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.
Naturalization issues are delegated to Congress. Their power is limited to establishing a "uniform Rule of Naturalization". They have no power to redefine Constitutional terms.
Your quotes talk about twi *sources* of citizenship, by birth and by naturalization. Natural Born is not a source of citizenship, it's categorization of "by birth" citizenship. Natural Born Citizens are just a special subset of "citizen by birth". . It is of course a large subset.
But your quotes have nothing to do with the requirements for Natural Born Citizenship, one way or the other.
It makes him a citizen by birth in the United States, per the 14th amendment. It does not him Natural Born. Citizen by "nature" means inherited from the parents.
Beck is already crazy, so it does not matter what he thinks and most of Hannity’s listeners want to see the proof so he just lets it go.
because citizenship issues are delegated to Congress
Naturalization issues are delegated to Congress. Their power is limited to establishing a “uniform Rule of Naturalization”. They have no power to redefine Constitutional terms.
Your quotes talk about twi *sources* of citizenship, by birth and by naturalization. Natural Born is not a source of citizenship, it’s categorization of “by birth” citizenship. Natural Born Citizens are just a special subset of “citizen by birth”. . It is of course a large subset.
But your quotes have nothing to do with the requirements for Natural Born Citizenship, one way or the other.
That's rich.
Most of the threads are diluted and polluted with posers, trolls, sleepers and freepers who take issue with asking questions.
True, but someone who is not eligible to be President, isn't President. It would be a logical contradiction. He can be de facto President, he be acting as President, but he can't be President. He can only be a usurper.
“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”
I could see casting aside anyone for supporting tax increases or larger government, but not this.
Erickson has cast himself out of the conservative movement as far as I’m concerned.
That only applies if he was born outside the country. The Anchor baby thing goes back to the 14th amendment, and in the courts to Perkins v. Elg (1939) and Wong Kim Ark (1897), among others.
However neither case delt, directly at least, with the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. "Wong", whose parents were legal resident aliens, but still Chinese nationals, actually indicates that while they have same rights, there is a distinction between "natural born child of a citizen" and the "child of an alien, if born in the country". Both are just as much citizens, with the same rights, but there is a distinction. (Eligibility to the office of President is not a right, otherwise naturalized citizens would have it as well).
Elg was not actually an "anchor baby", she was declared, by the lower court, to be a "natural born citizen" and the Supreme Court agreed, but both her parents were naturalized US citizens at the time of her birth. (they later renoucned that citizenship and took her to Sweden, but that did not change her status as a citizen).
No, he could not. Not without a case before him. He could have refused to adminsiter the oath of office, but they could have just substituted another justice, or anyone at all really. Maybe the Imam of the DC mosque attended by the 9-11 hijackers and "Major" Hassan. The Constitution does not indicate who, if anyone, should administer the oath. In the early days, the oath was not always administered by the Chief Justice, that is a more recent tradition with no foundation in the Constitution.
Meanwhile to have so refused would likely have created a conflict of interest should a case eventually come before the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roberts.
This question is, at its root, a nonjusticeable political question. ALL of the political branches, including the Electoral College, the Congress including ALL Republicans and the Republican Vice President/President of the Senate had the opportunity to object to Obama's certification and they did not do so.
So your position is that if somehow the electorate picked the Yemeni born son of Osama Bin Laden and no one objected in Congress, it would be a "done deal", and no action by the Courts would be possible. Yes that is extreme, but it is no different in principal than any other reason for ineligibility being overlooked by the "Political Branches".
Suppose an envoy, a citizen at the ratification, had been in England, where a child was born. For the next fifteen years the child was educated in England, returning to the U.S. in 1812 (perhaps on The Venus). He continued his education and became a presidential candidate twenty years later. Did our founders want to vouch that his formative years in England didn't make him long for the autocratic structure and apparent civility of The Crown?
I believe the definition stated by Marshall was intended. Had the legislature wanted to amend it they would have proposed that. I suspect, from The 1790 Act, that there was sentiment to amend it, but with the vast majority included in the natural born citizen category, why take a chance? Our strongest branch of government was the people's house, because it was the branch closest to citizens. I doubt that the house would have approved an amendment to enable foreign born citizens to hold our highest office. I do understand the sentiment. It would have validated McCain, but certainly not Obama.
This needs to be said and said again for those amongst the after birthers who think that an Inauguration Ceremony can override the Constitution.
But you are an Obamatroll, aren't you???
Correct.
The RINO is an NBC, because both his parents were citizens, and he was born "in the armies of the state", per Vattel Section 217, Book I. I very much doubt that Ginzberg's grandson had a parent in the US military, especialy for a birh in Paris. However they, or one of them, may have been in the diplomatic corps, and thus also would be exempt under section 217 cited above.
Interestingly theat Nguyen case referances another case, Rogers versus Bellei indicating that that citizenship at birth (via statute, not by birth in the US) is a form of naturalization for Constitutional purposes. So, if Obama had been born outside the country, he still would not be a natural born citizen, even if his mother had met the statutory requirements for transmitting citizenship.
I had come to that conclusion some time ago, because Congress was only delegated power over naturalization, not citizenship in general.
We care. You or Obama hasn't proven he is eligible for office as a natural a born citizen.
This appears to be the Axelgreasy meme, to conflate citizen with natural born citizen. Even if Barry were born in HI, he had dual citizenship when born so he hasn’t ever been a natural born citizen. The astroturf playbook is not sprinkled with any truth, so expect the usual scum and a few added extra n00bs to pound this lie until it sticks, if can be made to stick. The democrap party is a criminal enterprise. Never expect them to be honest.
Incorrect.
"... 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 ..."
Our own affirmative action worshippers of the liar-in-chief repeat this crap almost daily.
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.