Posted on 09/21/2010 8:59:08 AM PDT by wintertime
Mr. Limbaugh,
You have FAILED to defend the Constitution in the important matter of Obama's very questionable natural born status! On those rare occasions that you have mentioned the topic ( less than 5 total minutes) you have treated it like a joke. I am mystified that you have done this.
The only consequence, Mr. Limbaugh, for directing attention to Obama's eligibility as a natural born citizen would have been a little ridicule from the mainstream Marxist media. If you fail to defend the Constitution in time of relative peace and security, only a FOOL would expect you to defend the Constitution in the face of real tyranny, tanks in the streets, and cattle cars filled to the brim? Only a fool would expect you to do what is right and brave.
Personally, I will never fully trust you and your opinions again. Some things are deal breakers. That you have failed to cover the important question of having a constitutionally eligible president is a deal breaker for me.
By the way, LTC Lakin is facing court martial for having dared Obama to prove his natural born citizenship. LTC Lakin is brave and honorable man. Hopefully, you, Mr. Limbaugh, you will have one thousandth of the courage of this military officer, and you will do what is right. You will give LTC Lakin the generous time on your program that his legal case deserves.
Mr. Limbaugh, that little itty bitty phrase in the Constitution about having a natural born citizen for a president is **not** a JOKE!
Respectfully,
Wintertime
I am more that disappointed. I hold them in CONTEMPT! I am DISGUSTED with Limbaugh and the rest.
The bottom line is that if 0 is unqualified to be POTUS then the disaster that he has created in our country has been totally unnecessary and avoidable.
Absolutely! Much of the financial pain that millions are suffering could have been avoided. By refusing to address Obama's eligibility, these so-called "conservative" yappers have contributed to this suffering.
Simply calling it a minor detail is cowardly.
Exactly! When did our Constitution and having a eligible president become "trivial"? Yet...Rush Limbaugh treats it like a joke.
So when and for what reason has he taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A citizen does not need to have been a member of the military to speak out in defense of the Constitution.
With regard to having a natural born citizen for a president, Rush Limbaugh has utterly failed to do that.
But...Doesn't Rush Limbaugh pride himself on being able to make the complex simple and easy to understand. Hm?...I will help Rush:
Fact: It is a very very very simple and easy thing to prove one’s natural born citizenship.
Fact: Obama has gone to very very very considerable effort and expense ( private and tax paid) to avoid proving his natural born citizenship.
Fact: A REAL, natural born, American president would be **HONORED** to promptly prove that he was eligible. A REAL, natural born, American president would never let this issue get so far as having a decorated military officer court martialed.
Yep! For me it is a deal breaker. The Constitution and having a natural born citizen as president is a deal breaker.
It was from what I’ve read during a debate between Alan Keyes and 0thugga when they were running for Senator. It was in between the official debate times.
Keyes apparently said something about 0thugga not being a natural born citizen even and 0thugga said “I’m not running for President so it doesn’t matter”.
A few people heard it on CNN but no one that I have read on FR has found the tape of it.
Mutual assure destruction! Think about this.
What happens if, before the election, it was revealed that Obama was not natural born? Answer: He would say he was sorry and gone back to his day job.
What happens if all the dirt on the Clintons were revealed? Answer: Prison!
So?...Who had the most to lose?
It appears many people do not get Rush when he is totally honest about his show when he says “Monday through Thursday, I talk about what interests ME.” He talks about the things that are interesting to him,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well?....I would think a patriot would be interested in having a constitutionally eligible president? That Rush is not interested says plenty about his core values.
I suggest that you check out the Yuri Besmenov tapes on You Tube. Then get back to me and tell me if I am being “melodramtic”,
I absolutely agree!
But...Rush Limbaugh falls into a different category than “queer, steer, or both”. Hm?...I call him a “yapper”.
“The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” That principle being the English law that would provide for Kim Wong Ark to be a “natural born subject”.
Nowhere in US case law or precedent is there this THIRD type of citizenship. What are you calling this third type of citizenship that is neither natural born or naturalized, and where do you find reference to it in US law?
Those who dismiss this issue so cavalierly as being trivial or minor should view the Yuri Besmenov You Tube videos.
Yes, the Liberals and Marxists invented mocking stupidity.
Anyone who mocks stupidity learned it from them, or Alinsky.
Surely mocking stupidity is a new thing in the world.
My record stands for all to see, and all are free to judge between you and me.
