You win the debate!
Posted on 12/08/2008 8:50:10 PM PST by Jay777
What is different about Keyes case?
I'm with you!
Keyes was on the ballot in california, where he filed the suit, so he is in position to claim he was directly injured by running against an unqualified opponent.
But, according to the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."[3]
Just real interesting!
OK thanks....good argument!
If natural born citizen for constitutional purposes requires that both parents be US Citizens at childs birth....then Obama would fail that test...regardless of where his birthplace might be....renders the question , of birthplace irrelevant.
There was another conjecture that actually his real father was the Commie...(forget his name ) and I think he was a US Citizen....
****************************
Could that be why Obama is fighting to hide his Hawaii COLB....?????
Of course he is now elected...?
You win the debate!
Nutshell version: Petitioner’s contention is that since Barack’s father was NOT a citizen, Barack himself is not a “natural born citizen”.
Don’t blow it off yet, keep reading.
Fact, admitted by Obama’s FactCheck.org: Obama’s father was a British subject, and NOT a citizen of the USA.
The case questions whether someone can be deemed a “natural born citizen” if one parent is _not_ a citizen. This is a legitimate question, as the label is not clearly defined in law for anyone other than someone actually born on US soil to US-citizen parents; there is reasonable legal basis for the notion that a child born of a foreign-citizen parent is ergo subject to, er, foreign influence (a la the “anchor baby” arguments). Petitioner’s contention is that since Barack’s father was NOT a citizen, Barack himself is not a “natural born citizen”.
Put another way: petitioner contends that the term “natural born citizen” applies to someone who BOTH (A) has been born on US soil, and (B) both parents are US citizens (by birth or by naturalization). As Barack’s father was not a US citizen by any means, Barack’s citizenship is more procedural than by birth, a disqualifying distinction.
The prior case (just thrown out, and widely & badly misconstrued as the Supreme Court rejecting the “birth certificate issue” entirely) addressed this, but with hastily-included flaws which apparenly the Court did not want to deal with. This case corrects those flaws and addresses the issue in a more robust manner.
Personally, I find this very interesting, as my daughter’s mother is a Canadian citizen, and I understand the applicable laws well enough to at least doubt whether she can be deemed a “natural born citizen”. Her mother (and yes, my beloved bride) will be seriously cheesed off to learn her darling girl can’t grow up to be President Of The USA after all - hence I’d like to see it resolved as well.
The Constitutional concern is that due to the presumably close relationship between a child and parent, a parent of non-US citizenship could sway that child to act (particularly as President) in a manner not wholly beholden to the United States of America.
INDEED.
Or, As Churchill might put it . . .
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, . . . GIVE UP!
Wow...thanks.
Socrates, is that you?
If natural born citizen for constitutional purposes requires that both parents be US Citizens at childs birth....then Obama would fail that test...regardless of where his birthplace might be....renders the question , of birthplace irrelevant.
Googling:
# # Defining Natural-Born Citizen - The Federalist Blog
And:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
And:
OBAMA ADMITS HE WAS BRITISH CITIZEN AT BIRTH - AS SUCH OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF US
More:
HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH - PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH
We have a precedent....
*************************EXCERPT***********************
December 6, 2008 6:36 PM
[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ]
I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
I think I’ll post that on the readers digest thread so newbies can catch up.
********************************EXCERPT******************************
« “PRESIDENT?” CHESTER ARTHUR et al - WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY
THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION
At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission:
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s 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…’ “
Read that last line again.
“That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”
That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr. Brack Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.
And this leads to the relevant question:
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?
A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States. This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.
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.
December 5, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Barack Obama was born a British Citizen. That he was also born an American Citizen does not mitigate.
I don’t know how anyone gets past that.
British Citizenship at birth was unquestionably something the Framers excluded by their use of the restrictor “Natural Born Citizen” in Article II.
Were it not excluded, there would have been no need for the specific grandfathering of those who were American Citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted.
December 5, 2008 at 12:19 pm
And that (plus the NJ SOTS admission that she did not fact check POTUS candidates constitutional qualifications) in a nutshell is the core issue of Donofrio v Wells.
That said, it is also interesting to note that at the top of the very same page on FighttheSmears.com, the campaign went out of its way to use a term that SOUNDS like ‘natural born citizen’, instead they stated that Obama is a ‘native born citizen’. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think ‘native born citizen’ has any legal definition, and it certainly isn’t the same as ‘natural born citizen, which is what appears in the Constitution.
December 5, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I find it quite interesting that they/Obama/fightthesmears chose these words to preface their cause to Obama’s citizenship:
quote “Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America. ” unquote
“Native” citizenship has been proven to mean something very different than “Natural Born” thus another blunder on Obam’s plight to decieve the public about his inelgibilty problem. Right there at the beginning.
I had never gone to the fightthesmears site, only the factcheck.org, interesting, did I miss this on the factcheck site too?