Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mlo
No MLO, being born a citizen is not what The Constitution requires. There were many discussions about why the Natural Born Citizen requirement. Obama is just the sort of candidate for Commander and Chief they were concerned with. Obama is particularly relevant because his mother, a citizen by birth, spent more time outside the US then inside, spending most of her adult life in the far and Middle East, Indonesia and Pakistan in particular. Obama’s advisers know very well how long it takes for a case of these dimensions to make its way through the court. But the allegiances of the father are paramount in both the Locke and Liebniz/de Vattel philosophies which provided the foundation for our Constitution. This is particularly messy because no president has tested Article II before. But the requirements have been stated a number of times, in John Jay's letters, James Madison, the Bingham speech in the 1866 Congressional Record. There is no ambiguity about Natural Born. Obama made a direct challenge to the court. There is no secret of his father's Kenyan/British citizenship, though Univ. of Chicago-Kent paper, clearly written with Obama in mind by Herlihy, argues that Article II should be changed to accommodate ‘globalism’ (yes; read it and count the times she invokes ‘globalism’).

The conspiratorial part of me wonders if senior legal minds have decided to let Obama lose allure, make most of his appointments, and sign most of his bills before they take it on. There are bills sitting in both the Senate and the House to make him natural born, if the Democrats feel they have the support. Two attempts didn't reach the floor. The one in the Senate was coauthored by Barack Obama, with Claire McGaskill. This change seems unlikely, and unwise, and probably would require a constitutional convention to change the meaning - the explicit difference between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen, specified for the Commander and Chief. I've read several authoritative sounding ‘lawyers’, two law school faculty, claim that every act Obama has taken, every appointment, every law, will be nullified if he is found unqualified (a usurper).

I suggest you read a bit. You can find ‘Laws of Nations’ on the Internet, and the Congressional Record is also there.
I've only read references to John Jay's letters (having a
real job interferes with my more important concerns).
Obama appears to be a citizen, though there are reasonable questions, questions my wife, who comes from another country, is asked every time she renews her passport. There does seem little question that Obama registered at Occidental with an Indonesian passport. He clearly falsified his Illinois Bar application, failing to note that he was known by another name, either Barry Obama or Barry Soetoro. He's got problems, and they cannot be a secret to our security agencies. But they are secret to the public, and that is a travesty.

74 posted on 02/03/2009 2:03:54 PM PST by Spaulding (Wagdadbythebay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]


To: Spaulding
"No MLO, being born a citizen is not what The Constitution requires."

That is precisely what it requires, and what courts have ruled it means.

It's possible to go through all kinds of historical texts to find quotes implying some more complex meaning, but not one of them is a law or has any legal weight. It's just cherry picking texts.

Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)

"Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen."

"The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it, furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution ? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the ' the colonies and in the states, under the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. old confederation."


89 posted on 02/03/2009 3:02:03 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson