Posted on 07/22/2009 1:13:17 PM PDT by EveningStar
Listen at link.
Out to dinner w/ family. Will respond later, promise.
Tex
The secretaries of state, congress members, and courts have all taken oaths to uphold and defend the constitution. That gives them the authority to check qualifications. None did.
To counter Medved I would say, “I’m going to run for and get elected to President even though I’m only 27 years old”. I will file and when someone asks me for my License or birth certificate for proof I’ll deny access and say, “I’m old enough”.
Seriously, what would happen? If I had the media and sheeple on my side...nothing.
Absolutely, 100% correct. It was their duty before it became our duty, but since they failed to execute their duties I believe it then becomes our responsibility. Granted, we shouldn’t be in this position, but we are where we are. The burden of proof is upon us at this point, because our elected representatives failed to place the the burden upon the President-Elect where it rightly belongs. Who among us would fail to save a life if it were within his power to do so merely because it was someone else’s official responsibility to do so? The life you’re attempting to save is that of our beloved Constitution. Everyone else has failed to act. You will not sit back and let her die because no one else took action, will you?
I know you won’t.
I promised you a response and I am diligently working on it.
But quickly, I should have said Justice Gray invokes Minor rather than saying that he explicitly stated the same thing. You’re correct to misinterpret my statement as posted. Consider it amended.
Additionally, federal law does not declare anyone a natural born citizen. It merely declares them citizens. We disagree about whether or not citizen=natural born citizen.
More to follow on your other two points regarding English common law and the State Dept.
Always a pleasure, N-S.
I sent the e-mail exchange to Alan Keyes and offered to testify or provide a deposition to support his law suit.
I resigned my positions a poll worker in protest of supporting an election in which one of the major candidate may be guilty of fraud.
Keeping the issue alive with my personal e-mail list.
Looking for a place to put some money to keep the issue going.
I would like to see someone develop a thread or file on FR, similar to alamo-girl's work on Clinton, so that we don't have all of these repetitious errors and constant re-explaining of old questions and misconceptions.
I have read a lot of the BC threads. Your example is one of the clearest and to-the-point I have read.
I couldn’t agree with you more about that one thread. I spend a lot of time correcting erroneous statements and am very tired of it, but I can’t sit by and let it go.
I appreciate that! I could have stated a little better after re-reading it, but it was right before bed.
AGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENTS! SEE MY POST REGARDING MEDVED’S ANTI-BIRTHER RANT LAST WEDNESDAY.
Justice Gray quotes English common law not as support for the ruling in Wong Kim Ark but rather to compare and contrast the various historical definitions internationally of "natural-born." He further refers to the historical concept of a person's political status versus civil status noting that the two are distinctly separate by definition but can overlap in practice.
Your question "Which one is correct? And why?" essentially makes my point that a SCOTUS ruling is needed because it isn't clear whether or not a person born on U.S. soil to a foreign citizen parent is a natural-born citizen. Ark affirms only that such a person is a citizen.
So please point out to me what section of the Constitution identifies three classes?
By using three different labels for citizenship (natural-born citizen, citizen, naturalized citizen) the language of the Constitution inherently identifies three entities, granted those entities may overlap in some cases. If there were no difference between a citizen and a natural-born citizen, why distinguish a different standard for President?
Here's an analogy on my take regarding a citizen versus a natural-born citizen. All managers are employees of a company, but not all employees are managers. There's a higher requirement for management and greater assigned responsibility. Both are entitled to the benefits conferred upon employees by the company and both are bound by the rules and policies of the company. The designation of employee is equivalent to one's civil status - being bound by a set of rules and eligible to the benefits of employment. The designation of manager is equivalent to one's political status - owing a greater responsibility to the company's business objectives and goals.
But until then federal law says that children born in the U.S. are natural born citizens regardless of their parent's nationality.
Nowhere does federal law stipulate that anyone is a natural-born citizen. The courts have refused to define "natural-born citizen" and have gone only so far as to clarify who is and is not a citizen.
So, in short, perhaps the label “natural-born” citizen was intended to be more of a political distinction than it was a civil distinction. There really is no civil distinction between a citizen and a naturalized citizen as both are entitled to the same protection under the law. There is however a political distinction between the two.
Both of Bush’s parents are clearly American Citizens.
Obama’s Father was a British subject.
DO we need to go on?
The birthers need to be ripped. They make the party look like a bunch of nutjobs. What is next, the floridated water is a commie plot?
Birthers are being played for fools, by WND and Keyes for $$$ and by the left because they like to paint the right as nuts.
Welcome to FR.
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.