Posted on 02/05/2015 6:37:16 AM PST by wtd
Washington D.C. (MMD Newswire) February 4, 2015 – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was ineligible conceding that point was now moot. Instead, Mrs. Fair raised the question of the eligibility of declared Presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and Governor Bobby Jindal. In particular, Mrs. Fair argued that unresolved is whether or not these three are in fact "natural born Citizens".
Mrs. Fair said: "Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to parents who were not United States citizens at the time of their respective births. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents only one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen. Under the law existing at the time of their birth, each became a 'citizen' of the United States at birth. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal by the 14th Amendment, Ted Cruz by statute."
As most all know, under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution: "No person except a natural born Citizen . . ., shall be eligible to the Office of President." Mrs. Fair continued: "That phrase 'natural born Citizen' has yet to be defined by the Supreme Court. So are they "natural born Citizens" eligible to be President? I think the People deserve to know the answer to that question before the next Presidential Campaign starts in earnest."
Mrs. Fair, who has shepherded her case through the complexities of the legal system by herself to the Supreme Court concluded: "My efforts were never about Mr. Obama as a person or a politician. Instead, my efforts were about insuring that the Constitution was respected and enforced by those charged with those duties. Where a phrase in the Constitution - such as 'natural born Citizen' - is undefined, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret such a phrase. As the Supreme Court itself said in the 1922 case of Fairchild v. Hughes, I have: 'the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law.' By repeatedly refusing to 'say what the law is' regarding 'natural born Citizen', the Supreme Court would abolish the rule of law and replace it with the rule of their whim and caprice to whatever political ends that super-legislature may possess."
See a copy of the petition here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/254604115/Fair-v-Obama-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari
See the Supreme Court Docket for Case No 14-933 here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-933.htm
For More Information Contact: TRACY A. FAIR: (410-552-5907) OR TRACYSPLACE2002@VERIZON.NET
Don't be silly. This is FR. Most of us don't read most articles most of the time. Maybe we read most of most articles most of the time, but not always.
It is pretty clear that only the vaginal birth, which is done in an open savanna and without epidural, is to be considered natural.
But in this case, the person in question is the one who POSTED the article.
That was a new one on me.
;-)
“Then it’s not moot.”
It’s mute and irrevalunt!
At least that’s how they say it in Cleveland!
It's a fair question but the fact that Obama's eligibility is now "moot" but Cruz', Jindal's, and Rubio's aren't is a sad commentary.
According to the brief she filed she's specifically challenging Obama's eligibility for the office, and mentions that three other candidates on the horizon she believed are also ineligible as further need for the court to rule.
That part of your statement is proof that reasonable and responsible people can have varying interpretations of NBC, therefore the law as written is too vague to intelligently and consistently enforce, and should by repaired by amendment or supreme court decision, and I prefer legislative remedy over judicial intervention. But the amendment process will not be attempted without a ruling from the SC.
if being a citizen was enough, as it is for ALL other federal positions, they would never have used the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ for POTUS
obviously, it’s a different level of requirement.
they discussed it in the federalist papers. their intent was to insure the person taking office would not have split allegiances, at least by birth.
hence the term, natural born citzen.
a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... as there are no alternatives
you are wrong.
if being a citizen was enough, as it was for all other Constitutionally defined positions, they wouldn’t have used a different term for POTUS
So so so many problems in such a short response: but mainly the idea that a law too vague to intelligently enforce should probably be ignored. Complication is the bureaucratic devil's playground. The intent of the law CLEARLY does not impact Cruz. To a true conservative, the intent of the law is superior to the letter of the law when the letter A: contradicts the intent or B: is a mumble jumble.
Second, there HAVE been some legislative clarifications that tend to ease the burden on this.
Third, there are NO CONSERVATIVE LEGAL SCHOLARS who think this is a problem, including Cruz himself.
Exactly. Under the broad definitions some conservatives are now willing to accept, some of the potential GOP candidates are “natural born citizens” of more than one country. If we rewind the clock, Winston Churchill would have been eligible to serve as President after serving as Britain’s Prime Minister.
If her case is valid, where is Mark Levin and Landmark Legal, or Larry Klyman’s group, or the ACLJ joining her??????????
....and you think this helps YOUR argument?
incorrect.
another situation the founders wanted to avoid was a foreign king becoming president. if being a citizen was enough, like BJindahl, MRubio and BH0bama, then william and kate could have a kid in NYC and that kid would be eligible to be king of england as well as POTUS.
this is clearly against the founders intent... and why they used the term, natural born citizen.
BOTH parents AND born on the soil is required... as a child born this way could only be a US citizen.
remember:
a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... AS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES
the ‘interpretation’ only varies when people are trying to slide something by the rest of us.
WChurchill's mother was American. he was born on british soil to a british father and an American mother. at birth, he was a US citizen as well as a british citizen.
BUT... he was not a natural born citizen of either country.
therefore, he could not become POTUS... insuring the founders intent
I haven’t made my argument and I’m not going to. I’ve argued over this enough the past several years. But do you actually think a man like Churchill, with obvious divided loyalties, would have been constitutionally eligible?
So let’s say Mama sneaks across the border and has little Pedro. Pedro is a citizen. Couple of years later she takes him back to Mexico. 30 years later he returns and runs for President.
He’s a natural born citizen?
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.