Skip to comments.
Are "anchor babies" eligible at 35 to be POTUS?
8/28/2009
| Kellynla
Posted on 08/28/2009 11:17:40 AM PDT by kellynla
Are "anchor babies" eligible at 35 to be POTUS?
TOPICS: Chit/Chat; History
KEYWORDS: anchorbabies; article2section1; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; citizenship; eligibility; ineligible; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; potus; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-97 next last
To: thecraw
EXACTLY!
61
posted on
08/28/2009 12:44:24 PM PDT
by
so_real
( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
To: Mr. Blonde
I understand no other country allows one to claim citizenship if born to an illegal immigrant. That part needs to be changed.
Μολὼν λάβε
62
posted on
08/28/2009 12:46:07 PM PDT
by
wastoute
(translation of tag "Come and get them (bastards)" or "come get some")
To: thecraw
Have you ever heard of ORIGINAL INTENT? Do you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers would in any way risk the election of a president of their new fledgling Republic who had dual allegiances and loyalties to England? A Revolution had just been won, and the King lost! Bottom line: I don't think so! Yaaawnnnn.... Take it up with the Constitution: the wording of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is quite clear on the matter.
63
posted on
08/28/2009 12:46:20 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: wastoute
It is high time that 14th A was changed. It was intended to prevent persons born in slavery from being denied citizenship. It has accomplished it's purpose long ago. It needs to be put out of our misery. Maybe so. But the 14th Amendment is the law today, and any changes made to it would have no effect on those alive and benefitting from it today.
64
posted on
08/28/2009 12:47:51 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: r9etb
Perhaps not ... but the 14th Amendment would to be the controlling Constitutional guide here: "All persons born in the United States ... are citizens."
You're missing the point entirely. The Constitution has a specific and unique citizenship requirement for President, unlike for ANY OTHER public office, and that is for a Natural Born Citizen - one who is born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. Citizens (even naturalized is OK for parents).
There is NO (ZERO, NONE!) mention or even any implication of Natural Born Citizen in the 14th Amendment. I challenge you to disprove this.
65
posted on
08/28/2009 12:58:06 PM PDT
by
thecraw
(Christian by choice, American by the grace of God. Oh yeah, a Birther too!)
To: r9etb
"Perhaps not ... but the 14th Amendment would to be the controlling Constitutional guide here: "All persons born in the United States ... are citizens." We are getting into a complex area in the study of Constitutional law called, Semantic Originalism or Semantic Intent.
I would agree that the 14th is informative on this topic, but it's not absolute. Why isn't it absolute? Because nowhere in the 14th Amendment is the phrase "natural born" found. We are talking about a question that has never been fully (or even partially) litigated - Does the Constitution provide for a separate class of citizen that is solely eligible for the office of President - a natural born citizen.
I think it does, but I could probably argue both sides with equal effectiveness. As a practical matter, however, it doesn't, as no court has signaled that it wishes to entertain such a question. And, SCOTUS - when denying cert in the Donofrio v. Wells case - is clearly stating that it has no appetite for such Constitutional question. So, as a matter of practical legal application, it's my belief that - as of today - anchor babies are eligible for the office of the President.
66
posted on
08/28/2009 1:01:17 PM PDT
by
OldDeckHand
(No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
To: r9etb
Yaaawnnnn.... Take it up with the Constitution: the wording of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is quite clear on the matter.
Obviously you don't want to be bothered with the truth. Facts are inconvenient little buggers aren't they?
67
posted on
08/28/2009 1:04:35 PM PDT
by
thecraw
(Christian by choice, American by the grace of God. Oh yeah, a Birther too!)
To: thecraw
You're missing the point entirely. Nope.
What's happening is that you're reading your own emotions into the rather clear wording of the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment.
There is NO (ZERO, NONE!) mention or even any implication of Natural Born Citizen in the 14th Amendment. I challenge you to disprove this.
The 14th Amendment says there are only two types of citizens: Those "born in the United States," and "naturalized" citizens. If you're a citizen and not naturalized, you're natural-born.
You can read US vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898) for the detailed discussion.
68
posted on
08/28/2009 1:11:16 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: OldDeckHand
Because nowhere in the 14th Amendment is the phrase "natural born" found. But "naturalized" is specifically mentioned.
In order to say that the 14th doesn't supply the necessary distinctions to define "natural-born", you'd have argue that there are more than two classes of US citizen (i.e., other than natural-born or naturalized).
Well...? Where in the Constitution might we find that? The clearest logic says that there are only two kinds of citizen.
Be that as it may, the very long discussion of the matter in Ark leaves little doubt that "born here" and "natural-born" have the same meaning, provided that the parents are residents ... even if they're not citizens.
69
posted on
08/28/2009 1:18:33 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: r9etb
The 14th Amendment says there are only two types of citizens: Those "born in the United States," and "naturalized" citizens. If you're a citizen and not naturalized, you're natural-born.
