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
you project sir.....
i’ll take supreme court justices over people with a conflict of interest, any day of the week.
keep pimpin there, skippy
but they haven’t ruled with you betty
Whatever. You are SHOUTING and making emotional appeals because you support a particular candidate, I am thinking like an attorney. When I draft appellate briefs I make arguments based on the law and legal possibilities, which is precisely what I have done herein. I am thinking not about the election next year, but about the larger picture and the future. I am concerned about setting precedents we will regret. I think the matter has to be thoroughly considered from all sides.
I can’t speak for you, but I would many conservatives who accept your understanding of natural born citizen today would have a wholly different opinion if the Dems charismatic media-backed candidate was born in Mexico to a Russian father who had been a CPSU member in the USSR.
that’s twice now you’ve used homosexual references towards me. are you trying to determine my sexuality in order to ask me on a date? are the truck stops and rest areas not working out for you? getting turned down by lot lizards? that’s just so sad.
and yes, the three incidents in which natural born citizen were referred by supreme court justices, it was in reference to being born on the soil and having two citizen parents.
Loser.
Here’s the law of the land. There has never been a court ruling or an act of Congress that separates a Citizen of the United States At Birth from a natural born citizen.
The first President who was a natural born citizen was Martin Van Buren, the 8th President. All the presidents before Van Buren were born as British subjects.
8 USC 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/III/I/1401
I'm sure Orly Taitz would be glad to jump in and give her a hand.
“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.”
The first 10 words support your position.
natural born citizen and citizen, as relates to ascending the presidency, are NOT equivalent.
The Founders were not ones to waste or use unnecessary words - if their intent was no distinction, they would not have used different words to describe an equivalent position.
Taitz will just mess it up.
All the challengers should have stuck to challenging 0 on the “35 years old” rule, and not gotten entangled in the question of ‘whats a natural born citizen’.
One needs a valid birth cert to prove AGE.
Choose the battles wisely...
In 2012 the state of Hawai’i issued three Certified Letters of Verification for Obama’s birth certificate: one for Arizona’s Secretary of State Ken Bennett; one for Kansas’ Secretary of State Kris Kobach and one for U.S. District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate of the Southern District of Mississippi.
http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
Can you define the word “natural”? Does it mean anything at all? Or is it just there to take up space?
“DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE: IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their DIFFERENT MEANINGS, AND Authorized by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose Works they are found.“ Samuel Johnson, 1768
NATIVE a. [nativus, Latin; nation, Fr] 1. Produced by nature; not artificial. Davies. 2. Natural ; such as is according to nature. Swift. 3. Conferred by birth. Denham. 4. Pertaining to the time or place of birth. Shak. 5. Original. Milton.
NATIVE.s 1.One born in any place; original inhabitant Bacon. 2. Offspring.
NA’TURAL. a. [naturel. Fr.] 1. Produced or effected by nature. Wìlkins, 2. Illegitimate. Temple. 3. Bestowed by nature. Swift. 4. Not forced ; not farfetched; dictated by nature. Wetton. 5. Tender; affectionate by nature Shakesp. 6. Unaffected; according to birth and locality. Addison. 7. Opposed to violent: as, a natural death
NA’TURAL. f. |from nature.] 1. An idiot; a fool. Shakesp. Licke. 2. Native; original inhabitant; Raleigh. 3. Gift of nature; nature; quality. Wotten.
Not under the laws in place at the time.
Yes but not eligible to run for president unless he's also over 35 and had lived in the U.S. for the 14 years prior to his election.
Let’s say mama and papa immigrate to the US from Cuba, naturalize as Americans and have a son in Florida. When he turns 15 years old the whole family returns to Cuba where they stay for the next 20 years. The son comes back to the US and runs for President.
Is he a natural born citizen?
When did Rubio, Cruz and Jindal become “declared Presidential candidates?”
I wasn’t aware that anyone at all was yet ‘declared?’
Non sequitor.
Under that scenario, son can run for POTUS when he’s 50.
In 1916, the Republican Party nominated Charles Evans Hughes to be their presidential candidate and to run against Woodrow Wilson.
In California, the results were Wilson 466,289 (46.65%) and Hughes 462,516 (46.27%).
In New Hampshire, the results were Wilson 43,781 (49.12%) and Hughes 43,725 (49.06%) out of 89,000 votes cast
So a change of 3800 votes out of the 1 million cast in California and 60 votes out of the 90,000 cast in New Hampshire would have made Charles Evans Hughes the President of the United States.
Charles Evans Hughes was born in New York state in 1862 to a British subject father and an American citizen mother. His father David C. Hughes became a naturalized US citizen in 1864.
Are you assuming the 14 year residence requirement must be the years immediately before running for President?
IIRC, Herbert Hoover didn’t qualify in that case.
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.