Posted on 11/08/2010 5:11:53 PM PST by RobinMasters
A congressional document that has been posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and in fact, that status remains undocumented to this day.
It's because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a "natural born Citizen" under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.
The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including Congress, ever asked to see Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. In fact, it explains no one was required to do so.
Technically, the CRS is a public policy research arm of the United States Congress that is organized as a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress; the CRS works exclusively for members of Congress, congressional committees and congressional staff in an advisory capacity, answering questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I didn’t read the article or see the transcript so how am I supposed to know he was referring to Roe? I suppose it makes sense because it is the most famous and controversial case of the last 50 years, but you either believe in stare decisis or you don’t. I’m a layman when it comes to the law, but in my opinion, stare decisis is B.S. You need to have the freedom, as a Supreme Court justice, to overturn incorrect decisions. Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were horrible decisions. If justices were bound by some notion that stare decisis is inviolate or even mostly inviolate, we would likely have some horrible remnants in our society today.
Wanna bet that he won’t read it or agree with any of it...lol
I see you didn’t really address my point. You just cited a bunch of 19th century cases, half of which came before the 14th amendment so they are completely irrelevant. Throw out 1814, 1830, 1856, and 1863. The 14th wasn’t passed until 1868 and if any of those pre-1868 cases had some two-parent requirement for U.S. citizenship, the 14th trumps them all.
“He acquired his citizenship at the time of birth by virtue of the fact that he was born in Louisiana after the passage of the 14th amendment. “
A citizen by statute is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. But, you know that.
“[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .”
“the 14th trumps them all.”
It doesn’t rewrite the CONSTITUTION....lol
His parents were visitors to this country. His mother was working on a nuclear physics degree at a local university. I doubt they were permanent residents; she was most likely on a student visa. I can guarantee you they weren’t U.S. citizens because you can’t gain citizenship within a year of moving to this country. But that’s irrelevant. Bobby Jindal is still eligible to be president because she was born in the U.S. For the same reasons, Michelle Malkin is eligible to be president even though she was also born to non-citizen parents in the United States. I believe they were here on an employment-related visa.
Actually, it does. It’s a constitutional amendment. It’s not amending peanut butter, it’s amending the constitution to add language. The 14th amendment is just as valid as the 1st or the 2nd because it was passed by two thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the state. Constitutional amendments trump any Supreme Court decision. They neuter them.
That must be the third or fourth time you have boiled down your argument to the position that "if I don't like it it isn't so." You really aren't bringing anything new or clever to this debate. Most of what you're saying has been gone over a thousand times here.
If his parents weren’t citizens when he was born, he’s not a Natural Born Citizen.
According to the links TigerEye told me to read, he is, in fact, a natural-born citizen. I don’t know why TigerEye cites cases that came before the 14th because if they contained language contradicting the 14th, the 14th overruled them. That’s basic college con law.
I already addressed the 14th Amendment and your misunderstanding of it. I’m amazed that you keep throwing out court decisions and judicial opinions based on their date and the life status of those who made them. That is new. I guess the entire Constitution is irrelevant on that basis. lol
“Constitutional amendments trump any Supreme Court decision.”
They don’t make a Natural Born Citizen out of a citizen. You won’t find THAT in the 14th amendment.
Oh, that's heavy! /s Maybe we should ask those law students who laughed at Christine O'Donnell when she said there was no mention of separation of church and state in the Constitution or BoRs? ROTFLOL
good one TE
If they weren’t U.S. citizens then Jindal isn’t eligible to be President. So what?
No bet. He's already acting like he didn't read what I have written.
The paper unequivocally states that those born in this country after passage of the 14th are "natural-born citizens". It doesn't say that only those born to two U.S. citizen parents are "natural-born". Why do you think there were papers written about McCain's eligibility and none about Obama's? Because unless he's lying about being born in Hawaii, there's no validity to the claims that he's ineligible. Why did you send me that link to the Michigan law review article if you don't stand by what it says? Maybe you can explain to me why it says that those born in this country are natural-born citizens.
The paper says this specifically:"Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens."
Why are there no buts after this statement? Why are there no mentions of the legislative intent you cite or the early 19th century SCOTUS cases you cite? Is Chin being deliberately misleading?
I don't know what this has to do with the discussion? Red herring?
I will read that stuff later today, even your 19th century cites, but I wonder if you couldn’t perhaps link to a more reputable and unbiased site than to Apuzzo’s. Isn’t he one of the federal plaintiffs challenging Obama’s eligibility? Hardly unbiased. I realize that unbiased commentary on this issue may be difficult to find but come on now.
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.