Posted on 07/22/2009 1:13:17 PM PDT by EveningStar
Listen at link.
If you haven’t taken the time to read to the comments under the article at the link provided, you really should. The ignorance over there is STUNNING. I’ve had back-and-forths with some of them, but there just ain’t enough chocolate milk in the world to make me want to address every single one of them.
My goodness. How can people be so uneducated about the Constitutional requirement under discussion. I kid you not, there were at least four people who actually claimed with bravado that George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and William Henry Harrison weren’t natural born citizens either.
Nufsed, I hope you are right. I just don’t see it.
Why didn’t Hillary blow him out of the water with it?
Why didn’t McCain? Why didn’t Palin? Why didn’t any GOP controlled state that controls the levers of gov’t, including the elections and ballots?
I can speculate, but I don’t know.
That's because they weren't. They were born before the Republic was established by the ratification of the Constitution.
But, they were "grandfathered" in, having been citizens at the time. That's why it's sometimes referred to as the "grandfather clause."
Please speculate.
:)
Yes, duh. I know that. But that wasn’t their argument. They argued that none of them met the eligibility requirement. They had no clue about the grandfather clause. Go read the comments; you’ll see what I mean.
And btw Jackson was born on the border of NC and SC.
I know. We have competing markers and memorials. Poor Jackson's been in a tug of war for over a century, lol.
SHOW THE PROOF! ! ! ! !
Medved is a RINO. I don’t understand why anyone would listen to his BS show.
Hey, I think you and I had a conversation about Jackson’s birth way back before the election. I had posted something about author Allan Eckert (sp?) who claims that Jackson was born on a ship bound from Ireland and was actually older than he claimed to be.
“Medved is a country club RINO. He was for open borders and amnesty until his callers literally browbeat him into sometimes mentioning the need to secure the borders. He flunks the Quisling test.”
EXACTLY.
I called Medved yesterday at his flagship station KTTH in Seattle after that disgraceful broadcast. I asked him point blank what was it that motivated him to put out such garbage on the airwaves. He refuses to acknowledge any contrary evidence to his precious Certification of Live Birth or planted birth blurbs in two Honolulu newspapers because, simply, that evidence has been sealed and suppressed. I mentioned the $1M in campaign funds that Obama/Soetoro has expended to date to fend off law suits in multiple jurisdictions. He disputed it! Medved condescendingly said that since presumably I had no legal expertise as does he (a Yale School Law dropout!), I should know that no court in the land would attempt to remove Obama from office. I acknowledged that fact, but insisted that a sitting president can be sued civilly (Jones v. Clinton), and that a court could compel Obama to release documents that had heretofore been sealed (e.g., birth certificate, academic records, Illinois State Bar file, etc.). If those documents refute Obama and his minions’ assertion that he was born in Hawaii, we will have laid the political groundwork for impeachment. Sadly, social dislocation and trauma will ensue once the true becomes known. Watergate will look like a church picnic. Obama has no one to blame but his narcissistic and grandiose self.
I emailed Jerry Corsi this morning and cited a Human Events piece that he wrote in 2007 in reaction to Medved’s slamming of any nefarious notion of a North American Union:
Without specifying exactly whom he is attacking, Medved uses his Townhall.com piece to launch into an emotionally charged diatribe against what he calls “a shameless collection of lunatics and losers; crooks, cranks, demagogues, and opportunists” who are whipping up a “mounting hysteria over the looming menace of a ‘North American Union [Obama usurpation of the presidency of the United States].’”
As you can see, Medved rolls out his hysterical invective and diatribe whenever it suits him (perhaps his ratings are down). I would urge FReepers to contact Salem Communications and urge them to fire Medved. Not because he isn’t on board with the those of us who dispute Obama’s constitutional eligibility, but because he lies and obfuscates the issue is a most despicable fashion. Frankly, I can’t stomach his program any longer.
Wrong. He IS president. If you expect to change that you have to present proof.
Wrong. He IS president. If you expect to change that you have to present proof.
This is not true. A "natural born" citizen is a citizen by birth. Parentage has nothing to do with it. Nothing in the term "natural born" implies anything about parental status. The historical understanding of the term is consistent with the obvious meaning. Citizen by birth.
Can't prove anything until he stops hiding the evidence.
He has to prove he meets the constitutional qualifications. No one has required that as yet and it is the question on the table. Not my job to prove he isn't qualified.
” ‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
Justice Gray cites Minor which cites the Law of Nations. The Law of Nations defines a natural born citizen as a person born in the U.S. to citizen parents (plural). So in the Ark case, Justice Gray makes the same statement regarding children born in the U.S. to foreign parents. He says "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
So there has never been any doubt that children born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents are native, natural-born citizens. There has, however, been doubt as to every other class of citizens. In the Ark case, the court felt it sufficent to define children born on U.S. soil as citizens. They went no further than that.
Non-Sequitur believes that there are only two classes of citizens: natural born and naturalized. I would point out that the U.S. Foreign Affairs manual stipulates the following:
Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
If the State Department is unsure whether or not a group of citizens qualifies as natural-born, but acknowledges them as citizens who were not naturalized, then doesn't that by definition indicate there are three classes of citizens? (Two absolute classes: natural-born U.S. citizen and naturalized U.S. citizen; One vague class: U.S. citizen, possibly natural-born)
We need a Supreme Court decision to answer these questions in my opinion.
I enjoy chatting with you, LL, and N-S on this subject. If you're so inclinded, please read Leo Donofrio's article about the Wong Kim Ark decision in full (as time allows) and let's have a conversation about it.
Please excuse my sticking my nose into your conversation uninvited.
I agree with mlo with respect to the fact that Obama is currently serving as POTUS and because there is no legally-defined procedure that requires a President-Elect to present evidence that he qualifies to hold the office, then unfortunately it becomes our responsibility as citizens with an interest in upholding the Constitution to prove that he is ineligible. It then becomes our responsibility to pass legislation that puts the burden of proof on future Presidents-Elect.
It’s difficult to prove a negative with zero access to his records. It shouldn’t be our responsibility, but it seems it is.
JMHO
He also lied saying there was no plan for the NAFTA super highway.
He is a liberal pretending to be a conservative in order to keep a job on radio. He would fit in better on Air America than on Salem.
He’s not on the air here that I know of. If he were, I’d be going after the station to dump him and after his advertisers to pull their ads.
Justice Gray also quotes English common law which says that a child born in the realm is a natural born citizen regardless of the nationality of the parents. Which is correct? And why?
He says "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
Justice Gray didn't say that. That would be Justice Waite in the Happersett case.
Non-Sequitur believes that there are only two classes of citizens: natural born and naturalized. I would point out that the U.S. Foreign Affairs manual stipulates the following...
And if we depended on the State Department for what is Constitutional and what is not, then you would have a case. But the Justice Department through the Supreme Court determines what what is Constitutional. So please point out to me what section of the Constitution identifies three classes?
We need a Supreme Court decision to answer these questions in my opinion.
Perhaps. But until then federal law says that children born in the U.S. are natural born citizens regardless of their parent's nationality.
I enjoy chatting with you, LL, and N-S on this subject. If you're so inclinded, please read Leo Donofrio's article about the Wong Kim Ark decision in full (as time allows) and let's have a conversation about it.
I've read many of Donofrio's stories, and I believe his claim that only persons born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents have no justification in the Constitution.
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.