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

Skip to comments.

Bachmann: Obama has neglected to prove eligibility
WND ^ | April 17, 2011 | Joe Kovacs

Posted on 04/17/2011 7:32:49 PM PDT by RobinMasters

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., says President Obama has neglected to clearly demonstrate he's eligible to hold his office, and says it would be simple for him to do so.

"It's an interesting issue that has gone on for so long and it's one that the president could have solved very early on," Bachmann told Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro last night.

"All he had to do is just answer some questions and show his [long-form birth] document and then have people do an attestation that this in fact is a legal document and it's over, it's done. And I think the president has neglected to focus on answering that question for people, and that's why a lot of people still have it lingering in their minds. None of us can prove, none of us can do attestation. Only the president and someone who is legally tasked with attesting to the validity of that document can do that, and I think that's what the president should do."

Bachmann, who is considering her own run for president next year, said, "One thing I know is that people have weighed President Obama in the balance, and he's been found wanting. I think we have a real opportunity to win back the White House. And again, it's not about a political party winning, it's about taking the country back. That's the bigger issue, and I think it's really gonna happen in 2012."

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: bachman; bachmann; birthcertificate; certifigate; michelebachmann; minnesota; naturalborncitizen; obama; palin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-153 next last
To: SeekAndFind

“Native born “

That’s just you making stuff up. There is no such term.


81 posted on 04/18/2011 2:35:33 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad; SeekAndFind
"the 14th Amendment makes clear who is and isn’t a natural born citizen."

What's with the disinformation?

The 14th and 1401 (under TITLE 8—ALIENS AND NATIONALITY in the U.S. code) say nothing, not a single thing about natural born Citizens.

Regarding U.S. code 1401 - Congressional statues can not define who a "natural born" Citizen is. If it were possible, the Naturalization Act of 1790 would have been preserved (instead of being repealed by the Act of 1795).

Furthermore, Chief Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Waite, Justice Story and the House of Representatives that debated the issue of citizenship leading to the 14th Amendment (in particular framer Bingham) all reiterate who a "natural born Citizen" is. And a multi-national isn't one of them.

The mere ideas of dual nationals (i.e. multi-nationals) and "natural born Citizen(s)" are mutually exclusive.

82 posted on 04/18/2011 2:42:53 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

RE: If a person is a citizen at birth they are a natural born citizens. There ar eno other definitions. You trying to claim a child must have two American only parents is hogwash and is just you redefining the term.


You can call it hogwash all you want, it might be that YOUR interpretation is hogwash, not mine.

Many who take the constitution seriously believe there is a REASON behind why the term NATURAL BORN was used.

On June 18, 1787 Alexander Hamilton submitted a draft version of the US Constitution where he suggested the following qualification for President:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

To be “born a Citizen of the United States” means to be a native-born citizen, for the definition of native-born is “of a specified place by birth”. Here, “place” means the United States.

Five weeks later, on July 25, 1787, in response to Hamilton’s suggestion, John Jay wrote the following to George Washington at the time of the Constitutional Convention:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Now HERE IS THE IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE -— Neither Hamilton’s language (born a Citizen of the US) nor the term native-born citizen appear in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;…”

Instead, what appears in the Constitution is the term NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, which came from John Jay’s letter.

The Founding Fathers rejected Hamilton’s suggestion and chose John Jay’s term of natural born citizen. Why? Because they wanted future presidents to be born of the soil and full blood of the nation, and being born of the soil (native born) was not enough.

TO DIFFERENTIATE:

* Native-born citizen = Born of the soil (United States)

* Natural born citizen = Born of the soil (United States) AND full blood (two US citizen parents)

So, based on the above understanding, Even if we were to grant that Obama was born in Hawaii, he would only be a NATIVE-BORN citizen, but he is NOT and NEVER WOULD BE a natural born citizen because his father was not a US citizen.

BTW, me, yours truly is a naturalized citizen as described in the 14th amendment, but I am NOT a natural born citizen. Therefore, I can never be President.


83 posted on 04/18/2011 2:45:08 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

Comment #84 Removed by Moderator

To: SeekAndFind

Some people do question his citizenship. His entire life and status is very murky. A lot is up in the air. Check out this thread for some more reseach, I learned some new stuff and I’ve been reading obsessively about Zero’s eligibility since spring 2008.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2702976/posts?page=534


85 posted on 04/18/2011 2:51:00 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

RE: That’s just you making stuff up. There is no such term.

