Posted on 06/19/2012 8:02:08 AM PDT by matt1
A lawyer for President Barack Obama argued today in Florida that a lawsuit claiming his client "is not eligible to appear on the November ballot because he is not a 'natural born citizen,'” should be dismissed on the grounds that the Democratic Party has not yet nominated a candidate.
In Tallahasse, Florida, Attorney Mark Herron, representing President Obama, told Leon County, Florida Circuit Judge Terry Lewis that the January 31, 2012 Florida Presidential Preference Primary “did not result in nomination or election” and that “federal law precludes this court from determining whether a candidate for the office of President of the United States is qualified under Article Two Section Five of the United States Constitution.”
“There has been no nomination to office, there has been no election to office,” Herron told Judge Lewis.
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...
They’re barking up the wrong tree arguing where he was born. From an eligibility standpoint, it doesn’t matter. “Natural-born” means both your parents were legal citizens of the US at the time of your birth. The founding fathers didn’t want someone with divided loyalties or dual-citizenship to be president.
Obama’s father was not a US citizen, therefore Obama is not a natural- born citizen. Being born in the US makes you “native-born” but not necessarily natural-born.
Similarly, neither Marco Rubio nor Bobby Jindal are natural-born, although they are native-born. John McCain was eligible even though he was not born in the US, because both his parents were US citizens.
Hi there F15.
Believe I have your answer for you, which is:
If you have to ASK, then you don't NEED TO KNOW.
:-(
federal law precludes this court from determining whether a candidate for the office of President of the United States is qualified under Article Two Section Five of the United States Constitution.”
Psst.. There are exactly FOUR sections under Article II.
None of them are numbered "Article Five".
Pass it on...
You are exactly right. But the communists machine in America made sure that he would become President. The active communists Democrats were probably working on this for many years and had the plan down pat. The same way the communists Democrat machine had the 2700 page Obamacare ready to go many years before they needed it. All they had to do was tweak it to fit what was happening at the time.
I posted on a duplicate locked thread:
There is no question the judge will not rule on this case, as all of his questions for clarification on the term “natural born citizen” were irrelevant to the arguments or facts at issue.
For example, he wanted to know what would happen if the father died before the child was born. Would that be born of two American Citizens? Is it at the time of conception? At the time of Birth?
If the judge is asking these questions, he is merely trying to obfuscate the issue to justify not making a decision on whether the meaning of the term covers Barack Hussein Obama, today, in this country, with a Kenyan father and an American Mother that had not lived 14 years in this country at the time of the child’s birth.
The judge will rule the the formal status of the case is that there is no nominee yet that needs to qualify, and he will say it is the job of Congress to set forth a manner by which the President will be vetted. However, I think the Plaintiff’s lawyer had it right when he argued that the states have the obligation to vet the candidates (the Georgia Court’s prior ruling notwithstanding).
It will be appealed, it will be upheld, and then the election will take place and the courts will then dismiss the case on the grounds that it is moot, even though it is an issue likely to re-emerge and there is a need for a court ruling on the issues.
We are so screwed. There is no rule of law anymore, especially when there is a controversy too big to resolve. I recall the SCOTUS trying to avoid civil war in the mid 1800s, but we saw how that worked out.
the actual birth certificate is a red herring... something to distract from the elephant in the room
to be eligible to assume the office of President, you must:
1. be 35 years or older
2. lived 14 years within the US
3. be a natural born citizen of the US
a natural born citizen is someone that is a citizen naturally, as there are no alternatives. this means that the person was born on US soil and of TWO US citizen parents.
the birth certificate gives the person’s age, birth parents, and location of birth. that leaves two items to be resolved.
whether or not the person has spent 14 years in the country... and whether or not both parents were US citizens at the time of birth.
this definition was in common use at the time of the founders, as it had been used world wide. the founders deliberately changed the requirement from ‘citizen’ to ‘natural born citizen’ to insure the person does not have split allegiances, at least by birth. they had used ‘citizen’ for all other offices... and only the office of the president had the singular requirement to be ‘natural born’
therefore, 0bama cannot be eligible for the ballot in september as he cannot be a natural born citizen, regardless of what his birth certificate says... unless it identifies a different father.
the same rules apply to marco rubio and bobby jindahl. if they were born on US soil... but their parents were not both US citizens at that time... then they are not eligible.
