Skip to comments.Fox News' Bret Baier: Dual Citizens Can't Be President (Finally They Get It Right!)
Posted on 08/22/2013 11:52:50 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
TEAM OBAMA FLASHBACK:
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdoms dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982. - Obama's Fight the Smears and Factheck.org.
- See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/08/bret-baier-reports-obama-cruz-not-eligible.html#idc-container
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
>>Ill vote for Cruz if he runs and for those who dont like it, so Im a hypocrite now kiss my ass.<<
Fine then. If we go down this road, dont be surprised if the democrats run a guy with dual citizenship with Mexico or China.
Guess thats ok with you.
Exactly. And since dems/leftists continually ramp up the insanity, it could be a kid born to a Chinese national who comes here solely to give birth - “birth tourism”, there are special hotels catering to them now, IIRC in either NYC or LA or maybe both. The Chinese woman pops out the kid on US soil, rests a bit, goes home, and voila! The kid could be president.
The number of people willing to spit on the Constitution in order to save the Constitutitonal Republic is amazing. If Cruz really wants to run for President (and I have NO idea if he does or not), that shows right there that the rule of law is secondary to his personal political ambitions.
Many a good man was ruined by over weening political ambition.
We must fight fire with fire. At least Ted Cruz loves this county than a natural born who was brainwashed by liberals.
Fighting fire with fire by having a non-NBC as candidate and thus further degraded any semblance of rule of law is not the way to get back to what we have lost - which is the rule of law and following the Constitution!
Thanks for this post.
Think people would have voted for BO if he had a noticeable accent (Kenyan, Indonesian)?
Bret Baier lost all credibility on this issue when he stated that the NATURALIZED Puerto Ricans are eligible to be President.
Or British...regardless of the real facts. The legal facts enforce currently support that he was born to British father. And thus aquired British Citizenship at birth as well.
So like Cruz he would have legally been a Brit.
In 1971 he likely did aquire Kenyan citizenship when his legal, namesake father (regardless of the actual fact that are not known) took temporary custody of him.
So Obama is real mutt when it comes to citizenships.
Remember Birth Certificates are not the highest regarded form of citizenship identification. Passports are. Show the passports - all the way back to the early 1960s....
Lets see that happen...
If Cruz gets a billionaire to finance the ‘fact’ that he is a “natural born citizen” then that’s what the judges will say. Soro’s money paid for Obama and it will be money that pays for Cruz’s election run.
Sadly, I think people were so invested in electing the first black president that they wouldn’t have cared if he was in full on Kenyan menswear.
We had a woman running, and we had a black man.
We can elect a woman any old time, but to get just that right black man..........well, they couldn’t pass on the opportunity.
Do I sound racist? I am not nearly as racist as the ass putzes who voted for a man to be the president of the United States of America just because he was black (ish).
And now all of these “conservatives” are hooting over Cruz, because “it’s our turn now”! If the dems can ignore the Constitution, so can we!
The game has played out. The dems have achieved success. It didn’t take them very long to get Conservatives to sell out, did it?
“ish”. Good one.
I think it's "the lure of the foreign." There have always been people in this country who have craved foreign rule, but now it really seems to be coming to a head. It is NOT about having someone of Hispanic heritage -- if it were, we would seeing a groundswell of support for someone such as Gov. Susanna Martinez of New Mexico who, as I understand it, not only was born here but whose parents were born here as well -- a real American. Unfortunately "American" seems to be distasteful to today's crowd.
The game has played out. The dems have achieved success. It didnt take them very long to get Conservatives to sell out, did it?
Well, if these were so-called "conservative" people eager to jump on the "foreign" bandwagon, instead of adhering to Constitutional principles and seeking the most qualified ELIGIBLE man or woman (of any heritage) for the job, then they aren't real conservatives and it's no surprise at all.
