Have YOU Donated To FR Yet?
Posted on 04/08/2011 12:28:02 PM PDT by Music Producer
To you. And, perhaps, even to me. Yet, it has never been conclusively established in a court of law.
And it will not be so established in the case of Barack Hussein Obama. The SCOTUS won't touch a case based on this issue. Nor, frankly, should they.
It's a dead end, contemporarily. If you want to approach it as an academic issue, fine. It needs to happen...but it won't disqualify the current occupant.
Accordingly, all the energy invested in NBC as a way to disqualify Obama is utterly wasted!
According to,Obama’s actual writing, his ghastly poem, there was sex between them. If that was his own father that would be pretty sick.
I believe there could be an argument that the reference to the Law of Nations applies only to the piracy issue and has no relevance to the Natural Born Citizen definition or clause.
I am with you but playing legal devil’s advocate.
The definition is not constitutionally clear for modern times.
And if Barack Obama is eligible, we are a stone s throw away from an anchor baby being eligible.
Read the entirety of Vattel’s subsection, and, please, find something in it that is not constitutionally clear for modern times. This was the definition of “natural born citizen” then, and is still the definition. Moreover, it’s easier to understand than some of the posts in this thread. LOL!
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
God save constitutional America; thanks.
Trump obviously has had local PIs digging around the hospital. Hospitals do keep these records forever. I was born in the 1970s and recently went to the ER of that same hospital for some stitches, the first time I had returned. They asked me if I still lived at "123 Greenwood" -- where I had lived with my parents barely until preschool.
“...They asked me if I still lived at “123 Greenwood”... “
Pretty cool.
10,000 years from now, just like we’ve done in ancient Sumer the past two centuries, archaeologists of the future will dig up a 21st century hospital and there will be records galore!
Yes, but that is not the constitution and nowhere in the general constitution or The specific NBC part does the C reference another document.
While I am agreeing with you in general, there is not already an airtight case for the definition we want and believe in. Not yet. We need as a country to make it happen, either In the supreme court (good luck) or in an amendment.
How do we know his father was really a Kenyan?
We need the birth certificate anyway.
Unless the fact that he ran under a fake name invalidates his election.
The Constitution DOES affirm the NBC clause, as it was delineated in “Law of Nations.”
EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations
I’m not saying that we DON’T need the birth certificate. We certainly DO! However, since we don’t know what’s on it, it’s a crapshoot. We DO know that the father he claims was never a U.S. citizen. Go after the sure thing first, that will likely produce the documentation.
Interesting documentation:
What part of what I said don’t you get? There is no external document which trumps our Constitution, legally.
And, what part of what I said don’t YOU get? Let’s try this again: “and Offenses against the Law of Nations.” That’s in the Constitution, and, as it is capitalized, it is a reference to the only “Law of Nations” that existed at the time—Vattel’s. And in it, Vattel defined Natural Born Citizen. So, Vattel isn’t “trumping” the Constitution, for the Constitution itself affirms “Law of Nations.”
Still here!!!
You may recall that he got an unreported visit at SCOTUS on January 14, 2009???
Honestly I missed out on the weeks before & after his inauguration - no internet, little to no TV, so I missed all the intrigue surrounding the event. What do you think (or what was speculated) to have happened in this visit? Do you think his citizenship status was discussed?
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.