Posted on 12/16/2011 5:31:52 PM PST by bushpilot1
Five Georgia men have challenged President Barack Obama’s inclusion on next year’s presidential ballot, with at least some citing an oft-discredited theory that Obama is not eligible for office because the Constitution says that a president must be a “natural born citizen.”
All the challenges have been made through the Georgia Office of the Secretary of State, which referred them to the state administrative hearings office. Hearings have not yet been set.
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
I’m hoping the issue will be decided after he leaves office, because otherwise it is just too messy constitutionally with succession..
Then the hidden documents will surface proving he was not born in Hawaii. Those two excuses for USSC judges will be dismissed, and all his enactments will be rescinded..
In my dreams.
Placemark for this thread if I can steal some minutes tomorrow!!!!
“I truly fail to see the legitimacy of your argument, Blade. You continue to harp on the question as to why all the birther’s waited until this President to voice their concern over NBC status.”
Whether or not you see its legitimacy, I note that you concede on the facts of the matter. We never heard of them advance their legal theory until they needed reasons why Barack Obama cannot be president. In our time, for all of Barack Obama’s life and more, anyone could simply look up the term in /Black’s Law Dictionary/ and see that Obama qualified. As far as we can tell, that was just fine with all who are now Vattel-birthers, right up until about November of 2008.
In other threads we’ve seen birthers claim that their grade-school civics textbooks said that only those born to two citizen parents are natural-born. When challenged for a citation, they had none, so they turned around the challenge and asked for civics books that said being born in the United States is sufficient. Challenge met. Some civics books did teach the meaning of natural-born citizen and of those we found 100% of them said that the native-born qualify.
We’ve heard birther claim that politicians don’t care about the Constitution and just ignore the requirement. Nonsense. The Clinton and Nixon administrations published orders of succession that excluded their Secretaries of State, because Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger are not natural-born citizens.
If you don’t think that’s a legitimate point, well, that’s you. The rule that the native-born are natural-born was clear. It was in /Black’s Law Dictionary/, in civics textbooks, legal journals, and court opinions. In our time no one was saying otherwise until the sore losers started telling the rules different when they didn’t like who was winning.
Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you can cite... Oh, I’ve asked that already.
Vendome wrote: “Blade is that chick who works at the law firm,in Chicago, who has been aassessing attack/defense and under mining Article 2, Sec. II.”
Wrong on gender, wrong on profession, wrong on location, wrong on agenda, wrong on vocabulary, and wrong on which section of Article II.
“by your standard, any anchor baby who claims to have been born this side of the Rio Grande, regardless of his parents, regardless of his background, is qualified to be President of the US!”
Nonsense. Babies aren’t qualified. Have to be at least 35.
I’ve issued that challenge over and over and birthers *never* have the goods. Their sources are either so old that they were considering the situation before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), or so new that they came up with it specifically to deny Obama the presidency.
Seeing you crow about that, I just had to take a moment. My moments are quite rare as I work a 70 hour week, have a house and yard to take care of, a driveway to shovel, a wife and two small children. Even so, I ran a quick search and came upon this from The Washington Law Reporter, 1903. The writer specifically states that native-born (born in country to non-citizen parents) are not natural-born. He says natural-born is entirely and solely dependent on the citizenship of the parents.
So, there's your post-1898 source that you claimed nobody could find.
I've told you before that I worried that my now six-year-old son (i.e. pre-Obama) would not be eligible for the presidency since his mother was just a permanent resident. You blew off that comment, and those of several others here, claiming we made it all up post-2008 to support our idea. Well I most strenuously object to you calling me and other Freepers in good standing liars to our faces.
Now go away. And don't you dare to ever claim again that nobody has ever quoted sources published after ratification of the 14th and before 2008.
Our conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement; and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of president of the United States.
Alexander Porter Morse. Albany Law Journal
WASHINGTON, D.C., March, 19o4
Thanks again patlin for locating the document.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2462598/posts?q=1&;page=1
Well, at least you got balls.
Well, at least you got balls.
If you do get time to read the thread, please take special note of this post by visually_augmented. It is the single best call-out of an Obot Troll I have ever read. Notice that blade avoids answering it like the plague. It is to questions like these that the combined resources or fogbow, factcheck and obamaconspiracy provide no answer. Only a conservative could answer v_a’s questions, and in this case, they were posed to a liberal.
