Posted on 12/15/2008 10:48:10 AM PST by kellynla
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned down another challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to serve president because of his citizenship.
The appeal by Cort Wrotnowski of Greenwich, Conn., was denied Monday without comment.
Wrotnowski argued that Obama was a British subject at birth and therefore cannot meet the requirement for becoming president.
He wanted the high court to halt presidential electors from meeting to formally elect Obama as president.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
If I say ‘not my president’, I am supported by the Constitution.
I think the pro-review justices do have a plan to navigate these waters and uphold the Constitution, as they swore, but it's not easy.
When considering the sadness or outrage one might feel about the justices regarding this case, it might be helpful to direct one's concerns toward those who resist being guided by the Constitution, that is, abrogate their oath, using the lame excuse that the Constitution was intended to be "living", "breathing", or that it should be guided by principles embodied in foreign viewpoints.
HF
Natural-born citizenship as pertaining to the President supercedes dual-citizenship or naturalized citizenship laws.
Beckwith wrote:
> Please see the Natural Born Citizen chart
Um, not to pick nits, or anything, but the first line of that chart is flatly wrong. Referring to the actual decision in Perkins vs Elg, the only determinant of a “natural born citizen” is that the person was born in the US and upon attaining majority declared their allegiance. The citizenship of the parents was not part of the decision at all.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=325
Burden of proof is on Zero, not us. We don't have to answer any hypotheticals.
You didn't answer my question.
Let me ask it again. Where exactly does the constitution forbid dual citizenship? Article and section.
Perhaps not. However, a citizen mother could naturalize her child if he were not a citizen at birth.
-PJ
The certification of live birth he provided to at least two media outlets constitutes such proof.
If you dispute the validity of that proof, the burden is on you.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
What evidence do you have that any of the justices are pro-review?
curiosity wrote:
> What evidence do you have that any of the justices are pro-review?
Indeed. Recalling that Justice Scalia once remarked that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and should be encouraged, he may just be exercising his unique sense of humor in referring these matters to the full court.
Agree with you on your above comment. But that's not the point.
The point is, there is a requirement under our Constitution that a candidate be a natural born citizen.
And iirc, two states (NY and CA?) have laws requiring candidates to provide proof.
Ergo it seems to me (and many others) that the issue of proving eligibility is one that deserves to be adjudicated - in some court, somewhere.
You can't be a cafeteria Constitutionalist.
Either the Constitutional requirement (and state laws that require proving it) must be observed, or the Constitution must be amended. Otherwise Obama, and any other candidate who refuses to provide absolute proof, is allowed to be above the law.
His birth was announced and published a day or two after the fact in a Hawaiian paper, as is usually the case after a birth. Do you really think that his parents had him in Africa and then had the fore site to know that he would some day run for President, so they had an announcement of his birth published in an Hawaiian newspaper, to make it look like he was born there?
First: Obama's parents probably had nothing to do with publication of the announcement. Newspapers did this on their own, by going to public records.
Second: Some researchers on this issue say that Hawaii -at least at the time of Obama's birth- allowed foreign-born children to be given Hawaii birth certificates.
If this is true, then publication of a "birth announcement" in the newspaper is not proof the birth took place in HA.
I take it you never bothered to look at the law in effect at the time.
If born outside the US, he would *not* have been a citizen at birth. His mother had not lived in the US the required 5 years after her 14th birthday. Mainly because she was only 18, 17 when she got pregnant.
From the US State Department
Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required. Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Unless he was born a bastard (from the same site)
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
I can't believe the idiocy I am seeing on this birther threads.
So watch who you're calling an idiot, oh ignorant one.
301(g) is the same provision that applies to the case of a US Citizen mother and alien father in wedlock, except that the 309(c) residency requirements are modified *for purposes of acquiring nationality* (which is not the same as citizenship) to only 1 continuous year of US residency.
Check it out at the link above, and here for the actual verbiage of the Act
Or if you prefer the US Code they are at: 8 U.S.C 1401 and 8 U.S.C 1409
The only you need to be aware of is that 1986—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653 substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”.
If you look at the heading it's clear that they come from the state department of health statistics, or whatever it was called in 1961. Thus the filing of any birth record would trigger such a listing. As we know there are several sorts available in Hawaii, at least in 1961 there were.
That wouldn't make him eligible for the presidency, but it would make him eligible for all the same rights and government programs that are open to US-born kids. Hence there was zero incentive for his mother to try to fake a Hawaiian birth.
The state legislation should require the candidate to sign an authorization allowing the secretary of state to obtain the required documentation directly from vital statistics. No going through the candidates hands (same as college or high school transcripts).
Possibly. A more likely explanation is that this is the second time the case has been filed with a justice, and he figures a rejection by the full court, rather than by just one justice, will do more to discourage the plaintiffs from pursuing it further.
At any rate, it's impossible to infer his motives from the mere act of referring it to the full court. The only thing we know for sure is that the decision to refer the case to the full court tells us nothing about whether a justice supports reviewing it.
True, but that is not very common in newspaper birth announcments. In fact I've never seen or heard of such. In towns or cities with more than one hospital, it's fairly common.
Here are the one from my hometown for yesterday (I haven't lived there for 31+ years).
Hoagland, Ronesha, and Kennedy, Demetrious, Lincoln, girl, Saint Elizabeth (the Hospital)
Same hospital I was born in, back in the dark ages, when they were in a different location)
Sadly the first electoral vote cast for a Democrat in 44 years was cast in my hometown today...but only 1 of the 5 votes cast. Making Nebraska the only "purple" state on this years electoral map.
Now that would (will) be spicy enough without adding an ineligible, and thus illegitimate President into the mix.
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.