Posted on 02/13/2011 8:19:54 AM PST by jdoug666
Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. Was he ever an Indonesian Citizen?
Can you give me a link to that decision?
I sense that there’s “another story” here even more explosive than the circumstances of Barry’s birth.
That story is:
Who is Barry’s father?
And even more intriguing:
Who is Barry’s mother?
Presidential candidates are required to provide evidence they are Natural-born citizens in order to be placed on the presidental election ballot. A natural born citizen is a citizen born under the jurisdiction of the United States to parents who are Citizens of the United States. The secretary of state shall:
(a) Verify all candidates satisfy this criteria
(b) Remove any candidate from the election ballot who fails to satisfy this criteria
Thank you.
That would probably get tossed because it attempts to define what isn't defined in the Constitution.
However, it might nevertheless be useful: When it lands the secretary of state in Federal Court, as it most certainly will, I would think the court would have difficulty denying him on the basis of "standing", given his official responsibilities. Instead, the case would have to be heard on its merits, and, ultimately the Supreme Court might end up needing to define "natural born citizen".
My bet is they'll decide it's simply citizen by reason of birth, which means Zero is eligible, lacking proof he was born abroad. Even then, Stanley Ann is his mother, and her marriage to BHO, Sr. was bigamous, which means she could still have passed on citizenship despite not being old enough.
The controversy should make for a fun election, unless the Donks kick him out in the primary.
That would probably get tossed because it attempts to define what isn't defined in the Constitution.
That is a bold assumption. It would be unclear as to how the Supreme Court would respond to it. Nevertheless, there has been legal precidence, and although there is only 1 case stating anyone born in the U.S. is a Natural Born Citizen, there are dozens of other cases that contradict this decision, 3 of which are cited in this controversial case. And there has not been a single case that has been decided on with respects to Article I requirements.
At least these laws, regardless of their intent, will finally force the judiciary to clarify the law, something all Constitutional citizens should surely welcome. Those who fight this process are clearly against the Constitution. Saying "it shouldn't happen because it's un-Constitutional" is self-defeating as no presidential eligibility law has been passed to date in this country. We do not know whether it is Constitutional or not unless the Supreme Court says it is, or is not.
Pardon me. It should say with respects to Article II requirements.
The link was in post 20, but here it is again.
This is amazing
If you have sources, please post them. FR can give it momentum.
Oops, I see it now.
Link at post 22
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.