Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
The Post Mail ^ | 10/18/2009 | John Charlton

Posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13

4 Cases have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that define the status of Natural Born Citizen.

(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; fraud; ineligible; lawsuit; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; qualification; ruling; scotus; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 421-424 next last
To: Red Steel; BP2
The source is courtesy of BP2.

BP2 is one of the finest patriots we have the pleasure of keeping company with on this board.

Many thanks, BP.

61 posted on 03/14/2010 1:37:49 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Yes, that would have been much better, but the mere fact that it is capitalized says they were referencing a title. Had it not been capitalized it would take on an entirely different meaning and one that would not be definable.


62 posted on 03/14/2010 1:40:19 PM PDT by Beach555
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
Obama is NOT a NBC by virtue of his Fathers citizenship in another country, and the requirement that Both Parents be citizens of the US for the child to qualify as a candidate for the highest office in the Land. Many argued that Wong Kim Ark, did this, in fact, it only made him a citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen.

Two sentences. And they have thrown the entire country into a tizzy of Cognitive Dissonance. Obama's story is that he was born in Hawaii, and so he's native born, he says.

"Native," = "Natural." And he's sticking to it.

The fact that he has not proven "Native," is very upsetting to those who rightly believe it to be a big deal. Furthermore, he definitely cannot prove "Natural."
So, Obama has created two cases (2) of Cognitive Dissonance. They compete, sometimes in one pleading (Orly's biggest problem), and Obama wins.

This will take a long time to sort out, longer than our Fearlessly Ineligible Leader will be in office. It has recently been convincingly demonstrated that Chester Arthur fraudulently held the office. That took 125 years!

I think we'll be able to prove that BHO, Jr. did the same ... in 5. No one will be able to pull this scam again.

63 posted on 03/14/2010 1:40:55 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Obama? Definitely eligible to be Prime Minister of the UK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; LucyT

I really believe that what the Framers intended was that BOTH parents be BORN here and only the offspring of THOSE two parents born here are eligible for the presidency.
It’s just like the Hebrews wandering in the desert before they could enter the Promised land. Must rid the old generation who were not BORN Hebrews, lest they fall back. The FIRST generation of those who were born Hebrew, but whose parents remained were ALSO died off. The SECOND generation BORN of THOSE parents would have been considered “natural born” Hebrews.
Only then were they permitted to cross over the River Jordan.
It is only logical.
The Framers were well versed in the history of the Hebrews and they understood the concept. I think it never occurred to them that we would become so UNEDUCATED that this would even be a problem. They expected us to understand what they understood.


64 posted on 03/14/2010 1:43:16 PM PDT by MestaMachine (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2426869/posts SUPPORT RINO FREE AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: GBA

Bingo.
For Obama to be a Natural Born Citizen...
1. He has to be born in the United States
2. Both parents must be Natural Born Citizens.


He fails at the extreme, because his father is not even a citizen of the US.
It is immaterial that he was adopted by an Indonesian who is not a citizen of the US, as that does not transfer citizenship to anywhere but the Nation of his step-fathers citizenship. But it does pull him farther from the US as a US citizen. There is no evidence that he reapplied for US citizenship before the age of 25 to reaffirm US citizenship, as he was a minor when his parents renounced his citizenship from the US to attend Indonesian Schools.
This could be because he was never a citizen to begin with, or he has blocked that information as well.

At this point, there is no evidence (as he has had it blocked) that he is even a US citizen. His qualification as a Senator from Illinois is also blocked.

So, regardless of where he was born, he is not a Natural Born Citizen. There exists a possibility that he is a naturalized citizen, but he has not proven that possibility.


People are going off on all kinds of tangents, but the basic fact remains that he fails the basic requirements to be President of the United States because of his parentage.


65 posted on 03/14/2010 1:43:41 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Obot Democrats, Liberals, Commies as they do post on FR.

Good point, except that none of them are courageous enough to admit who they really are to our faces. By pretending to be conservatives, they can (and do) create discouragement and discord among us, at will.

All I can say is that they'd better be glad that JimRob doesn't entrust the zot gun to me.

66 posted on 03/14/2010 1:45:03 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13; BuckeyeTexan

I think you make sense, etraveler. OK, so to really kick the tires, let’s invite Tex.

I don’t think the president is constitutionally qualified, and now it’s being reported that seven states agree he does not meet their definition of qualification in 2012.

60+ Lawmakers 7 States Tell Obama; if you want on 2012 ballot, RELEASE THE RECORDS!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2462967/posts

In other words, we are winning the debate. The only way BO slipped in so secretively is because he blindsided state legislatures.


67 posted on 03/14/2010 1:46:13 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Weakening McCain strengthens our borders, weakens guest worker aka amnesty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

A counterpoint has its place. I don’t think we should exclude all naysayers from the forum.


