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

Skip to comments.

Bret explains "natural born citizen" requirements for president and vice president
Fox News ^ | 5/1/2012 | Bret Baier

Posted on 05/01/2012 9:32:22 AM PDT by GregNH

Here's the deal...

Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take-- and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:

The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born citizen," but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father's nationality.

The brouhaha over President Obama's birth certificate -- has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a "natural born citizen," but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; eligibility; moonbatbirther; naturalborncitizen; nbc; obama; vattel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-358 next last
To: Fantasywriter

Excellent!


321 posted on 05/02/2012 8:16:48 AM PDT by Josephat (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
This exchange did not occur. You can even find Keyes declaring this did not happen.

I presume you are referring to the alleged Keyes/Obama exchange where Keyes accused Obama of not being a natural born citizen?

A long time ago I tried to nail this down, but I didn't have much luck. There are commenters that swear it happened and they personally heard it, but I could find no evidence for it.

If you have a reference to Keyes denying it happened ( By the way, I have personally met Alan Keyes, and I liked him very much. ) then I would appreciate it if you could post a link or something.

322 posted on 05/02/2012 8:20:39 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2701766/posts

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-bloggers/2141519/posts

His exact quote IIRC was "I don't recall that and certainly I think I would have remembered something like that"

323 posted on 05/02/2012 8:59:48 AM PDT by GregNH (>>>>>I am SO ready to join a brigade of pickup trucks to surround DC<<<<<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
I noticed that he stopped posting ever since I posted that portion of Thomas Paine from The Rights Of Man.

I hadn't thought to look there before yesterday, but someone who reads that entire chapter that I excerpted from cannot help but see that the Framers were very well aware of what the governments of England and France were like, due to the centuries of the politics of inter-marriage between royal familes and its impact on divided loyalties amongst the citizens.

The portion I cited makes it clear that the Natural-Born clause was intended to keep "half-foreigners" from becoming president, and only allow those with "full natural connection with the country" to the highest office.

Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. Having reread it yesterday, I wonder why the SCOTUS never referred to it when they felt challenged to "look elsewhere" for the meaning of natural-born citizen.

I'm going to assemble all my posts from this thread and simply post Paine's contemporary writings to the eligibility threads from now on.

-PJ

324 posted on 05/02/2012 9:33:49 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
When someone doesn't want to understand something nothing will help change their mind. 2+2 will always equal 5 to them.

I was trying to give them the benefit of doubt and also trying to be brief. I've haunted these birth certificate/eligibility/NBC threads since late 2008 and recognize the obot trolls. They repeat the same disinformation over and over and over ad nauseam ad infinitum, trying the patience and sanity of those who read them, until the threads are ten times longer than they should be. Thankfully, many of them have been weeded out (ZOT!).

A huge thank you to you and the others (too numerous to name and I'd surely forget someone) who debate the obot trolls and keep shining the light on truth. Those of us who lurk and learn appreciate it more than you can know.
325 posted on 05/02/2012 9:35:45 AM PDT by HoneysuckleTN (Where the woodbine twineth... || FUBO! OMG! ABO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Your post from Paine was the modern day equivalent of the shot heard ‘round the world. It is the Eligibility equivalent of unearthing the Rosetta Stone. The anti-birthers will ignore it, since for them the discussion is entirely emotional and has nothing to do w facts. Many fence-sitters will find it dispositive, however. Wow, is all I can say: wow.

That, plus thank you. You just made the elephant in the room [i.e.: the fact that of course, of course OF COURSE the Framers concerned themselves w divided loyalty, and took steps to guard the Republic accordingly] a hundred times bigger. Yes, the anti-birthers will ignore it, but now it will be like mice scurrying around between the feet of a ginormous pachyderm, wondering why everybody’s laughing at them. A sea change has visited the Eligibility debate, and a very sweet one it is—thanx again!


326 posted on 05/02/2012 9:54:43 AM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: HoneysuckleTN
...trying the patience and sanity of those who read them...
The intent plainly exposed. Baffle 'em with BS.

A huge thank you to you and the others (too numerous to name and I'd surely forget someone) who debate the obot trolls and keep shining the light on truth.
I've wondered, at times, if it's really worth it.

Those of us who lurk and learn appreciate it more than you can know.
You've just shown that it is worth it. Thank you.

