Posted on 10/24/2011 10:02:42 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
Which is an exploration of fantasy, rather than a search for the truth. That there is little basis for anything else in the historical record seems pretty clear to me.
But again, since it is a standard Acknowledged by the Supreme Court, why should we wish to use a weaker one?
Or that the president have lived his entire life in the United States, rather than just 14 years (something you came close to saying yourself, if I remember correctly)?
The 14 year requirement was to bridge the time period between the age of 21 and 35. I said that it would be better for a President to have spent his entire life in this country, but most especially his early formative years. I grew up speaking the "pledge of allegiance" every day in school. I don't think they did much of that in Indonesia... well at least not pledging allegiance to THIS country anyway.
The point being that we clearly use other than the strictest imaginable standard. So strictness per se isn't really an argument for the standard under discussion.
We do not "clearly use other than the strictest imaginable standard." We have always used the same standard before, but we never had cause for it to be questioned till we had a candidate that doesn't meet it. The last time we had a candidate which would have tested the standard was 1916, and he lost. (possibly due to the fact that Breckenridge Long's essay ended up in so many newspapers and thereby instructed the public. )
It is my contention that a standard that creates "anchor babies" and "foreign presidents" is a seriously flawed standard that only a fool would embrace. Especially in light of the fact that there is so little support for it in our history.
We also have Minor VS Happerset’s definition, requiring parent citizens. This also predates Donofrio.
John Jay eviscerates your first points, excluding foreigners from the presidency by using the NBC term.
What Natural-Born Citizen president would appoint an alien to the Supreme court? (Other than Obama ... I could see him appointing his cousin in Kenya.) If being born on US soil is the only qualification for natural born citizen and thus the presidency, then current US citizenship is not required to acquire the presidency. We have people born here who then return to their parents country and take on inherited foreign citizenship from their parents, as minors, and then continue as such as adults. Though they never exercise any US citizen rights, they are qualified to be president under the “Born In the USA” definition. Obamas Indonesian citizenship as a child , and possibly as an adult, do not disqualify him under this definition. The Constitution effectively bypassed.
This is what we have. It matters not how we got here. We now effectively bypass the founders intent of the constitution. We live with the results: A man in the white house who legitimately calls Kenya his home country. Who involves himself in their elections. Who has provided AlQaida with SAM's from Libya so that he could brag about liberating an African country the next time he's back home in Kenya, while showing off his latest Aids test results to his fellow countryman.
Regardless, we all can see the results are a threat to all US citizens.
Ah... yep!
Heyah El Sordo! We have to get somewhere with educating people. GOP’ers are talking about noninating Rubio and or Jindal to VEEP or later as POTUS. Neither are Natural Born Citizens just like Obama. They aren’t qualified either. And yes, I will campaign against another such instance of constitutionally unqualified candidates as POTUS regardless of party. The constitution is more important.
Hope you are enjoying the day! It sure started out cold, but it is beautiful now!!
Yep. All of us collaborators with Obama.
Must give you a lot of hope to have a few dozen bloggers, a Democrat lawyer, a dentist, various conspiracy theorists and the occasional Canadian in your camp, eh?
Oh yes, indeed. I expect the conspiracy to come crashing down.
Any day now.
Yessiree.
You can control the databases searched on either one. It can be narrow or large.
Most of the information on Lexis or Westlaw is available free, easily assessable.
Some information on Lexis or Westlaw is free. Agreed. But most? No. Particularly if that information is legal in nature. For example, if you can point me to up-to-date, free Matthew Bender materials on the Internet, I'm all ears.
I believe they are both total ripoffs.
Unquestionably.
BTW, I do hours of legal research every day.
If I were the client, I would question the quality.
I've stated before that my own opinion is that the ‘two-parent citizen’ requirement is what I personally think should be a requirement for NBC status. But I do not think that there is legal support for it. And what I've seen offered hasn't changed this outlook.
I don't doubt that some of the founders held the position of requiring citizen parents, but it seems that others did not and there was no clear consensus from them on this matter.
Another issue that I don't think I've ever brought up is the American tendency to look upon an individual in light of what they have made of themselves. Arguments to the nature of an individual’s parentage don't seem to resonate well among most Americans. As a consequence of this I find that I am a much stronger proponent of making the President's actions clear. That is what will really hurt him.
Regardless...
I will bet money that should Rubio or Jindal ever win the election and attain the Presidency there will be an NBC movement on the left that insists an NBC must have at least one citizen parent.
The clear weather is quite nice. I hope to escape to the outdoors for a walk later.
The law is for lawyers. If the electorate wants to make a political issue out of this and vote out Obama, that's fine. Let it do so. But let's not pretend that there are comptent legal experts barking about this issue. The bloggers' position is a political one, not a legal one.
As far as the legal decisions, they've been made. They've ruled in favor of Obama. Heck, there is even a case from 2009 in which this Minor case was argued--and the case was dismissed then, too.
Tell me why did the NY BOE change their requirement from Natural Born Citizen to Born a Citizen? Another mistake, this time not involving Justia?
Why do I care what is on the NY BOE website?
Again, thanks for pointing out such a clear resource.
You are welcome, you stated my case very well. NBC=Allegiance-Parents USC's, no tonk babies.
The foreign national man who was a Federal park guide was very kind to explain to me that Washington's slaves were kept in the hot attic of his headquarters. He did not seem to know much about the Revolution aside from that. That was one of the only things he seemed to know. (I guess when he retires at age 40, he can spit on Washington's face every month when he gets his checks cashed from his federal pension for sitting on his butt.)
