Posted on 04/08/2010 6:51:45 PM PDT by STARWISE
The US Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark stated:
###
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens…”
Since Obama doesn’t fit that definition, he is not eligible to be President despite his place of birth.
From now on, refer to this pending Constitutional showdown as “NBC-gate”.
I am not a birther. Call me naive, but I believe Obama was born in Hawaii and is a US citizen. But he’s not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article 2, Section 1. The Constitution does not use the words, “native born citizen”. That is a fiction.
A “natural born Citizen” is born without allegiance to a foreign nation.
Obama was born a British citizen and subject as he readily admits. This means he was born with dual citizenship and therefore dual allegiance. He’s not eligible to be Commander In Chief for this reason alone.
Public awareness is finally starting to take root.
“Nbc-gate” must have its day in court.
Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
Sharon Rondeau at The Post & Email highlights a very important historical analysis of the natural born citizen clause with regard to former Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes:
During his presidential campaign, Hughes’s eligibility for the presidency was questioned because his father remained a British citizen. Breckenridge Long, an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR, examined the issue in an article entitled “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ within the Meaning of the Constitution?”
Published in the “Chicago Legal News,” Vol. 146, p. 220 in 1916, the article begins:
Whether Mr. Hughes is, or is not, a “natural born” citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, so as to make him eligible, or ineligible, to assume the office of President, presents an interesting inquiry.
He was born in this country and is beyond question “native born.” But is there not a distinction “native born” and “natural born”? At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England. His father had not then been naturalized.
Long goes on to make the case that Hughes was not a natural born citizen.
Furthermore, the Long article fails to mention former President Chester Arthur. Had Long knew Chester Arthur had also been born to a British subject father, then Long would have been forced to discuss that fact. But he didn’t.
The general public didn’t know Chester Arthur’s father was a British subject when Chester was born until December 2008 when that fact was first published right here.
And so, NBC-gate widens on a daily basis.
~~PING!
Is that right.
And qualify as a natural born citizen under
Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution,
eligible to be president of the USA ?
He hasn’t proven he was born in this country yet and his refusal to prove it proves he wasn’t.
Thanks for the ping. The links were pretty interesting too:
http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
This link you provided says nothing about ‘natural born’ citizen. That is what the whole argument is about. Obama does not qualify for POTUS because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’. Besides, Obama was not born out of wedlock.
Welcome, Pen.
That's what that passage says.
My son "acquired" U.S. citizenship via naturalization, but that doesn't mean he is eligible to become President.
The issue here is not about "acquiring" citizenship, it's about being a "natural-born citizen" and thus being eligible to become President.
Please only post relevant materials.
save
The establishment acts upon and believes that he was born here of parents, one who was not a citizen of the USA. If he was born here what do you think that he is so desperate to hide?
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.