Oh yea?
Then again, maybe not. Scanning certainly doesn't squish the seal into invisibility, even one that has been sitting around a while.
Posted on 02/15/2010 2:06:27 AM PST by FTJM
A lot of you have asked if I’ve gotten any more emails. Below the fold, a compilation of emails that have come in. But above the fold, my final word.
Based on the facts, it is very clear that President Obama is our lawfully elected President and the Office of President of the United States of America requires that though we may disagree with him and oppose him, we recognize and respect his position as President — a position entrusted to him by 69,456,897 voting Americans, or 52.9% of the popular vote.
As early at 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in the its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that ‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.’ 1 Stat. 104 (1790) . . . . Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s discussion in Wong Kim Ark (1898), a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.
Meese, Edward, Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 190 (2005).
Even were the American public to fall under the belief that Barack Obama was born in a foreign country and 49 years ago his associates fabricated a narrative, a birth record, and placed birth announcements in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin on August 4, 1961, to ensure that 49 years later he could become President of the United States, it is undisputed that Barack Obama’s mother is and has always been an American citizen. Therefore Barack Obama is and has always been an American citizen.
The leaps of logic and reason to arrive at such a conspiracy are unbefitting the credibility of anyone and not worthy of further discussion. Notwithstanding the same, no American should ever sanction what would amount to a judicial coup — the removal of the President of the United States after 52.9% of the American public instructed their Electoral College representatives to place their votes for him. The time to even be willing to entertain these issues from those who claim a conspiracy has long past.
A conservative movement worthy of leading this nation must be willing to cast aside those who, for whatever reason, cannot and will not be persuaded that the President is our legitimately, constitutionally elected President.
Do you think it's deceitful to reference an opinion that has no relevance to the topic? (that's not rhetorical)
But what was left unsaid was that the 1795 statute, 5 years later, which repealed and replaced the 1790 statute, did not contain that language, and none since has done so either. Subsequent statutes have made such persons citizens at birth, if both parents were citizens,and even if only was one, but that comes with restrictions. But since 1795, no law has used the "natural born" language.
Thus rather than indicating what the founders thought the definition of "natural born citizen" was, I believe it reflects an attempt to change that definition. If such persons already were natural born, why bother with the wording in the law? Then I belive in '95 they released they did not have the power to redefine a Constitutional term, absent an amendment, and that their power only extends to rules for naturalization, which is what the Constitution grants them.
OTOH, they may not have been trying to redefine the term, because of the words "shall be considered" rather than "shall be". Either way, it's not the law now, nor has it been since 1795.
So, the President of the Senate can give exemptions to Constitutional requirements?
I don't think so. I hope to hell not anyway.
USC TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
§ 1409. Children born out of wedlock
No, it's not at all deceitful. The quotations emphasize the mindset of two of the most conservative Justices on the SCOTUS in reference to citizenship issues. As a matter of fact, someone (and I don't have time or inclination to find it), referenced Nguyen & Boulais v. INS as supportive of the NBC argument, here on FR, very recently.
Deceitful is in the eye of the beholder.
The founders were very suspicious of "mob rule". The franchise was limited to "responsible persons", there was and is, no direct voter input into the workings of the government. There is niether recall nor referendum in the Federal scheme they created. It's a representative republic, not a democracy. The People are as limited by the Constitution in their powers over the government as the government is limited in its powers.
They designed a very clever system. They insisted the electoral votes be opened and counted in public, with the previous Vice-President in the chair, for a reason. I'm sure it wasn't that they thought Congress had nothing else to do.
But they also expected the electors to exercise some independent judgment, in fact a lot of independent judgment. Part of the reason they set up that intermediate, single purpose, body was to make foreign "meddling" in our selection of a leader much more difficult. They did not expect them to just rubber stamp the popular vote. People did not even "run" for office as they do today. In those cases where the people voted for electors (in some cases the legislature appointed them, since it's since the Constition gives the legislatures the power to designate the method of their selection), it was the electors' names that were on the ballot, not candidates for the office itself. Heck, even in my first few elections, the names of electors were shown on the ballot, although the candidate they were pledged to was also show.
Instead, most electors are now obligated by law to vote for whomever they were "pledged" to, and their names often, if anywhere, do not appear on the ballot. Originally there was no notion of the electors being formally pledged to anyone. The whole point was to have an independent body of citizens, whose sole function was to select the President.
They also didn't involve the courts in elections, and that was for a VERY good reason.
They gave the federal courts jurisdiction over "All cases in law and equity, arising under" the "Constitution. Surely the eligibility of someone seeking to occupy the highest office, or actually doing so, is a case arrising under the Constitution which sets the eligibility criteria.
As far as the Constitution is concerned, the matter was closed when the President of the Senate signed the papers.
So, the President of the Senate can give exemptions to Constitutional requirements?
I don’t think so. I hope to hell not anyway.
Nguyen & Boulais v. INS site:freerepublic.com
I'll let Spaulding deal with you.
Only 16 mentions...so far.
Actually the children of both military and diplomats serving temporarily outside the country are, by section 217 (section 212 is where the NBC criterial comes from), Book I of Vattel's Law of Nations, are deemed to meet the "born in the country" criteria.
Section 217 Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
Would you say the same, if the issue was his age? That's another requirement, more easily understood of course, but no different in kind than being a Natural Born Citizen.
An act of Congress, which is what the certification process is, cannot override the Constitution.
BHO, the Consgressmen, the President of the Senate all swore oathes to support and defend the Constitution. But they are far from the only ones who have done so. Most of us actually take that oath seriously, even if they do not.
Oh yea?
Then again, maybe not. Scanning certainly doesn't squish the seal into invisibility, even one that has been sitting around a while.
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.