Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
Why has Congress tried 26 times since the 1870s to change that pesky “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the US Constitution, only to have it fail in committee — EVERYTIME?
There is no need to rehash past history since the Senate staffers already did that for us all. This Resolution is the most contemporary and authoritative determination of what "natural born citizen" means. Why argue history and law when the Senate has settled the issue for us all, determining in SR511 that "natural born" meant a person born of two American citizen parents and on American territory.
The Senate has spoken -- the issue is settled. There is no way around it. Let's make them stand by their own words and explain how Obama can be qualified for the Presidency given their proverbial wisdom in SR 511. He can't!!! and They can't!!!
BS.
Not a lot of research needed to go into that, just a look at existing U.S. law. McCain was a natural born citizen not because he was born on U.S. territory - he was born on Panamanian soil - but because his father was in the military stationed overseas and both his parents were U.S. citizens who had lived in the United States for a number of years prior to his birth. He is just as much a natural born U.S. citizen as if he'd been born in New York or Washington. I do not dispute that at all. But likewise, if Obama was born in Hawaii then he, too, is a natural born U.S. citzen and eligible to be president. The nationality of his father, as the Supreme Court has found, is irrelevant.
Don't confuse me with Donofrio or his adherents.
Dual citizenship is recognized by the U.S., though not encouraged. They cannot outlaw it without conflicting with the laws of foreign countries. A child born in the U.S. is a natural born U.S. citizen. If the laws of another country also grants citizenship to the child then there is nothing the U.S. can or will do about it.
Stop playing games. This cutesy, revisionary, "the-Constitution-is-a-Living-Document" crap is going to get someone hurt!
No games, just a question. According to U.S. law and Supreme Court decisions, if Obama was born in Hawaii then he is a U.S. citizen at birth. How does that differ from natural born U.S. citizen and where is this difference defined?
How did the Senate staffers who researched it and the Senate that unanimously adopted the Resolution miss that???
Don't get yer knickers in a twist. I only said that the mention of the Law of Nations in the Constitution was "of particular interest".
I'm not a constitutional scholar, and I never suggested that the Congress should base our entire Constitution on this one historical treatise. I just said that the phrase was of interest.
The Framers were intelligent, deliberate, and possessed great vision, but they didn't craft a perfect Constitution. Look at how many times it's been amended. It's certain that their failure to closely define the phrase Natural Born Citizen was an unfortunate oversight (of magnitude) on their part.
I can forgive them for that oversight in light of the fact that in their day, these simple words did not need explaining to anyone. They communicated the Framers' intent precisely, and stood unquestioned, all on their own.
Only in the 21st century, have we come to a point where men cannot agree on the simple meanings of words any longer, and must parse and read into them things that were never intended by those who wrote them.
After reading about British rights in regards their claim to citizens and succeeding descendants through blood inheritance, I now realize that Mother England never fully accepted American Independence.
Now I understand the meaning behind the recurring practice of tracing blood lines to the British Crown of winning Presidents. Ever noticed with every ‘change’ of administration MSM reports, in various ways, an ancestor discovery of some sort? I saw this happen with Bill Clinton, G. Bush, and just recently I read a report of BHO and Cheney whose related with common ancestry.
When GW Bush was elected there was an entire News segment on an event in which the Queen took Bush on a personal tour of her vaulted books of genealogical records. The report was that the Queen was showing him their common ancestors who were related. NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY... as Mother England has always sought to blood tie herself through common descendants of America. The outcome was/is to secure allegiance and influence American leadership to eventually rule over her indirectly than possibly directly.
So ultimately Mother England finaly has her DIRECT blood tied Native son in BHO and it seems ‘they’ will have DIRECT rule over America. His role must have been a long plan in the making.
It's possible the Annenberg foundation, Ford foundations, and others have developed specific programs to GROW special individuals for Mother England's future use. Through indirect support of chosen children and family's it's possibly they helped support BHO since boyhood. Didn't BHO’s mother work for the Ford foundation? What about Walter Annenberg that foundations father? It turns Walter Annenberg was appointed under President Reagan as Ambassidor to the COURT OF ST. JAMES directly tied to Mother England.
