Just call them "New Dollars" and put this guys mug on them for credibility
Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
bump! bump! bump!
Aye !!!
Welcome to FreeRepublic.com, Buckarow!
That's exactly what it is. When one class of Americans has more freedoms and privileges than another class of Americans, we have "first" and "second" class citizens.
Don't try and sugar-coat it. At least have the intellectual honesty to call it as it is.
But he is not eligible to serve as President.
Section 3 of the 20th Amendment provides a remedy for a President Elect failing to qualify. The Vice President Elect takes the Presidency until a ‘qualified’ candidate can be determined.
Isn’t it interesting there is a provision for such nonsense? There are only THREE qualifications to become President. These things should be determined beforehand but apparently there is a law in place (since the 1930s) to provide a solution to this very issue. The issue of a President Elect being deemed unqualified.
Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment. His own campaign has said this. That’s because he was born to one US citizen and one UK citizen.
The Governator is a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment as well. That is because he was naturalized in the United States.
The 14th Amendment provides citizenship to those BORN or NATURALIZED in the United States. Born in the United States OR naturalized in the United States.
Naturalized citizens cannot be President and neither can someone that is just BORN on US soil. They receive the same ‘label’ under the 14th Amendment. They are ‘citizens of the United States’. By virtue of naturalization or mere birth on soil
Anyone BORN on US soil to foreign parents is a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment. (think anchor baby)
Anyone BORN on US soil to one US citizen and one foreign parent is a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment. (think Barack Obama)
Anyone NATURALIZED in the United States is a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment. (think Arnold)
None of them can be President. They are all ‘citizens of the United States’. None are natural born citizens.
If Obama’s father had been a US citizen this wouldn’t be an issue. Nothing changes the fact that, at birth, he was a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment.
That is, of course, providing he was born in the US.
“That is why it is of utmost importance that the president has only a singe allegiance/citizenship. What would happen if a decision had to be made between the “other country” and the U.S.? Knowing there was allegiance to both countries would affect the decision being made. One might be hesitant to make a decision which could impact the other country negatively if there are still connections there and do harm to our country.”
That’s why we have elections, to parse a candidate’s subtler characteristics. The natural born qualification gets rid of people with more obvious tendencies toward split loyalties. If someone born on U.S. soil can convince enough Americans that his loyalties lie with us, and if the voters remain unmoved by the possibility that Obama is a “secret muslim” and a closet Arab, then he can serve.
Yes, IF both parents are U.S. citizens, which is NOT the case here!!!
“None of them can be President. They are all ‘citizens of the United States’. None are natural born citizens.”
But people born on U.S. soil to one foreign parent ARE natural born citizens. I think you’re too clever by half with this 14th amendment issue. Obviously, the citizenship qualifications of the 14th amendment are not equivalent for the qualifications to be president, since they include naturalized citizens, who definitely are not elligible to be president.
However, if the 14th amendment says people born on U.S. soil to one foreign parent are citizens, then people born on U.S. soil to one foreign parent ARE natural born citizens. How do I know? There are only two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized. If you are born a citizen, you are a natural born citizen.
“Don’t try and sugar-coat it. At least have the intellectual honesty to call it as it is.”
I’ll call it like it is. Just like I call married people a seperate class and children a seperate class. These things are inevitable. Not always desirable from my point of view, but inevitable. I’m willing to live with class distinctions so long as they are reasonable.
For instance, we grant special status to married people for the sake of child-rearing. We treat children differently in the criminal justice system because their minds are not equivalent to the minds of adults. And we exclude foreign=born people from being president because we are wary of split loyalties. It seems to me a very small thing to give up, the shot to be president. We only elect one every four years.
“Notice how John Jay has highlighted the word ‘born’”
Why do you hold that to be especially notworthy, persay?
“Yes, IF both parents are U.S. citizens, which is NOT the case here!!!”
That’s not the case according to the 14th amendment.
Why so defensive, Windflier? I wasn't the least bit "angry." I simply tend to state my objections in a very clear and precise language, as opposed to relying on vague phrasing ("maybe you ought to reconsider..." or "it seems to me that I remember once reading somewhere...")
Anyone casting doubts upon the eligibility of a President-Elect to assume office must proffer air-tight Aristotelian arguments.
Like many here at this forum, I'm seriously wondering how I'm going to avoid ever seeing that smug face hovering over the Presidential Seal on the t.v. screen during the coming four years, but any arguments launched to prevent that must have an unassailable legal foundation.
Regards,
“BUT, given that there is no current day statute that defines NBC in this Constitutional context, the Justices will look backwards to aid in interpretation. What did the Framers mean with ‘Natural Born Citizen’?
The Justices will consider things like the Federalist Papers, Blackstone’s Commentaries, and other documents of the time. They’ll probably look at the differences between ‘citizen’ and ‘subject,’ and how that relates to Art 2, Sect 1, Clause 5.”
You’re missing something important here. There is also the 14th amendment to deal with. Although it does not amend the qualifications for the presidency, it does set qualifications for who is born a citizen, which is equivalent to defining what a natural born citizen is. SCOTUS would have to take into account how the 14th amendment was understood at the time of its passing.
“I have come to the conclusion, that this is what they will have to do, in order to make a valid determination of what the Framers meant by Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution.”
Don’t forget the 14th amendment. It set qualifications for who could be considered a citizen at the time of his birth.
Hmmm.... well ...
In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for POTUS. Then Secretary of State, Frank Jordan, found that according to Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the age needed to be on the ballot. Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California and to the Supreme Court.
Now that was with a SOS who DID want to get involved. The SCOTUS punted it, because there was nothing to rule on. However, precedence was set that the SCOTUS would accept such a case regarding Constitutional requirements of the POTUS.
Fourteenth Amendment
The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment obviously affects how we view natural-born citizens because for the first time there is a national rule of who may by birth be a citizen of the United States. Who may be born citizens of the States is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
It seems to me that the Framers would have been very familiar with the term natural born subject under the common law. Because the U.S. is not a monarchy, there are no U.S. “subjects”, but rather citizens. Thus, natural born citizen probably means the same thing as under the common law - a child born within the territory of the United States, regardless of the nationality of the parents, with limited exceptions.
In the Wang Kim Ark vs. U.S., the Supreme Court termed Wang's citizenship as 'native born citizen' and not natural born citizen. You are the confusing specifics of the case with holding or dictum.
I have the original document given to my parents at the time of my birth. It is not a copy.
It was thought lost in a move, and all I had to do to get a legal copy was to contact the NYC Board of Health. It arrived in two weeks, official, with the legal seal on it.
I don’t think Obama has ever produced an official birth certificate, original or copy. My guess as to why not is that the father’s name is left out, or that it is marked “illig” as was the custom in hospitals at that time with a child born to an unmarried woman.
Just call them "New Dollars" and put this guys mug on them for credibility
So you don't know why you agree with Donofrio? He opposed Obama so that was enough for you, you signed on without even understanding his positions? You are aware, are you not, that by Donofrio's definion McCain isn't eligible to be president either?
You know I'm not a legal scholar, and it's quite possible that you aren't either, so what's your real intention here?
My intent is to get a question answered; What is the difference between born at birt and natural born? I'm not aware of anything that defines it and was hoping that someone like you, who seems to have swallowed Donofrio's theory hook, line, and sinker, might be able to answer it. Obviously I was wrong.
Yes.
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.