What I’m doing is stating a fact. The Supreme Court has already argued, in 1890, that the meaning of NBC is rooted in the common law meaning of natural born subject. That makes a lot of sense. The Founders didn’t HAVE to write NBC. They could have used 4 words - born of citizen parents - if they wanted to avoid any confusion with a well known legal phrase.
Since they went ahead and used a common legal term, it seems plausible that THAT was what they meant to do. They weren’t the sort to insert legal phrases into the Constitution by accident.
They also could have used Vattel’s terminology and required the President to be a “native”, but they didn’t do that, either.
So there is good legal reasoning for believing that Obama Sr didn’t disqualify Obama Jr from running for President. The other candidates among the Democrats, and John McCain & Sarah Palin could have made it an issue, but they concluded it wouldn’t hold water. The Supreme Court could have taken a case before Obama was put in office, but they didn’t either. Any Congressman could have objected in writing, but not one out of 535 did so.
So either all the rest of the world, including every state legislature is on the take, and you alone are patriots...OR, your legal case doesn’t cut the mustard. I don’t expect rabid birthers to agree anymore than I expect to convince truthers that 911 was an attack by extremists and not the CIA. But I CAN post info to let lurkers find out that the birther legal case isn’t at all what they claim, and that there are good reasons why no legislature, no Congressman and the courts haven’t sided with the birthers.
What I’m doing is stating a fact. The Supreme Court has already argued, in 1890, that the meaning of NBC is rooted in the common law meaning of natural born subject. That makes a lot of sense. The Founders didn’t HAVE to write NBC. They could have used 4 words - born of citizen parents - if they wanted to avoid any confusion with a well known legal phrase.
Since they went ahead and used a common legal term, it seems plausible that THAT was what they meant to do. They weren’t the sort to insert legal phrases into the Constitution by accident.
They also could have used Vattel’s terminology and required the President to be a “native”, but they didn’t do that, either.
So there is good legal reasoning for believing that Obama Sr didn’t disqualify Obama Jr from running for President. The other candidates among the Democrats, and John McCain & Sarah Palin could have made it an issue, but they concluded it wouldn’t hold water. The Supreme Court could have taken a case before Obama was put in office, but they didn’t either. Any Congressman could have objected in writing, but not one out of 535 did so.
So either all the rest of the world, including every state legislature is on the take, and you alone are patriots...OR, your legal case doesn’t cut the mustard. I don’t expect rabid birthers to agree anymore than I expect to convince truthers that 911 was an attack by extremists and not the CIA. But I CAN post info to let lurkers find out that the birther legal case isn’t at all what they claim, and that there are good reasons why no legislature, no Congressman and the courts haven’t sided with the birthers.
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”