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 ...
Excellent!
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.
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"
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
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!
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.
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
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/
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....
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....
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)
If it wasn’t in wedlock, then he is automatically a US citizen.
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
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.
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.
Yeah, that is where the missing passport records would come in.
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.
Oops, meant 1787 to 1788. Although Rhode Island ratified much later, after being threatened with treatment as a foreign nation.
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.