Posted on 03/21/2009 11:04:10 AM PDT by txoilman
ML/NJ
May the Lord bless you with many years of good health and may the Lord continue to bless America.
Outstanding letter to Chief Roberts! Outstanding!! You are correct.
Ah, yes! But what is important is what was meant by the people who wrote the Constitution.With regard to the meaning of "dollar," obviously not. I doubt that Jefferson et al could have conceived of what we call a "dollar" today, but nevertheless, the codified it as a somewhat significant denomination of currency, and that still works even in the world of the Federal Reserve.
Also, I am not a Constitutional scholar (obviously), but for practical purposes, isn't the important thing what the Supreme Court thinks was meant by the authors?
I'm also a little wary of "original intent" arguments, because they tend to be used in arguments about limiting freedom. "When the 2nd Amendment was written, they didn't have machine guns," or "When the 1st Amendment was written, they didn't have the Internet."
The Constitution works so well because while the details change, the principles still apply. Thus, we can have an understanding of "natural born citizen" that changes with the world and still stick the the principles that gave rise to it. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, something that would have been alien to the Founders, but only the extreme moonbat fringe tried to claim that he wasn't a citizen. Obama was born on US soil to a US mother. He's a natural born citizen, and I think Jefferson and Madison would have had no problem agreeing with that.
The evidence that Obama was born anywhere else but Hawaii is grade-Z quality conspiracy theory fodder. It is no coincidence than many of the prominent people keeping this embarrassment alive are also "9/11 Truthers."
At that time Vattel's "The Law of Nations" was widely read & Natural Born Citizen is clearly defined.There is no reason to see why Vattel should be legally binding, but I'll bite:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.I guess it's a good thing McCain didn't win because he wasn't born in the country. Obama's mother was a citizen and he was born in this country.
End of story.
You are a Great American! Keep the faith...
You are also a great American.
As the people begin to see that Obama only talks when he is reading it off the teleprompter, they will be more prone to support removing him from the Oval Office for not being a natural born American citizen. And when they see more of his big spending and big government, the numbers calling for his removal will significantly grow.
No not end of story. I do believe McCain was not a NBC because he was born at a hospital off the base.
You are taking what I said out of context. I said when the Constitution needs to be interpreted in Justice Thomas’s opinion one needs to go back & understand the Framer’s viewpoint. What they read & wrote that pertains to this subject. I am not saying that Vattel’s work is legally binding but that his book was widely read at the time & therefore a good source of the framer’s viewpoint.
You never answered my question: why did the framers write natural born citizen why not just the word “citizen”?
We all know his mother was a citizen that is not a questioned. The problem lies with his father being a British & later Kenyan citizen. It is a question of allegiance.
There is also the question of Obama being a citizen of Indonesia. We do not know for certain because he has not released his records & he was not vetted by the media. We know more than we need to know about Sarah Palin’s private life but Obama is a mystery.
What is a "9/11 Truther" ?
What is a "9/11 Truther""9/11 Truthers" are geniuses who think that Bush (or Cheney, take your pick) secretly staged the 9/11 attacks so that he could use them as a pretence to unleash his evil schemes on the world. Yeah, seriously.
Among the prominent "Birth Certificate" conspiracy theory-mongers are several prominent "9/11 Truthers" including Jerome Corsi and Phil Berg. Berg was one of the people to launch a lawsuit questioning Obama's citizenship. In 2004, he sued Bush for hiding his secret role in 9/11.
You know what they say about "birds of a feather."
You never answered my question: why did the framers write natural born citizen why not just the word “citizen”?I don't know. I guess I could look it up, but it doesn't really matter to me, since Obama clearly meets the test.
The problem lies with his father being a British & later Kenyan citizen. It is a question of allegiance.The fact that his mother was a US citizen is sufficient. Where does it say otherwise? Do you really think that Obama would have allegiance to Kenya or Britain because of a father he hardly even knew? Really?
There is also the question of Obama being a citizen of Indonesia.Also not an issue as he never renounced his American citizenship. Whether or not Indonesia considered him a citizen does not change the fact that America continued to consider him a citizen, which it did.
Thought that might be the answer but in my observations it is exactly the opposite.
I have never thought so. It’s what Orly Taitz is claiming. In fact, she claims one must have TWO citizen parents, AND be born on U.S. soil, to be “natural-born.”
I have always thought that even “anchor babies” are “natural-born” citizens, for the simple reason that they are citizens at the moment they are born.
After Soetoro, I’d like to see the Constitution amended to say that one must have four grandparents and both parents citizens.
IF Obama was not born on U.S. soil, Obama’s mother’s citizenship would be sufficient to transmit citizenship to Obama at birth
IF
she had been old enough at the time of his birth.
The law in 1961 required the citizen parent to have lived a certain number of years in the U.S. after his or her 16th birthday. I think it was four years. She was only 18 when Obama was born.
In other words: If Obama was NOT born on U.S. soil, he never was a “natural-born” citizen. This is why the PLACE of his birth DOES matter.
And if Obama was not a citizen at birth, he is not even a citizen now. He’s not eligible to STAY IN THE U.S., let alone be President.
In principle, just so. In fact, the contrary.
The law in 1961 required the citizen parent to have lived a certain number of years in the U.S. after his or her 16th birthday. I think it was four years. She was only 18 when Obama was born.This is not true. This is a now-famous misinterpretation of a US immigration law which didn't apply to Obama's mother because she was a US citizen from birth herself.
This is why the PLACE of his birth DOES matter.His place of birth was Hawaii, USA.
And if Obama was not a citizen at birth, he is not even a citizen now. He’s not eligible to STAY IN THE U.S., let alone be President.He's a citizen of the USA and has been from birth. There is no credible evidence otherwise. Basically, the only people who believe this conspiracy theory are people who want to believe it.
There is NO evidence that he was born in Hawaii. None. Unless you have some. If so, what is it?
And please quote the law and give a citation, because I have never seen a similar assertion about the state of the law in 1961.
Thanks.
On whom is the burden of proof? Those who doubt his citizenship, or on the man who wants to be Head of State, Chief Executive, and Commander-in-Chief?
Anchor babies born in the US are “Native Born”. They do have U.S. Citizenship but are not eligible for POTUS since they are not “Natural Born U.S. Citizens”.
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.