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.
Birthers are old stupid people with way to much time on their hands. Waiting for their ss check and watching the paint to dry...its a conspiracy boy!!!!!!lmao.
Apparently so.
Yes, that's my position.
I'm leery of drawing too many conclusions about what someone did NOT say.
But I guess I missed what he did say, that leads you to believe that section 217 was not included in the definition?
IMHO, they couldn't cover everything, and envoys usually were not posted for all that long, and counted on parental influence to offset most sympathies for the country of their parents posting. Plus the 14 year residency requirement would also tend to offset that earlier "pollution".
What about statutory citizens at birth? Such as, under 8 USC 1401, those born to two citizen parents, or even one citizen and one alien parent with restrictions, outside the country. They do not "go through the paces, take a test, raise your hand and swear". The parents have to file some documentation is all. The statute law says they are not naturalized, but some case law says they are, for Constitutional purposes. It's not so simple as you indicate.
Despite what lawyers might think, not everything is to be found in precedent. Especially true with regards to the Natural Born Citizen meaning, because it really only comes up in eligibility for President. There is no other situation where a "born in the US of alien parents" is treated any differently than a "natural born citizen". But regarding the the notion of Congress only having power over naturalization, but not citizenship per se, yes, I have at least one court case. Fairly recent too.
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) The case distinguishs not only between "Naturalized" in the US, and "naturalized" elsewhere. It puts a person born to a US citizen parent, overseas, who was granted a US passport and status as a US Citizen but who then failed to perform the necessary final declaration and residency, in order to retain that citizenship, on a different footing than someone naturalized "in the United States". The distinction being base on the language of the 14th amendment.
It mentions that even the pre-1934 distinction between the child of alien father and US mother, vice a child of a citizen father and alien mother, was a legitimate exercise of the power to define a uniform rule of naturalization.
I was speaking of the Constitutional requirement that:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
That's a status or "state" issue, one either is or is not a natural born citizen. Congress can't change it, the individual can't change it. Not even the sitting VP can change it.
He’s a real life Damian Thorne
And to think that you waited a whole month since 2010-1-08 in order to make that stupid remark!!!
Since the length of time you have been a member here makes such a difference to you let me say for the record: I am surprised the "birthers" aren't on Obama's payroll.
Just a quick followup: Is it your position that elections are subject to post-hoc review by Article III courts?
Is that power one that you are comfortable with courts exercising?
You, on the other hand, don't surprise me.
I posted this on another forum, but it resounds here.
RedState like Bill O’Reilly in thought, word, and deed has openly broadcast to the American public, the voting population, and everyone concerned that they don’t care about the United States Constutition.
The question and concern is real and blantant disregard for the law of this or any nation, it what tears the fabric of a civil population to pieces.
Guilt by association or compliance within the media is no different then an accomplice to a crime, in this case the crime is treason.
There is no statute of limitations for that crime and as more of the populace wakes up to the travesty fermenting in Washington DC, the courts and the crimes against the American people the words of the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the words of Thomas Paine in ‘Common sense’ ring all the more true.
Do a double post for emphasis.
I totally agree with you.
We are all supposed to buckle under the laws, orders, decrees, regulations, taxes that they impose on us, but God forbid that they be required to live under the same or abide by the Constitution that created the very office that they occupy. We have lawless people in positions of authority and they all need to be removed from those positions, and that includes their enablers.
Natural born and “by birth” are one in the same in the year 2010, in these United States of America.
There is no “constitutional requirement” except for what is spelled out in Article 2 Section 1 and in the 12th Amendment regarding counting the process of electoral collge votes.
I was speaking of the Constitutional requirement that:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
That’s a status or “state” issue, one either is or is not a natural born citizen. Congress can’t change it, the individual can’t change it. Not even the sitting VP can change it.
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.