Posted on 05/08/2011 8:40:39 AM PDT by rhubarbb
Sorry if this is in the wrong area, this is my first time posting. I'm a long-time lurker who loves FR and I use what I learn all the time against my friends, some of whom (Unfortunately) are liberal. It's the price of going to a big college. I'm really good about speaking the truth to them and showing how they're wrong, and most of my best arguments come from FR. But there's been one question that one of my friends keeps repeating and while I know he's wrong I can't prove it and it's bugging me.
I know the best researchers are here and I figured someone here has figured out how to set the Obama-bots straight on the issue. I've searched through all the other threads on eligibility and didn't find anything.
======
My friend says that Spio Agnew (Nixon's VP) proves that you don't need two citizen parents to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Now, I know that the Vice President must meet the same elgibility requirements as the President, and therefore must also be a Natural Born Citizen (12th Amendment). My friend claims that Spiro Agnew's father was a Greek Citizen when he was born. I've tried to find any information to confirm and deny this, but can't find anything. I know he's wrong (he's a Dem... haha) but need help with the proof.
I can't see Nixon choosing someone, and the Republicans electing, a vice president that was obviously unqualified for office.
So my question:
Is this true? Have one of the researcher's looked into Agnew's citizenship? Did Nixon choose a VP that was not a Natural Born Citizen? And if so, did he hide it like Chester A. Arthur did? I figure that one of the reasons I can't find any information on it might be because he did the "hide your past" thing like Arthur.
Any help would be great and help to take a liberal down!!
Yup. The whole "birther" issue has been an utter waste of time tied almost entirely to ridiculous conspiracy theories.
As long as conservatives continue to push this nonsense, they won't be taken seriously as policy leaders.
You'll notice that the overwhelming vast majority of prominent conservatives (including potential presidential candidates) want absolutely nothing to do with "birther" drivel. The one who has, Trump the clown, looks like an utter and complete buffoon now that the theory has been utterly blown to pieces when Hussein released his long form.
Obama will not be defeated by conspiracy theories, he will be defeated on the issues - primarily his horrendous mismanagement of the economy.
While I think Obama is hiding something and that the long-form BC is clearly a computer-generated document and not a scan of a piece of paper - I also agree with your conclusion. Whether you view it as the last word, or just another clever Obama head-fake, the BC issue is resolved in the minds of most Americans and it is not an argument that can help us win control of the White House in 2012.
Like many, I’ll probably continue to fuss about it, but what I think matters not. Candidates and opinion-shapers need to stay focused on the real issues and attacking Obama’s policies, not his citizenship.
Add to which, if said a**hole got away with tidy sum, what becomes of that? Do we leave it be as well as to not harm the 'innocent beneficiaries'.
Obama's mother was 18 at the time of his birth not 19. Statutory requirements state that a parent must be a citizen for at least 5 years past their 14th birthday to pass citizenship to their child. Therefore, Obama's mother could not provide Obama with US citizenship.
The Framers' drew on Emmer De Vattel's definition of Natural Born Citizen (from his famous work, "Law of Nations") when they wrote it into our Constitution. It was the highest and securest bar they could place on the office of president, to prevent usurpation by someone with divided loyalties.
Here we go again! Both parents need to be citizens at the time of birth, whether by birthright or naturalization. The latter was the case with Agnew’s father.
Chester Arthur hid and destroyed many of his personal records, including his Birth Certificate, because his father was a citizen of Canada at the time of his birth.
CNN, in all shallow wisdom, made the point that a fairly significant number of presidents had parents of foreign birth, they just never bothered to tell us that all parents, with the exception of President Arthur’s, were naturalized US citizens at the time of birth of their future president sons.
That is what I was taught in school many, many years ago!! We must have had the same teacher.
I agree.. I think there are other issues to talk about..
Best representation of the NBC issue I’ve seen, where did you find this?
Also, if you look at the 1920 Census, it has his wife listed as an alien and she was born in Virginia. You compare that to the 1930 census that says he was naturalized in 1903 and his WW I registration card in 1918 that says he was a naturalized citizen, it is obvious that the 1920 census is wrong.
regarding “Trump the clown” (your assessment, not mine) -
He’s got an opportunity to show what he’s made of now. He could either continue to beat the “show us the records” drum, or he could stand up and say “Look, it was a legitimate question, I am the only one who would raise it and get an answer. That shows my ability to take on difficult issues and get results, which are attributes of a good President”.
Time will tell.
That rule (which has since been changed) only applied IF Zero was born outside the United States. IF he was born on US soil, her age was of no consequence, and she could have conveyed US citizenship to him. That is why they had to fabricate the two phony birth certificates.
Completely abandoning the issue would be a mistake. IMHO. The questions surrounding eligibility and curious COLB add weight to all other more easily defined reasons to dump the chump.
Free Republic, of course!
1930 Maryland, Baltimore City, ED 467, sheet 8B, line 65
The previous thread came about because it appeared that 1920 census data indicated that Agnew's father was not a naturalized citizen in 1920, and when Spiro was born.
An ironic thing about all these discussions revolving around census data is that census data are not the source documents to prove naturalization. The Agnew family would have had the naturalization papers, and the INS or a predecessor would have had a record of naturalizations.
All these Agnew discussions have revolved around an absence of basic source documents and a misinterpretation of secondary information from the 1920 census.
This isn't a debate about a birth certificate. It's a debate about what constitutes a natural born citizen. Something that has not been decided for over two hundred years.
The 12th does address the fact that the VP has to be eligible same as the president. However, the 20th Amendment also specifically mentions how to seat a president and vp should either the "president elect" or the "vice president elect" turn out to be not qualified to hold office.
Frankly I find it extremely interesting that the 20th specifically mentions eligibility AFTER the election has been held but before swearing in of the actual office.
“Statutory requirements state that a parent must be a citizen for at least 5 years past their 14th birthday to pass citizenship to their child.”
NOT if the child was born in the USA. Neither parentage or age has any role, if the child is born in the USA.
“The Framers’ drew on Emmer De Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen (from his famous work, “Law of Nations”) when they wrote it into our Constitution. It was the highest and securest bar they could place on the office of president, to prevent usurpation by someone with divided loyalties.”
Ah yes...they drew on a poor translation made in 1797 to write the Constitution in 1787.
All natural born subjects of England in the Colonies became natural born citizens of the US at Independence, unless they took some action to reject US citizenship. That shows the two terms are legal equivalents, and NO ONE denies that a natural born subject could have TWO alien parents.
It is also worth remembering that the NBC clause didn’t exist in the original draft of the Constitution - only residency. It appears to have been added without discussion by a 5 man committee between 8 and 12 September, 1787.
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.