Posted on 03/21/2013 4:37:24 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is at the center of the latest "birther" conspiracy. But he's not the first to face this line of questioning.
A handful of politicians have been targeted in the last few years with the same accusation -- that they are not fit for the Presidency because they do not meet the constitutionally-mandated eligibility requirement of being a "natural-born" U.S. citizen.
Confusion around who qualifies as a "natural born" citizen has contributed to the debate, as the Constitution does not explicitly define the phrase. Some incorrectly presume it only includes people born within the boundaries of the United States. In fact, by U.S. citizenship law you can be American "at birth" or a "natural born citizen" under a few circumstances that don't involve being born on the mainland. For example, if you're born on a U.S. military base abroad, like in Panama, that counts. You are still categorized as being American "at birth" if one or both of your parents are U.S. citizens and fit a list of long and complicated requirements that arebroken down here.
Check out our list of politicians who have battled "birther" claims.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
The Constitution didn’t define many of the words and terms used, it’s not a glossary.
People at the time understood what the term “Natural Born Citizen” meant.
I'm so sorry. That reply should have gone to "SvenMagnussen", not to "sten".
To iterate:
Rubio and Jindal are NOT Natural Born Citizens because their parents, at the time of their births, had citizenship in countries other than the USA: and therefore those children born to citizens of those other countries have potential claims to those other countries for citizenship.
A Natural Born Citizen, born in the country to two parents who are themselves citizens, have no divided allegiance. They have no potential claim to citizenship in any other country, neither by blood (through either parent), nor by soil (of any other country).
Rubio’s parents were not naturalized until after he was born. He is not a NBC. Probably someone pointed that out to you already though.
To happily quote my FReind Highball;
The Constitution makes no distinction between natural born citizens and citizens at birth. They are one and the same. That means, until Congress passes a law to the contrary, that all children born to United States citizens abroad, or born in the United States regardless of parentage (except those born to diplomats or invading armies in wartime) are United States citizens.
The Constitution says what it says. Birthers like to pretend otherwise in hope of some political advantage that we couldn’t get at the ballot box, which is anathema to conservatism.
Those of us who truly love the Constitution have to respect it even it doesn’t say what we wish it did.
You have repeated this assertion for some time now yet never offer anything to support the assertion.
If it is true then you are obligated to report the facts to a court or to law enforcement. If you continue to conceal the facts while claiming that you have them and fail to report those facts then you may be liable to charges of Misprision of Felony 18 USC § 4.
Thank you, you beat me to it ;)
X-spurt you state “The Constitution makes no distinction between natural born citizens and citizens at birth. They are one and the same.”
If that is true then why does Article 2 Section 1 make the distinction of having two types of Citizen in it?
‘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;...’
“A Natural Born Citizen, born in the country to two parents who are themselves citizens, have no divided allegiance. They have no potential claim to citizenship in any other country, neither by blood (through either parent), nor by soil (of any other country).”
Thank you, meadsjn. SCOTUS seems to think the definition of natural born citizen has not been completely defined, nor do they think Congress is Constitutionally eligible to define natural born citizen. Email your final draft to SCOTUS immediately.
Finally! I’m sure SCOTUS and the rest of America will be in your debt, now and forever.
“If it is true then you are obligated to report the facts to a court or to law enforcement. If you continue to conceal the facts while claiming that you have them and fail to report those facts then you may be liable to charges of Misprision of Felony 18 USC § 4.”
I’m obligated to report a Misprision of Felony to the U.S. Attorney? Am I not entitled to exercise my Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. When was the Fifth Amendment repealed? Will I be required to testify against myself?
Shouldn’t YOU report your knowledge of a crime committed by a third party to the U.S. Attorney or F.B.I.?
You are required to report the felony, or you are liable for charges of misprision. There is no self-incrimination, you did not commit the felony, but you claim knowledge of it.
What evidence do you have that “Obama” was naturalized in 1983?
then they should OFFICIALLY SUBMIT it along with a statement signed by 0bama attesting that it is his official birth certificate
they should also OFFICIALLY SUBMIT the letter from Onaka
once that is done... even ONCE... we can proceed to criminal charges against both, as the document is an obvious forgery (you will not get perfect black pixels from a scanner)
Where’s the proof I haven’t reported it the U.S. Attorney?
Threatening someone with felony charges if they don’t committ a specific act over the internet is a crime isn’t it? If you don’t report yourself to the U.S. Attorney, then you will be charged with Misprision of Felony.
Don’t be ridiculous. I haven’t threatened you. I pointed out to you that you may be liable to charges of misprision. It is a friendly comment to you that you shouldn’t make repeated public claims of knowledge of a felony.
You intimate that you have reported your evidence to a US Attorney. Perhaps you have, perhaps you haven’t. If you have, has the Atny taken any action or made any report to you?
Have you supplied to a US Atny an affidavit attesting that you have seen Obama’s Certificate of Loss of Nationality?
I’ll report your threats to the U.S. Attorney and let the U.S. Attorney decide if you should be charged with a crime. Is that fair? Will you acknowledge the U.S. Attorney should decide if charges should be filed?
Go ahead, make an ass of yourself. It’s entertaining.
Stop digging! You threatened me on a message board if I don’t committ a specific act and now you’re calling me names.
I will strongly encourage the U.S. Attorney to make an example out of you. Making threats and calling individuals profane names is not a position of strenght.
Post 85 Ray76 to SvenMagnussen:
I have personal knowledge Obama naturalized in 1983.
You have repeated this assertion for some time now yet never offer anything to support the assertion.
If it is true then you are obligated to report the facts to a court or to law enforcement. If you continue to conceal the facts while claiming that you have them and fail to report those facts then you may be liable to charges of Misprision of Felony 18 USC § 4.
Hardly a threat. More like a friendly comment
Sven........answer his question, why won’t you sign an affidavit attesting that you have seen Obama’s Certificate of Loss of Nationality?
Tim Adams submitted a affidavit attesting to what he knew. I am sure Lt. Mike Zullo would appreciate it as well as tens of millions of Americans who want this Constitutional eligibility crisis ended.
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.