(hint: meeting with a litigant ex parte to end "the land of the free, home of the brave").
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Posted on 04/25/2011 5:24:30 PM PDT by Helotes
From Article II of the US Constitution:
"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. "
My question is why, if you are hankering for a showdown at the Supreme Court, does it take a Natural Born Citizen and not just a Citizen as the text states?
Really? REALLY?!
This clause: “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” is there because at the time of Adoption of the Constitution, there were by definition NO natural born citizens, the nation not existing before then. Therefore anyone who was a citizen at the time of adoption qualified, too.
Wow. Just wow.
Its a Natural Born Citizen, OR, a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution. Thus, if you were just a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution you could qualify as President, but AFTER the constitution was adopted, only Natural Born Citizens qualify.
I came across this post while looking up the process by which John McCain, also IMHO not a NBC, was approved. Revisiting the Obama Eligibility Question, April 22nd, 2011, By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger
It is important to note that all four references… the 1866 Bingham statement, the Olson-Tribe Memorandum, the Leahy statement, and the U.S. Senate Resolution… all utilize the plural terms “parents” or “American citizens,” strongly suggesting that the “natural born” question rests, in large part, on the necessity of both parents being U.S. citizens.
"On September 17th 1787, the U.S. Constitution was ratified by two-thirds of the colonies, and thus adopted."
The ‘simple Citizen’ clause refers to to those people who were around when the Constitution was adopted (in the 18th century) who could not be Natural-born citizens since the US did not exist prior to that. Once the last person born before that date had died, the clause no longer has useful meaning.
The only exception to the "natural born" citizen requirement was for those who because of the American Revolution gained United States Citizenship because of the defeat of the British. You could not wait for children to be born as "natural born" (both parents citizens at their birth) because someone had to hold the offices. That generation of people were one-time grandfathered in. After that generation, ALL were required to be "natural born" citizens....
I doubt that 0bama is actually even a citizen. After renouncing his citizenship for Indonesian citizenship, attending school over there as an Indonesian citizen, traveling under an Indonesian passport to Pakistan and attending college in the US as a FOREIGN STUDENT, there is no record of him ever regaining American citizenship.
So what we have is a kenyan-born, Indonesian marxist would-be dictator, usurping the office of President.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The phrase "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" is the modifier for the phrase "a Citizen of the United States".
Obviously at the time of the signing of the Constitution there were no natural born citizens who had attained the age of 35. The intent of the clause is that the president should have no allegiance toward any other country.
Exactly.
But there is one important factor, that the left seems to not be able to grasp.
The phrase indicates that THERE IS A BIG DISTINCTION between what the founders thought was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN versus your plain old granola CITIZEN
Zero may be a “citizen” because of his mother and the 14th amendment, BUT HE CAN NEVER BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!” His father WAS BRITISH!!!
“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. “
The Constitution states clearly, in the writing style of the day, that only a natural born citizen is eligible to be president now. You can re-write it into two different sentences to make it clearer what the two categories of people eligible to be the American president are:
“A natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President; “
“A Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; “
Those are the only two classes of citizens allowed. By the time of Van Buren there weren’t as many people left who were still alive before the founding of this country and who were thus eligible as citizens at the time of the adoption of our Constitution.
Unless the community-organizer-in-chief was born prior to 1787 and had citizenship by that year, he has to pass the natural born citizen criteria. Good luck to him. If they need to do some forgery, it might almost be easier to make it look like he’s the oldest president we’ve ever had.
For all their brilliance, the founders, of our nation, sucked, at the, proper use, of commas.
You can post a buttload of images.
What does that do to remove Obama?
Nothing.
How about we vote him out instead of crying over some billboards?
Voting him out has an historical history of success.
Bad Presidents have been voted out many times.
Crying about documents after the fact has worked.. never.
Just sayin...
This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a ''case or controversy'' as well as how it might decide it can only be speculated about.
While some have suggested that perhaps a "natural born citizen" must have been born on US territory (i.e., in keeping with the definition of a citizen given in the 14th Amendment) -- and news reports dealing with presidential eligibility almost invariably misstate the rule in this manner -- the majority opinion of legal experts seems to be that the term refers to anyone who has US citizenship from the moment of his or her birth -- i.e., someone who did not have to be "naturalized" because he/she was born "natural" (i.e., born a citizen).
The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.
Really? Did you post that, really?
Just damn....
You might consider that the English language has evolved over the last 235 years making our usage differ from the original.
Regards,
GtG
The problem with your approach is that, by giving the Usurping Marxist a pass on the natural born citizen requirement, you establish a precedent. This precedent would not only encourage others to do the same thing again. And it would not even be limited to the citizenship requirement. You would have effectively destroyed the most powerful vehicle for protecting your individual and God-given rights.
You need to learn to respect and revere your Constitution it is literally all there is between liberty and tyranny in this country.
That said, one hopes American voters will disenfranchise him at the ballot box in due course—even if he isn’t impeached and thrown out of office. You understand, of course, that if his butt is kicked out of the WH because he was, in fact, ineligible to run for the office in the first place every piece of legislation and Executive Order he has signed becomes null and void—including Onadacare.
But what really sticks in my craw about your position is that the opportunity is lost to try and convict this man as a clear and present danger to this country. You do understand that if he is impeached for being ineligible to be president he cannot be tried for treason. In due course of the impeachment it will be proven this man was, in fact, an Indonesian citizen.
It is important to America’s long term viability—as a free republic under God—that the Constitution be adhered to as intended by the the Founding Fathers. This country was truly blessed by the wise men who led Americans to a victory over Britain and then created our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Frankly, my friend, you seem a bit too eager to abandon the wisdom and God given protections detailed in those two documents.
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.