Posted on 04/23/2011 11:00:57 PM PDT by HMS Surprise
First, it must be stated unequivocally, that the confusion surrounding the “birther” controversy is completely contrived. This issue is not complicated… at all.
Natural-born citizens are quite simply, and forever and for all time: citizens born in America of parents who are both citizens.
Was that difficult?
Whether or not Barack Obama was born in Hawaii could not matter less. The unassailable fact is that his father was a Kenyan. If it’s the intention of birthers to have Obama impeached, arguing about his post-partem nexus doesn’t help their efforts. If fact, arguing about that specious aspect of this issue probably helps secure the tenuous perch to which Obama is clinging.
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...
To date, Barack Obama himself has never released any proof of his citizenship, whatsoever.
His former press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has taken credit (or blame) for posting the badly forged Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth on the internet during the 2008 campaign.
Obama hasn’t made one statement about that ‘document’, one way or the other.
If you’ve listened carefully to Obama over the last three years, he himself, has never made any claims regarding his citizenship. I believe I’ve heard him make mention of having been born in Honolulu, Hawaii, but I could be mistaken about that.
The point is, as long as he continues to withhold his vital records from the public, someone else is going to have to produce documented evidence that he’s the son of a foreign national. Right now, it’s just hearsay, even though it came out of his own mouth.
This is a legal point.
We’re going to need his original LFBC to prove conclusively that he is indeed a man born with divided loyalties, who does not meet the simple qualification of being a Natural Born Citizen.
What a pleasant surprise..a thread on natural born citizenship..thanks for posting.
It’s not that cut and dry ... I found this on Wikipedia:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China and who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship, but who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China” was a U.S. Citizen.
The Court stated that:
The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’[10]
Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a “citizen” or a “natural born citizen”, the majority adopted the common law of England:
The court ruled:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
It's not that nobody cares, or that nobody cared in the Arthur case, which was a matter of some controversy at the time, but it's that most people didn't care, and that is still the case. "Natural born citizen" is not so clearly defined as some would wish it to be.
We need to have this defined by congress assembled. But they are too busy trying to see just how high our debt level can rise before the country burns.
/johnny
The SCOTUS will punt on this issue. Political decision. Though the legal arguments are strong, I don’t think NBC will be enough.
Good luck.
ah yes... but we need the long form to prove who the father was and his nationality upon 0bama's birth
unless you can get him to admit it.. step by step.
a book is not signed as a truthful statement. they would spin it as advertising for the 0bama brand
he would have been eligible for the office.
the concept of 'natural born citizen' is not unclear in any way. there really is nothing to discuss as the concept is exceedingly straight forward.
a person is considered a natural born citizen of a country if they were born in the country and, upon their birth, both parents were citizens of that country.
it really doesn't get much more straight forward. it only gets murky if people are trying to skirt the issue.
DNA is needed, obviously.
The bigger point is that he proves the theory. We need President born into the American idea, and it’s helpful to have American parents to accomplish that.
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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The bolded phrase was put in the Constitution specifically to allow Alexander Hamilton and others who were not born here, but prior to and during the revolution migrated to the colonies and gave good service to the revolutionary cause, to stand for President if they so wished. Hamilton was present at the Philadelphia Convention, and his mentor Washington presided over it. Hamilton would not be 35 until 1790 or 1792 (there's uncertainty about his birth date), but since it was assumed that Washington would serve as the first President if the Constitution actually went into effect, this was only a technical barrier, and would be overcome by the second term. The idea that anything was inserted into the Constitution to Hamilton's detriment is mistaken.
The bigger point is that he proves the theory. We need President born into the American idea, and it’s helpful to have American parents to accomplish that.
Sarcasm detected and digested accordingly.
INDONESIAN GO HOME
So where did this definition come from? My kids were both born while I was active duty military stationed in Japan. Their mother was a Japanese citizen at the time, although she is now a naturalized American citizen. They don't have birth certificates (well, they have Japanese birth certificates), they have Consular Reports of Birth Abroad, issued by the State Department and confirming their American citizenship at birth. Are you saying my kids aren't eligible to run for president?
You are assuming much, not the least of which that Obama Sr. had no intentions of ever becoming a citizen, which would clearly have bearing on the ruling that you are sharing. So, it’s your theory then that a Mexican mother can squat for five minutes in El Paso, return to Mexico with her babe for 30 years, and that child would be more qualified to run for President than a child born of two vacationing Americans in France who return immediately and live out the rest of their days in Muncie, Indiana? Puhlease.
Maybe it is not clear as crystal, but nothing could be more ambiguous than Obama’s current citizenship status. If I were to avoid producing a document that would clarify an issue in a court of law it would be tantamount to admitting guilt.
Yes, he does, but I take it as somewhat of a given that present company already understands all that.
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.