I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do. Edward Everett Hale
327 posted on 05/02/2012 10:18:36 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

On a separate issue, what do you think about that video claiming Frank Davis is Obama’s Father? Apparently he found four more pictures of Stanley Ann au naturel.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2876667/posts


328 posted on 05/02/2012 1:36:41 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I am having a hard time swallowing that one. I have studied the pictures and have come to the conclusion that they are not of SAD. The eyebrows really do it for me.


329 posted on 05/02/2012 1:41:57 PM PDT by GregNH (>>>>>I am SO ready to join a brigade of pickup trucks to surround DC<<<<<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
I am having a hard time swallowing that one. I have studied the pictures and have come to the conclusion that they are not of SAD. The eyebrows really do it for me.

Never mind the eyebrows, look at her crooked front tooth. It is in the same place on pictures of Stanley Ann as it is on the nude woman.

Apart from that, Joel Gilbert said he actually found the extra photos amongst the archives of Frank Davis. If he can prove this claim, are you still going to argue that the woman in Frank Davis' own photo collection isn't Stanley Ann?

I've watched the trailer for the video, and it shows Frank Davis himself sitting on that same couch that is in the pictures. It seems pretty apparent that the furniture and lamps are exactly the same from Frank Davis' house to those nude photos. Did you happen to watch the video trailer for the movie?

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/film-presidents-father-not-barack-obama/

330 posted on 05/02/2012 2:37:28 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

And if the law back in 1961 said

‘live in the u.s. for five years after the age of 14 ‘

instead of two,

Then it would not work because his mom was only what, 18... a difference of only four years.
Assumes the birth was abroad... could have been Africa or Canada....


331 posted on 05/02/2012 7:51:55 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TheCipher

This says “in wedlock”.

What is the corresponding section if NOT in wedlock...I don’t think 0’s mom and Sr. were legally married, because Sr went and committed bigamy....was married to that lady in Kenya at the time he married 0’s mom....


332 posted on 05/02/2012 8:05:12 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

I’d like to download and print this!

Do you have a link? I tried rightclicking and saving it, but didn’t work (android phone)


333 posted on 05/02/2012 8:14:11 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57

If it wasn’t in wedlock, then he is automatically a US citizen.


334 posted on 05/03/2012 4:49:58 AM PDT by TheCipher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57
More specifically :

Sec. 309. [8 U.S.C. 1409]

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year

335 posted on 05/03/2012 4:57:49 AM PDT by TheCipher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: TheCipher

OK now the question is, was the marriage of 0’s dad to the Kenyan lady one that would be recognized as valid in the u.s. If it was just a tribal marriage and not legally recorded, then maybe there would not be a problem of bigamy, and the “in wedlock” would apply, since supposedly his mom and 0 SR got married in Hawaii. So this case pegs him as non NBC.

If there was a bigamy problem, and it was “out of wedlock”, then another question related to your law qoute would be, was his mom in the u.s. for a year prior to the birth...
If she left the us right after marrying 0 SR then 0 wouldn’t be NBC... she would’ve been here maybe eight months or so.


336 posted on 05/03/2012 9:11:02 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57

The “in wedlock” case fails due to the mom’s required residency in u.s. for five years after age 14; she was only 18, not old enough.


337 posted on 05/03/2012 9:23:08 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57

Yeah, that is where the missing passport records would come in.


338 posted on 05/03/2012 9:50:57 AM PDT by TheCipher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
The basic error here is the assumption that a law can redefine a Constitutional term. That would be like one party to a contract deciding that "property" did not include the house that contract was in reference to.

Besides which, 8 USC § 1401, doesn't even contain the term "natural born" or "natural born citizen", so how can it be attempting to redefine it?

The term meant something in 1787 to 1789, when the Constitution was written and ratified. For the "contract" to mean anything at all, it must mean the same thing today as it did then, at least for purposed of that section of the Constitution.

Our job as citizens today, is to determine what the meaning was and is. It will also be the job of the Supreme Court, should the court ever take up the issue.

339 posted on 05/03/2012 3:51:32 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Oops, meant 1787 to 1788. Although Rhode Island ratified much later, after being threatened with treatment as a foreign nation.


340 posted on 05/03/2012 4:09:09 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-358 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