Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: CanaGuy; Beckwith
"how was McCain eligible?

He wasn't and he isn't.

This issue has been beat to death over three years.

I'm still confused about Senate Resolution 511 - A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Was there something wrong with SR-511? If it used the argument of both parents being citizens to confirm him, wouldn't that precedent be useful in getting rid of Zero?

------------------------------------------------

Yes, there was something wrong with SR-511. It went only "part" way. It didn't deal with the born in the sovereign territory part. It "only" (but correctly in part) dealt with the two citizen parent portion.

It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790, when they (SR-511) said this: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".

The Naturalization Act of 1790 ((An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization)), in relevant part, reads: And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States

The 1790 Act was later repealed by the Act of 1795. Congress, through it's powers of naturalization, does not have the authority (outside being a part of an Amendment process) by themselves to declare who may or may not be a natural born citizen. It's partly why SR-511 is non-binding.

The Act of 1790 attempted to extend NBC status to children born to citizen parentS who were born outside the U.S. (so long as the father was at some time, a resident of the U.S.) The same thing SR-511 attempted to do.

NBC has always been about being born to 2 citizen parents IN the territory of the U.S.

Note: In the 1700's, a father who was temporarily visiting the U.S. on a student visa (if there were such a thing), would NOT have been considered a resident. They would have considered him a sojourner, as he had zero interest or intention in permanently residing in the country.

100 posted on 01/31/2011 2:11:51 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]


To: rxsid

A resolution has no force in law.

Not only did Obama sign the resolution, he was a “sponsor,” and why not? He knew the fix was in.

This “natural born” stuff is simple.

If it takes a law, a statute, or an amendment to make a person a citizen, that person is not a “natural born” citizen. They are a “statutory” citizen.

“Natural born” citizens, born in the USA of two American citizen parents are “naturally” citizens.

Persons, eligible for the Office of the President of the United States (POTUS), NEVER have first generation ties to a foreign nation, whereas ineligible persons always do.

ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with natural born citizens who have only American ties.


101 posted on 01/31/2011 2:56:00 PM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

To: rxsid

Thank you!


103 posted on 01/31/2011 4:47:31 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

To: rxsid
Thanks very much, rxsid. Fascinating.

It's ironic that Obama was a co-sponsor of SR-511, as was Hillary, that ultimately confirmed McCain. But at that time it was "pre-nominating-Convention" and being the only two real contenders, they were probably simply interested in knocking McCain out of the fray, rather than reading anything sinister into his sponsoring it...like changing the interpreted rules, etc. But, of course, I could be mistaken. Who knows what his intent was....to topple McCain, or steer it away from himself.

One thing is sure, it was pretty arrogant of him to stick his nose so close to the flame, knowing what we know now. Bold as brass, as they used to say; that or dumb luck.

Still, IMHO, they really did cut McCain a lot of slack on the issue. Not sure where to stand on it, because I can't help thinking now that his eligibility problem might have been the reason he backed off near the end of his campaign.

104 posted on 01/31/2011 4:52:47 PM PST by CanaGuy (Go Harper! We still love you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson