*******************
Would this be the BC?
Posted on 03/20/2016 11:46:56 AM PDT by conservativejoy
The wording in the Constitution specifically excludes those early Presidents, but not someone who was a dual-citizen in 2014, seeking the Office of President two years later.
*******************
Would this be the BC?
Since it is obvious we were lied to and the rules were not followed with Obummer makes it a criminal act. Precedent is not set by a criminal act. It’s time to right the ship...follow the Constitution henceforth, and arrest those who put Obummer in place.
No sir/ma’am. I read it. But until SCOTUS rules different, it is the law in Pennsylvania.
Oh, by the way, I don’t think that SCOTUS will ever take up this case.
I don’t remember the exact count, but every jurisdiction in which the NBC claim has been raised, has discarded it.
Also, I don’t agree with the courts, but I learned decades ago that when a court rules, it is the law of the case until overruled or reversed by a superior court.
Seems to me the constitution has an exception for those who were born before there was a USA. Otherwise we would have had babies or foreigners as POTUS.
Washington was born in Virginia
John Adams was born in Massachusetts,
Thomas Jefferson was born in Virginia,
James Madison was born in Virginia,
James Monroe was born in Virginia,
John Quincy Adams was born in Massachusetts,
Andrew Jackson was born in the North/South Carolina area William Henry Harrison was born in Virginia
If this judge ruled against them he would have been forced to rule against Obama.
Interesting reply.
Do you think electing Cruz rises to this level of importance?
I’m so angry that our nation was misled with the current pos in the White House. To do it again, he** NO!
Fred, as much as you and I would both like to see a meaningful resolution to this matter... Do you not realize that this “lawsuit” wasn’t from Trump; that the guy asking for a ruling isn’t a lawyer and was representing himself? The judge is not an expert in this area and his ruling is basically meaningless anywhere outside of his jurisdiction.
> The judge did use law and case precedent.
Only in regard to determining if the case is justiciable.
In regard to “natural born citizen” he relies on articles: “A ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Within the Meaning of the Constitution” by Breckinridge Long, “Who can be President of the United States, the Unresolved Enigma” by Charles Gordon, “Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement” by Jack Maskell, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’” by Paul Clement and Neal Katyal, “Why senator John McCain cannot Be President” by Gabriel Chin, and “Is Gov. George Romney Eligible To Be President” by Isidor Blum.
Ouch.. that had to have left a mark.
Umm the judge in this story DID decide...
so you might wana correct yourself.
Yes I do. I consider the appointment of the judiciary to be of utmost importance in correcting the nation's leftward drift, and while I believe Mr. Trump would do many good and important things, this matter of appointing the appropriate people to the Judiciary is not one of them.
It is essential that we preclude any more liberals from getting on the courts. They (Liberal Judges) are already instituting Nazi-like Gleichschaltung regarding freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and if we do not stop and reverse this trend, we will eventually have either secret police or another civil war.
Yes, it's that important.
To me he's proven he can be VERY slippery and frankly, dishonest. I see his claims about himself more a ploy than nonnegotiable principles.
I'm not always right but that's what I feel based on what I know.
“Here I sort of disagree. It’s meaning was the axiomatic extension of the “natural law” foundation of the nation.”
It doesn’t matter what the foundation was. The Naturalization Act of 1790 specifically defines “natural born” as children of citizen parents, and “natural born” is a concept carried over into the Constitution.
States = Colonies. They were self-governing entities under the Crown.
No it doesn't. It doesn't "define" anything. It says they will be treated just like "natural born citizens." It never says they *are* natural born citizens.
This is like saying an adopted child will be treated just like a blood child. It never says the adopted child is the same as a blood child.
Cruz and his supporters would like for the issue to go away, but it will not.
It only hurts Cruz which is fine by me. This guy is a fraud on the order of the Clintons, Kerry, and other political liars of recent infamy.
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.