Posted on 03/01/2009 8:22:44 AM PST by STARWISE
Bill Clinton had the Vince Foster "murder." George W. Bush had 9/11 Truth. And the new administration has brought with it a new culture of conspiracy: The Birthers.
Out of the gaze of the mainstream and even the conservative media is a flourishing culture of advocates, theorists and lawyers, all devoted to proving that Barack Obama isn't eligible to be president of the United States.
Viewed as irrelevant by the White House, and as embarrassing by much of the Republican Party, the subculture still thrives from the conservative website WorldNetDaily, which claims that some 300,000 people have signed a petition demanding more information on Obama's birth, to Cullman, Alabama, where Sen. Richard Shelby took a question on the subject at a town hall meeting last week.
Their confinement to the fringe hasn't cooled the passion of believers; the obscure New York preacher James Manning turned up at a National Press Club session in December to declare the president "the most notorious criminal in the history not just of America, but of this entire planet."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
While true, the reverse is not necessarily true. That is, just because someone was a citizen at birth does not necessarily mean they are a natural born citizen.
"A implies B" does not mean that "B implies A". IOW, if one is not a citizen at birth, one cannot be a natural born citizen, but if one is a citizen at birth one may still not be a natural born citizen.
The situation has not been adjudicated, which is not too surprising since the only time it matters if one is a "natural born citizen" is for eligibility to the office of President of the United States. How many folks nominated by a major party, let alone actually elected, have a foreign parent or were themselves born outside of the country? I don't think there were any, except perhaps John McCain, who falls into the "born outside the country of two US parents category.
It turns out that one previous US President, Chester Arthur, was born in the US, with a non citizen father. But Arthur was never elected President, but rather Vice President, and so got somewhat less scrutiny than a Presidential candidate would, and the fact of his father's lack of citizenship, at the time since he was naturalized when Chester was 14 (IIRC), was not discovered until well after his death, let alone after he left office, and so that case was never adjudicated either.
Only some of them. However, the law made those persons citizens, but I think you'll not find "natural born" anywhere in that law.
You are making absolutely no sense.
If someone is a Natural Born Citizen, it does not stop that person from ex-patriot status, from renouncing that citizenship in the future.
However, your position is nonsensical.
Natural Born Citizen means that you were a citizen at the moment of birth.
It is what it is, and you are what you are:
WRONG!
Barabk Hussien Obama aka Barry Soetoro may have been born in Hawaii or somewhere else in the US. That would make him a US citizen but it would not make him a “natural born” citizen. His father was not a US citizen at the time of Obama’s birth which means he is not constitutionally qualified to be President.
Exactly. Anyone who is a citizen solely by virtue of an Act of Congress is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Of course sometime Congress guilds the lily and defines a class of persons as citizens, when they already considered have been considered citizens. In fact the first class in the law, "born in the United States and subject to their jurisdiction" is just such an instance. The 14th amendment and previous understanding of the term Citizen, makes them citizens, so Congress need not have bothered defining them as such.
Of course the meaning of "Subject to their jurisdiction" might be in dispute. And their might be places not within any state, but still within The United States, such as territories and of course the District of Columbia.
But citizen at birth and natural born citizen are not always the same thing.
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of w11om is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than tell years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years
Likewise, had his mother been 19 or older, at time of birth, and birth occurred OUTSIDE the United States, Obama would also be a Natural Born Citizen.
Please read the entire thread, you have some homework to do.
The purpose was to overturn Dred Scott.
those born outside the US were not relevant to that Amendment.
That's because you don't read. I posted the information from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was the law in effect until it was modified by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. You referenced it, I posted it. You referenced Section 301(g) and I posted the link to Section 301(g) and showed that it didn't say what you thought it did. Why don't you read it for yourself.
No Government Agency, or Government Official, supports your point of view, in this matter.
Again, you don't read. The link I gave you is hosted by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a division of the Department of Homeland Security. Which, last time I checked, was a government agency.
You simply want to argue.
No, you just want someone to believe you know what you're talking about. Not having a lot of luck at that, are you?
You have been chopped to pieces.
You are indeed a legend in your own mind.
A hole of your making? Puleeze.
Now how about answering the questions. Is that how you honestly believe the Supreme Court works? Well is it?
And what existing definition might that be? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the definition in the Constitution? Oops, there isn't one. So then why not let Congress define what is a natural born citizen like they did in 1790? Or as they have done on a number of occasions since then? I guess that's how it works.
Then they can say other people are citizens, at birth, or after birth following some procedure. But either way, they are not defining "natural born citizen".
If that is true then that would mean that there are at least three classes of citizenship instead of two, and that concept isn't supported by the Constitution. Or the law. Or the Supreme Court. All agree that there are two. You are either born a citizen or you are naturalized.
The power to define the terms would be the power to change the Constitution, and that Congress cannot do, except through their part of the amendment process.
Except that the Constitution doesn't define the term, so Congress isn't changing it.
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a naturalborn citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President;”
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, 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.
Natural Born Citizen means that you were a citizen at the moment of birth.
It is what it is,
Indeed, but it's not that.
You see, your AUTHORITY agrees with my logic, and I might add considerable research on the subject. But I like logic best. AUTHORITY can be wrong.
You are a piece of work.
You have not proven a thing, and you can not provide a SINGLE legal opinion, from any court, from any lawyer, from any government official, which supports your position.
Obama’s Mother would have to be 19, at the time of Obama’s birth, if Obama was not born in the United States, for Obama to be a Natural Born Citizen.
You can cut and paste irrelevant laws out of context all you want,
You lost.
The term the legislation uses is 'citizen at birth'. Since the Constitution and the law recognizes only two forms of citizenship then obviously 'citizen at birth' or 'citizen by birth' or 'natural born citizen' are all synonymous.
§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.
Not unless his daddy was a US citizen would he be a “natural born” citizen. His daddy was not a US citizen.
He would have been a citizen at birth, but not necessarily (and IMHO just plain not) a natural born citizen. A citizen to be sure, a citizen at birth even, but not a natural born citizen in the sense of Art II section 1 of the Constitution.
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.