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
He was a natural born citizen when he was born. What happens for the next 30 years doesn’t change that.
I wasn’t commenting on Churchill’s eligibility - I was simply saying he would have been a better President than most that we have had. It’s called making a point, not a literal legal case.
As for his loyalties? He was more pro American than many Americans are today.
so you know the Founder’s intent? How old are you? Do you know them personally? What info do you have that no other legal scholar has????
Do tell. Enlighten up please, and simply “your interpretation” will not suffice.
Exactly, but if we accept the arguments some are making, Churchill would have been eligible. I believe he was precisely the kind of person the Founders intended to exclude. It would have been unthinkable to them to allow someone with potential loyalty to Britain to become POTUS.
According to the law, Pedro is a natural born citizen. That law needs to be changed, but it is the current law.
would you like to bet your net worth that in the end, you are going to LOSE this argument?
I’d love to take that bet....
Doesn’t need to be changed....nobody with that history would ever win. That’s an absurd analogy upon which to base this case.
maybe that’s because back then, Britain was OUR ENEMY??????
analogy fail
their intent was discussed in the federalist papers. it’s not a secret.
you may claim ignorance, but that’s your limitation... not mine.
I don’t think anchor babies should be natural born citizens. That should change in my book. Agree that Pedro has no chance of winning.
Incorrect. The founders wanted to bar an immigrant from becoming president. Nobody says only being a citizen is enough. An immigrant can be a citizen. Hence they chose "natural born citizen", which is simply someone born into citizenship, not someone who has been naturalized.
"BOTH parents AND born on the soil is required... as a child born this way could only be a US citizen."
False. A child born in the US is automatically a citizen. Parentage is irrelevant.
"remember: a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... AS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES"
Why should anyone "remember" something that is made up?
If he was born a citizen and retained that citizenship, then he would have been eligible. The constitution says nothing about "divided loyalties".
Let’s see....you or Mark Levin? I’ll take Mark.
You or Ann Coulter? I’ll take Ann.
You or Cruz himself? I’ll take Cruz.
sorry, what you claim is settled is NOT - and larger minds disagree with you, period, end of discussion, game set match....thanks for playing, drive safely.
Churchill really?
Argumentum ad absurdum.......give it a rest.
incorrect.
according to the law, pedro would have been born a US and mexican citizen (assuming both parents were mexican in your example), but he would not be a natural born citizen of either country.
the VAST majority of Americans are natural born citizens and the complexities of the issue escapes them, as they can only be US citizens. but, to those of us born here with a foreign citizen parent (scottish in my case), we understand it quite well.
you see, i can hold two passports legally... US and British... as i am a US citizen and british by descent, just like 0bama. i am NOT a natural born citizen of either country and therefore would be ineligible for POTUS (liberals can breathe a sigh of relief ;)
I love and admire Churchill. I’ve read any number of books about his life and I have his entire A History of the English-Speaking Peoples and most of his series on WWII. But what I think of him as a human being is irrelevant. I used him because of his unique bio and I am sure you recognize that. I don’t care if he would have been a good president, preserving original intent is more important.
still, argumentum ad absurdum.
The NBC clause is not the only bar to clear - the Founders also wanted the electorate to be smart enough to see through anyone who would have divided loyalties.
to be honest, i think they’re both trolling
.
Now you know all you need to know about “C. Edmund Wright.”
.
really?
*looks at barak hussein 0bama*
*looks at muslim brotherhood*
*looks at irans centrifuges*
*remembers the ottoman empire that only ended in 1926*
huh... yea.
pretty sure we should have stuck with the Constitution and ignored the flapping pie holes of those pushing citizens == nbc
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.