It will not hold because it is opinion, and opinion does not run this country. Laws do, the Constitution does, and the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the Constitution. Our laws do not differentiate between natural born citizen and citizen at birth. The Supreme Court says that with few exceptions children born in the U.S. are citizens at birth regardless of the nationality of their parents. Nothing in the Constitution itself conflicts with these interpretations. So Donofrio's claims hold no water. McCain is eligible to run for president because he is a natural born U.S. citizen, that status achieved through his parents. If Obama was born in Hawaii then he, too, is a natural born citizen and just as eligible to run for president, his father's nationality and dual citizenship regardless.
Probably because it wasn't applicable, their resolution was dealing with McCain and not Obama. McCain's father and mother were U.S. citizens. McCain could have been born on Mars and according to U.S. law he would be a natural born U.S. citizen because of his parents.
But if they want to do a similar resolution about Obama then there are Supreme Court decisions they can quote from.
The one time "looser" is used properly on this forum, when "loser" the most frequently (and granted, now intentionally misspelled word on the forum) would be more appropriate.
I was unaward that the Supreme Court had ruled on the meaning of natural born citizen as it is used in the Constitution.
Hello?
Are talking about the same issue??
Who is Hussein's father???
No doubt, but those are not decided cases.
Cheers (as they say)!
I’m not going to search it now but do go find Cornwallis’ resignation of his sword to Washington wherein he said England would effectively, finally win back the colonies.
Its also not so rare to find a student of the Revolutionary War and masonry who claim the Brits conceded in erudite fashion. One who I can cite is Gerry Matatics, for those who may have encountered his name. I also point to the aging writer Solange Strong Hertz.
It was basically decided their plight was too much then, that the fledgling democratic Republic was simply too spirited (after all it set the pattern of governments for the next 200+ years) but would ultimately fail as an experiment. Francis Bacon and other masons had unloosed a foolish but long experiment that would have to eventually fail and would be reconciled to Mother England. In doing so the masons in leadership on either side either between themselves and/or at behest of controllers called it a day, but knew another day would come.
War of 1812 was 1st attempt to bring that day, there in the very same generation.
The insidious covert assertion of the hoped-for day of the “realm” via the UK Nationality Act of 1948 has in part played into the terrible dissembling of USA here, now. In significant part we have the Fabian Society’s long influence and let’s not forget Oxford and the Rhodes Scholarship: proto-Bam Bam - Slick (Black Prince) Willie.
The Clinton’s really paved the way through China, Indonesia and the Bank of Hawaii. The cincher comes via the randy Kenyan BHO Sr and his hyper-manipulative “son”, and the pending collapse of the financial system of varied Federal Reserves patterned after the Bank of (where else)England.
BTW, I have Irish roots. All eight great grandparents were born on the Emerald Isle. I agree as a Traditionalist Catholic that the Founders ultimately fail in at least as The Most Blessed Trinity is not cited in any reference of founding documents, as the original Irish Constitution had. Thus we have satanic groups sanctioned in prisons etc, troops in parts Middle East who can’t have outward display of Christian symbols etc. The above writers (Matatics especially) have it the English masons have US collapsing into its own. I support the US as it has a far superior Constitution and makeup. This country ostensibly (still??) at least allows the practice of my faith. Its not perfect but it suffices. Its solid enough to fight for. That’s my take. Oh, I was born here to two US-born parents and was raised to support the US.
The gremlins have managed through long effort to now pour through the cracks. We have a usurper. It’s inevitable as several founders and early commentators said without Christian morality underpinning etc etc....
God (as in the Most Holy Trinity) have Mercy!
The Supreme Court has ruled that a person born in the U.S. is a citizen at birth. Likewise a person born overseas of two parents who are U.S. citizens. If there is a difference between that and a natural born citizen then where is that difference defined? Where does the law detail three classifications of citizenship? Surely one of you can point so some authoritative source that gives that answer? Can't you?
Enjoyed reading your thoughts and comments this afternoon, an interesting debate leading up to the coronation, oops, inauagaration of Mr. Obama. Unfortunately, I was supposed to be hanging drywall this afternoon.
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.