Posted on 03/01/2009 4:35:14 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
And another thing, how about we combat the snide term “birther” by referring to ourselves as “Defenders of The Constitution”.
That's a double-negative. Which means it is completely correct.
The second amendment people already have that one.
ping for later PROSOUTH
Sorry that you have chosen to ignore everything that has ever been written about the natural-born citizen clause in order to reach your preferred conclusion. I read the essay, and fully understand what it says. However, it is wrong. There are two kinds of U.S. citizens, natural-born and naturalized, and someone who is a U.S. citizen at birth is a natural-born citizen irrespective of how long you hold your breath. Now, if one had two U.S.-citizen parents one will almost certainly be a U.S. citizen at birth (a natural-born citizen) irrespective of where one is born (although federal law has varied through the years), which is why John McCain is a natural-corn citizen, but having two U.S.-citizen parents is not a requirement for being a U.S. citizen at birth. Or are you suggesting that someone born in NYC with an American mother and an Irish father is somehow a “naturalized citizen”?
There are at least three types of citizens. But that’s a nice try, phantom.
BTW, you will not convince US that anchor babies are eligible for the presidency, not at FR anyway. Perhaps DU is more your cup of tea, though you probably use a different handle over there.
Now this is indeed humorous: “... you have chosen to ignore everything that has ever been written about the natural-born citizen clause ...” For months I have been reading every stitch of data and filtering it down here and on my blog. But that was a nice alinskyesque try, phantom.
I TRULY hope SCOTUS will rule once an iron clad case, with standing, is brought forward.
Imagine a case that is successfully defend by 0bama’s Lawyers. THAT would be a nightmare
Actually, this clause was put in there for one reason and one reason only. Alexander Hamilton was one of the chief architects of the Constitution and he insisted this be added to make him eligible to be president.
There are two kinds of American citizens; “natural born”, i.e. born in the US and “naturalized”, born abroad and becomeing a citizen via the naturalization process.”
The only chance of any of this affecting BHo is if it can be proven that he was not born in the US, but in a foreign country, like Indonesia or Kenya.
Let me repharase it.
Legal BS.
Whatever you say, Mr. Blackstone.
BTW, next time you try to argue original intent of a clause in the original Constitution, try quoting people who were actually alive at the time. While Johnb Bingham is one of the foremost authorities regarding the original intent of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (the one that the Supreme Court reduced to nothing in the Slaughterhouse Cases), given that he was pretty much the Father of the 14th Amendment, he had no special knowledge regarding the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, unless he jumped into Doc Brown’s DeLorean and filled in for Gouverneur Morris or somebody at the Constitutional Convention. Before coming up with a definition of “natural-born citizen” that contradicts what has been the near-unanimous opinion of scholars over the past 200 years, you’ll have to do better than that.
Rep Bingham was very prescient. Here we have a person whose father was a citizen of another country and look what we got - an imposter who claims to be a Citizen of the World and apparently wants to gut the US for the benefit of others.
[[ Thomas Jefferson wrote Virginia’s birthright law of 1777 requiring the father to be a citizen.
“We can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. “
~~~~~~~~~~~
The “natural born” Clause’s origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” ************************************************** “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.” Vattel, Citizens and Nations,” par. 212
Which anchor baby is it you’re trying to get into the Oval office? Bwahahahaha ... so many, so little time.
Very insightful on your part! He is gutting the American cow to garner favor with ‘the world at large’.
What I would like to know is WHO has jurisdiction to bring this suit to the court?
I've been wondering that myself. You'd think any taxpayer would have jurisdiction.
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.