Posted on 08/25/2009 6:30:47 PM PDT by kellynla
Despite the mainstream news media's silence regarding this matter, an increasing number of Americans are concerned that Barack Obama might not be eligible, under the Constitution, to serve as President.
According to the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless he or she is a "natural born citizen" of the United States.
Among members of Congress and the mainstream news media, the consensus of opinion is that anyone born in the United States is a "natural born citizen". However, when we researched this issue a bit more carefully, we found that the consensus opinion is not consistent with American history.
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt. So far, the Supreme Court has not resolved this doubt because, until now, there has never been any need to do so.
With only two exceptions, every American President, who was born after 1787, was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. When Chester Arthur ran for office, the public did not know about his eligibility problem. Only recently did historians learn that, when Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at antimullah.com ...
Although the constitution does not define “natural born” citizen, my guess is the framers meant any one born as a citizen versus a naturalized citizen.
Any child born of US citizen parents serving military duty overseas is natural born since he/she is citizen at birth.
Obama does not qualify since his mother was not living in US for stipulated number of years as an adult at the time of Zero’s birth, and father was not a US Citizen.
Fortunately, we have scholarship to rely upon in understanding the intentions of the Framers, rather than your guesswork.
The rest of your post is as ignorant as the beginning. Obama's mother's age is completely irrelevant as long as he was born inside the territorial limits of the United States, so far not shown.
You REALLY ought to read the linked article to find out the facts before dumping in a public place.
What on Earth leads you that that bizarre conclusion? The Supremes do have a history of actually reading and applying the Constitution, after all, and they ARE sworn to do so.
Arguendo, they have also just made things up. I would hope for a Constitutional ruling in this case rather than another brain fart a al Roe v. Wade.
Once again, unless John McCain was born between 179 and 1795, the period of time the law you quote was in effect, it is NOT RELEVANT, as it is not the law today.
Not only that, it NEVER was a constitutional law, and that is why it was repealed. The Constitution CANNOT be amended by statute.
I bet there is a consensus, just not on the question, "Who does?"
One function of a standing requirement is to limit the sheer number of cases eligible for adjudication, and on that basis, I think you'll find the 'experts' to be in complete agreement. In other words, not every citizen, not every resident, not even every voter will be found to have standing.
On the substantive point, put me in with the group that finds Congress derelict for not even getting to the question. I do not believe that a dual citizen at birth is eligible under the Constitution.
I don’t think this controversy would have arisen if Obama weren’t dismantling our United States brick by brick.
Keep Repeating: WHY. DID. Arthur. KEEP. IT. SECRET..?,
if Obots use CA as reason to admit O, then that train of thought de-rails because CA knew he was ineligible.
Keep Repeating: WHY. DID. Arthur. KEEP. IT. SECRET..?,
if Obots use CA as reason to admit O, then that train of thought de-rails because CA knew he was ineligible but "we" did not know.
Sorta self-incriminating ;)
I have read the entire US Constitution, and no where is “natural born” defined. So your guess is as good as mine.
Your so called “scholarship” can only guess what it is.
As for Obama’s mothers age, there have been numerous posts here on FR explaining why that is pertinent. It has something to do with years resident in US as an adult.
You really ought not to depend on some article as 100% correct no matter how scholarly written.
As for Obama, my money is on him remaining in power for his full term. I am not happy about it but, it is what it is.
Like Roe v Wade? The Constitution itself does not define "natural born citizen" so that allows a lot of latitude in how the SC might interpret this if they even took the issue. Not to mention the politics that comes into play regarding a sitting President's qualifications. The court is split down the middle so I don't have much faith in them on this issue. Like I said it was an opinion. You have yours as well. We'll probably never know because I don't think they will ever rule on this matter.
Did you read my entire post?
There are literally HUNDREDS of word in the Constitution that are not defined there. It is a Constitution, not a dictionary, after all. The fact is, however, that words do have meaning, and we don’t need your uninformed guesswork to help us understand them. Because I have actually done the research, and you have not, your “guess” is not as good as mine.
As far as your other factually erroneous beliefs, please don’t insult the rest of us by puffing up with self-righteousness. Spend some time connecting your brain with books, then come back.
Your research sounds like elitist bloviating from an ivory tower. If you are so smart how come I am 10 times richer than you? You may not know why, but I do. It is because I have better grasp of the real world. All your research is as hollow as Obama’s brain.
“Just an opi[ni]on but I think Supremes would rule that a natural born citizen is anyone born here regardless of their parents.” {PT}
“What on Earth leads you that that bizarre conclusion? The Supremes do have a history of actually reading and applying the Constitution, after all, and they ARE sworn to do so. {JV}
********************
SCOTUS declined to hear Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases, in essence upholding the (by practice) precedent that “natural-born” = “citizen at birth”. The 10th Circuit just did the same in upholding the dismissal of Craig’s lawsuit.
They added that nobody has the right to have his definition of “natural-born” enshrined by the courts. Meaning you’ll have to look elsewhere.
Thanks for posting that info. Not directing this to you but it seems like an odd response. The Constitution uses the term and it seems that somehow our government should have an official definition of the term and what it means.
“They added that nobody has the right to have his definition of “natural-born” enshrined by the courts. Meaning you’ll have to look elsewhere.” {RB}
Thanks for posting that info. Not directing this to you but it seems like an odd response. The Constitution uses the term and it seems that somehow our government should have an official definition of the term and what it means.” {PT}
***************
What it means is that they’re not going to hear any lawsuits based upon defining the term NBC, but will defer to Congress, if it desires to pass a law defining NBC. Congress, natch, won’t ever do it, so if it’s that important to anyone, they’ll have to do it by an amendment to COTUS. For now, by actual practice, NBC=citizen by birth.
Ah, so that’s Axelgreasy’s latest talking point? Thanks
““it would have to be another legitimate candidate of the same election””
Indeed, McCain would definitely have had standing ... but I don’t think we’ll see him say a word against The One. I first had my doubts about McCain when he defended 0bama as “a decent man”, but swallowed my doubts and voted for him anyway.
Since his complete silence and compliance with 0bama’s subversion of the constitution I’m beginning to wish I’d cast my vote elsewhere, for anybody other than this traitor.
At the time of the drafting and ratification of the United States constitution, the definition of natural born citizen, combined both principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis.
“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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Emmerich Vattel, Law of Nations, § 212. Of the citizens and natives
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.