Check this post and look at #4 You can keep spinning this until you're blue in the face, but that won't change the Founding Father's ORIGINAL INTENT. Hussein is an usurper, unless he can produce a valid long form showing he was 1) Born on U.S. Soil and 2) Was fathered by a U.S. Citizen. Good luck...
70
posted on
08/28/2009 1:23:46 PM PDT
by
thecraw
(Christian by choice, American by the grace of God. Oh yeah, a Birther too!)
To: thecraw
You can keep spinning this until you're blue in the face, but that won't change the Founding Father's ORIGINAL INTENT. Letters written by the Founding Fathers do not have the force of law.
The 14th Amendment takes precendent, and it makes makes no such distinction.
You could certainly argue that the Constitution should be further amended to carefully restrict citizenship along the lines mentioned. But it currently does not do so.
The seminal USSC case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, addresses the matter in excruciating detail, and it would seem to agree with my take on it, rather than yours.
71
posted on
08/28/2009 1:30:08 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: kellynla
To: 12chachacha
Yea, well Congress is gonna have to address this issue...and sooner rather than later.
73
posted on
08/28/2009 1:48:21 PM PDT
by
kellynla
(Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
To: r9etb
Letters written by the Founding Fathers do not have the force of law. The 14th Amendment takes precendent, and it makes makes no such distinction.
The fact is, that a strict Constructionist SCOTUS primarily weighs the original intent of the Constitution's framers in deciding on Constitutionality. And you can keep beating the 14th Amendment argument of yours into the ground until the cows come home, but that doesn't change reality.
For the future, we need SCOTUS to rule on this to prevent you Obots from frothing at the mouth to protect your usurper. We can't have our laws disrespected any longer.
74
posted on
08/28/2009 1:58:56 PM PDT
by
thecraw
(Christian by choice, American by the grace of God. Oh yeah, a Birther too!)
To: thecraw
The fact is, that a strict Constructionist SCOTUS primarily weighs the original intent of the Constitution's framers in deciding on Constitutionality. You haven't read Ark, have you? Why don't you spend some time doing that, then c'mon back.
75
posted on
08/28/2009 2:03:19 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: r9etb
You haven't read Ark, have you? Why don't you spend some time doing that, then c'mon back.
I've read it. Have you? U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a Native Born citizen and not Natural Born. That would be an accurate ruling considering the fact that Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, CA to parents that were citizens of China. Natural Born was not specifically addressed in this case.
Since you're "obviously" a legal scholar and "no doubt" educated on SCOTUS rulings, I suggest you read Perkins vs. Elg, which actually DOES define and give examples of what a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. is, what a citizen of the U.S. is, and what a native born citizen of the U.S. is. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a Natural Born Citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of the Unites States.
76
posted on
08/28/2009 2:46:00 PM PDT
by
thecraw
(Christian by choice, American by the grace of God. Oh yeah, a Birther too!)
To: thecraw
I suggest you read Perkins vs. Elg, which actually DOES define and give examples of what a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. is, what a citizen of the U.S. is, and what a native born citizen of the U.S. is. No, it does not. Here is the link to Perkins v. Elg.
In fact, the ruling cites Ark, and in particular its analysis of "natural born," to declare that Miss Elg was a natural-born citizen of the United States by virtue of her being born here (in Brooklyn), her parents' citizenship notwithstanding.
77
posted on
08/28/2009 3:07:04 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: kellynla
To: kellynla; El Gato; Spaulding; BP2
HELL NO!!
Is this FreeRepublic? Reading this thread, I thought I was at DEMONCRAT Underpants. Staggers the imagination. El Gato, Spaulding, theCondat, BP2 and many others have written at length and persuasively on what it means to be a NBC.
The Logical analysis of a Natural Born Citizen
79
posted on
08/28/2009 3:29:31 PM PDT
by
Electric Graffiti
(Yonder stands your orphan with his gun)
To: B Knotts
Yes. Under the current interpretation of citizenship law, they are natural born citizens. There is no "current interpretation". At least not at the level of a Supreme Court case.
This should not be a surprise, the only time the distinction matters is eligibility to the office of President, under Article II Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution. Some courts have stated in dicta that a particular person was a "natural born citizen", but those cases provide no binding legal precidence. Mostly they have ruled that a person born in the US is a Citizen, regardless of parentage, unless the parents were representatives of a foreign government. However in one case often cited. "Elg" the Supreme Court did agree with a lower court which declared Miss Elg to be a natural born citizen. But in that case she was born in the US, of two natrualized US citizen parents of Swedish origin, who subsequently returend to Sweden, taking her with them. Thus it's not indicative if someone born in the US of a foreign national parent or parents is an NBC.
80
posted on
08/28/2009 3:36:45 PM PDT
by
El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-97 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson