Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Red Steel
When the US court system along with the Supreme Court is 'Evading' the issue, the swearing in doesn't mean squat...especially to Obama.

So where does this leave us? I say I'm right, you say I'm wrong. Meanwhile, a man with a foreign father occupies the office of the presidency and one of the most conservative justices of the nation's highest court has publicly stated a reluctance of this court to address the issue.

Looks to me like Obama is going to skate on the eligibility issue. So now what?

110 posted on 05/01/2010 3:00:22 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]


To: Drew68
Looks to me like Obama is going to skate on the eligibility issue. So now what?

I don't think Obama is going to skate this issue even if it takes 20 years, although, I do not think that it will take that long. I'm not on a fixed time schedule as I suspect of others are not either. I'm not only after Obama's administration I'm after his legacy.

114 posted on 05/01/2010 3:07:43 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

To: Drew68; Jim Robinson
FWIW and IMHO, we don't know with absolute certainty whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen even if he was born in Hawaii because as the Court said in its ruling on Minor v. Happersett the Constitution does not define natural born citizen.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
Some argue that there is only one group of citizens about whom there can be no doubt. That group is those born on U.S. soil to citizen parents. The SCOTUS ruling in Minor v. Happersett affirms that opinion.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
The Court in Minor v. Happersett also said that there may possibly be others who can be considered natural born citizens.

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
However, for the purposes of the Minor v. Happersett ruling, the Court refrained from resolving any doubts about that second group of possible natural born citizens.

For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Some argue that the courts have used the terms natural born citizen and native born citizen interchangeably. That is certainly true. The Court does so in Minor v. Happersett when referring to the first group of citizens about which there are no doubts.

These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
It is also important to note that the Court in Minor v. Happersett stipulates that there are only two ways in which one may obtain U.S. citizenship: birth or naturalization.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. (...) Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
So some argue that if one is not naturalized, one is a citizen at birth. And that is certainly true. There are many types of citizens who are granted citizenship by birth, such as those born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents. However, the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs manual stipulates that being a natural born citizen by statute does not guarantee that one is such for Constitutional purposes.

It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency. (...) In any event, 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.
So while the Courts have used native born and natural born interchangeably and citizens are either citizens by birth or naturalized, we don't have a clear definition of natural born citizen from the Courts as it applies to circumstances of Obama's birth.

If there is any justice in this world, we will find a way to present a proper case to the SCOTUS who will then have to interpret what the Founding Fathers intended when they stipulated natural born citizen as a requirement for POTUS.

Until then, IMHO, we're stuck in limbo with a traitor as a sitting POTUS who hates America and is doing everything he and his thugs can to destroy our way of life.

149 posted on 05/01/2010 4:24:34 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson