BS. More twisted birther logic. The SCOTUS is responsible for interpreting the law. Since there is no definition in the law of natural born citizen, the SCOTUS must look outside of the law for an answer. While I believe that there is plenty of information to support my allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen, others claim to have enough information to support their claim that any child born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen. I’ve pinged the two whom I am most familiar with that hold the latter opinion.
So my statements are not contradictory in any way. If the SCOTUS interprets the definition of natural born citizen to include Obama, then I will accept it and not only that, I’ll support it from then forward. I respect the law. You don’t, obviously, since you wouldn’t accept such a decision no matter what and would accuse the honorable justices of treason or legislating from the bench or some other such ridiculous birther nonsense.
from an article that wants people like gov arnold to become president.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041008.html
The History Of The “Natural Born” Clause: Jay Convinces Washington
No one knows exactly what the nation’s Founders had in mind when they wrote that “No person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” (Emphasis added.)
However, the “natural born” Clause’s origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
The hint clearly made sense to General Washington. While there was no debate, this presidential qualification was soon introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without any discussion by the Constitutional Convention.
Article II has a number of absolute qualifications: It also requires that presidents be at least thirty-five years of age and a United States resident for fourteen years. Accordingly, the natural born citizenship requirement has been treated as a similar absolute. And this requirement has remained the law of the land, notwithstanding the fact that the Founders’ fear of undue foreign influence soon proved itself baseless.
same article, wants foreigners to be able to be president
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041008.html
In fact, there are conflicting holdings that only further compound the problem of understanding this clause. United States v. Wong Kim Ark(1898) indicates that foreign born children of Americans are not natural born. But in contrast, Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927) holds that “at common law the children of our citizen born abroad were always natural born citizen from the standpoint of this government.”
It is the consensus of scholars, however, that foreign born children of Americans are natural born citizens. And that would mean that Romney and McCain would certainly qualify.
There is also general agreement that no foreign-born person who becomes a “naturalized” citizen can become president under Article II, unless it is amended. This consensus means that Schwarzenegger and Granholm are out.
When it comes to “naturalized” citizens, the only continuing debate is whether such a person can serve as “acting president” under the presidential succession statute.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=401&invol=815
U.S. Supreme Court
Appellee challenges the constitutionality of 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 , and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 . Held: Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States,” and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. Afroyim v. Rusk, supra, and Schneider v. Rusk, supra, distinguished. Pp. 820-836.
—snip—
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under constitutional challenge here, primarily on Fifth Amendment due process grounds, but also on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, is 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 236, 8 U.S.C. 1401 (b).
Section 301 (a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1401 (a), defines those persons who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Paragraph (7) of 301 (a) includes in that definition a person born abroad “of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States” who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301 (b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under 301 (a) (7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years. We quote the statute in the margin. 1 [401 U.S. 815, 817]
The plan thus adopted by Congress with respect to a person of this classification was to bestow citizenship at birth but to take it away upon the person’s failure to comply with a post-age-14 and pre-age-28 residential requirement. It is this deprival of citizenship, once bestowed, that is under attack here.
-snip-
The plaintiff’s father has always been a citizen of Italy and never has acquired United States citizenship. The plaintiff’s mother, however, was born in Philadelphia in 1915 and thus was a native-born United States citizen. She has retained that citizenship. Moreover, she has fulfilled the requirement of 301 (a) (7) for physical presence [401 U.S. 815, 818] in the United States for 10 years, more than five of which were after she attained the age of 14 years. The mother and father were married in Philadelphia on the mother’s 24th birthday, March 14, 1939. Nine days later, on March 23, the newlyweds departed for Italy. They have resided there ever since.
-snip-
The plaintiff was warned in writing by United States authorities of the impact of 301 (b) when he was in this country in January 1963 and again in November of that year when he was in Italy. Sometime after February 11, 1964, he was orally advised by the American Embassy at Rome that he had lost his United States citizenship pursuant to 301 (b). In November 1966 he was so notified in writing by the American Consul in Rome when the plaintiff requested another American passport.
rest is at link...
-—snip-—
1. The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution’s Art. I, 8, cl. 4, to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated, “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or 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 . . . .”
-—snip—
7. The Immigration and Nationality Act, by its 407, 66 Stat. 281, became law in December 1952. Its 301 (b) contains a five years’ continuous residence condition (alleviated, with the 1957 amendment, see n. 1, by an allowance for absences less than 12 months in the aggregate) directed to the period between 14 and 28 years of age.
The statutory pattern, therefore, developed and expanded from (a) one, established in 1790 and enduring through the Revised Statutes and until 1934, where citizenship was specifically denied to the child born abroad of a father who never resided in the United States; to (b), in 1907, a governmental protection condition for the child born of an American citizen father and residing abroad, dependent upon a declaration of intent and the oath of allegiance at majority; to (c), in 1934, a condition, for the child born abroad of one United States citizen parent and one alien parent, of five years’ continuous residence in the United States before age 18 and the oath of allegiance within six months after majority; to (d), in 1940, a condition, for that child, of five years’ residence here, not necessarily continuous, between ages 13 and 21; to (e), in 1952, a condition, [401 U.S. 815, 826] for that child, of five years’ continuous residence here, with allowance, between ages 14 and 28.
Since you do not understand that SCOTUS does not MAKE LAW... this is the duty of Congress... then there is no hope for you.
What in Hades does this mean:
"Since there is no definition in the law of natural born citizen, the SCOTUS must look outside of the law for an answer. "???
Where should they look? Kenya? France? Britain? Inside your twisted brain?
You say you respect the law, but then think it's okay for an activist court to make the law from the bench?
I have not joined in most of these threads because it's easy to see that you and your posse troll them 24/7 and I frankly have to earn an honest living outside of following your so called "birther" threads. Your last line shows me just who and what you are - you deny that there is a problem with activist courts and you disparage any and all who would protest this activism that is tearing apart the fabric of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
You sir may not be the worst troll I've seen on FR, but troll you are and I am ashamed of those longtime Freepers who join you in attacks on those who feel strongly regarding the complete and total lack of documentation of this President's life. Those who feel it is not important to see these documents could argue their merits without the name calling, yet good little Alinsky-ites they have shown themselves to be!
Huh? “look outside the law?”.