Skip to comments.America’s Two Unconstitutional Presidents
Posted on 12/14/2009 7:02:03 AM PST by Danae
Students of history know that history repeats itself, and today we are reliving the past of 1880s. Some of the similarities between the 21st President and the 44th are startling, and the ramifications are huge.
During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chesters birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction. Arthurs father, William Arthur was a British citizen at the time of the future Presidents birth. Born in Ballymena, Ireland in 1796 he would not become a Naturalized citizen until August 31st, 1843. No one ever checked into his immigration status at the time of his sons birth. Chester Arthur, 14 at the time his father was naturalized, and would surely have known this. Sound somewhat familiar?
Today, a direct and startlingly similar situation exists between President Arthur and President Obama. The 44th President was also born to a British citizen, not a naturalized citizen of the United States. For the same reasons both Presidents were not eligible for the office, the only difference lay in Barack Obamas public admission of his fathers status:
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
You are free to disagree, but you are incorrect. Your son was born in an American Military base, American territory, and because of that and his two Citizen parents he is a Natural Born Citizen. Being born on American soil does NOT automatically confer Natural Born Status and that was decided by Minor v Happersett in 1875 and by U.S. v Wong in 1895. Citizenship yes, but not Natural Born citizenship. The two are not the same.
You can give up a birth right. If she chose to come back and regain her citizenship she could, but can never regain that Natural Born Status based on the simple fact that another Nation had claim to her. You can give up Natural Born Status.
There's no compelling evidence that Obama's mother ever set foot in Kenya or that Obama was born anywhere besides Honolulu.
“It may be in compliance with the letter of the Constitution as presently interpreted, but I would contend it’s inconsistent with the spirit of it, and the NBC clause in particular.”
Yeah, but a natural born citizen becoming president who was indoctrinated into America-hating by his foreign born grandfather/grandmother, uncle/aunt, or adopted father/mother would be against the “spirit” of the clause, too. That’s the problem with laws. They aren’t perfect and don’t always do exactly what you’d have them do.
Have it your way...I’m outta here.
It didn’t have to. The Issue of POTUS was not in the case. No Issue regarding POTUS has come before the court. The court can ONLY decide what is brought before it. It isn’t arbitrary. They DID make the clear distinction that there exists a DIFFERENCE. That is why its relevant.
You are completely wrong.
The U.S. uses both Jus soli AND Jus Sanguinis to determine Natural Born Status.
There are most definitely three types of citizenship. Naturalized, Citizen, and Natural Born citizen.
Take the time to read and you will discover that this case is as close as the Supreme Court or any court has gotten to the subject. You will learn far more reading the decision than you get from this limited editorial, although the author is on the right track.
Can you tell me what part of that excerpt is supposed to determine anything whatsoever about the subject at hand? You probably mean to highlight the part that says: “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” To you, this implies native born and natural born citizens are not the same. Except that the rest of the quote goes on to explicitly say they’re not going to inquire into whether native born citizens are also natural born citizens, which is the one thing in which we’re interested.
Any competent lawyer is going to site this case and if any court addresses the issue they will first look to find the closest relevant precedent, which is this case.
The entire issue of natural-born citizenship was not in the case. It was a voting rights matter.
They DID make the clear distinction that there exists a DIFFERENCE. That is why its relevant.
No, what they said was that there may or may not be a difference. The decision did not rule that there was a difference and what it was.
“So, if another country can prove they claimed Sarah Palin had their citizenship at the moment of her birth, she would be disqualified?”
It’s not just that they claimed her, it’s whether she had the right of citizenship based on her parentage, which is the older and therefore to Birthers more legitimate manner of determining natural born status. You seem to think it’s all about what the other countries can claim. It’s not. It’s about whether or not the Framers thought only the children of two-citizen parents were eligible to be president and said so through the weighted term “natural born”. What other countries claim is beside the point.
For my two cents, the original phrase may have been intended to exclude soil babies. So what? That changed with the 14th amendment.
“And we’re talking about something even more fundamental - the rights of a man to be free of the chains of his father.”
That’s a weird way to put it. Most would consider child as benefitting from the parent’s status in being able to claim various citizenships by birthright. Of course, not being president would be a hardship. But so is it a hardship to have been born outside the U.S., which is also determined by one’s parents. And we’re fine with denying the presidency to resident aliens and naturalized citizens. Throwing off the chains in that case would result in the entire world being free to be U.S. president.
What about when the opposite happens, and parents bring their children into the U.S. to be born on U.S. soil? In that case, the parents are still deciding your fate. Where you’re born is not a matter of accident. It is determined by your parents. Perhaps, for the children to be free, we shouldn’t allow the parents’ decision to birth them on U.S. have an impact on their citizenship. What, then, do we base citizenship on? Individual choice? Once again, we open the world to the U.S. presidency.
Like I said before, it is utterly impossible to remove parents from the equation in determining citizenship from birth. They birth you, after all.
“and if you think the semantics of the issue to be irrelevant, then consider for a moment that Barack DOES NOT consider the semantics of the issue as being irrelevant, or he would not have chosen the word NATIVE born instead of NATURAL born”
If he considered the semantics relevant, why would he choose “native,” since the entire point of choosing a word is to show he’s eligible? Why not say he’s natural and stop fueling the fire?
“The catch with obama is, his mother was a ‘minor’ and lived overseas for a period of time that made his birth in Kenya, to a British subject, natural born British.”
Who said Obama was born in Kenya?
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.