I left the Headquarters of the Slave Master at Valley Forge and saw the guard shacks for Washingtons personal guards. A sign there stated that they had to be native Americans. I found out later that there was a plot by Washington's guards to kill him, and it was hatched by an Irish man who was a guard. I think he was hung in New York. After that event, the Slave Master from Virginia was very cautious with foreign born people with guns. So on my visit to Mt. Vernon, aside from learning that our Founder was viewed by some foreigners as a low life Slave Master scum, he thought some foreigners were low life scum that would try to kill him and his new country. In a word, Ironic.
...Why do I care what is on the NY BOE website?....
If you don’t know, there is nothing I can do to help you understand, you are either ignorant or just being a distraction. Apparently from what I can tell so far, you don’t care about much of anything besides your ego and your self. If you are an attorney I would question the lack of quality of your work.
regards
rs
Maybe we shouldn't. Discussion on these forums has never been about whether we should or shouldn't use certain eligibility standards.
Where did you get that silly notion? It is obviously not you and the entire Republican Party, it is some, mostly the establishment types who don't want the boat rocked anyway. Most Republicans *I* know believe as I do.
every single one of the Conservative think tanks,
A nonsensical statement as you have doubtlessly not polled all of them, and likely as not have not polled any of them.
every Judge in the American legal system.
And what is your irrational basis for making such a claim?
Not to mention every single GOP Governor,
Bobby Jindal said he would sign a "birth certificate" bill.
Sec. of State,
Now you are just throwing out titles.
mainstream Conservative commentator
Yeah? Well i've already pointed out how both George Will AND Ann Coulter agree with the argument but not the conclusions. :)
and publication, FOX news along with former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney.
And you have just made one massive "argumentum ad populum" which educated and logical people know to be a fallacy.
After such a logical no-no, Why should I take you seriously?
Yep. All of us collaborators with Obama
Well, if you cite "ignoring something" as equivalent to "collaboration" then the entire population collaborates on lots of stuff, but that's where you and the entire population differ. You don't ignore stuff, you do everything in your willfull little power to obfuscate and interfere with a correct understanding of the truth regarding "natural citizens" and "unnatural citizens" such as Obama. We find you in here all the time NOT IGNORING stuff.
No, it is YOU and YOUR ILK who are Helping to justify the perception of legitimacy for that bastard (literally) Un-American Con Man who pretends to be President. *YOU*, are carrying water for the VICHY regime. Not the public, not the judges, not the commentators, not elected officials, it is YOU et al who serves the roles of the little Brown Shirts and propagandists!
Must give you a lot of hope to have a few dozen bloggers, a Democrat lawyer, a dentist, various conspiracy theorists and the occasional Canadian in your camp, eh?
When facts are decided by consensus, you will have a point. I am of the philosophy that facts are immutable, and if the whole world should say something is one way, and it is not, then the whole world will be wrong. I do not need to cower behind a herd, that is for people like you.
Oh yes, indeed. I expect the conspiracy to come crashing down.
Well, I expect morons to eventually have a head on collision with reality, (which in your case I don't think you will survive) but I don't know anything of any conspiracy other than a conspiracy of ignorance. You, et al are the leadership of it.
Any day now.
Naw, stupidity is forever.
Yessiree.
Indeed it is. :)
Well, good luck with that.
The aura of respectability affects politics. Had the courts proclaimed him ineligible, he would have garnered few votes. Had the courts proclaim Abortion as within the purview of the state, it would have remain illegal in many.
As far as the legal decisions, they've been made. They've ruled in favor of Obama. Heck, there is even a case from 2009 in which this Minor case was argued--and the case was dismissed then, too.
They have cowered and hid; Not an examination of the truth, a flight from it. Given their fears and resulting actions, I doubt they would be objective in light of a real examination.
Why do I care what is on the NY BOE website?
Because it is evidence against your position.
I know the Heritage Foundation doesn't agree with you. I'm still waiting for a birther to step up and inform them of the egregious errors in their Heritage Guide to the Constitution.
We haven't heard anything from the Arizona Sheriff, but his posse may yet declare the BC the fraud that it is and refuse to allow him on their ballot. This may crack it wide open.
No you can control the database from narrow to very narrow. The information that they search is a fly speck compared to the information Google searches.
Some information on Lexis or Westlaw is free. Agreed. But most? No. Particularly if that information is legal in nature.
Lexis and westlaw have primarily legal cases and statutes. All legal cases and all statutes are available free on the Internet and are easily accessable. Google is often actually faster. For example, all I have to do to pull up Minnesota Statute 609.25 in Google is search MN 609.25. The statute is the top entry. Both Lexis and Westlaw have more steps to get the statute.
For example, if you can point me to up-to-date, free Matthew Bender materials on the Internet, I'm all ears.
Matthew Bender? I haven't seen one of their books since law school. I guess some states use their forms, but forms are easily found on Google, free of charge.
If I really wanted to have a legal research engine, that I had to pay for, I think I would use Thelaw.net, accurate and way cheaper than Lexis and Westlaw. As for me, Lexis is provided by my employer so I use it. I previously had Westlaw and I used that. I still find about half my useful legal information with Google.
Minor v Happersett does define Natural Born Citizen in its holding that it takes a child born in the United States to parents who are its citizens. Case after case supports this, including one “In Re Lockwood” which states that the only time it matters is in the case of establishing eligiblity to the Presidency. All the cases which support Minor, and build on its decisions got wiped out during the election cycle leaving people with precisely the impression you have.
Not to mention the bloody birth certificate... that thing is STILL confused up with the Minor v Happersett issue. The two are totally different. The COLB is a smokescreen, the Minor case is LAW.
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.