Washington D.C. (MMD Newswire) February 4, 2015 – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was ineligible conceding that point was now moot. Instead, Mrs. Fair raised the question of the eligibility of declared Presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and Governor Bobby Jindal. In particular, Mrs. Fair argued that unresolved is whether or not these three are in fact "natural born Citizens".
Mrs. Fair said: "Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to parents who were not United States citizens at the time of their respective births. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents only one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen. Under the law existing at the time of their birth, each became a 'citizen' of the United States at birth. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal by the 14th Amendment, Ted Cruz by statute."
As most all know, under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution: "No person except a natural born Citizen . . ., shall be eligible to the Office of President." Mrs. Fair continued: "That phrase 'natural born Citizen' has yet to be defined by the Supreme Court. So are they "natural born Citizens" eligible to be President? I think the People deserve to know the answer to that question before the next Presidential Campaign starts in earnest."
Mrs. Fair, who has shepherded her case through the complexities of the legal system by herself to the Supreme Court concluded: "My efforts were never about Mr. Obama as a person or a politician. Instead, my efforts were about insuring that the Constitution was respected and enforced by those charged with those duties. Where a phrase in the Constitution - such as 'natural born Citizen' - is undefined, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret such a phrase. As the Supreme Court itself said in the 1922 case of Fairchild v. Hughes, I have: 'the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law.' By repeatedly refusing to 'say what the law is' regarding 'natural born Citizen', the Supreme Court would abolish the rule of law and replace it with the rule of their whim and caprice to whatever political ends that super-legislature may possess."
See a copy of the petition here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/254604115/Fair-v-Obama-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari
See the Supreme Court Docket for Case No 14-933 here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-933.htm
For More Information Contact: TRACY A. FAIR: (410-552-5907) OR TRACYSPLACE2002@VERIZON.NET
According to many then yes he is. According to many just being a citizen makes you(or me or anyone else) eligible. The question is, to me, why would the founders differentiate “natural born” from ordinary citizen?
Apparently many think there is no difference. A whole lot of folks a whole lot more scholarly than me have made arguments over the last several years as to what constitutes “natural born”. You know what they are so I won’t repeat them. It’s my belief that there is a difference in being natural born and just being a citizen. Common sense has to play a part here somewhere.
To change the subject, just a little. In a Obama eligibility thread I shared that I was adopted. I was informed that I would not be eligible(doggone it!). Where did that come from?
To be honest, I’ve never seen anyone equate natural born citizen with just citizen. I have seen this before:
Citizen = Natural born and naturalized citizens
so today
Senator or Representative = Natural born and naturalized
President/Vice President = Natural born
Clinton was adopted so that by itself is not a hindrance.
like 0bama, he was british by descent and a US citizen.
but, he was not a natural born citizen as he had more then one choice.
if being just a citizen was enough, the founders would not have made the distinction. indeed, they wouldn’t have mentioned the reason for the difference in the federalist papers.
i cannot find any reference to citizenship conveyance upon birth by one US citizen parent while outside the US in 1874. therefore i cannot confirm nor refute your statement.
“they wouldn’t have mentioned the reason for the difference in the federalist papers.”
Which Federalist paper?
None of the Founding Fathers were natural born citizens. They were all born as British subjects, hence the grandfather clause in Article II, Section 1.
Martin Van Buren in 1837 was the first president who qualified as a natural born citizen.
They should defer to Brian Williams. After all, he was a Signatory on the United States Constitution after his Victory over the British Army.
"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
'at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution' refers to 'or a Citizen of the United States' and covers the founders at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
as all such persons are no longer alive, A2S1 could be rewritten without changing effect as:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Have you seen his wife, Morgan Fairchild? What a babe!
The only standing they now recognize is: BOHICA.
“I bet the left can find someone even worse than Obama.”
They already are pushing Bitch Clinton.
The meaning of the word natural is not in dispute.
No, nobody is saying just being a citizen makes one eligible. The "natural born" requirement eliminates naturalized citizens. People that were born elsewhere and were not citizens by birth, but immigrated and became citizens. They are citizens too, but are not "natural born" so aren't eligible.
Well that’s good. It seemed like you were one of those morons who thought “natural born citizen” meant the same thing as “born citizen.” Can you believe these cranks that thing the word “natural” doesn’t mean anything?
It certainly doesn’t mean what you want it to mean. The use of the word “natural” in “natural born citizen” says nothing at all about parents.
The term “natural born citizen” is just a reflection of the common usage of “natural born subject” in English law. They simply took that phrase, substituting “citizen” for “subject”. And a “natural born subject” was indeed anyone born within the kingdom, regardless of parentage. That’s how it was understood, and what the founders would have meant.
Such a declaration would certainly be a slander upon the Founding Fathers. To imply that Washington and Jay would be so stupid is outrageous.
You are being absurd. The phrase “natural born citizen” has a meaning, which is closely tied to the phrase “natural born subject”. If you disagree, or have some semantic point to make, make it.
You can’t pick a word and insert whatever meaning you want into it. “Natural” does not mean “two citizen parents”.
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Supreme Court ruled:
[An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
The Wong court also said:
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
and
“…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
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.