Posted on 08/23/2017 3:47:18 AM PDT by GregNH
Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, a Republican candidate for US Senate, has cast doubt on former President Barack Obama's citizenship repeatedly and as recently as December 2016, fueling the debunked "birther" movement that sought to delegitimize Obama's presidency.
Moore, who started questioning the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship back in 2008, last year told a meeting of the Constitution Party that he personally did not believe Obama was a natural-born citizen. "My opinion is, there is a big question about that," Moore said when asked how he defines natural-born citizen as it relates to qualifications for president. CNN's KFile reviewed video from the event.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Nor does it matter wrt being an NBC or not. He could have told universities he was from Mars and it would not change his citizenship status.
I doubt those schools would give him D’s or F’s but an affirmative action “C”. You are talking about the heart of corruption.
Yes, I don't think the Universities cared in the slightest whether he was foreign or American. They were just thrilled to get a black guy to attend their University. It helped them with their virtue signaling.
Yes. As a practical matter it has no persuasive power.
You are probably right, but even a "C" would demonstrate to the world that this man was no genius. Hence, it was a political no-no for anyone to ever see his transcript.
It isn’t but since the explicit term was used it meant something other than “Native Born Citizen” or “Naturalized Citizen” and that something is found in the English law in which the Founders were schooled and that is the requirement of two citizen parents at the time of birth. Of course, the word “citizen” was not used but “subject”.
And it is true that no founder was a NBC by that standard witch is why they put the 14yrs prior to the creation of the constitution for them to be eligible standard.
With the help of Percy Sutton.
I still care, and thanks for the ping!
What does being a NBC have to do with being seated in Congress? That isn’t a requirement to be a Congressman which is basically breathing.
Mitch was running attack adds against Judge Moore and Mo Brooks during the primary.
Mitch endorsed Strange
Folks I know on AL fear Mitch will try to pull a Thad Cochran in Al
Not on every post, no.
These deals are the consequence of the Illinois Lawyer cartel protecting their own reputation.
You do so love your conspiracy theories, don't you?
Exactly the opposite is true. Blackstone is quite clear that it's the location of the birth that determines natural-born citizenship and not the nationality of the parents.
And it is true that no founder was a NBC by that standard witch is why they put the 14yrs prior to the creation of the constitution for them to be eligible standard.
You need to re-read Article II. That fourteen year requirement is on any presidential candidate regardless of when they were born.
He’s not a NBC.
In the case of William Loughton Smith, Dr. David Ramsey challenged his being seated to the congress because he alleged that William Smith had not been seven years a citizen as was the requirement. Smith was born before the revolution in 1758, and had lived in England before, during and after the revolution, and his Father had died in 1770 as a British Subject.
Ramsey argued that this disqualified him from being an American Citizen because he was born a British Subject and his Father was a British Subject.
Madison argued that when the state of South Carolina (why does trouble always seem to come out of South Carolina?) was made independent of England, the entire society of which William Smith was a part, became American Citizens.
Madison won the Day and Dr. Ramsey's objections were dismissed.
Let us try one more time.
When a person is certified the winner and takes office under circumstances where it is clear the person was not the winner because of procedural errors in the process or other political defects in the election or certification process, their actions in office which are otherwise lawful exercise of the powers of the office are valid.
A long line of cases supporting that view.
However there is an exception to that rule which is a circumstance where the person is not eligible to hold the office. If a person takes office but it is subsequently determined that he is not eligible to hold the office, his purported acts in office are void.
That is the case with Barry. Under Article II, Sec. 1 of the US Constitution, a person who is not a Natural Born Citizen is not eligible to hold the office of President. Thus Barrys actions which require a President to take are void ab initio.
Now we have been through the entire mill on the topic of Natural Born Citizen. If his parents were Stanley Ann Dunham mother and Barack Obama Sr., he could have been a US Citizen only if he was born in the US since if he was born outside the US, Stanley Ann at age 18 was not old enough to have lived in the US long enough after age 14 to pass citizenship to Barry.
If his parents were Valerie Zelpha Helen Saruff and Malcolm Little, again, he could have been a US citizen at birth only if if he was born in the US. Valerie was not a US citizen ever; a US Citizen father such as Malcolm did not pass citizenship to a child born outside the US.
Now there are lots of people who want to argue that he couldn't have been a citizen even if born in the US--I respectfully disagree with that. The US Supreme Court will not come down on some argument about Law of Nations in the face of the accepted understanding of the 14th Amendment.
Yes, the 14th Amendment does have some language about born under the jurisdiction of the US--there is room for argument that some children born to parents whose citizenship is elsewhere and the child was born under circumstances in which the child might not have been subject to US jurisdiction (such as in an embassy proper--maybe even if the child was born because the mother visited the US for the birth for a few hours); maybe such a child might not get 14th Amendment citizenship. That's not the case with Barry--if he was really born here, all he has to do is prove it and he wins.
And again with all due respect, you hear all these arguments about him having been nationalized in Indonesia and then readmitted--none of that has anything to do with whether or not he had Natural Born Citizenship when he was born.
Sure, it may not make sense if he surrenders his citizenship and reclaims it to let him become President but the voters have spoken and that is the end of the matter.
The crucial point is whether he was born in the US or not--if not, he loses.
Bottom line--if Barry was born outside the US, he was not eligible to hold the office and his purported acts in office were void ab initio and have no continuing force and effect. Certainly true as to Keagen and Sotomayor. In Barry's case, if he were born in the US, he wouldn't flunk the Natural Born Citizen test.
You think lawyers protecting their own reputation is a "conspiracy theory"?
No, this is just the nature of all such beasts as observed by Adam Smith.
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
NO Hawaiian hospital can produce he is born there !!!
In the context of your claim, yeah.
And this is based on what exactly?
Since, per the Lakin case, there is an INS file on 0,
and since only naturalized citizens & green card holders have INS files,
and since per the constitution naturalized citizens & green card holders cannot be president,
therefore 0 can’t 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.