Posted on 03/17/2011 6:46:17 AM PDT by maggief
Potential presidential candidate Donald Trump says he has "just a little" doubt that President Obama is U.S.-born but his feeling doesn't make him an "idiot."
The mogul and TV reality star suggested in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" that aired Thursday that he's reluctant to discuss the topic because "everybody that even gives any hint of being a 'birther,' a word you didn't use, even a little bit of a hint like, 'gee, maybe you know, just maybe there is this much of a chance,' they label them as an idiot."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
OK, those are all good candidates, and I hope they have a good chance.
But who is this “Stroker” everyone is talking about? I did a search, and cannot find him!
There’s one more thing I should probably check before making that statement definitively. Put that statement on hold for now. I need to get clarification of a response I received.
Prior to the 14th automatic citizenship was restricted to those Natural born( both parents U.S. citizens Wilken vs Elk) . The 14 amendment( did not affect Natural born) gave native born citizenship to those born with partial allegiance,such as one parent a U.S. citizen or born of parents ( Wong Kim Ark case) who were legal immigrants. U.S. supreme court defined Natural Born as Children who parents were U.S. citizens(Minor vs Happensett). Natural born citizenship as defined a number of times by Congress as CHILDREN OF CITIZENS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN.
If someone want to change the meaning of Natural born and Article two of the U.S. Constitution, it would require a Constitutional amendment,until then it requires both parents to be U.S. citizens to be Natural Born.
Here’s a link to one of many websites about dual citizenship for US citizens.
In the webmaster’s case, he became a Canadian citizen by naturalization but his native-born US citizenship was not affected. Presumably he is still legally eligible to be elected president of the US.
You don’t know where to get evidence? And yet you want me to read your post for info. LOL!
A very reasonable conclusion.
“Stroker” is my nick name for obama. I came up with that one quite some time back.
I would explain it, but I am a “gentleman”.....sorta.
:-)
There is no current legal interpretation of “natural born citizen.” That’s the problem.
To your point, however, there is only one group of citizens who are unquestionably and without doubt “natural born citizens” - those born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. No law is necessary to establish their citizenship. No interpretation of law is necessary to clarify their citizenship status. No legal arguments can be made against their citizenship.
About all other groups, legal arguments can be made for and against citizenship. Until and unless the SCOTUS interprets the phrase “natural born citizen,” there is only one group who NBC status unquestionable.
__________________________________________________________________________________
I am going to be picky - in Article II its ‘natural born Citizen’ it is not a unique standalone ‘term’ in conventional legal use. If it were it would be ‘Natural Born Citizen’.
So the phrase in total is not a proper noun. But the phrase does include a proper (defined) noun - Citizen.
I know I am being picky. But this is important for all of us to understand. The founders were not sloppy with this. They did not leave it ‘undefined’.
Here is an excellent write-up with additional detail.
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/capitalization-constitution-and-meaning.html
*******
Is there any truth that Trump was adopted by a citizen of another country at some point in his life?
If true, I can't wait until Trump VOLUNTARILY attaches his long form birth certificate to his presidential application form in each state in 2012 so that we can be reassured that he was not adopted by a citizen of another country at some point in his life.
I don't think Trump would have any problems releasing his college records to the public, either.
The U.S. Foreign Affairs manual says "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."
The SCOTUS has not ruled definitely who is and is not a natural born citizen under the meaning of the Constitution.
“...Who seriously gives a rip about anything that Trump says?...”
Who? A LOT of people who aren’t blogging on Free Republic, and who don’t have access to any other news except the pablum spewing from the lamestream media cesspool.
A celebrity multimillionaire just publically expressed his doubts about FuBO’s eligibility to be where he is. In spite of all media attempts to block this, Trump puts it out there, however tepidly.
Don’t forget, good brother, we out here are informed and actively involved the game; a lot of folks aren’t paying close enough attention, UNTIL it starts hitting their wallets - like it is now.
Trump speaks, a lot of folks listen. Especially when it comes to money.
To my mind, he’s good for us. At least he’s an American, thinks of himself as such, and does NOT have an overt hatred for the country and half of its citizens.
Only a troll or a very ill-informed conservative would get “citizen” and “Natural Born citizen” confused.
Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution demands that our president be a NATURAL BORN citizen.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you and so do I, respectfully.
From Wong Kim Ark:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
The Supreme Court disagrees with you and so do I, respectfully.
From Wong Kim Ark:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
Two conditions are required for one to be a Natural Born Citizen.
1) Both parents are citizens of the US.
2) Born on US soil.
Obama fails on the first requirement, and was never eligible to be president, per the US Constitution.
The issue of where he was born is a moot point, because of this.
I can’t argue with you.
A lot of people supported John McCain, too.
There are also a lot of people that took the sage financial advice of Mr. Trump and lost their money. No biggie, right?
You are certainly free to support anybody that you deem worthy.
I will also do the same.
Here’s a link to one of many websites about dual citizenship for US citizens.
In the webmaster’s case, he became a Canadian citizen by naturalization but his native-born US citizenship was not affected. Presumably he is still legally eligible to be elected president of the US.
____________________________________________________________________________________
This guy is very good and does a great service in this confusing area.
He comments are interesting. So lets look at them.
“I, too, am a dual citizen of both the US and Canada — a citizen of the US because I was born in the US, and a citizen of Canada because I went through the Canadian naturalization process (an action which did not cause me to lose my US citizenship). “
Now he does not indicate his parents citizenship. Assuming they were both US citizens - he was then Article II eligible.
But what effect does the ‘added’ Canadian positive law naturalization have on his Article II status? That is hard to say off hand. It does not seem to nullify it.
I do know of people who have 3 or 4 passports corresponding to acknowledged citizenship. So not only are ‘dual citizens’ common nowadays. ‘Multi-citizens’ is not unusual.
Maybe this is a gap in the constitution. I am sure founders (and us) would not want an acknowledged dual citizen in the office of POTUS. But this scenario does not seem to prevent that situation.
We apparently do have a dual citizen in the office today. With no RN form Obama is still a subject of the queen. Maybe it just ends up being a mess - as in Thailand.
OK, thanks.
Too bad he (and so many others) did suppport 0. But he now usually characterizes him as a “disaster”.
I read nothing in post 29 that points me to the current legal interpretation of “natural born citizen.”
Not arguing with you, brother, and wasn’t tryng to start one with you. Same team, bud.
Just saying that he has a voice and a platform that most of us don’t have, and a lot of folks will take notice.
He’s got some part to play in this, as we all do. Just might be a bigger part than any of us will get to play.
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.