Posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13
Not only were home birth not uncommon, but we know pretty much how many unattended births there were in Hawaii in 1961 as well as how many births were out of state, but still registered to Hawaiian parents. Two such births, for example, took place in the state of Washington.
think its because the 14th Amendment’s ratification
How do you determine which presidents were actually eligible before enactment of the 14th Amendment? What made Lincoln, for instance, a “natural born citizen”, since you seem to believe that people born on US soil to US citizen parents weren’t natural born citizens prior to 1868.
Arthur was rumored to have been born in Canada. This was never successfully demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, the attorney in charge of the investigation, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his Presidency.
Arthur was born in Vermont to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Ireland, who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 and 1824, Chester Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880 that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and the incorrect birth date was even used in several publications. Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot. Since his Irish father William was naturalized 14 years after Chester Arthur’s birth, his citizenship status at birth is unclear, because he was born before the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment, which provided that any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof was considered a born U.S. citizen, and because he also held British citizenship at birth by patrilineal “jus sanguinis.” Arthur’s father never relinquished British citizenship. Arthur’s natural born citizenship status is therefore equally unclear.”—From Wikipedia
This is the same statute you admitted contained several examples of citizens at birth that would not be considered natural born citizens. It disproves the generalization that being a citizen at birth automatically makes someone an NBC.
Considering how the HI DOH behaves when asked questions, I am sure and certain that no straight answer will be given by the leftist HI newspapesr.
They were rotten and leftist even when I was in HI many years ago.
Plus, they’ve probably gotten asked that hundreds of time by now and have a stock answer, which may or may not be accurate or truthful, and there is no way to know.
Chester Arthur is a red herring for the particular matter at hand. I specifically asked what made Lincoln a natural born citizen. It is your contention that presidents prior to 1868 weren’t constitutionally eligible to be president unless congress deemed them as such in their naturalization acts.
This is the same statute you admitted contained several examples of citizens at birth that would not be considered natural born citizens. It disproves the generalization that being a citizen at birth automatically makes someone an NBC.
Unfortunately, none of us was able to convince 1 (One, Uno, Un, Ein) elected Republican to join us in belaboring the obvious, or even to do his damn job. That is, to simply state that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is the son of a foreign national, and thus can simply not be a "Natural Born Citizen," as traditionally recognized.
But that was required in that now quaint old parchment,our Constitution. Since it was written by dead white men, some of whom owned slaves, it now has become, apparently, a bit of a dead letter. If any of us takes issue with some obscure clause or other, we are free to ignore it, if Bill Maher or Keith Olbermann says that's OK. The other side maintains that the anchor child of an illegal alien couple is a "Natural Born Citizen." Running for, and serving as, POTUS is a Civil Right.
We have lived through a coup. I join Scottiesmom in the fear that it will be swept under the rug as part of the Republican modus vivendi after 2010, and that it will all go away without resolution when what's-his-name leaves office scot-free in 2012.
If action is not taken in the near term, we should invite every 2010 Republican candidate to certify whether they have the spine to honor the oath they will take to defend the Constitution and step forward on this issue.
If they don’t think they can take a case on standing, it doesn’t really matter what they think of the rest of the case. Several courts have made it clear that the remedy is beyond their legal jurisdiction. That doesn’t invalidate the claims.
Chester Arthur is a red herring for the particular matter at hand. I specifically asked what made Lincoln a natural born citizen. It is your contention that presidents prior to 1868 weren’t constitutionally eligible to be president unless congress deemed them as such in their naturalization acts.
As I already said, there were no legal challenges to the eligibility of any president prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment.
What made Abraham Lincoln eligible as a natural born citizen was a general acceptance by his political allies and his political opponents alike that he was born in Hodgenville, Kentucky.
Since you don’t like the Chester A. Arthur example, a more interesting and relevant example would be James Buchanan who served before the ratification of the 14th Amendment and who had a father who was a British subject who passed his British citizenship on to James Buchanan. The elder Buchanan died a dual citizen of the British Empire and the United States.
Your reply to me is completely irrelevant.
If they don’t think they can take a case on standing, it doesn’t really matter what they think of the rest of the case. Several courts have made it clear that the remedy is beyond their legal jurisdiction. That doesn’t invalidate the claims.
1. He has to be born in the United States
2. Both parents must be Natural Born Citizens.
Not exactly correct - both parents must be citizens, either natural born or naturalized [with a caveat].
Basically, the Founding Fathers were naturalized upon the existence of the United States, but who was to lead if they did not carve out the grandfather clause for themselves ??? However, they eventually died out and the point became moot.
Thereafter, the children of naturalized citizens (but not the naturalized citizens themselves) could become POTUS - assuming that the parent(s) native country(s) did not lay a claim on the citizenship of the children (dual citizenship).
Your reply to me is completely irrelevant.
The ones born abroad were the ones for whom the grandfather clause was intended, although if the parents had fled Great Britain to live in the colonies or states, that was pretty much akin to those natural born colonists who renounced their British citizenship. All the parents above moved to the colonies prior to the establishment of the Constitution, so their children would have been considered natural born citizens anyway.
... and still don't say that Obama was born in Honolulu or what the baby's birth name was.
There's been no lack of trying to gain standing, but you can't make a court take a case that they think is too hot for them to take. The requested remedy is part of the consideration for standing ... of which these courts don't want to get involved. All we see is that average citizens have no recourse for challenging an ineligible POTUS.
Nope you’re right, no baby names, just “son” and parents’ names and an address (which happens to be in Honolulu). But all the Consitution requires is birth in a state.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/SPECIALOBAMA08
No, both must be citizens, naturalized or natural born. Otherwise no one could become a natural born citizen. Those who were citizens at the passage of the Constitution were not natural born citizens, which is why there was an exemption for them. Thus, if your criteria were correct, their children could not be natural born, because they were not. Then their grandchildren could not be because their parents were not.. Never mind those whose ancestors immigrated after 1787. Those ancestors would have been naturalized, not natural born, and so the same sequence of not having natural born parents would apply.
(I have one set of great grandparents who were naturalized after having been born in England in the early 1860s. One other set go back at least one more generation, their parents, my great great grandparents, having immigrated around 1865-6 time). The other two sets, both of my grandfathers' parents, we haven't a clue, except we know one grandfather was born in the US. The other, whose family name I bear, came west on the orphan train and was adopted, so that family name doesn't actually tie to any of my ancestors in that line, and we don't even know if he might have been an immigrant himself as a child, or if his parents were recent immigrants or from long established US families.)
So, the rule can't be that the parents must be natural born citizens. But it can be, and is, that they must have been citizens at the time of birth.
Lets assume that some states (noably, AZ) pass a presidential candidate qualification bill - the Constitution provides that the states are responsible for elections. Then Obama could be in a world of sh*t ...
1. If he files in AZ, the AZ SOS will deny him even if he produces a birth certificate - because he cannot prove NBC. Then he has to go to court - no problem with standing here, he has a dog in the fight. He either gets relief or gets denied. Either way, it will be litigated to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS then is in a quandry - either they accept him, or deny him. If accepted, they open the door for "agent provocateurs" to possibly become POTUS in the future. If they deny him - then he is out and I don't know WHAT is done about all the bills and laws that he signed in his first term.
2. If he chooses NOT to file in AZ, then all of the other states will be suspicious of him - what does he have to hide ??? Could cost Obama in swing states - BIG TIME !!!
3. He could choose not to run at all. We would be rid of him - but he wouldn't have to reveal anything ...
No, the Constitution requires birth to citizen parents and birth on U.S. soil. Granny’s permanent address for whom the alleged father was never known to live doesn’t do much to confirm a claim that Obama was born in Hawaii. In fact, it begs further question.
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.