Posted on 11/28/2008 2:40:28 PM PST by SatinDoll
Many thanks, LucyT
Ping
Hmmmmm.....good point.
No offense taken. But please consider the following from the man who penned the 14th Amendment in 1871. Rep. John A. Bingham gave a definition of Natural Born Citizen, which stated in part:
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
So, to restate Rep. Bingham’s definition of “natural born” in 21st century terms:
1. Born on U.S. soil;
2. Parents are citizens at the time of birth.
I’m not smart enough to make this stuff up!
Turnabout is fair play. If they can ignore the “natural born” requirement in the Constitution, we ought to ignore the 16th Amendment and do away that pesky income tax. Bankrupting the federal government will put an end to this nonsense quick. A thought worthy of discussion, anyway.
A thought very worthy of discussion. But, when people have to act alone (filing Income Tax) they will chicken out. It needs to be an “enmasse” Revolution.
Re-read it again. It says "at the time of the adoption of the Constitution." The Founders wisely exempted themselves because obviously there was no U.S. at the time of their births.
For example, Leo stated that the Sec. of State in Washington did not allow Roger Calero’s name to be on the ballot but did not check status of Obama or McCain.
Therefore Leo can show prejudice on the part of the WA SOS?
Maybe his school records and medical records are in Barry's name, not Barack's.
Thank you for the link, its the best case I have seen yet for your argument. Nonetheless, I still believe that anybody born in the US or born to US citizens outside of US is a natural born citizen.
My argument comes from the following article
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
Its a great five minute read, and in my view is the best summary of the controversy. Anybody who is interested in the issue should read it.
Once again, if Obama is a citizen, but is not a naturalized citizen, and is not a natural born citizen, what exactly is he?
Since there are only two kinds of citizens, if he is not naturalized, he is automatically natural born.
Too bad we don't have any commentary from any of the attendees at the constitutional convention on this subject, at least none that I'm aware of.
It looks like SCOTUS will soon have a crack at it this December. Another lawsuit, this time from Connecticut, will be hitting the Court’s docket.
Meanwhile, you can check out the following - you just might find more to chew on this subject than you ever thought possible:
Natural Born Citizens: Or How to Beat a Subject to Death with a Stick.
I already have
The question often on my mind these past three weeks is:
How can one semi-old guy contribute to the fight if, in spite of all the letters we've written, and the phone calls we've made, and the prayers/hopes we've offered up, the USSC kicks the Constitution to the curb and allows a marxist usurper to piss on our Republic ?
It would be a great honor and a small price to pay to lay down what's left of my life to help insure that the freedoms our forebears fought and died for would still be here for my daughters and yours.
I sense a shitstorm coming, and a mustering place would be good to know . . .
Thank you for the link. I hope that those more knowledgeable about this than I am will comment.
INTREP
I don’t like this paragraph, it seems to me that the author is insinuating her personal political views that have nothing to do with the intent of the Constitution:
Page 898
Looking to contemporary law rather than early American or British law makes sense where, as in this case, the underlying assumptions about which groups are entitled to rights under the law have changed significantly. Constistent with Fourtheenth Amendment ideals concerning due process and broadened political participation, this approach will most likely result in an expansive reading of who will be eligible to run for office. Expanding the categories of natural-born citizens makes the eligible candidates more representative of the voting population, thereby increasing the rights of voters to select their representatives as well as the rights of individuals to vie for the office of President.
(I’m leaving out the footnote numbers.)
Bump Dat!...
The author is making a case for expanding the traditional definition of natural born citizen to include those born abroad to one or two US citizens.
The juice of the article however comes up to and including pg 889, where the traditional definition of natural born citizen is discussed.
The question is why have they been working on this?
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.