Posted on 08/07/2009 12:34:43 PM PDT by STARWISE
Nancy Salvato
Eligibility for POTUS interpreted by SCOTUS
US Schools require students to pass a Federal Constitution test before they graduate from the middle or senior grades. There are multiple opportunities to pass a test that asks students to memorize basic concepts, such as, how a bill becomes a law, the branches of government, checks and balances, and the requirements to hold office, yet, little in depth analysis about the philosophy and history that influenced the Framers is compulsory for students or teachers. Even more unlikely would be to expect them to consider the implications of subsequent legislation and landmark court cases on our interpretation of this document.
A civic-minded and responsible representative should provide constituents information about proposed bills and an analysis of how the legislation might impact the congressional district. Voters’ opinions about issues should be considered when voting on their behalf. In the real world, there is voter apathy, representatives without an understanding of the founding documents and who do not consider the consequences of ill-considered legislation, and special interests (factions) with unsurpassed influence in Congress. That said, many people would find themselves unable to explain the evolution of the phrase “natural born citizen” or understand or care why it matters.
According to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, no person except a “natural born citizen” (citizen at birth) shall be eligible to the office of President. Until 1866, the citizenship status of persons born in the United States was not defined in the Constitution or in any federal statute. However, under the common law rule of jus soli -- the law of the soil -- persons born in the United States generally acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.
Constitutional Convention
John M. Yinger, Trustee Professor of Public Administration and Economics, The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, and Associate Director for Metropolitan Studies Program and Director, Education Finance and Accountability Program, Center for Policy Research wrote:
The delegates at the Constitutional Convention were deeply concerned about foreign influence on the national government, and in particular on the President. .. they wanted the Legislature to select the President, and they tried to limit foreign influence on the President by devising time-of-citizenship requirements for members of the Legislature. Ultimately, however, the Convention decided that a President elected by the Legislature could not be insulated from foreign influence and it turned, instead, to the Electoral College.
In one sense, the switch to the Electoral College lowered the need for explicit presidential qualifications because it minimized the line of potential foreign influence running through the Legislature. In another sense, however, this switch broke the clear connection between the citizenship requirements of legislators and the selection of the President, and therefore boosted the symbolic importance of a citizenship requirement for the President. This change in context, along with the Convention's decision to make the President the commander-in-chief of the army, gave new weight to the arguments in Jay's letter, and in particular to the suggestion in that letter that the presidency be restricted to "natural born" citizens.
On March 25, 1800, [Charles] Pinckney made the only documented statement by one of the Founders connecting the Electoral College and the presidential eligibility clause. The Founders "knew well," he said that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible....
The Federalist Papers
The Federalist Papers (Oct 1787-May 1788) are 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. Professor Yinger explained that the main focus of essays 2-5, written by Jay, and titled “Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence" is on
the need for a strong central government to protect a nation from foreign military action, they also suggest that a strong central government can help protect a nation from "foreign influence." Concern about foreign influence also appears in essay number 20, written by Hamilton and Madison; essay number 43 by Madison; and essays number 66 and 75 by Hamilton. Moreover, the role of the presidential selection mechanism in limiting foreign influence is explicitly discussed by Hamilton in essay number 68.
Hamilton said:
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.
Rest here:
http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=26823
He is not one of US
Not by any means.
Not by any means at all.
I did read that because zero’s mom wasn’t actually married to zero’s dad because he was already married, zero couldn’t acquire British citizenship by default through his father. Lots of twisting technicalities here. I would just like some prominent person that is known and reliable verify that they’ve seen a real legitimate BC. Till then, I’ll always think it was possible his mom was in Kenya when he was born.
Glad we’re done parsing the Kenyan/Australian BC’s and back to the matter at hand. Let’s see those Hawaiian vital records!
There is absolutely no proof that Ms. Dunham and Mr. Obama went through a marriage ceremony. All we have is proof that they were divorced. That court did not receive any certificate of marriage from either of the litigants.
Ho-Hum. Just another little mystery.
“But let me take this chance to tell those of you who supported torture, unconstitutional wars and the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians – children, mothers, grandmothers – by the last administration – you don’t deserve the protections of our Constitution.”
- Fail.
The who last 1/3rd of this article fails.
There were a lot of people who didn’t like No Child left behind or the invasion of privacy of the Homeland Security Act.
The logic of this article fails on the whole “well you did it so, shut up and deal with it. Bend over and smile” fallacy of an argument.
ping for later
“But let me take this chance to tell those of you who supported torture, unconstitutional wars and the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians – children, mothers, grandmothers – by the last administration – you don’t deserve the protections of our Constitution. “
This guy is a total and complete left-wing idiot. I am sorry that I ever read his blog at all.
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
- Fail.
~~~
Right .. that was the ONE argument he posits
that I reject with every fiber of my being.
Leo’s got quite a bit of the free spirit/
getinthegroove musician/hippie in him,
coexisting at times with some noteworthy
Constitutional grasp on this one issue.
this is true..and Donofrio is either refusing to do even the most basic research..or maybe he did it and is refusing to acknowledge the issue...
Obamanazi was illegitmate unless Ann went to Kenya and had a customary marriage.
I thought cruel and unusual punishment applied only to citizens or those legally in the US?
I thought the cruel and unusual punishment clause applied only to citizens or those legally in the US?
“The Courts have taken other ideas into consideration when determining who qualifies as a “natural born citizen.””
Here is the statement from
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:”
Title 8 does not address natural born citizens. I will assume Ms. Salvato innocently made the inference, but, as has been stated in many places in supreme court decisions, a ‘citizen of the United States at birth’ is not necessarily a ‘natural born citizen’. Natural born citizens are a subset of citizens of the U.S. at birth, those whose parents are both citizens.
I will be heartened if I see that others have also noted this. Word and definitions mean something in the laws which are intended to protect our liberties.
Hmmm. OK. I read your post. I read my post that it was in response to. I re-read your post.
I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t have the faintest idea what you are talking about...
Thank you for catching that.
Donofrio has been pretty strict
about his interpretation.
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.