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

To: Mr Rogers
Like I said interpretation of a statute for one purpose does not mean the Constitution would be interpreted the same way for Presidential eligibility. It is absurd to believe even a liberal Supreme Court would allow offspring of an illegal alien or person/persons not owing permanent allegiance to the US to be eligible to be President of the United States. If that is the case we have lost the Nation to idiots or mental defectives. What other countries allow such a thing, name them.

From the US State Department

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... 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 U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 81 the United States.‖

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

60 posted on 10/23/2011 7:43:54 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]


To: rolling_stone

Barry wasn’t born to illegals. His mother was born & raised here, and his father here with the permission of the US government - “in amity”, as the WKA decision discussed it.

WKA is not a binding decision, since the formal ruling did not use the definition of NBC. However, as dicta, it has held sway for over 100 years, and the Supreme Court has refused to take any birther cases challenging the dicta in WKA.

Birthers can complain about it, but if all 50 states, all 535 members of Congress and all the courts in the USA disagree with their legal ideas, then their legal ideas just don’t count for much.

In the end, the Declaration of Independence describes it well:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

The consent of the governed. That would include the majority that voted for Obama, the 50 of 50 states that allowed him on the ballot (and still do), the 535 of 535 members of Congress and every court without exception.

Obama will be removed at the ballot box, not by the Supreme Court throwing him out. I wish the birthers could figure that out, and channel efforts where there might be something to show for it.


61 posted on 10/23/2011 7:56:09 PM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | 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