| Office | Citizenship |
|
Age | Residency (or years citizen) |
| Commander in Chief (1 of 1) | natural born Citizen |
|
35 | 14 years resident |
| Senator (1 of many) | Citizen |
|
30 | 9 years a Citizen |
| Represantative (1 of many) | Citizen |
|
25 | 7 years a Citizen |
"US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT."
Nice...thanks.
Now, if only it had legs...
Paging Jerome Corsi
Obama will just issue an executive order stating he is eligible to be president. No one will do anything about this.
Is anyone else wondering why it took so long for this precedent to surface?
I thought lawyers were more effective than taking 3 years to find a direct precedent.
What complaint/court filing has to happen to make sure this precedent is enforced?
Well. I guess that settles it. I guess Biden should go measure the White House for drapes.
Onlt 15 posts and there’s more Obot posts than FReepers.
sfl
The Dems are going to have to find a way to bail on the Dalai Bama. Maybe this will help.
Leo stopped playing poker long enough to do his homework at Freerepublic! ... A bit late to the party though.
Ping
Amazing article. Thanks for posting.
ARKENY V. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
The Minor case has been severely misconstrued in the Arkeny opinion issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court quoted Minor’s natural-born citizen language, then stated:
“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”
False. The Minor Court did not leave that question open. Nowhere in the Minor opinion does it state that the class of persons who are natural-born citizens is an open question. The Arkeny Court has it backwards.
The Supreme Court in Minor stated that the “citizenship” of persons who were not natural born citizens was an open question.
That is the most important sentence I’ve ever written at this blog. So please read it again. [edit: emphasis added] The “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was a question that the Minor Court avoided. But they avoided that question by directly construing Article 2 Section 1. In doing so, the Supreme Court in Minor defined the class of persons who were born in the US to citizen parents as “natural-born citizens”.
Since Minor, no Amendment has been adopted which changes that definition, and no other Supreme Court case has directly construed Article 2 Section 1. ”.
A closer reading of Minor and Happersett ... Donofrio is correct. The Supreme Court cites "some authorities" (Commie Fogblowers of the time) that a class of persons born in the jurisdiction are NBC, but not them, and they do construe in their opinion the natural born citizen clause in the US Constitution in deciding Minor as a citizen. We missed this for years...
- - - - - - - - - - -
From MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)
"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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their
Page 88 U. S. 168
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
-end snip-
Just because it was in a Naturalization Act doesn't mean it requires an act of naturalization. Jeez, this guy stoops to Clintonesque levels of obfuscation.
I’m not sure why Donofrio is patting himself on the back over this. I’ve been citing the Minor decision and its definition of NBC for months, as well as the affirmation of that decision in Wong Kim Ark that the Minor decision recognized citizenship on the combined basis of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. What this doesn’t do, however, is buy anyone “legal standing.”
bookmark
Apart from this, the fact remains that we need a public procedure and process for challenge and remedy on the issue of a person’s constitutional eligibility to serve as POTUS.
It’s appalling that after the debacle this issue has become in these years, that Legislatures are simply willing to lope into the future, courting the same madness, which otherwise can be rather simply avoided.
If one state would pass an eligibility statute, the matter can be litigated and settled. There is no downside to this.
The fact that states now seem disinclined to pursue such a reasonable course lends credence to the criticism that the “birther” issue was only about “getting” Obama. It was not. It was, for many, simply about vouchsafing the Constitutional standard by enacting a public procedure and process that addressed the modern circumstance of complicated parentage and birthplace questions.
You betcha! It’s been there all along.
The mind, it is boggled.