Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Secret Agent Man
Problem is, it seems that in the past court rulings, ‘natural born’ has been decided to mean both parents are us citizens.

I got this from Wiki:

The term "natural born Citizen" has never been defined by the Courts in the course of a Presidential qualification challenge.

Who is right?

329 posted on 07/14/2009 7:40:23 AM PDT by John123 (Turn on your teleprompter Obama and read your lips... "No New Taxes!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: John123; Fred Hayek; LucyT
Problem is, it seems that in the past court rulings, ‘natural born’ has been decided to mean both parents are us citizens. I got this from Wiki: The term "natural born Citizen" has never been defined by the Courts in the course of a Presidential qualification challenge. Who is right?

John123 raises several questions some of which have been previously addressed.

As to this one, Wiki is correct. Although the issue has been discussed in professional periodicals and among the Constitutional bar on a number of occasions.

The term "natural born citizen" arises from an English Common law term "natural born subject" which is pretty clearly defined from a legal point of view as meaning a person who is born subject to the sovereignty of the ruler of the place where he was born.

Only change in the US Constitution was to substitute "citizen" for "subject" because we don't have subjects but only citizens. And done that way because the framer's thought we shouldn't have a chief executive who was subject to the ruler ship of some non-US sovereign.

Born in Keyna, Obama is subject to the sovereignty of Kenya at the time he was born (the English king I assume); born in Panama, McCain was in the same boat with respect to the government of Panama.

The issue has been discussed extensively in my own history at the time Goldwater was nominated. At the time, my sense of it was that the Constitutional lawyers I knew--the Con Law professors at my law school; etc.; thought that Goldwater probably qualified because Arizona was admitted to the Union after he was born there when it was a territory.

I have posted that several times but ran into a lawyer in DC several months ago who had seen that comment and knew I had posted it and who told me that the Dems were set to challenge Goldwater--there might have in fact been another sovereign (over the Arizona territory prior to statehood) and thus Goldwater wouldn't have passed either. That was abandoned when it was clear Goldwater didn't have any chance to win.

There is I believe, an issue as to who the President is if Obama is kicked out. No President is yet qualified for the current term. Joe acts until someone is qualified.

404 posted on 07/14/2009 11:02:43 AM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies ]

To: John123

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI


489 posted on 07/14/2009 1:43:05 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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