Replies

This is his primary contention, as quoted from his written submission to the SCOTUS:

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that a natural born Citizen – as required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the Constitution of the
United States - is a person born in the United States to parents who are both citizens of the United States, and as such Barack Obama would not be eligible to be president.

Hey, I’ll take one parent and born on American soil to qualify as natural born. I don’t think Obama can even clear that bar.

Please send me that link. Thanks.

Just tried to work thru this....

starting with this

a natural born Citizen ....is a person born in the United States to parents who are both citizens of the United States,

*******

OK clearly Obama has one parent who is US born and one who is not....

**************

So now ...is that the Requirement?

********************

Lets go to this from American Thinker....

Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?

***************************EXCERPT*****************************

If you believe in individual rights and the notion that our Constitution is a document granting enumerated but limited powers to the federal government, then you have reason to be troubled by the recent dismissal in Berg v. Obama et al.

Philip Berg, Democrat and former Assistant Attorney General for Pennsylvania, brought suit alleging that under the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Barack Obama is ineligible to be President. Federal Judge R. Barclay Surrick recently granted the motion to dismiss filed by Senator Obama and other defendants, including the Democratic National Committee, on grounds that Berg lacked standing to sue as a mere voter.

The judicial doctrine of standing is important. It is a requirement that plaintiffs have a real stake in the outcome of a real controversy. This prevents, among other problems, persons bringing lawsuits simply to harass defendants. The judicial doctrine of standing is one of many judicial doctrines designed to limit the courts from being overloaded with cases that aren't properly resolvable by the courts, such as ripeness (case brought too soon), mootness (case brought too late), lack of jurisdiction, etc.

When constitutional rights are at stake, courts have tended to give wider latitude to the standing of plaintiffs. The theory is that another person's loss of constitutional rights may indeed affect one's own constitutional rights.

Judge Surrick's carefully worded opinion cites to cases where standing was at issue, including a similar case in which the eligibility of John McCain to be President was challenged. In deciding that "a candidate's ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters," Judge Surrick writes in a footnote of potentially considerable consequence:

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring . . .

Here's where I believe Judge Surrick's decision breaks down from a constitutional perspective.

The enumerated powers of the respective branches of government are set forth in the first three articles of the Constitution. Article III states that the judicial power is vested in the courts, and "shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . ."

A case about whether a candidate is a natural born citizen seems quite clearly to arise under the Constitution, and thus within the exclusive domain of the courts.

**********************************

Do read the whold article....

****************************

So the Supreme Court seems to be the enforcer.....I wonder what they are going to say .... about clearing up the definition of natural born citizen...?

From the US State Dept A child born (overseas) whose parents are legally married and one of the parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth acquires U.S. citizenship at birth if the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States for five full years before the child was born and two of those five years were after the parent’s 14th birthday.