The U.S. Supreme Court has seen it differently:
According to the Supreme Court, words and phrases used, but not defined, within the Constitution, should be read in light of British common law, since the U.S. Constitution is framed in the language of the English common law. Although the English common law is not binding on federal courts in interpreting the meaning of words or phrases within the Constitution, nor is it necessarily to be considered the law of the United States (as it is for the individual states specifically incorporating it), it can be employed to shed light on the concepts and precepts within the document that are not defined there, but which are reflected in the corpus of British law and jurisprudence of the time. As noted by Chief Justice (and former President) William Howard Taft, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, the framers of the U.S. Constitution were born and brought up in the English common law, they thought and spoke in its vocabulary, and that English common law was thus what the statesmen and lawyers of the Convention employed for the meaning of the terms in the Constitution confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.
—3 Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). See also, more recently, Carmel v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 521 (2000), where the Supreme Court noted that the meaning of an undefined term in the Constitution necessarily requires some explanation, and that the necessary explanation is derived from English common law well known to the Framers.
"In light of" doesn't mean "in strict adherence of." When we look at citizenship in light of English common law, it's very obvious the U.S. did not adopt English common law. It couldn't, else there wouldn't have been a way to become U.S. citizens. English common law requires perpetual allegiance. There's no parallel for this in U.S. law.
When the Minor court defined NBC, they didn't go to English common law for a definition. The definition they cited was nearly verbatim from the law of nations.
Also, thanks to resident Obot Jeff Winston for citing a case that shows very early in our nation's history how the U.S. relied on law of nations in a case involving citizenship: Talbot v. Janson (1795):
As we have no statute of the United States, on the subject of emigration, I have taken up the doctrine respecting it, as it stands on the broad basis of the law of nations, and have argued accordingly.
The Founders did not rely upon the English common law to define the new national United States citizenship that they created for the new Constitutional Republic.
The hypocrisy is disgusting to me.
If someone steals from me, shall I go and steal from them? Does that even the score?
No, it would make of ME a dirty thief too. And the way real life works - I would be arrested, and then get my ass beat by the neighbors buddies when I got out of jail.
But I suppose fighting back the right way is too difficult, and may not be successful. SO, lets just engage in the same despicable behavior that our enemies do.
What could go wrong?
The Founders and the Framers established a process to revise their original thinking on any principle: the constitutional amendment process. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, adopted by the Founders’ grandchildren has been the defining statement on American citizenship since 1868. The Founders made no provision for “All” persons born in the United States to be citizens. The 14th Amendment changed that.
Another example: the Founders were adamant that U.S. Senators should not be directly elected by the people. The 17th Amendment changed that.
On today’s Supreme Court, Justice Scalia is the foremost advocate of using English Common law to understand original meanings (originalism) when those meanings are not clearly spelled out and easily agreed upon. Scalia quotes from Blackstone’s Commentaries On The Laws Of England in his rulings more than any other current Justice.
The Founders and the Framers definitely did NOT adopt English Common Law, whole hog, but they did use the legal traditions of the system of jurisprudence that they were trained in as a basis for much (not all) of the original American legal system.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”—Minor v. Happersett (1874).
I agree with you that”in light of” does not mean strict adherence to. Supreme Court Zjustice have referenced English Common Law to explain their understandings of undefined terms and to provide historical context and philoophical rationale for their decisions.
In Minor v. Happersett, the majority offered an opinion on the meaning of the term natural born citizen, but they concluded their discusion of the term by saying: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”—
Minor v. Happersett (1874).
What other ways are there to prove citizenship to get a passport, other than a birth cert?
Affidavits from parents?
Certified LFBC is ‘Primary’.
Here is ‘secondary’
Here is the site I base my statement that the PASSPORT is the highest form of ‘proof’ - legally.
After 1968 there is no indication Obama has a US passport until he was US Senator.
Passports are worth more than BCs on the subject.
I've never understood why that wasn't an issue. It would offend a lot of US citizens if Obama got a passport as an Indonesian and/or got unfair advantage for college acceptance, scholarships and aid because he applied as an Indonesian citizen.
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.