Posted on 04/01/2011 10:51:52 PM PDT by neverbluffer
Ok...this question has been bugging me for a long time.
I am adopted. Born in 1965 in NJ. My adoption records are permanently sealed. Both adoptive parents are US Citizens.
I dont know the status of my birth parents, whether or not they were born here since I was adopted at birth.
Like me, millions of people are adopted and do not know and may never know who their real birth parents are. I assume we will face this someday when an adopted child runs for President.
Can I run for President if I wanted to? I was raised at birth by 2 American Citizens as mother and father, but I dont know about my birth parents?
What about all those kids born today by single mothers who never list a father on the birth certificate? Can they run for President?
I think its a good question that will need to be dealt with at some point...
Please comment.
Of course you can run for president. Anyone can run for president.
However, you could possibly face challenges on legal or constitutional grounds, unless you run as a democommie.
“Nobody has to prove who his birth parents were in order to be President.”
Of course they do. That is why up until 2008, we tested the DNA of every president and both their parents before they could take office.
“Nobody has to prove who his birth parents were in order to be President.”
Of course they do. That is why up until 2008, we tested the DNA of every president and both their parents before they could take office.
Bill Clinton was found in a patch of kudzu..
“Some birther made that up in Nov. of 2008 when the birth certificate issue failed to gain traction. “
Actually, I heard about it before. The LEFT had brought it up several times regarding McCain, then dumped the narrative promptly when Obama won the primary.
Yes they could!
This is the thing - all 3 of your children do not owe allegiance to any other country. That country has no rights to your children. At war time, the only country that can call on your children is the United States!
If Great Britain went to war against the United States, Barry would be split on which war he would choose to fight on. How can we have a President owe allegiance to two separate countries? His allegiance is divided!
And you wonder why he chose to send money to Brazil to drill in our territory and stated that we would purchase that oil from them. Hmmmm.... Why would he not chose America to do this! He would prefer to help South America over North America since that is where his allegiance lies!
It depends on wether you run as a Democrat or a Repulican.
NBC is a child born on U.S. soil of citizen parents.
NBC is not a “status” it is a condition. You either are or you are not. It is 1) citizenship that needs no other act or sanction. That is why there is no statute or procedure that confers NBC. 2) It's purpose (along with the 14 year residency requirement of Article 2) is to ensure there are no possible foreign entanglements to your life, via your parents.
Once born, your parents can change and your citizenship can change. Each of these changes, if formalized would require some application of positive law...court action, statutory grant of citizenship, etc. But your NBC status cannot change unless you voluntarily relinquish it by swearing off your allegiance and taking an oath to another country.
NBC has never been a direct subject of case law (spoken of only in dicta), because it has never been a contemporaneous issue until the usurper. Only recently was it proven that Chester Aurthur was not NBC because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. This fact was successfully hidden.
All U.S. Presidents other than Arther until the usurper were either NBC or grandfathered in (for the presidents born before the adoption of the Constitution). So this has never really been an issue. Remember, something over 90% of Americans are natural born so it's not like we don't have enough people to choose from.
All those who post otherwise from above are just plain lazy to do the proper research or they have an agenda or just stupid and wrong.
Now as to your case. It may be hard to swallow but you are not NBC. Adoption does not change nature. It is an act of human volition, sanctioned by positive law.
The concept of Natural Law is foregin to us today, though it was very real to the founders. In breaking from the king as subjects a way to gound the legitimacy of the Revolution was found in Natural Law. Laws by Nature are above man, immutable, provided by the Gods of Nature.
An Aristotelian concept. You cannot change them. Our use of the Laws of Nature came from a very unique “American” experience in our ties and disagreements with life under Britain on a newly settling continent. (well new only if you weren't Native American).
So, while your case has never been address as NO CASE of NBC has been directly addressed (OR HAD TO BE ADDRESSED UNTIL THE USURPER), the theory is clear.
At the moment of birth, if either of your birth parents were not U.S. Citizens, you are NOT NBC even if born in this country.
Is this an injustice? perhaps. Can it be changed? Only if an amendment to the Constitution is duly adopted. Should it be changed? No. It isn't necessary for the good of the Republic. You as well as a few other U.S. citizens cannot run for President. Neither can every foreigner.
That's the real story and those of the tongue of the “devil” may try to convince you otherwise but unless you get Donofrio or Appuzio to say otherwise. That's that.
The Big Boo.
If issues didn’t exist, if Odummy didn’t have something to hide, he wouldn’t have spent a small forture to keep his documents hidden.
Those “birthers” you decry....have good reason to be suspicious.
You are wrong.
The Constitution has two different requirements for Congressmen and the President
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Honest people admit a “Citizen” is not the same as a “Natural Born Citizen”
The original records are sealed to protect identities.
You BC probably states your adoptive parents. I would think a Judge could add attach statement declaring whether your Birth Parents are Citizens of the US.
I have one addition to my previous answer:
You are not “proven” NBC, because you do not know the citizenship of your birth parents. It short you don’t know if you are or you are not. Therefore ineligible until determined.
The Big Boo
Really? Ok, then, I stand corrected. I would think a baby or young child adopted by Americans would not be an alien ever again, and would have no allegiance to the other country because he would no longer have any allegiance to the old country at all. Not even the same name.
Consider Gadhafi has a fling with the daughter of some liberal democrat or republican senator who is a close friend of Gadhafi. When she finds out she is pregnant and knows the whole family opposes abortion, she disappears for months until the baby is born and given up for adoption. This adoption could easily be arranged so that all parties have an opportunity for developing relationships with the child and even deeper relationships with each other because of the knowledge of who the birth parents are.....you will find better research and reasoning here
http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/why-lb-654-is-needed-revised1.pdf
If the family is liberal, why would they oppose abortion?
I have a lot of liberal friends who favor adoption over abortion.....
The birth certificate issue didn't fail to gain traction. We're still talking about it three years later. And the part about citizen parents isn't made up. It was pointed out by people who realized the birth certificate is not the only factor that matters. The part about WHEN it was brought up is only a faither deflection. The historical record, especially in the SCOTUS, concurs that the one must be born in the country to citizen parents to meet the framer's definition of the Art. II Sec I term, "natural born Citizen." Whether it was brought up in November 2008 or April 2011 doesn't change the fact that Obama does not fit the definition of natural born citizen.
Waiting for your reply.
Is your melanin content high enough to deflect any questions about your birth? < /sarc >
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.