Posted on 04/12/2011 11:27:59 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
You read the 1952 act, but somehow missed the ‘5 consecutive years after the age of 14 living in US territory’ bit, huh?
Methinks you’d best re-read that little piece of legislation, since you forgot a rather important bit.
Skimming through the FR index just now. Your intro caught my attention and piqued my interest, as one sentence stood out like a flashing neon sign proclaiming to the world that you are an Obama Marxist sycophant:
“WE NOW HAVE TWO PRECEDENTS AGAINST THE BIRTHERS.”
The “birthers” concern has been and is adherence to the natural born citizen mandate of the US Constitution’s Article II, Section 1.
Your statement, on the other hand, shows you and yours [”WE] have an agenda [”WE NOW HAVE...AGAINST...”] of overthrowing the Constitution - or at least those parts you deem inconvenient to that agenda of yours.
What did you say your name is? Vladimir?
How amazingly profound your statement is. You said, “Obama Sr. never intended to become a citizen of the US. His INTENT WAS ALWAYS TO GO BACK TO KENYA AND BE PART OF THE REVOLUTION there.” [caps for emphasis]
And what, then, did Barry title his book? “Dreams From My Father”.
As in “dreams FROM my father”.
As in, Barry’s dream was/is to be the personification - the fulfillment - of his father’s dreams.
His father’s dream was for Kenya to be a Communist nation with a taxation rate of 100%.
And now, there sits Barry - in the Oval Office with his filthy shoes on the desk, honing his hammer and sickle.
Split loyalties indeed!. And it doesn’t matter [in this aspect] whether or not Sr. actually was his father. Barry has ideologically and emotionally proclaimed him to be his father and the source of whom and what he has chosen to be.
Article 2, Section 1 specifies only that the president be a natural born citizen. No qualifications are given for the vice president, so I would think that if the vice were not eligible for the presidency, by right of citizenship or age or other qualifications, he could not legally assume the position.
McCain was not born on us territorial soil. He was born off base in the best hospital nearby, in panama. But I will give that if your parents are full citizens, serving the united states at the time (military or ambassadors), you can still be called natural born citizens.
“So what’s Obama hiding?”
My bet? The long forms shows that he was Muslim at birth. He is now a Christian (or claims to be). Regarless of whether some believe he is really a Christian or not, that makes him an apostate to Muzzie true believers. Which makes him a ticket to 72 virgins (or white raisins, depending upon how you translate that verse) to the Islamofascist that sends him to perdition.
To a “Living Constitutionalist” (like The Won), the fact that you might not technically qualify for the Presidency is no biggie. All you have to do is “interpret” the Constitution “properly.” Painting a big bull-eye on your back? That’s another thing. I mean, you cannot be President if you are dead, and Islamofascists are crazies.
Take an hour and read the Constitution.
Amendment XII
... But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
in 1996 they ended anchor babies under the law. That is why immigration lawyers do the special needs BS. When all else fails, the lawyers go to the media with a sob story.
I read it once a year. Amendment XII means that Spiro Agnew should never have been eligible to be vice-president, which was my original point, and, hence, not able to succeed Nixon.
And that statement proved my point.
Chester Arthur, Charles Curtis, and now Spiro Agnew should never have been eligible for office according to the cult of Vattel.
Soon Woodrow Wilson will be added to that growing list. (She was English born).
And that’s why the protest about Obama is meaningless noise.
So anything your children do that you did as a kid and got away with, just goes unpunished????
So your point is that because the Constitution has been ignored before, it should always be ignored?
Unless you’re Sarah Palin. Then your whole family has to show their birth cert
My point is that the Constitution says “Natural Born Citizen” and the federal law has defined what that is throughout the years.
A someone who has spent thousands of hours in gernalogical research, just about everything can and if often wrong at various times. That said, thanks for posting this. I guess technically I am a birther, but I like to know these things.
Interesting. Can you point me to where federal law defines natural born citizen? That definition seems to be at the heart of the dispute and, having followed this citizenship thing closely, I have yet to see a single federal law cited that offers such a definition. The definition as the founding fathers seemed to accept it was born in the U.S. or its territories of a U.S. citizen mother and a U.S. citizen father. Hence, Obama could not be a natural born citizen. A U.S. citizen, yes, Obama is certainly that, and that’s the red herring that so many talking heads, both liberal and conservative, keep throwing out, but natural born? I think not.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html
The Supreme Court has ruled that there are only two types of citizenship. A citizenship that was acquired at birth and a citizenship that was acquired by naturalization. There is not a seperate “natural born” citizenship. That is the argument. Some people are trying to make the “super citizenship” a reality, but it just isn’t found in the Constitution, the Federal Laws or any Treaty.
And those three things are the Supreme Laws of the land according to the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
You citation does not mention “natural born citizen” at all. Here’s an interesting article on the topic:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Please note the passage that states, “The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term ‘natural born citizen’ to any other category than ‘those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof’.”
Here is a section in it:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
"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,"
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
Note that in the dissent of the Ark case, the Vattel argument is used. It was used on the losing side. The Supreme Court in 1898 rejected the argument that the Vattel cult makes.
That's why I get frustrated. This idea of a third type of citizenship was rejected by the Supreme Court 113 years ago and yet people still want to argue that it is what the law of the land is.
It isn't. It's been brought up before and has lost every time.
In the Ark case, the cout ruled that Kim Ark was a citizen, and did not touch upon natural born citizenship. In a later case, Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) the Court stated, “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”
Every argument you’ve brought up refers to U.S. citizenship, period. The Vattel argument, as you correctly noted, has not prevailed because it is based on “The Law of Nations,” and not on U.S. law or the Constitution. In the Ark case, the court looked to English common law. The concept of “natural born citizen” is nowhere defined in U.S. law, hence, there remains a need for someone in the U.S., either Congress of the Supreme Court, to declare precisely on what “natural born” citizenship is, otherwise we will continue to have arguments like this.
Last communication—fare well, warrior!
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.