This is most definitely NOT making stuff up. This term is used to DIFFERENTIATE the births of people who are qualified and not qualifed to be President.

The constitutional clause, AKA the Grandfather clause (“or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”) would have served no purpose if the term NATURAL BORN has no particular meaning to the framers.

There would have been no need to include that grandfather clause had the Founding Fathers thought that merely having been born on U.S. soil makes one a natural born citizen!

Because the term natural born citizen meant at that time, “born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents,” the grandfather clause had to be included in the Constitution because in 1789 there were no natural born citizens who were also 35 years old!

Without the grandfather clause, the new nation would have to wait decades before any natural born citizens would turn 35 and become eligible to serve as president. Thus, the grandfather clause was included in order to ensure that there could be presidents until the day came when presidential candidates could meet the natural born citizen and the age and residency requirements.

The simple truth is that the Founding Fathers did not want anyone like Obama to become president, because someone like that might feel an allegiance to the foreign country where he was born, or the country of which his parents were citizens.

BTW, less people think we are picking on Obama simply because he is a Democrat, I tell you with a heavy heart that two of my favorite politicians, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal might not meet the NATURAL BORN requirements either.

Some people argue that the NATURAL BORN clause is obsolete and should be amended since we are no longer at war with a country that was ruling over us.

I am very sympathetic to this argument and will potentially support an amendment to the constitution that takes away the NATURAL BORN clause for the presidency.

However, if this country is to be a country of laws where the constitution is respected, we have to go through a FORMAL amendment process as prescribed by the constitution itself.


86 posted on 04/18/2011 2:51:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle; Red Steel; bushpilot1
"When did jameses777 get the zot? Or did his keyboard melt from excusing zero on this? I guess I missed it."

Seems like it was about a month or so ago. Pinging a few others who may be able to elaborate.

87 posted on 04/18/2011 2:54:35 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
what? the 14th amendment has nothing to do with natural born citizen status. general citizenship, yes. natural born, no.

a citizen is different from a natural born citizen. arnorld schwarzenegger is a citizen, but he is not a natural born citizen as he was born in austria. a naturalized citizen is someone that wasn't a citizen originally.

natural born is someone born of two citizens at birth. those citizens didn't have to be born in the country... just obtained citizenship prior to the birth of the child.

the reason this is a requirement in the Constitution is that the founders wanted to insure the person in the office was an American and didn't have any loyalties to other countries.

as for why obtaining the birth certificate relates to this issue... it will provide definitive proof of the citizenship of the father at the time of 0bama's birth. something you may not understand... they altered the certification of live birth (different from a certificate) to omit the citizenship of the father. note the removal the the fields in the lower right compared to an actual certification:

now you know why they modified the jpeg. the long form or original certification would be enough to prove he is not natural born. not due to where he was born, but the citizenship of his father.

read this again if it hasn't sunk in.

88 posted on 04/18/2011 3:00:48 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"Some people argue that the NATURAL BORN clause is obsolete and should be amended since we are no longer at war with a country that was ruling over us.

I am very sympathetic to this argument and will potentially support an amendment to the constitution that takes away the NATURAL BORN clause for the presidency.

However, if this country is to be a country of laws where the constitution is respected, we have to go through a FORMAL amendment process as prescribed by the constitution itself."

Having a Commander in Chief of our armed forces that has never held foreign allegiance is, I would argue, more important in today's world of globalism and ICBM's than it was in the 1700's.

In fact, I would love to see an amendment requiring (at least) the Speaker of the House, the President pro tempore of the Senate, all Secretary's and every single SCOTUS justice be a natural born Citizen as additional hedge against foreign intrigue/influence in our national councils.

It was back then, and remains today...an issue of national sovereignty and security.

89 posted on 04/18/2011 3:07:14 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

Comment #90 Removed by Moderator

To: rxsid

RE: Having a Commander in Chief of our armed forces that has never held foreign allegiance is, I would argue, more important in today’s world of globalism and ICBM’s than it was in the 1700’s.


The only problem I have with the above statement is we assume too much regarding a person’s allegiance simply because of the circumstances of his birth.

For instance, you cannot say that a person automatically has allegiance to a foreign country simply because he was born a certain way. One does not control the circumstances of one’s birth.

There is no guarantee that just because a person was born under certain circumstances (beyond his control of course) that he will love the USA more than another person born in different circumstances (again beyond his control).

Take John Walker Lind for instance, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. That advantageous circumstance of his birth did not prevent him from fighting for our enemies in Afghanistan. In fact, this natural born traitor traveled all the way to Afghanistan to fight for the enemy.

On the other hand, all indicators that I have seen thus far tells me that Marco Rubio, whose parents were probably Cuban at the time of his birth ( something he has no control over ), loves this country and its constitutional ideals MORE than many Natural Born Citizens.

I know of too many Benedict Arnold Natural Born Americans (many living in liberal cities) who would rather see America weak than strong.

I also know of many non-natural born citizens who love this country and would fight, defend and give their lives for America ( many of them BTW, are in the military ).

My point is simply this — being natural born DOES NOT GUARANTEE LOYALTY TO COUNTRY.

Having said that, I still believe that we have to abide by the constitution. If we want to do away with this requirement, we should follow due process and the law — VIA A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

So as of today, if a person is NOT a Natural Born citizen, regardless of his love and allegiance for this country and no matter how qualified, he cannot be Commander in Chief.


91 posted on 04/18/2011 3:44:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: sten

Sorry, sport, but what you have posted isn’t exactly proof of anything except that you seriously have no reading comprehension or research abilitites.


92 posted on 04/18/2011 4:10:34 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

denial. it’s one of the obvious signs


93 posted on 04/18/2011 4:12:57 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Natural” means no further action necessary. When a person by their mere birth is a US citizen it means they are natural born.

“Natural” does not mean “must be born of two parents citizens”. I bet you can’t find THAT definition in the dictionary.

That logic, and that logic, alone, is all I need to know.


94 posted on 04/18/2011 4:13:46 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

If you have the time, could you post your long thing that has all the details and supporting quotes about NBC? Toady here needs a slap upside the head.


95 posted on 04/18/2011 4:33:25 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Both the 14th amendment and 8 USC 1401 stipulate who is a citizen at birth and anyone a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. There is no such thing a “natural born” and a different “natural born”.

Are you saying that anchor babies born to illegal aliens in this country would be considered to meet the natural born Citizen requirement and thus be eligible to be president? I don't believe this to be true...

96 posted on 04/18/2011 4:42:48 PM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius, (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

E-mail just received:

Dear Subscriber,

“Bill Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father, I have no doubt about it.” Donald Trump

On at least three occasions, Donald Trump has credited Ayers with writing Dreams and, in so doing, publicly affirmed the thesis of Jack’s book, Deconstructing Obama.

In a sane world, it would be newsworthy when a viable presidential candidate charges the sitting president of collaborating with an unrepentant terrorist on a hugely consequential literary fraud.

In a sane world, the news media would rush to consult with the source of that charge.

This is not a sane world. No mainstream reporters have contacted Jack. No “respectable” conservative media save for Fox & Friends have contacted Jack. None of the above will even take his phone calls or return his emails.

We need your help to get the word out about Deconstructing America. We recommend that you forward this message to your friends and suggest that they do no more than watch Jack’s entertaining presentation on Book-TV:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/298382-1

Thanks

The “Deconstructing” Team


97 posted on 04/18/2011 5:08:06 PM PDT by Fred Nerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

That’s exactly what he’s saying. And that Putin or Stalin or Hitler could come to the US, knock up some woman, and then when the kid is born, take the kid back to home country, raise him to hate the US, and then the kid could be the President here.


98 posted on 04/18/2011 5:11:32 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Very intereseting.


99 posted on 04/18/2011 5:12:42 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Unfortunately you are using the modern version of the definition in place of what has a well understood meaning during the time of the framers.

You might want to replace that original intent with the modern version of the word, but that would not be in the spirit of the original intent of the constitution. Which means in THIS ONE ASPECT, you are a liberal.

Let’s hope that your liberality ends in this one aspect only.


100 posted on 04/18/2011 5:14:14 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-153 next last

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.

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