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 ...
Absolutely. First, you find a link to where you think you asked me to show the "exclusively" part of the definition. Then you need to admit your error when I show you again that it was explained and that you've dishonestly ignored that explanation. Hop to, junior.
Butterfly Bilderberg
how can the constitution be unconstitutional? - that is just crazy talk
the law also does not distinguish between a 30 year old and a 35 year old. Does that make the age requirement for president, in the constitutional, also unconstitutional?
Crazy talk I tell you...
Refer to post 48
“...Refer to post 48...”
-
I have read all of that.
So, are you saying such a bill would be unnecessary...
because the definition of “natural born citizen”
is settled?
I think not.
I think it needs to be defined.
My question is: can congress define it?
The Supreme Court was very clear in Minor v. Happersett: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These are the natives or natural-born citizens.
What kind of legislation would be more clear than that??
“...The Supreme Court was very clear...”
“...all children born in the country
to parents who were its citizens...
are natural-born citizens...”
-
I’m guess what I’m tryin’ to say is that
if it is so danged clear (to you and me)
then why are we having this discussion?
Apparently it is not so danged clear to everybody else.
So how do we clear it up?
Can congress define the term?
-
Hiding behind this discussion is this:
IF:
Congress COULD define what “natural born citizen” means...
THEN:
COULD congress define what the “commerce clause” means?
COULD congress define what “promote the general welfare” means?
-
My belief is that our founders established a government “of the people” and
“We The People” select and send our representatives to congress and
congress is granted our authority to determine what these terms mean.
snip- “Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history - Minor v. Happersett (1875) - to directly construe Article 2 Section 1’s natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a “native or natural-born citizen” as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.”
http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate
It may help, but lawyers doing what lawyers do, the "two parents" designation would have to be defined further to designate both parents who are either (a.)natural born or (b.)naturalized or (c.)both. Otherwise, if this issue were ever fully resolved - as few ever are -, many lawyers would be out of a job. I think Twain said it correctly..."First kill all the lawyers". ;o)
"Citizen" is a descriptive legal term in its own right, no further qualification is required. Becoming a citizen by any recognized means, means throwing off any enforcable legal obligation to a foreign power as far as yourself and in many instances your children. That was the concern in including the Presidential eligibility requirement, that he (or she) not be subject to any foreign power in a legitimate, legal sense. Allegiance is imagined to be a state of mind nowadays, but it's actually more the obligation that would be the problem.
Having citizen parents and being born within sovereign territory is the only way to completely avoid these foreign obligations, or "entanglements" as several of the Founders would describe them.
Blade, a person born of one American and one alien parent has never been determined to be natural born. The issue has never been resolved.
I agree about allegiance being the basis especially to a founding of a nation. The sorry thing is that over two hundred years later we have a president who may meet the requirements physically - or not - but who for all practical purposes lacks the allegiance. Too bad the electorate seems past caring that it both has been allowed to happen and just may continue. That Obama was elected by empty, flowery promises, is obvious but his reelection should not, no cannot, be built upon an equally vapid one.
Some wonder if this issue of eligibility would have come up had Obama not been the candidate. My thoughts are both that it is has, and that it wouldn't have for him had his credentials been more forthcoming. Sure he was elected to his state senate and then to the federal level, but until running for president, his birthplace was not questioned. I even have a document that boasted of his Kenyan birth and Mrs. Obama was quoted as saying so, too. Add to those his missing scholastic records, writings, etc. and his ham-handed BC postings as well as his Muslim leanings and you have a number of citizens questioning his allegiance with cause. There's too little solid substance to have ever allowed him to excel like he has so, naturally, people will question everything about him.
“When the journal articles by Gordon and Pryor stated that the eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled,”
I don’t want to be mean, Mr Bryan, and I won’t be. I’ve read through your posting history and found nothing but argumentative overreach. Your material is a stretch at every point in your journey.
Your demeanor is sour and your argument is as if you just type what some body tells you.
You post as if you are a well respected constitutional scholar, you are not.
But you may have played one, from time to time. Give it up or you will suffer great emotional devastation. Go back to the progressive herd where you belong.
in our system, Congress and State Legislatures may amend the Constitution by those means provided within the document, but not add or subtract to it by simple legislation.
IOW, Congress cannot merely pass a law declaring, clarifying, or interpreting what what the term "Natural Born Citizen" means. Article II, or any other part of the Constitution can be restructured only by amendment and ratification, or by Constitutional Convention, .
If any state's electoral authority were to demand proof of eligibility from a candidate, and that proof not be forthcoming, or be unacceptable to them, they would be completely within their constitutional rights to keep that candidate off their state ballot. The rejected candidate would have every right to contest their decision. Either side would then have the right of appeal, which IMHO is the only way this thorny issue will get to the SCOTUS.
The issue is NOT clear to me*. That is why I would seek the opinion of the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS is an appeals court. The trick is to perform the process to the point where they must accept the case.
*IOW, until the SCOTUS rules, I have no idea if my side would prevail, or not. Just for the record, I happen to believe the present POTUS was ineligible to contest the post. MY POV is just as good as anyone else's until the courts rule on the cases brought on their merits.
While our discussions are most edifying, absent any legitimate legal process, they don't mean very much. Of course, in the meantime Obama occupies the office.
IMHO, the court will avoid the issue until after he leaves office. If Jindal or Rubio become candidates, all bets are off and the issue will have to be fast-tracked, again probably through the states.
I asked what kind of legislation would make it more clear than what the SCOTUS wrote. That was directed at you. Why didn't you answer??
You have been arguing eligibility with BladeBryan since march 2010.
Your patience is legendary. Not hard to find one of his posts, is it. He posts nothing but argument for eligibility.
widdle_wabbit wrote: “Blade, a person born of one American and one alien parent has never been determined to be natural born.”
According to some real courts:
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [...] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. [...] The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.” — Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.” — Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)
“She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state.” — Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918)
Quite different from your imagination, isn’t it widdle_wabbit?
You don’t even understand what you posted.
Did you go to law school?
Your imagination would have you believe; Jill Pryor concluded a child born to an American and a foreigner would be natural born. You are, sadly, just another shill for the progressives. I must say, you remind me of Barrack himself.
I’ll have trouble not thinking of Barrack whenever you post in the manner you have become accustomed to posting.
What do you see when you wake up in the morning? Is it Michelle? Or is it Reggie? Be honest, you are amongst Conservatives.
“When the journal articles by Gordon and Pryor stated that the eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled,”
The post above is the post I am referencing. Why change the subject, don’t you know how to stay on subject? Or do you just change it when questioned?
Are you going to watch the Patriots/Broncos tomorrow afternoon?
Fine and dandy. Now back to Jill Pryor if you would, please.
You said Jill determined Barrack is NBC. She did not.
Prove she did or I’ll go back to thinking you are really Barrack hisself. Mr President, Sir, YOU S*#@!
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.