Posted on 07/29/2009 10:45:18 PM PDT by American Dream 246
So now the government is saying, "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
This is IN-SANE!
What? I missed this one. Got a link?
“If he was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born citizen.”
Not if his dad wasn’t a U.S. Citizen... no matter how many time you say it.
They could declare, also, that he does not have any accent.
While you can find no documented evidence whatsoever to make your case, I will post actual American Laws regarding who is an American citizen at birth.
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Since laws can't change the definition, you need to look in supreme court cases to learn the definition. The clearest definition was provided by the author of the decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall, in The Venus. I'll provide the quote. I'll leave it to you to check that ‘native’ and ‘indigene’ are synonymous with natural born citizen. Remember, laws cannot change provisions of the constitution. Here is the court's re-statement of the term-of-art ‘natural born citizen’:
As this question is not only decisive of many claims now depending before this Court, but is also of vast importance to our merchants generally, I may be excused for stating at some length the reasons on which my opinion is founded.
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
You provided definitions of citizenship by law, not citizenship by nature, or natural born citizenship. If you get wrapped up in the term, read one of the English translations of Vattel on line, Chapter XIX. The translators provide provide natural born citizen, as do later USSC cases.
You can quote Vattel all you want but the writing of an 18th century Swiss philosopher had no bearing on American laws.
And you can quote Marbury too but it does not address the NBC question.
Now find a real law that defines NBC.
“Who is a natural-born citizen? “
That was a long and wasted post.
A NBC is one who is born of citizen parents.
Period. That’s it.
Where does it say that? His father was British.
Its called CYA and try to “Make it all go away!”
Its sad, nothing is going to alleviate the issue until the Documents are released or Obama resigns.
55 members of the house were not present and I believe that the issue was a non binding one.
““citizens of the United States at birth:””
Citizens at birth ARE NOT NBC’s if they are not born of citizen parents.
Citizens at birth and NBC’s are NOT the same thing.. and I think you know that.
Kawham!
Oh now is this an example of misrepresenting something in the press? No, say it isn’t so!?!!!
Period. That’s it.
Well apparently you know more about the law and Constitution than Chief Justice John Roberts who voluntarily delivered the Oath of Office to Obama.
And for some reason, you are still not able to cite any law that defines NBC as you say it is.
I meant to say blogger in there as well!
Yes it was non binding but 155 Republican House Members lined up to voice their opinion that Obama was born in Hawaii.
And not one single Republican voted against the Resolution.
If the answer is that clear, why is it that Dick Cheney stood before the Congress and certified the election?
Why is it that Chief Justice Roberts voluntarily delivered the Oath of Office to Obama?
Why is it that not one Republican Governor, Senator or House Member has states that Obama cannot be a Natural Born Citizen because his father was a Kenyan?
This just shows that something is really wrong. Me thinks they protest too much and too strangely.
....and what evidence did they see that could lead them to this conclusion even if this flight of fancy was legal, which, of course, it is not?
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.