Posted on 01/16/2012 11:21:39 AM PST by Obama Exposer
I knew this would happen and in a way, it is a good thing because it will also bring focus to Barack Obama's eligibility. Reading the paperwork on this I found out some things I wasn't aware of pertaining to our citizenship statutes back in the 1940's such as the statute listed in this challenge, U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 Sect 201, 54 Stat. 1137 which provides provides the law by which a person born outside the U.S. is bound by in order to qualify legally as a U.S. citizen. For some that do not know, according to Mexican law at the time when Mitts dad George was born in Chihuahua, he became a Mexican citizen. That citizenship was passed to Mitt at his birth in 1947 despite the fact he was born in Michigan. That means Mitt was born a dual citizen and a born dual citizen is not a Article 2 Section 1 natural born citizen eligible for the presidency as our founders intended. Reading the challenge, they bring out the SCOTUS case Minor v Happersett which is binding precedent defining a natural born citizen. They also cite The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 289 (1814) as well as the case Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830). It goes on to say:
Article 30. Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization: A. Mexicans by birth are: I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents:
"By virtue of this law, in order for George Romney to have become a U.S. citizen he would have to be naturalized".
Well, it will be interesting how the media responds to this.
And I agree with your last sentence. I’m sure Romney supporters will not like this but it is inevitable that this would happen. If Jindal or Rubio are picked in the future to be a V.P. on the GOP nominee’s ticket, I am sure that there will be challenges pertaining to their eligibility too.
What's not to understand? I despise Mitt as much as many here on freepers, but to distort law to invent a fictitious controversy is to spit on the constitution and the faith of our founding fathers. PERIOD.
I can see most of the news channels reporting this story. Faux News will at first ignore it. If it gets any traction they will vellify it and call anyone that says it has merit, an anti-American Mitt Romney hater.
I never realized how liberal Faux News was, but their pimping for pro-abort, pro-homo marriage, anti-second amendment Willard The Liberal has really opened my eyes. I no longer watch their news channel. To me they are exactly like CNN, but much more like MSNBC. All these channels promote the liberal agenda.
Watch CSpan if youw want independent reporting and thought. You will not get it with Faux and the other liberal news channels. Rupert Murdoc, the billionare owner of Faux News, is a longtime democratic party supporter.
Anyone ever wonder how we have so many non-eligible or questionably eligible people running for president of the united states. I mean it should be a relatively rare thing, but it is happening all the time. It kind of makes me wonder.
Right. Got it. My mistake. ;)
So you are applauding this because it shins light on the same issue pertaining to Obama, parentage. I am applauding this because it kill two birds with one stone....(let us pray)
......................................
Bingo!!!
So why did McCain have to have a resolution drawn up by the senate stating he was born to two citizen parents? According to you, it didn’t matter where George was born because he was born to two U.S. parents regardless.
The Newt SuperPac should start ads in SC addressing this issue. That blows away the theme of both Mitt’s inevitability and electability.
Everyone goes on about Rubio being a Veep pick, but I don’t think he’s eligible. His parents were Cuban citizens; it would seem to make him ineligible to be president, and thus VP.
Did you know that your personal n00bie musings about eligibility do not constitute “News”.. as you have claimed?
Yes it was, George was my Governor at the time (I was a college sophomore) but he bailed out of the 1968 campaign before reaching a critical point.
not this vatel manure again.
besides dual citizenship has been allowed and enchanced by Reagan.
this case is DOA.
And the real NBC’s are on the sidelines, Palin, Christie, Trump, Ryan, O’Connell, etc.
Claire McCaskill (D) brought up the resolution, and one could argue that it was to inoculate Obama from similar inquiries.
George Romney was recognized as a US Citizen from birth, and his son Willard was born in the US to two US Citizens.
Move on. Obama is NOT a US Citizen, but Mitt Romney is.
Correct.
In general, I agree with you, although as I stated before, it doesn’t really matter what Mexican law says. What Mexican law says does not impact what the Constitution means.
At the same time, though, the “Natural Born Citizen” issue will invariably be a source of contention until the S.Ct. interprets it.
The problem is that there are really two concepts here, i.e. the question of whether you are a citizen, and the question of whether you are natural born. The argument over this typically is based upon a failure to separate those concepts.
The Constitutional history states that the purpose of the provision was to prevent a “foreign prince” from being President. They were concerned about a foreign nobleman moving to the US so that he could become the President. In fact, there was a movement by some at one time to recruit a Prussian prince to do just that. He turned them down, apparently thinking that it was not a very good opportunity.
The common understanding then was that you had to be born here. In reality, though, it’s a little more subtle than that. You just need to be an American from birth, in my opinion.
I hope that Illinois Freepers keep us up on this story.
You joined FR just to post this crap?
Mexican law in place at the time of George Romney's birth had been tailored to prohibit the children of foreign nationals from attaining Mexican citizenship at the time of birth because of the American Mormon settlers. This is very well trodden ground even here at FR.
For a moment, let's accept the "Birther" definition of "natural born" and apply it to Mitt Romney. George Romney's parents were always U.S. citizens, nothing else, thus George Romney was always a U.S. citizen by birth. Since Mitt's parents were always and only citizens and he was born inside the United States, even by "Birther" theory, Mitt Romney is a "natural born" citizen.
This ridiculous "challenge" to Mitt's eligibility should be loudly and forcefully opposed. It is factually unsupportable.
For the question of whether or not George Romney was a US citizen at birth, it doesn't matter where George Romney was born since he was born to two US citizen parents. For the question of whether he is a "natural-born" citizen, some argue that it does matter where George Romney was born. But whether George Romney was a "natural born citizen" as opposed to a "citizen" has no bearing on whether Mitt Romney is.
Mitt Romney was born in the US to two US citizens, so any suggestion that he's not a natural-born citizen is absurd on its face.
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.