Posted on 12/08/2009 12:18:05 PM PST by vharlow
Yes. The state of Hawaii's vital records say he was born in Hawaii.
If he was born in Hawaii to 2 parents who were not U.S. citizens, does THAT make him a natural born citizen?
Yes, so long as both parents were residing with the united states and were not protected by diplomatic immunity.
The only cases in which a child born on US soil is not a natural born citizen is if the parents are diplomats, invaders, or travelers in transit who have no intention of residing within the USA.
Drinking early today, I see?
The only cases in which a child born on US soil is not a natural born citizen is if the parents are diplomats, invaders, or travelers in transit who have no intention of residing within the USA.
Curious...... under the above where would the child of illegal immigrants be considered?
I agree, the case would not stand based on eligibility alone.
This is where the bloggers & commenters have twisted and misconstrued the case.
Donofrio & Pidgeon have no intention of relying only on eligibility, thus the reason for 2 different actions on 2 different courts.
If the actions in the 1st court are favorable and the clients are happy, then there likely will be no forward movement in the quo warranto at the DC district court.
Donofrio & Pidgeon are very smart attorneys with a very good track records for their clients. As Leo stated, this is about the clients getting justice where it is due them and if the eligibility issue is reached in the proceed and allowed to go forward, then all the better. But in no way does their case hinge on it.
Haven’t had anything stronger than coffee in weeks. But that was a nice try, fool.
The courts haven't resolved this question, but the executive branch, for decades, has interpreted the 14th Amendment to read mean that such a child is a natural born citizen.
IMHO, this interpretation isn't obvious and should be challenged.
The courts haven't resolved this question, but the executive branch, for decades, has interpreted the 14th Amendment to read mean that such a child is a natural born citizen.
IMHO, this interpretation isn't obvious and should be challenged.
The courts haven't resolved this question, but the executive branch, for decades, has interpreted the 14th Amendment to read mean that such a child is a natural born citizen.
IMHO, this interpretation isn't obvious and should be challenged.
The courts haven't resolved this question, but the executive branch, for decades, has interpreted the 14th Amendment to read mean that such a child is a natural born citizen.
IMHO, this interpretation isn't obvious and should be challenged.
This whole thing is giving me a headache...
“He lost his Kenyan citizenship in 1984, so no, he can’t run for president of Kenya.”
Oh, so we have a former kenyan citizen, born a Kenyan citizen, running our government as a Natural born American citizen.
Yeah, thats what George Washington had in mind. Ha Ha Ha !!!
You are too funny!!!! LOL
While this picture may appear to be a convincing argument, it isn’t and your use of it is specious. Individual justices, the entire court even, can not simply choose to challenge the constitutionality of a thing without a standing case. Robert’s may have fully believed at the time of that photo that Obama was ineligible, but without a standing case he simply had to accept what was going on. Since we are a nation governed by laws, Robert’s knows full well that the remedy must also be according to the law. Had he refused to give the oath, he would have been circumventing the legal remedy to a legal issue that hadn’t yet been brought before the court. So your photo doesn’t mean anything.
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.