"I believe Senator Obama to be three-fifths eligible to serve as President..."
Posted on 01/01/2009 3:39:54 PM PST by Jack Black
I’m not a lawyer [I don’t even play one on TV.], but this looks like a good synopsis to me. Good work!
"I believe Senator Obama to be three-fifths eligible to serve as President..."
One practical problem for any of the "Three Type" advocates is that there are no other places in US Law where this distinction is made. Thus, in a real sense, advocates of these "Natural Born" definitions are asking POTUS to define this for the first time in the context of the Obama election. This seems unlikely from a pragmatic point of view.
Others disputed that McCain was born on a base, saying the hospital was in the CZ, but not on the base. Others felt like the entire Canal Zone, in the period in question would qualify as US Territory.
As he didn't win we never had to argue about it too much.
YES! Thanks!! Good catch.
A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
U.S. Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs
Documentation of United States Citizens Born Abroad Who Acquire Citizenship At Birth
The birth of a child abroad to U.S. citizen parent(s) should be reported as soon as possible to the nearest American consular office for the purpose of establishing an official record of the child’s claim to U.S. citizenship at birth. The official record is in the form of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America. This document, referred to as the Consular Report of Birth or FS-240, is considered a basic United States citizenship document. An original FS-240 is furnished to the parent(s) at the time the registration is approved.
REPORTING THE BIRTH
A Consular Report of Birth can be prepared only at an American consular office overseas while the child is under the age of 18. Usually, in order to establish the child’s citizenship under the appropriate provisions of U.S. law, the following documents must be submitted:
(1) an official record of the child’s foreign birth;
(2) evidence of the parent(s)’ U.S. citizenship (e.g., a certified birth certificate, current U.S. passport, or Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship);
(3) evidence of the parents’ marriage, if applicable; and
(4) affidavits of parent(s)’ residence and physical presence in the United States.
In certain cases, it may be necessary to submit additional documents, including affidavits of paternity and support, divorce decrees from prior marriages, or medical reports of blood compatibility. All evidentiary documents should be certified as true copies of the originals by the registrar of the office wherein each document was issued. A service fee of $65 is prescribed under the provisions of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 22.1, item 9, for a Consular Report of Birth.
ATTABOY
Boots
ping
Basically I spent way too much time on this and so am shamelessly plugging it.
I thought it might add some clarity to the ongoing debates discussions. I think it is clear that many of us have different opinions on these things.
bump dat
BOGUS POTUS Alert !!
Good Job Jack...... :o)
Even if he’s sworn in he’ll always be just a Precedent vs a President to me .
Stay safe !
A few questions about this:
1) Do the founders sight this in The Federalist Papers or The Anti-Federalist Papers. I don’t recall hearing about it.
2)It seems to give strength to both NB1 (father citizenship is key, born on US soil required) and NB3 (both parents citizenship required, born on US soil) which position are you advancing? Why?
It seems to be NB3. The case that the SC declined to hear was based on the NB1 argument. Given that NB3 is even a stricter interpretation I rate chances that SC will agree to hear such a challenge as ‘vanishingly low’.
3)Are you aware of this text being sighted in any other Supreme Court rulings?
4)Why do you feel that this one fairly obscure reference trumps all other interpretations?
>>>Do the founders sight this in The Federalist Papers or The Anti-Federalist Papers.
The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel was found in the Federalists papers.
>>>both parents citizenship required, born on US soil
I am advancing both parents because that is how the Constitution was intended and my links states why.
>>>Are you aware of this text being sighted in any other Supreme Court rulings?
Yes. Google searches on Law of Nations pulls many court cases. Supreme too.
>>>Why do you feel that this one fairly obscure reference trumps all other interpretations?
I don’t feel it is obscure. If you read my link about the Law of Nations, I wrote why. I also contributed to the video.
If true diligence had been shown we would not have been saddled with either of those two phonies.
BTTT
I agree! Closed primaries would have eliminated one for sure!
What would happen if Obama gets sworn in, and a year later there is proof beyond a doubt that he is constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS?
I can’t believe that I even ask that question. In any normal situation this should never have been brought up. What is so incredible is that no one in government is even curious about Obama’s identity.
To me it is proof that government is no longer on the side of the American people and that it has taken a path incompatible with their welfare.
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.
