Posted on 12/27/2009 12:28:12 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
When was that document written? My guess is that it was written for the express purpose of including that anecdote and it was done at the direction of the usurper.
At the time Ms. Freeze wrote this article she was in her first semester of law school. She admits in the article she hadn’t even gotten her grades yet. But she’s a know-it-all on the law. Perfectly suited to become a lawyer.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
It is worth noting that in this case, the Court clearly equates "native-born" with "natural born" citizen, in the general citizenship context, referencing Article II's use of the term "natural born." It notes varying authority as to whether a person born in the US to noncitizen parents may be a "natural born citizen" - but does not address that issue. What is clear, however, is that the Court recognizes two - and only two - types of citizenship: natural born and naturalized.
not only that America will be the laughing joke to the world .One freeper said it best In 2010 it will come out as the biggest hoax since madoff!
See post 43.
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”
The grandfather provision of the “natural born Citizen” clause provides an exception to the “natural born” requirement for those persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Most of these citizens had been born as British subjects before the American Revolution (or were born after the Revolution, but before 1787). Without this exception, ten subsequent presidents would have been constitutionally ineligible to serve.[1]
Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that: “[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, defines a “Citizen” of the United States, but not a “natural born Citizen.” Its Citizenship Clause provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”People who are born on American soil are said to have the right of jus soli, and this right is protected in the 14th Amendment to the United States constitution, which specifically states that “all persons born in the United States...are citizens of the United States.” Jus soli has become a topic of hot discussion in some areas of the United States, because this right is also extended to children born of foreign parents, whether or not they are in the country legally. In the case of children born to illegal immigrants, some people use the derogatory term “anchor baby” to describe a child who is a natural born citizen, under the mistaken belief that illegal immigrants will not be deported if their children are considered American citizens.
For children born abroad, the principle which applies is jus sanguinis, or “rule of the blood,” and the rules can get a bit tricky. If a child is born to two parents who are both American citizens, the case is usually clear, and the parents need only apply for a United States passport on the child’s behalf to ensure that his or her citizenship is formally recognized. If only one parent is an American citizen, however, jus sanguinis may or may not apply, and the case must be considered before the child is classified as a natural born citizen.A Natural Born Citizen is born to two American Citizens on American Soil.Obama father was not, case closed!
He's spending money answering lawsuits, which is pretty much a requirement. He hasn't initiated any of them.
He doesn't need to. He has tools like you trolling the interwebs for him.
It would be very satisfying to read the Supreme Court’s opinion. ( The only one that counts.)
With soldiers being shot dead at Ft. Hood, and a terrorist attempt on a plane over Detroit, the American people will NOT, NOT, NOT be amused that Obama is using DOJ resources to pull a PRACTICAL JOKE!!! ( Is a “duh!” necessary?)
If he were a natural born citizen he would have proven it long ago.
Want to site some case law for that?
Maybe you should inform the gentleman facing the camera.
You can write him a letter. Here's his address:
Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United Satates.”
The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that that eliminated them from being natural born and, thus, from eligibility, they included the grandfather clause which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being natural born. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.
When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th ammendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, “Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority.” The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared “And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US.” Neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents’ citizenship.
This concept of citizenship by blood as opposed to citizenship by geography is a concept with a long history in British common law. A law passed in 1677 says that natural born citizens are those persons born to British citizens, including those born overseas. Alexander Porter wrote an article over 100 years ago in which he declares that the framers drew upon this difference in the law of heredity and territorial allegiance to define a third class of citizen applicable only to the eligibility to hold the office of president. According to Morse, “the framers thought it wise to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance only to the US at the time of birth.” He goes on to say that the the eligibility of the president “was scarcely intended to bar the children of American citizens, whether born at sea or in foreign territory.”
Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United Satates.”
The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that that eliminated them from being natural born and, thus, from eligibility, they included the grandfather clause which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being natural born. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.
When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th ammendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, “Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority.” The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared “And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US.” Neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents’ citizenship.
This concept of citizenship by blood as opposed to citizenship by geography is a concept with a long history in British common law. A law passed in 1677 says that natural born citizens are those persons born to British citizens, including those born overseas. Alexander Porter wrote an article over 100 years ago in which he declares that the framers drew upon this difference in the law of heredity and territorial allegiance to define a third class of citizen applicable only to the eligibility to hold the office of president. According to Morse, “the framers thought it wise to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance only to the US at the time of birth.” He goes on to say that the the eligibility of the president “was scarcely intended to bar the children of American citizens, whether born at sea or in foreign territory.”
All he has to do to make the lawsuits and all this controversy go away is to produce the REAL long form birth certificate and prove his eligibility. No more, no less. Since he won’t, one has to assume that he can’t — and would therefore prefer to spend massive amounts of money to hide “nothing”.
Anyway...I should be a simple matter.
An honest man would be **HONORED** to promptly prove in every way available that he was natural born and eligible to president. He would do this for any citizen.....even the “nutz”!
That he isn't doing this is convincing a **lot** of people that he isn't a natural born citizen. Polls show that 51% of Republicans and 30% of the general population do not even believe Obama was born in the U.S.! The percentages would be higher if those with doubts were added.
Conclusion: There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that either Republicans or Democrats can ignore Obama’s eligibility in the 2010 election. There is 3 ton dead elephant blocking the road to the voting booth. Neither party can tip toe around that big of a stinking mess!
So the picture I provided has been photoshopped? From what may I ask?
So, no case law, I thought so.
Thanks for the Areo Frittto!
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.