Seems all good and well to say so, but as a practical matter the legal support for this stance just ain’t there.
We can want it to be true. We can believe it to be true. But the reality that we gotta live with is that it just isn’t so.
For that matter, consider the old adage that “posession is 9/10 of the law”. If someone was actually able to force the USSC’s hand on the issue, it is arguable that they would be more likely to support the status quo than produce a ruling that we’d find pleasing.
And let’s be honest with ourselves, is there a single person here would would like BHO one whit more if his biological father naturalized as a US citizen a week before knocking up Stanley Ann? Would BHO be one iota less a committed Marxist?
Also consider: One of the most desirable aspects of the American cultural outlook is that it’s not your parentage that defines you but what you make of yourself.
The most productive course of action is to attack the man based on the choices he has made and continues to make. Not to raise issues that were not only entirely out of his control (circumstances of parentage) but also known for years before the election.
It has to be about who he is, what his values are and what choices he makes as President. That’s the angle we need to play.
“He is exactly the kind of fraud/usurper the founders feared.”
Jim, be careful when using the word “fear” or “feared”. You might get attacked like I did in post #16 found here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2502660/posts
Bookmarking to see how many super, super smart freepers and trolls show up to tell you what an idiot you are.
This could be fun :-)
I so agree.
A natural born subject is a perpetual allegiance to a soveregin..this is Common Law.
The Founders wanted to eliminate any allegiance to a foreign country.
They placed the Presidential requirement into Natural Law this eliminates all allegiances to a foreign country.
Under the Laws of Nature every child born requires no action of law to establish the fact the child inherits from the parents not the country..the child inherits the parents citizenship.
When the Founders placed natural born (Natural Law) in the clause..Congress cannot change or modify this requirement in the future..because it is forever fixed. Natural law cannot be changed.
If the idiots in Congress, the Courts and Obama supporters read the Journals/Books the Founders had in their possession they would know this.
So simple...needs restating another few million times
It’s comforting to know that you feel as I do on this issue. It’s disgraceful that he’s been allowed to get away with as much as he has.
The Democrat party put this man up for election. The Democrat party is responsible for our current mess. The Democrat party is going to have to remove Obama from office. The Republicans removed Nixon when he became a major liability to the country. It is the Democrats’ turn to show some honor.
Half-African full-fledged Anti-American Marxist TRAITOR squatting in the White House!
In a sane world this man would be up on treason charges after that report instead of being buried in the Washington Post!!!
Welcome aboard!
***
The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a "Natural Born Citizen"and
What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?
by John Yinger(1)
Revised Version, April 6, 2000
*Excerpt*
The John Jay Letter
The most direct evidence about the origins of the "natural born citizen" clause comes from a letter that John Jay wrote to George Washington, who was at the time serving as President of the Constitutional Convention.(2) John Jay was not a delegate to the Convention; his views conflicted with those of the majority in his state, New York, and he was not elected by the state legislature.(3)
However, he was a well-known figure who had been President of the Continental Congress. Moreover, he would become an author, along with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, of some of the famous Federalist Papers, written to encouraged New Yorkers to ratify the proposed constitution, and, after the Constitution had been ratified, he would be appointed as the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.(4)
It seems reasonable to suppose, therefore, that his letter carried some weight.
In this letter, dated July 25, 1787, Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (emphasis in the original).(7)
______________________________________________________
George Washington's Farewell Address
*Excerpt*
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.
But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection.
It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party.
But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.
From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it.
A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another.
The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.
The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes.
To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.
But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.
There needs to be a coordinated effort to study..the Journals/Books..the Founders had in their possession.
A list is in the Congressional Record. When I located and The Institutes by Justinian..it was understood..what the Founders were doing with natural born citizen.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/535institutes.html
We need to study..their books.
As you know, the problem with legally attacking his lack of eligibility is standing. So far, no one has been able to get it. There is one person and only one person I can think of who would get standing and get a crack at discovery re BO’s hidden records. That person is Sarah Palin. She has said repeatedly that she doesn’t have to run for office to help her country. I also believe she genuinely would put the country’s welfare first every time. So she might do it if she thought it had a good chance of success. What do you think of this idea?
To me, she would be even more my choice of leader if she went after BO in court. The only bugaboo I see is the ineligibility of John McCain. (Also why McStain could not do it, not that he would.) How does that play into this scenario?
If this a crazy idea?
I think you might be wrong. THere is a very distinct possibility that he has no relation to any Kenyans at all. Good chance another black US marxist is his pa.
Yes... I agree completely.
LLS
My sentiments exactly. Regardless of where he was born, his loyalties are not with the our country that he wants to “fundamentally change”.
OK...by what method?
we'er really in trouble when they all know this and look the other way.
The 14th Amendment says "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."
In the Constitution, you'll find two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. There's nothing that says someone is half American or 3/4 American.