Posted on 06/01/2011 7:21:28 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
Christopher Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections, et al. - Combined Response w Exhibits to Barack Obama / John McCain Motion to Dismiss - Supreme Court of the State of New York Kings County
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
That’s the first I’ve read that McCain was not born in the Canal Zone. Is this true?
He was born in a public hospital in Colon, Panama.
But it doesn’t matter - the Canal Zone always was, and still is, Panamanian sovereign soil. We leased the Canal Zone and operated it administratively - we never owned it outright.
There have been many Freepers, born in the Canal Zone, who’ve posted here that they have always known that they are not eligible to be President. For the record, neither is John McCain.
Yes. Many naval bases were Spartan in Overseas sites. Conditions such as family care and child birth were handled at local hospitals. McCain was born outside the CZ in Panama.
Yes. Many naval bases were Spartan in Overseas sites. Conditions such as family care and child birth were handled at local hospitals. McCain was born outside the CZ in Panama.
Not settled law. Senate resolution 511 passed saying he was, including a joint legal opinion by Tribe and Olson. The Senate had no business passing such a resoultion, but McCain was nominated and on the ballot without a challenge from the Dems or the GOP.
The issue needs to go to SCOTUS for resolution. Anything else is mere speculation.
That’s why the Senate Judiciary Sub-committee did their little dog and pony show resulting in Senate Resolution 511 which is non-binding. The full Senate never voted on it and the House did not pursue a similar resolution as well.
Further there were multiple ballot challenges to McCain prior to the 2008 election including New Hampshire and California. Guess what, all the cases were dismissed due to LACK OF STANDING!
Senate resolution 511 was illegal and unconstitutional. I suggest you read the Constitution thoroughly. Screw Tribe and Olson - only God knows how much Soros paid them.
To alter the Constitution requires two-thirds of the States approval. It can take years to make changes or additions.
The fact remains that both McCain and Obama were on the ballot and Obama sits in the WH. That is an inescapable, undeniable fact. Anyone who says that this is settled law or that the Constitution is perfectly clear on the issue, so clear in fact that no one disputes it, is clearly living in a parallel universe.
It’s natural law. It doesn’t need any stinking statute or definition.
“A person born in a nation of citizen parents.” (Jus solis + jus sanguinis.)
It is natural law - period. Simple and logical.
Obama is ineligible and a usurper.
The only thing necessary to change the situation is peasants with torches and pitchforks to remove him.
Go ahead and organize it and see how many people join you. Talk is cheap.
You are confusing citizenship with an eligibility requirement for public office.
The USCIS recognizes exactly what you’re talking about.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD
Natural born citizenship is not mentioned - anywhere! - on the USCIS - Citizenship page. Why? Because it is NOT a type of citizenship!
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S.Constitution makes it very clear that one need only be a citizen - native born, derived citizenship, naturalized, it doesn’t matter which - to be either a Representative in the House, or a Senator.
To be President of the United States one must meet three eligibility requirements: natural born Citizen; 35 years of age; resided the last fourteen years inside the U.S.
One must be more than just a citizen to be President. One must be a natural born Citizen.
Are you still confused?
“Talk is cheap.”
That’s all you’ve got!
Those who are still confused are confused because they want to be.
You got that right!!
No, it is not as simple as that. It is jus sanguinis or jus solis. Birthright citizenship is the law of the land and children born abroad to American citizen (s) can automatically acquire US citizenship. I know that as a fact professionally and personally.
There is no argument that a person born to American parents abroad is a “US citizen”, but not a Natural Born Citizen which is a “sub-set”. Our Founders intended NBC for a reason.
SR 511 was also untruthful because it contained this little fib:
"[snip] Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
Here is what Tribe and Olson said. I know you think that they are tools of Soros, but they are considered Constitutional scholars. You can't easily discount their views, because they influenced the vote on Senate Resolution 511.
The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United Suites v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.
Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
I have read the opinions of other constitutional scholars who disagree with Tribe and Olson. But that doesn't resolve the issue one way or the other. We can't resolve it on this thread or in public discussions. It must go to SCOTUS. Everything else is speculation. It is not settled law.
Re citizenship: There are only two ways to acquire automatic citizenship--jus sanguinis or jus solis. Naturalization is the third way. The question is whether SCOTUS would consider the automatic ways of citizenship to equate to "natural born citizenship" under the Constitution or that there would be another class of citizenship beyond the other two. This would not affect residency or age requirements, which are a separate issue.
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.