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 ...
None of them has turned any case down due to the facts in question so it says nothing in that regard.
But John McCain was born to two U.S. citizen parents, correct? Therefore he would have been a birthright citizen even if he had been born on the island of Antarctica. Location of birth only matters for determining U.S. citizenship when you’re not born to two U.S. citizen parents. If you’re born to one U.S. citzen parent and they resided in the U.S. for the required period of time before your birth, then it’s a non-issue. Obama needs to have been born on U.S. soil to claim birthright citizenship. His father was not a U.S. citizen and his mother was only 18 or 19 when he was born, making it impossible for her to have lived in the U.S. for the required period of time to confer citizenship on him.
Well the U.S. also doesn’t recognize a difference between natural-born citizen and regular citizen in law either.
If Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, he is a citizen and eligible to be president. If Obama was NOT born in Hawaii in 1961, he is not a U.S. citizen and is ineligible for the office.
Which is very important to being a natural born citizen, yes.
Therefore he would have been a birthright citizen even if he had been born on the island of Antarctica. Location of birth only matters for determining U.S. citizenship when you’re not born to two U.S. citizen parents.
Well, not exactly true. McCain was not eligible for very different reasons having to do with the location of his birth and the timing of it.
Chin on Senator McCain's U.S. Citizenship
Senator John McCain and Natural Born Citizenship: The Full Symposium
Obama needs to have been born on U.S. soil to claim birthright citizenship. His father was not a U.S. citizen and his mother was only 18 or 19 when he was born, making it impossible for her to have lived in the U.S. for the required period of time to confer citizenship on him.
There you go. That would make him a native born citizen but not a natural born citizen.
That's because there is no such thing as a "regular" citizen. As I said before there are three categories of citizenship; natural born, native born and naturalized.
According to Justice Scalia stare decisis is very important.
No, it would make him a natural born citizen. Where is this native born citizen stuff coming from? There are only two categories. You’re a natural-born citizen or a naturalized citizen. A child born today an illegal immigrant mother in El Paso is a natural-born citizen. I’m also a natural born citizen, because I was born in Boise, Idaho to two U.S. citizen parents who were both fourth-generation Americans. There is no distinction in the law between us. I’m eligible to be president in 5 years and they’ll be eligible in 35 years.
That's just your opinion and one you don't seem to have any argument to support.
So I suppose we can’t count on Justice Scalia to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if Kennedy retires and is replaced with a conservative justice? Because stare decisis is very important? I don’t think so. He’ll vote to overturn, as will Thomas, Roberts, Alito and whoever the new conservative justice is.
That's not even an opinion anymore it's just the same meaningless blather that 0bots have been repeating ad-nauseum for over two years now.
Not at all. That has been gone over endlessly here and they are definitely not interchangeable.
This is from page 2 of your michiganlawreview symposium conference link:
"Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens." What do you say to that? That seems to drive my point home. If Obama was born in Hawaii (or Texas, or Vermont, or the District of Columbia for that matter), then he is a natural born citizen. If he wasn't, then he isn't.
Do you disagree with your link that you posted?
: "According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” Unless born in the United States, a person “can only become a citizen by being naturalized . . . by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens . . . .” A person granted citizenship by birth outside the United States to citizen parents is naturalized at birth; he or she is both a citizen by birth and a naturalized citizen."
Two sources of citizenship, not three as you mention. I would wager that the students at the top 10 University at Michigan Law School who edited this commentary know more about this issue than you or I, as does the University of Arizona professor who penned the piece, and the students who undoubtedly assisted him with the research. I see no mention of the three types of citizenship in this piece. Could you point it out to me?
That was exactly the case that Scalia was referring to when he spoke of the importance of stare decisis. You seem to have missed the importance of the word 'importance.' It is not a synonym for 'impossible.'
"The first sentence of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” Persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are natural born citizens as, for example, the Supreme Court held in Rogers v. Bellei. But the Fourteenth Amendment does not define the “United States.” Surely it includes the states, but it does not say what else, if anything, it covers."
Therefore Jindal is eligible by virtue of the fact that he was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in 1971. He is a natural-born citizen. 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.
The definition and two-parent requirement has been reiterated by the Supreme Court and other courts in the cases of The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863). It has also been confirmed by renowned legislators, including Senator Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and Representative John A. Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.
“I see no mention of the three types of citizenship in this piece. Could you point it out to me?”[
The answer is in the CONSTITUTION. Anything written after that, is subject to interpretation. Two people will find two meanings in everything they read.
Jindal is not relevant to this discussion unless you can tell me whether his parents were both citizens at the time of his birth. Why do you keep bringing him up?
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.