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.
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...
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.
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.
This too will get shoved down the memory hole.