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.
Then it's about time we had one, a SCOTUS decision that is. Congress cannot redefine a Constitutional term of art, because that would constitute a change to the Constitution itself, which they can only initiate through the amendment process.
Yes. If there was fraud, such as wholesale vote miscounting and/or an ineligible cannidate/office holder is discovered, then the courts can act. Fraud is a crime after all, and someone not eligible to hold an office surely cannot be left in possession of it. Why should the People (another term of art) suffer because of the crimes of cannidates or their organizations. Mere errors in the process are another matter.
Is that power one that you are comfortable with courts exercising?
Like all other exercises of power, it must be done with extreme caution. But someone has to do it. You want the party in power to guard the hen house? That is surely the other alternative. That gets you Tammy Hall, and worse, much worse.
We all do what we can.
Where is that written?
It's the 1787 meaning that is of interest. What you, or anyone else thinks it is now, doesn't count. What it meant when the contract was written, in 1787, that is what counts.
I don't know how you can even say what it means in 2010, since that part of the contract has never come up, although it should have once, so its meaning has not been adjudicated.
No, they are not even considered native born for Constitutional purposes. The 14th amendment doesn't even apply to them, since they were not "born or naturalized in the United States". There is Supreme Court precidence on that.
Now statute law says they are not naturalized, but Supreme Court case law says they are. They must be, since they are citizens strictly due to an act of Congress under the power "To Establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." That is even true if both parents were citizens, except probably those born in the armies of the state or it's diplomatic corps.
Even the US State Department, in it's U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs> Consular Affairs Manual, "Acquisition of Citizenship By Birth Abroad To US Parent" manualacknowledges that:
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.
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.