What if "Birthers" were "Age-ers"?

The Post & Email ^ | February 19, 2010 | Sally Vendée

[danamco]

Here are two lame duck media Gurus who don’t do their job of investigating!

If we have had honest Woodwards/Bernsteins snoopers out there, Barry would have been marched out of office faster than Nixon!!

There is a huge difference in standard of journalism when comes to DemocRATS vs. Republicans!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlEUMjowLDE&feature=related

[Non-Sequitur]

Your little problem is that THEY can't!!!

Neither can you.

[danamco]

Neither can you.

Can what, what is your point???

Don't forget your pill box, because you are slurring today!!!

[El Gato]

Imagine if the President were to sign a bill passed only by the House, but not by the Senate, maybe it got 45 votes in th Senate or something.

I ask those who say "Ony Impeachement can Remove a Sitting President": Would that bill be a law? After all the President signed it into law, just as "Obama was sworn in".

[El Gato]

Yet there is no legislation or Supreme Court decision that makes your statement true.

Of course there isn't. Legislation cannot (re)define the terms of the Constitution. The only situation where the Supreme Court would need to decide if someone was a natural born citizen, and thus define the term for Constitutional purposes, would be if a President, or President elect, were accussed of not being one, and the Court actually heard the case and made a decision. That has not happened.

However there are several court cases in which dicta indicates that "natural born citizen" requires parents who are citizens, and to have been born in the country (Perhaps with some exceptions for those born in the military or diplomatic corps).

[Non-Sequitur]

Of course there isn't. Legislation cannot (re)define the terms of the Constitution.

But the Constitution does not define natural-born citizen so Congress could pass legislation laying out who is a natural-born citizen and who is not, and there would be nothing unconstitutional about it. Many people, myself included, believe that they do just that in 8 USC § 1401.

However there are several court cases in which dicta indicates that "natural born citizen" requires parents who are citizens, and to have been born in the country (Perhaps with some exceptions for those born in the military or diplomatic corps).

And as you know, obiter dictum are not binding under the doctrine of stare decisis.

[rxsid]

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

 

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

 

It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born).
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

 

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate based on the word of 1 relative. That is how a foreign born baby could get a HI BC on record, which in turn generates the "birth announcements" in the newspapers.

[El Gato]

The Constitution doesn't define lots of its terms. Arms, freedom of speach, speedy trial, excessive bail, unreasonable searches, offenses against the Laws of Nations, Taxes, duties, imposts, excises, capitation, and even Militia.

You happy with Congress defining all those things by law?

Congress was given no power to define "natural-born citizen" or even to make people citizens at birth. They were given the power to establish a Uniform rule of Naturalization. The Supreme Court has ruled that, despite what the law itself says, such persons are naturalized, not native born, at least for Constitutional purposes. Naturalized at birth, but naturalized. That allows Congress to put more restrictions on them, and on their retention of citizenship, than is the case for native born citizens. And as you know, obiter dictum are not binding under the doctrine of stare decisis.

Never said it was. But that also means that the one or two cases indicating that "born in US" or "citizen at birth" are the same as "natural born" are likewise, not binding.

That said, when their is no stare decisis, the Court will look at dicta, and often be influenced by it.

[bitt]

I think the problem with his bc is that he was born a year earlier and wasn’t then eligible for citizenship...and his commie grandma managed to insert a birth announcement a year later when she realized all the perks that citizenship would provide...

[Non-Sequitur]

The Constitution doesn't define lots of its terms. Arms, freedom of speach, speedy trial, excessive bail, unreasonable searches, offenses against the Laws of Nations, Taxes, duties, imposts, excises, capitation, and even Militia. You happy with Congress defining all those things by law?

You said that Congress cannot by itself redefines terms of the Constitution. I'm asking for you to point out where natural-born citizen is defined in the Constitution and you can't. You toss in this irrelevance. Whether or not I like it, and regardless if you like it or not, if Congress passes a law saying anyone born in the U.S. is a natural-born citizen then that does not violate or redefine the Constitution. It merely messes with what you think the Constitution should mean.

Congress was given no power to define "natural-born citizen" or even to make people citizens at birth.

Yes it was. Congress has the power to pass uniform laws for naturalization. In order to do that then they must first define who doesn't need to be naturalized. Clarifying the definition of natural born citizen is part of that.

Never said it was. But that also means that the one or two cases indicating that "born in US" or "citizen at birth" are the same as "natural born" are likewise, not binding.

True.

[sit-rep]

...and to be classified and “labeled” irritates me.

Simple... Show the damn birth certificate and prove us all wrong. Until he does, I stand my ground he is not eligible...