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

To: Nero Germanicus
That case was not about the natural born citizen clause.

No court ruling and no action of Congress has created a separate category called “natural born citizen” that is distinct from “Citizen of the United States At Birth.”

That being the case, then the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution still abide.

144 posted on 02/03/2015 2:34:38 PM PST by savedbygrace (But God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies ]


To: savedbygrace

The courts have interpreted the terms “natural born citizen” and “Citizen of the United States At Birth” to be synonymous over the last 117 years. No court and no action of Congress has ever stated anything different. If a person qualifies as a 14th Amendment Citizen of the United States At Birth under the current law of the land (8 USC 1401) then they are also an Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 natural born citizen as well.
For example: Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
and: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
or: Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010


145 posted on 02/03/2015 3:44:41 PM PST by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies ]

To: savedbygrace

The person you are arguing with posted a link to the site of a poster JR had banned. As to the tagline, it is a sham. The party in question has exhibited beyond the shadow of a doubt that he has no idea what Palin stands for; in fact, he’s been promoting the very things she stands against.

Just so you know.


146 posted on 02/03/2015 5:30:33 PM PST by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies ]

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