> “John McCain was eligible even though he was not born in the US, because both his parents were US citizens.”
Actually he was born in Panama, a territory of the USA at the time and territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam and others are considered under the jurisdiction of the USA.
An embassy is also of course under the jurisdiction of the USA.
The NBC requires birth in the USA or its terrorities to two parents each of whom are US citizens.
I posted on a duplicate locked thread:
There is no question the judge will not rule on this case, as all of his questions for clarification on the term “natural born citizen” were irrelevant to the arguments or facts at issue.
For example, he wanted to know what would happen if the father died before the child was born. Would that be born of two American Citizens? Is it at the time of conception? At the time of Birth?
If the judge is asking these questions, he is merely trying to obfuscate the issue to justify not making a decision on whether the meaning of the term covers Barack Hussein Obama, today, in this country, with a Kenyan father and an American Mother that had not lived 14 years in this country at the time of the child’s birth.
The judge will rule the the formal status of the case is that there is no nominee yet that needs to qualify, and he will say it is the job of Congress to set forth a manner by which the President will be vetted. However, I think the Plaintiff’s lawyer had it right when he argued that the states have the obligation to vet the candidates (the Georgia Court’s prior ruling notwithstanding).
It will be appealed, it will be upheld, and then the election will take place and the courts will then dismiss the case on the grounds that it is moot, even though it is an issue likely to re-emerge and there is a need for a court ruling on the issues.
We are so screwed. There is no rule of law anymore, especially when there is a controversy too big to resolve. I recall the SCOTUS trying to avoid civil war in the mid 1800s, but we saw how that worked out.
actually, the life status of the birth father would not change his citizenship
only his proclivity to vote democrat... as everyone knows, the dead vote overwhelmingly democrat
Sorry about the double post - it was that important...
This too will get shoved down the memory hole.
I'm not sure that I agree with that.
There is a legal presumption that the child of a married woman is also the child of her husband. At the death of the husband, the marriage no longer exists. I think that the paternity of the child might reasonably be questioned in determining whether such a child is a "natural born citizen".
It’s interesting that even here people don’t agree on what NBC means. You have the
“Both Parents were Citizens” group
“Both Parents were Citizens and Born in a State”
“Both Parents were Citizens and Born ‘under jurisdiction’ which includes the Panama Canal Zone”
“Was a citizen at the time of his birth, by any circumstance including one parent, or birth on US soil alone. All citizens who are not naturalized”
This has never been clarified by the Congress, so it’s down to battling interpretations. Some use 18th century legal dictionaries, some use obscure case law to back up their favored theories.
It’s interesting that even here people don’t agree on what NBC means. You have the
“Both Parents were Citizens” group
“Both Parents were Citizens and Born in a State”
“Both Parents were Citizens and Born ‘under jurisdiction’ which includes the Panama Canal Zone”
“Was a citizen at the time of his birth, by any circumstance including one parent, or birth on US soil alone. All citizens who are not naturalized”
This has never been clarified by the Congress, so it’s down to battling interpretations. Some use 18th century legal dictionaries, some use obscure case law to back up their favored theories.
Do not use the Internet to research “natural born citizen” All Internet sources have been abridged with malicious intent to subvert the Constitution and the law. Use a law library and printed books published prior to 2007.
YOU will find no ambiguity or misunderstanding. the meaning is very clear, natural born is born on US soil of two US citizen parents. Anything else is an attempt to discard the Constitution.
Those frantically changing sources on the web should be imprisoned.
I’d like a settled answer to the NBC question too.
My wife is Canadian, permanent USA resident.
My kids were born in the States. Are they NBCs? can I honestly tell them they could grow up to be President?
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.