Those are good facts, but you still have to give some background on the Constitution and what it means to be a natural born citizen. I don’t think this would make for very compelling radio.
Well?...Just like the race card is maxed out, so it the “Nut and Slut” card!
You never know what peoples motives are; some are malicious and some are just lazy. When someone makes an allegation which seems inconsistent with Vattel's definition "born on the soil of citizen parents," assume they are confused, or wish to confuse. Trolls have used up the easy obfusactations. For the claim by allmendream one need only look at the statement of the Wong Kim decision:
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.Wong Kim Ark, one of the most confusing decisions, some say intentionally since its author Horace Gray, was appointed the other ineligible White House resident, Chester Arthur. Gray threw in irrelevant comments such as his opionion about English common law, distinctly at odds with a predecessor, Justice James Wilson, among many others, but finally arrived at the only decision about Wong Kim which wouldn't have altered he 14th Amendment, Wong Kim was a "citizen". Gray even clarified that native born and natural born citizens are distinct categories.
Just for completeness, here is the less concise, but carefully considered restatement of the definition of natural born citizen by Congressman, former judge, AG prosecutor of Lincoln's assassins, John Bingham, as he presented his case for the 14th Amendment, of which he was the principal author, to the House in 1866: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ”
You can assume that the citizenship of Wilson's mother is also misdirection; see if you can figure out why?
One interesting aspect of Wilson's elections was his Republican opponent, Charles Evans Hughes. Hughes (thanks Sharon Rondeau of Post&Email) was former governor of New York and supreme court justice. His parents were British Citizen when he was born. Missouri Attorney, later to hold several offices in the FDR administration, wrote an opinion published in the nations largest law journal explaining the history and meaning of natural born citizenship, and explaining why Hughes could not have taken office had he prevailed. IS MR. CHARLES EVANS HUGHES A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION?:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within
It seems certain that Long would have challenged Hughes, and almost certain that he would have prevailed.
In similar fashion Professor Gabriel Chin wrote a similarly titled paper, "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1157621
Had McCain prevailed in 2008 Hillary would be president, because Professor Chin's was one of dozens of analysis, and three law suits, contesting McCain's eligibility. For the time being we are not Marshall's "government of laws and not men."
Here is the difficulty with your argument. We are talking about someone becoming the chief executive of the United States not becoming the Sovereign of England. The pool of people eligible to become the Sovereign of England is extremely small and highly protected. The pool of people that can become President of the United States is much larger but it is protected in the same way by limiting it to natural born citizens because it definitely would not create a royalty class.
This is to protect it from foreign influence and to ensure loyalty to the United States. Check out the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
A) I don't recall any specific part of the decision saying WKA would be a natural born subject. I think you're connecting dots that were never connected. B) "Just as much" does not equal the same. Again, this is a matter of connect the dots, which were specifically separated by proving a doubt-free defintion of natural born citizen. What you quote acknolwedges this distinction.
Nowhere in US case law or precedent is there this THIRD type of citizenship.
Minor was clear. They said that natural born citizen is defined outside the Constitution. "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, ... " This is noteworthy because this comment is made well AFTER the 14th amendment was ratified, the point being that the court is specifically acknowledging that the 14th amendment does NOT define nor redefine natural born citizenship. Nothing in WKA disputes this interpretation. When they talk about the nomenclature of which the framers were familiar, they proceed to cite the definition given by Vattel, all children born to parents who are citizens. It's not so much a 'third type' of citizenship, but the only type of natural citizenship. The other types of citizenship are statutory. The court says in WKA that the 14th amendment "contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization." This doesn't mean there are only two types of citizenship, just that the 14th amendment only pertains to two types of citizenship. By citing Minor, WKA is agreeing that natural born citizenship is outside of the Constitution and not contemplated by the 14th amendment (which is part of the Constitution).
One is either a natural born citizen, a naturalized citizen or a generic “citizen” then, or is it “native born” citizen?
US law contemplates two, and only two, ways of becoming a US citizen. To me it makes sense that the two ways go nicely with the two types of citizenship - natural born or naturalized. I have yet to see any direct reference to a third type of citizenship and the definition that would make it distinct from either natural born or naturalized.
I await clarification upon this. Anyone got a US law outlining a third type of citizenship?
If you want to be technical, natural born citizenship would be a subset of citizenship at birth. Not all types of citizenship at birth = natural born citizen, since there are several types of statutory citizenship that don’t qualify as natural born and that don’t meet the 14th amendment requirements.
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.