Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Squeeky
Since I am not an attorney, have not studied the issue, would not know how to evaluate the material even if I did, I surely would like the opinion of the Supreme Court on the matter.

Let” see?...Opinion of a Freeper? ....or...a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court?...( the Supreme Court wins.)

One reason to get this complete clarified for legal illiterates, such as myself, is that there is Jindal and Rubio being suggested as possible presidential candidates. Given the definition of some regarding natural born citizenship, the baby born in LA recently to the U.S. citizen mom and his drug lord Mexican dad, could re-enter the country at age 23 and then 14 years later run for president. I do NOT think that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Seriously! I don't. They wanted a president with NO NO NO encumbering allegiances to any other country whatsoever.

Even if it means a Constitutional Amendment to fully get this matter resolved then we must do this. Because I believe that our Founding Fathers did not want a person with any other allegiance to any other country in any form.

472 posted on 10/17/2011 5:28:03 PM PDT by wintertime (I am a Constitutional Restorationist!!! Yes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies ]


To: wintertime
SCOTUS is not in the habit of wasting their time writing on issues that have been established and settled law in the US. If you are born in this country, (except children of diplomats) you are a natural born citizen. That has been the law for over the past century. I suggest you read the Wong Kim Ark v. US case from SCOTUS. It is the landmark case in this area of the law and has been cited in thousands of cases over the years from Immigration Court to US District Court to every Circuit Court of Appeals to SCOTUS.

Have you ever wondered why there is no credible conservative legal foundation (out of dozens) or an attorney, such as Mark Levin, have ever got involved in one of these Vattel birther cases. It is because there is zero legal merit to the Vattel Birther theory.

For an easier read on this issue, google the Ankeny v. Daniels case. It is from the 2008 election and the court held that Obama was eligible to be on the Indiana presidential ballot.

476 posted on 10/17/2011 6:31:50 PM PDT by ydoucare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson