Posted on 08/01/2009 12:58:37 PM PDT by Askwhy5times
Do you support original intent, or do you support the various attempts to remove the requirement, and open the Presidency to naturalized citizens?"
The ambiguity of the natural-born citizenship clause stems (at least in part) from the passage and incorporation of the 14th Amendment and the fact the 14th doesn't specifically use that phrase "natural-born". This ambiguity has never been litigated, narrowed or clarified, form what I can tell, nor does that phrase "natural-born" appear in any other statute or judicial ruling or finding.
The Constitution's Article 2 is fairly clear, IMO. And, I believe that the founder's intent is easily discernible as to what constitutes a natural-born citizen. In my opinion, the Constitution and the relevant laws of the land require that to be eligible for the Presidency, you must be born to TWO American citizens, not necessarily on American soil, however. I don't believe, based on the intent of the framers, that Obama qualifies, even if he was born in the US. But, that's an opinion. Unfortunately, no court has decided that it wants to hear the case on the merits, and until they do, it's all just speculation, conjecture and opinion.
I would add, and this is probably where we differ the most, that if (for discussion purposes only) Obama's father was actually a US citizen, and after his death Barack himself was adopted by another man while still a minor, and that a foreign country would consequently bestow or confer citizenship because of that adoption, it would have no relevance or bearing on Obama's eligibility for President. American courts don't hold children responsible for the actions of their parents, nor do they hold children capable of entering into legally binding agreements until after their 18, or after they've been legally emancipated minors.
As I said in an earlier post to someone else, until this central issue is addressed by a court and upheld by the Supremes, it will continue to be a contentious issue.
As for your last question, I would not support amending the Constitution to allow for naturalized citizens to hold the office of President or Vice-President.
So his maternal grandfather, a witness, is not talking.
Too bad for you, it is a fact. Reading your posts on numerous threads regarding this issue I'm left with the conclusion that there's a LOT you don't know, you just THINK you do.
Here's the facts:
1. My daughter is CURRENTLY (not 30 years ago), currently, as in 2009, employed by the U.S. State Department as is her husband. Their current post is in a U.S. embassy overseas .
2. Said above daughter is currently pregnant, due in the Fall.
3. Said above daughter WAS IN FACT advised and encouraged to return home to the states to give birth -- at issue the 'natural born' requirements of citizenship versus just 'citizenship'. There is a difference. While her child if born overseas would have been a U.S. citizen per state department procedures and protecol as posted over and over - there would be lingering doubt as to the child attaining 'natural born' status -- thus she (my daughter) was encouraged to return home so there would be NO DOUBT. In her particular foreign post she was given a choice. Other posts the choice is not given - they HAVE TO return home -- depends on the post and the quality of hospital and medical care available.
4. Not only was above said daughter ADVISED to return home -- the U.S. State Department (translation: YOUR tax dollars) PAYS for her to stay at a local hotel for a total of 90 days. 45 days pre-birth and 45 days post-birth while VISA, passport, medical clearance is finished for the newborn.
Any more questions?
Read my my post #83 You are wrong. Probably because you didn't actually work for the State Department.
I have numerous replies on FR, pointing out the contortion and misapplication of the 14th in matters upon which it cannot legally be brought to bear, due to Constitutional enumeration of powers. The author of the 14th, Bingham, stated in no uncertain terms that natural-born citizenship is transmitted by two citizen parents, to individuals born on US soil. The phrase "natural-born citizen" does not appear in any other statute because it literally cannot be conferred by statute.
I would add, and this is probably where we differ the most, that if (for discussion purposes only) Obama's father was actually a US citizen, and after his death Barack himself was adopted by another man while still a minor, and that a foreign country would consequently bestow or confer citizenship because of that adoption, it would have no relevance or bearing on Obama's eligibility for President.
You've misunderstood the intent behind my comments to this thread, regarding dual citizenship. Natural-born citizenship is a status that either is, or is not, present at birth. Short of Obama reouncing citizenship of his own volition, there is nothing that could confer that status upon him or take it away, after he came into this world. However, his being born a British citizen and subject by his own admission, governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948, created a dual citizen status that does effectively remove the possibility of Obama having been, as a state of nature, born a citizen without a doubt. So, he's not now and never has been eligible for the office of President.
Thanks. Hope it didn’t bother you, my pinging you to this thread.
Actually the constitution mentions FIVE classes of citizen. More Here
You seem to be confusing 'natural born' with 'native' born or just plan 'born citizen'.
For your scenario to be accurate the following scenario applies:
2 Pakistani muslems - a man and his pregnant wife with terrorist connections come to the U.S. so that the wife may give birth to a U.S. citizen. Following the birth the couple returns to Pakistan to raise the child into a jihadist terrorist supporting anti-american madrassa. At adulthood the 'manchurian' adult U.S. citizen returns to the U.S., goes to school, and lives in the U.S. for a period of time designated by the constitution then at age 35 runs for President as a 'natural born' citizen. Goal? To undermine the U.S. from WITHIN.
Do you honestly believe our Founding Fathers WERE THAT STUPID?!?!?!??!
No problem. Happy to oblige. :)
It does concur with my opinion. Nice try at deflection, but you’re still going to have to explain why my daughter was advised to return home so that there would be NO DOUBT as to her child’s ‘natural born’ status later in life, or why they are PAYING for her room and board here stateside for the next 90 days.
I am surprised by the number of people who cite Vattel as the be all and end all of the NBC debate. From readings on the Constitution, I understand that the Framers more often relied on the Magna Carta, Locke, and British common law.
According to the Indonesian Law in effect at the time, even had Obama been adopted he could not have been a citizen.
According to Article 2, Section 1 an adopted child becomes a citizen automatically only if he is under age 5. After that he or she has to wait until they are 18 to apply for naturalization. Obama moved to Indonesia in 1967 when he was 5 or 6. Link
He appears to have registered under the name Barry Soetoro.
How do they know that?
If 'b' then, according to INA § 349, 8 USC § 1481, Obama isn't even an American citizen, let-alone "natural-born."
Except that he would have to inform the U.S. authorities of that. Which would leave a paper trail.
If Obama was adopted in Hawaii by by Lolo Soeroto, it could explain why he won't release his original birth record.
As an Indonesian citizen, Soetoro could not adopt Obama in a U.S. court. The adoption, if it happened at all, would have had to be done in an Indonesian court.
I am at the same time a Natural Born Citizen and a Dual Citizen.
Thank you. So there are no witnesses at this point. Hmm ...
Or, his passport information
Great post. Brilliantly illustrated.
Re: Maternal grandmother
“died while his campaign was underway”
On election night.
Are there any hospital records or other people who would have seen or visited her in the last two years of her life to confirm this?
Pix of her in the last 10 years?
In any of my readings I've never read anything that said the parents of the President had to be citizens too. Never. Until a certain man was running for President. There are lots of old law books out there, some of them you can download from Google, law books from before the 1920’s. I've not found one to support the “parents must be citizens” concept. It's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Federalist Papers. Maybe there's some old law book that has this doctrine in it. If someone found it I could stop believing that this doctrine is an Internet hoax, the result of the desire to exclude a certain person from the Presidency on the part of many well-meaning but wrong fellow citizens.
I wish this doctrine were true and we could get rid of a certain individual as President. I also wish that I had a billion dollars and my own mansion on my own private island in the Caribbean.
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.