Do you then agree that if Obama is found to have actually been born outside the USA, that he is ineligible?
The appeal you quoted simply denied legal standing, and the specific part you quoted is from a footnote in which the court errantly claims, “The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.” Sorry, but this is nonsense. The footnote is in response to a comment that the court cannot exercise jurisdiction without an injury in fact. The vote of the plaintiffs won’t remedy Obama’s constitutional deficiency by not being a natural-born citizen. A vote for local Congress critters to uphold the Constitution won’t remedy Obama’s Constitutional deficiency because it would require a collective overhaul in Congress that cannot be effected by the election of new Congress critters in only one state. Second, nothing of what the court said in this footnote prohibits the court from taking action to exercise it’s Constitutional function of resolving controversies between citizens of different states. This doesn’t involve the political question doctrine. The courts have interceded in plenty of election questions, and eligiblity in particular. By including this in the footnote, it ensures that these claims are not crtical factors in any subsequent review by a higher court. It makes for a good dodge, but it’s not very strong from a legal standpoint.
A better question is who hasn’t dropped the ball. Our public has become very dumbed down and/or are simply misinformed on what it means to be a natural-born citizen. Once you establish the benchmark from these two landmark Supreme Court cases, then there’s no basis not to go ahead and enforce it now. The best way is to get Senator Obama off the 2012 ballots.
Orrin Hatch should be no one's final authority on the law and it has been plain he had a multitude of things wrong via his association with Ted Kennedy.
You're apparentlysaying that because no court has--in our time--held a distinction between natural born and native that they've somehow become equivalent, as if time itself works to supersede Minor (or any other judicial decision, it would appear).
Such "reasoning" shows no regard for history or this country's Founders, or centuries of distinguished, thoughtful jurists, and is worthy of less respect that OWS'ers claiming to have rightfully acquired foreclosed property for themselves.
Other than working as a malefactor on this Conservative website, why could possibly be here?
HF
It could matter, as it might affect what some people do. But holding water? That seems unlikely, as such a Congressional whim that would attempt to change something in the Constitution needs to be in the form of an Amendment thereto. If it’s a restatement of something entirely within the existing scope of the Constitution, it’s superfluous and hardly worth doing, except as some attempt to waste other people’s time and/or run out some clock.
HF
“Well, at least you got balls.”
Not so fast! With this administration, they might well have given hiring preference to a taxpayer-paid-operation trannie.
HF
You, who quckly qualifies what the law should be by harkening to "in our time", are of course being opportunistically dishonest, but you know that, don't you? I'm sure you are happy to think of school kids being dumbed down whenever it serves your Leftist agenda.
I trust you're further aware of the repugnance of your example to Conservative thought and how we detest any idea of a "living Constitution", but you wear this unprincipled victory happily, despite your knowledge of the truth. Your furtherance of this intellectual dishonesty that would rob the youth of their heritage, carefully prepared in full honesty, deserves to follow you for the rest of your days, whether in this life or hereafter. Lk 17:2
HF
LOL
Too true
WildSnail wrote: “I ran a quick search and came upon this from The Washington Law Reporter, 1903.”
The question he’s considering is the “eligibility to the office of the presidency of a child born of American parents at sea or in a foreign territory”. He concluded that they are natural born citizens, not that the native born are not, certainly not post 14’th Amendment.
The other post-WKA opinion Vattel-birthers try to cite is Breckinridge Long’s 1916 piece arguing that Charles Evans Hughes, who resigned from the SCOTUS to run from president, was ineligible. Long got around the 14’th Amendment by arguing:
“Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within
WildSnail wrote: “I’ve told you before that I worried that my now six-year-old son (i.e. pre-Obama) would not be eligible for the presidency since his mother was just a permanent resident. You blew off that comment, and those of several others here, claiming we made it all up post-2008 to support our idea.”
Your recollection of a worry? And why didn’t you just look it up in /Black’s Law Dictionary/, the one the U.S. Supreme Court most frequently cites, as West Publishing wants us all to know? Was it so important to you that your son not be eligible that you played constitutional scholar and searched for justification to disqualify him?
“You, who quckly qualifies what the law should be by harkening to ‘in our time’, are of course being opportunistically dishonest, but you know that, don’t you?”
It’s not just liberals who thing the Vattel-birthers’ legal theory is crap.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2785458/posts
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.