Posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13
4 Cases have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that define the status of Natural Born Citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
At the risk of being fitted for the mu-metal chapeau, I completely agree. The laws preventing usurpation are certainly already on the books of every state.
The elected officials of both parties did not complete due diligence, merely rubber-stamping the DNC's chosen candidate. 1 Governor speaking up would certainly have helped focus national attention on the problem.
As for your theory of the GOP wanting to "dodge the 2008 bullet" because of the economy: I am not so sure that, looking down the barrels of a a 10-year Depression, that they won't try and dodge it again in 2012!
My theory: The Modern GOP very much seems to prefer to be making accomodating deals as a strong minority party, rather than communicating with the nation, leading from a position in front. Sorry.
On page 6 of the Pocket Version of the Constitution of the United States printed under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing (House and Senate), House Concurrent Resolution 190 (submitted by Rep. Brady), U.S. House of Representatives, 110th Congress, 1st Session, July 25, 2007 the “N” and the “L” are capitalized.
Yes, it certainly exists in Keyes' archives, among other places. Those debates in 2006 were also televised.
BTW, Obama signed or caused to be signed, certificates swearing to NBC for AZ and other states. But, and this is a big but, on his "FighttheSmears Website,", all he ever claims is "NATIVE Born Citizenship," because he says he was born in Hawaii.
Where did the Bureau of Statistics get their information on baby Obama?
Big time McCain supporter - hahahahahaha! McRino?!? The dingbat who said we had nothing to fear from the usurper? That pretty much blows your stance out of the water.
Please share with us the original papers.
I dunno, Nancy is heady with power. She might demand the candidacy.
Politjibbajabba: Never before have so many known so little about so much.
I reread Vattel, and I stand corrected. Parents must be natural born or naturalized citizens for the child to be Natural Born. Ideally, per vattel, both parents would be natural born as well. As you correctly pointed out, at some point in the beginning, one just might be naturalized. So the parent could not be Potus, but the child COULD.
The French versions of Vattel’s Law of Nations were used crafting the Constitution, as Franklin as well as other statesmen of the time fluently spoke, read, and wrote french, and transcribed it for those who did not IIRC.
Indeed.
True in the legal sense but the voters might take it as an offense.
I believe the GOP didn’t want “this” election. They would gladly have given this one to the RATS knowing what a disaster it’d end up being and then in 2012 they could come back on shining white steeds to save the country (the country they let/help/watched/encouraged to be destroyed).
Evidently you have never been divorced. Paternity is established in divorce cases for the purposes of Child support. Proof of responsibility comes from birth certificates, which was page 11 in the divorce decree, which lists the father and mother.
In adoption cases, birth fathers are named as they have to relinquish custody for an adoption to take place. Also they may contest an adoption, and the courts have a responsibility to notify the father. If they do not have an address, they have to “notify by publication”, in the last known town the father was known to live, to satisfy law, if a father comes back to court in protest.
We are all seeking the answers to those questions.
Here is the entire paragraph:
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
It seems you both are on the right track. The constitution defines natural born citizen, Vattel, under Section 8 of the constitution is noted, ie. Law of Nations for Natural Born definition. Section 1401 defines naturalization, not NBC status, and 1403 goes even further for children born of 2 US Citizens and a child born outside US borders.
You argue semantics. If one disagrees with birthers, one is labeled a troll on birther threads.
That’s correct. Nully created the “All” account a long time ago. There’s also “y’all” which is my personal favorite.
Why? He served as president, it was public knowledge that his father was a British subject at his birth, and yet no one challanged his eligibility on that basis. That seems to be the perfect precedent for Obama's case.
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.