68 posted on 03/14/2010 1:47:44 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Weakening McCain strengthens our borders, weakens guest worker aka amnesty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

I’m sorry, but even this birther cannot let this error slip: you stated that for a person to be eligible both parents must be natural born citizens; I think you will find that they need to be citizens, even naturalized citizens, but not the most extreme, natural born citizens.


69 posted on 03/14/2010 1:48:38 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: machogirl

I hope it is illuminating....


70 posted on 03/14/2010 1:49:07 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

IMO the meaning was not lost. It frosts me that Obama is a Constitutional Scholar, he KNEW that what he was doing was wrong. Perhaps it was an intellectual exercise that went too far, or perhaps it was fraud. Only he knows that answer, but to the law, its fraud, and to others that participated, its treason.


71 posted on 03/14/2010 1:53:05 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Hi old buddy, I’m feeling pretty fired up about this! [post 67]


72 posted on 03/14/2010 1:53:36 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Weakening McCain strengthens our borders, weakens guest worker aka amnesty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13; dools007

Great thread! Thank you. This issue needs to be presented to the the public on a daily basis.

“(Cheney), did NOT solicit objections from the senate, Per the Rules and Procedures he is required to follow...”

That is a correct statement, but allow me to put a sharper point on it: Cheney was required by 3 USC 15 to call for objections. So the questions are whether the Congress should be allowed to ignore its own statutes - Americans would think not - and whether the USSC, if asked, should render an opinion if Congress does so ignore - Americans who believe in the concept of checks and balances would certainly hope so.

Unfortunately, for our families and our nation’s history, all of the politicians, the lawyers and former judges in the Congress who 1) had full knowledge that O’s father was not a U.S. citizen, 2) were aware of the numerous eligibility lawsuits and 3) had received numerous inquiries as to whether O was even a U.S. citizen, sat on their hands when it was time to raise the point on Jan 8, 2009.

The USSC, who we would go to for relief, and who had knowledge of the 3 points above nonetheless sanctioned the breach of law by Congress by swearing in the new “President” on Jan 20, 2009.


73 posted on 03/14/2010 1:53:58 PM PDT by frog in a pot (Wake up America! There is presently a war at home against you and your Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Beach555

The phrase, “the law of nations” isn’t capitalized in Article I, Section 8. Is it capitalized elsewhere?


74 posted on 03/14/2010 1:59:55 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
My greatest fear is that the issue will be dropped like a hot potato as soon as the next POTUS is elected. After all, it is considered just plain tacky to point to the transgressions of the previous administration, isn't it? I seethe with anger at the unthinkable that has already happened. We have lost our virginity where the constitution is concerned: this country has knowingly elected an ineligible man to the highest position of office in our nation and there is nothing that we can do to punish him.
75 posted on 03/14/2010 2:00:13 PM PDT by scottiemom ("As a Texas public school teacher, I would highly recommend private school")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March

He has already been quoted as saying that he would rather be a really good one term president than a mediocre 2 term president. IMO he is not a really good one term president.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/president-obama-good-term-president/story?id=9657337
President Barack Obama will be a one-term president, former Vice President Dick Cheney confidently predicted Thursday.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81915-cheney-says-obama-will-be-one-term-president-in-surprise-cpac-speech


76 posted on 03/14/2010 2:00:39 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot
Fait accompli is a French phrase which means literally "an accomplished fact". Commonly used to describe an action which is completed before those affected by it are in a position to query or reverse it.

We've been fait'ed, damn those French!

77 posted on 03/14/2010 2:01:39 PM PDT by Huebolt (Democrat = (national socialist) = NAZI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I believe the Framers intended that BOTH parents be born here. That is what separates natural born from being born to naturalized citizens. You know your Old Testament. The concept is directly taken from the Hebrew Exodus.


78 posted on 03/14/2010 2:01:55 PM PDT by MestaMachine (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2426869/posts SUPPORT RINO FREE AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
There is legislation pending in a few states to require candidates for president & VP to prove their constitutional eligibility before their names can be placed on the ballot:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27721631/Table-of-Bills-Pending-in-State-Legislatures-Regarding-Eligibility-for-the-Presidency

I've written to my state legislators and the governor about instituting such a law in Texas. It's a shame that there haven't been such checks and balances on this issue before. Perhaps this legislation can become Obama's most important legacy!

79 posted on 03/14/2010 2:04:33 PM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius, (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

It is not an error sir:


Quote from Vattel:
The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .

The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen: one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.

In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.
Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).


Your interpretation is incorrect, and its important for you to understand that for the office of POTUS ONLY, this is a requirement.


80 posted on 03/14/2010 2:07:14 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 421-424 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson