. . . . This thread is generating a lot of interest from sp's , so a second ping seems necessary.
Good work, urtax$@work. Apparently, you started a brush fire.
Check out these, and other, comments:
# 32 , 39 , 40 ,
# 51 , 56 , 61 , 63 .
.
The framers of the Constitition most definitely knew what they were articulating, the Congress that is sitting, has little regard to the LAW, and a whole lot of regard to polls and surveys...public opinion of the MSM. Politicians like DOGS are easily trained by giving them repeated whacks with a newspaper.
Excellent point.
It is now after three and a half years of the kenyan jackass that I truly appreciate, admire and awe at the brilliance, vision, and leadership that our founding fathers had. I do not think we will have the likes of men like them again since we have become a distracted society that no longer values intellect, critical thinking and tutelage. Today’s Americans cannot retain an attention span to even think about reading John Locke et al.
I learned that a natural born citizen is one in which " no further action was ever required to by a citizen with regard to his place or standing in our civil society" - and that is why Barack Obama and Marco Rubio, while being eligible for US representative status (questionable in Obama's case)are NOT qualified for the office of the presidency.
Rubio is a naturalized citizen and Obama's father was a British subject.
Obama MAY be a naturalized citizen, but there is not a generally accepted argument that he is even that.
I tend to almost believe that the so-called "botched swearing in redo" ceremony (attended to by Chief Justice Roberts without cameras) was likely an Obama oath of citizenship ceremony which is why the SC won't touch any "birther" claims - even the Supreme Court is complicit in the usurpation.
The founders of this nation, were they able to return from the dead for a week to inspect the Capitol, would likely tell us that a Republic can only be held by the willing and that we have surely fallen short in that regard - therefore, we've installed a form of government unrecognizable to them.
I hadn’t thought about that until reading your post, so, thank you!
My feelings on the subject is that it just doesn’t matter anymore. Obama is not a NBC, there is no doubt of that. Does the GOP care? No.
If a GOP candidate didn’t meet the NBC requirement, would the GOP or the Dems care. No, because if you think about it, neither national party gives a flying crap what the Constituion says, or else they would be following it once in awhile. The Constitution limits power, so it’s in their interests to ignore it, and they do, daily.
Another thing that has bothered me about the NBC topic, is how almost every court in the nation says none of the plaintiffs have “standing” to sue. When it comes to our President, we ALL have standing. I have seen an opinion from a court saying that it’s the job of Congress to investigate a candidates qualifications for President. If that is the case, which I believe it isn’t, then what happens if Congress refuses to do it? Like they refuse to protect out borders. If Congress refuses to do its job, then it’s our responsibility as citizens to do it for them. It would be next to impossible to wait for elections to replace enough of Congress to where they would actually do what was required of them. It would be a hopeless situation if not for one thing.....our Constitutions Second Amendment.
I’ll do what I can with my vote, but in reality, nothing in our government will really change until we water the tree.
That’s my two cents....
An excellent point framed in a way not before cited at FR, as far as I can recall.
Very good point!
Sometimes the obvious has to be pointed out.
Good observation.
Ping
I'm just curious, I am a naturalized citizen so I know that I will never be eligible. I understand that and accept it. When I joined the club I swore to go by the club's rules. But since 2008 I've wondered about my children more than once. They both were born in the US, from a US citizen father, but I only had a green card at the time of their birth. Should they want to run one day, are they eligible or not? I don't think their case is unique, so I wish the SCOTUS would give a final definition of natural born citizen. But I won't hold my breath waiting for it!
Good point.
I was talking with a college student this week and he thought white and Christian were part of the requirements for POTUS. He had no clue about NBC.
I’m unclear why this was a revelation to you.
AFAIK everybody is in agreement that NBC status can only be acquired at birth.
The debate is between all “citizens at birth” being NBC, and NBC being a subset of “citizen at birth.”
Using the first definition, there are two categories of US citizens: NBC/CAB and naturalized.
With the second, there are three: naturalized, NBC, and CAB but not NBC.
IMO there are legitimate arguments for Obama falling into either of the second two categories (assuming there’s a difference). Which is why we need a Supreme Court ruling.
The argument is not that a "natural born" citizen is a person who became a citizen at birth because of the place, condition, or circumstances of their birth.
You should note that lawyers, particularly the immigration bar, tend to use the phrase "natural born" as a form of shorthand, when they mean "citizen at birth". They are not thinking about the the question as a legal issue under the only circumstances in our law where any requirement of "natural born" would make a difference which is Article II, sec. 1 of the Constitution.
The requirement that a person become a citizen at birth because of the place, condition, or circumstances of their birth is one of the requirements of Natural Born Citizenship, but it is not the only requirement.
The other remaining substantive requirement of natural born citizenship is that it occur within the geographical territory of the several states.
Thus a person who was born in an embassy offshore; or on a military base; or on a territory not subject to permanent sovereignty of the US; does not qualify as Natural Born.
Although I am on the hook for the proposition that, for example, Goldwater, who was born in the territory of Arizona prior to statehood would qualify, I wouldn't be embarrassed to make the contrary argument if I were on the other side for the reason that the prospect of possible sovereignty in some other jurisdiction than the United States presented the exposure of exercise of that sovereignty over the President.
I suppose that the academic answer of the day which was that risk was eliminated by the fact that prior to the time he became a candidate, Arizona had been admitted as a state was the likely result if the case got to the Supreme Court.
But the point is that to the extent any requirement other than citizenship at birth was incorporated in the "natural born" clause, whatever the original intended scope of that requirement--what exists today if the issue reaches the Supreme Court is a requirement that the birth have occurred under circumstances where the person could not have ever been subject to the sovereignty of some other head of state as a consequence of the place or circumstances of birth. That requirement necessitates that the birth have occurred within the territory of the several states.
Technically, as someone points out above, the language in Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) stating that the holding encompassed citizenship by birth in the several states and parental citizenship is dicta to the extent of the parental citizenship language.
Technically adept lawyers recognize that language as dicta for two reasons. The parental citizenship fact was not required to find that the Plaintiff was a citizen at birth--she was a citizen at birth even if her parents were not citizens. Further, the language is dicta because the technical issue presented did not include the question of "natural born" citizenship.
That is, the question of whether or not a person is a "natural born" citizen or not is relevant for only one purpose under our law and that is under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to test the eligibility of a person to hold the office of President of the United States--that was not the issue in Minor.
As to the guy in the White House, Barry, his issue is a place of birth problem only whoever his parents were.
In my opinion, if he was born outside the US, he is not Natural Born and is not eligible; if he was born inside the territory of the several states, the answer is to the contrary. It is that simple and there is pretty clearly enough record on the proposition that anyone who wants to read any of the judicial pronouncements or literature on the question should recognize that is how the Court would come down.
The discussion here also includes the topic of the swearing in ceremony.
Someone says there is no evidence of an issue other than the technical reading of the oath that there was some other cure issue in the later swearing ceremonies.
The evidence is the appearance of Vice President Cheney in a recorded element of a second alternate swearing.
See there were really a total of three swearing in ceremonies--the first the public which was ineffective; the second a private ceremony the circumstances of which were recorded with Cheney's presence; the third the ceremony with Robert's of which the video is in circulation.
The one that counted was the second.
Yet another point of the Natural Born Cit. Requirement
This is great that you found this, and yes, it can be overlooked. Being a natural-born citizen is a state of grace — it can never be attained, it is a GIFT bestowed by citizen parents and grandparents.
. . . . This thread is generating a lot of interest from sp's , so a second ping seems necessary.
Good work, urtax$@work. Apparently, you started a brush fire.
Check out these, and other, comments:
# 32 , 39 , 40 ,
# 51 , 56 , 61 , 63 .
.
Don't you just love those "AHA!" moments?
Good work.
The number of years as a citizen makes sense in that an NBC would be at least 35 years a citizen to be eligible for president, while a citizen of the United States would only be a citizen following naturalization (if not an NBC themselves). But, of course, the president has a residency requirement to make up for the lack of requirement for how many years he or she has been a citizen. What may be implied is that the president cannot have ever been a citizen of another country. As Vattel says, a natural citizen is a person who inherits the same citizenship as his father by tacit consent. Obama would have had to reject Kenyan and Indonesian citizenship in order to truly be a natural-born citizen.