Skip to comments.McClintock: Obama passed eligibility requirements (throws constitution under bus)
Posted on 07/16/2011 5:14:24 PM PDT by editor-surveyor
A California congressman says voters, Congress and the courts all have cleared Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
The comments come from U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, whose e-mail to a constituent with a question about the eligibility issue was forwarded to WND.
He said, "The Constitution is the starting point for determining eligibility to serve as president. The Constitution requires that to be eligible to serve as president an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least 14 years."
McClintock continued, "Currently, a candidate's eligibility under these requirements is vetted by a number of sources, both inside the government and out. First, candidates go through an intensive political vetting process in both the primary and general election – their histories are carefully examined by their political opponents who have a vested interest in uncovering the facts. At the end of the campaigns, the voting public weighs in. Then, when all the votes have been cast and counted, it is up to Congress to certify the results. A final check-and-balance against eligibility irregularities lies with the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
>> “It should have been ladder of respect.” <<
He knew that; honesty is hard to come by for the afterbirthers.
Yep. And begs questions answered.
I think it means that the writers of the Constitution used vague language in writing the rules for who could become President by using a term that did not get defined in the document. Their main goal was to make sure the President would not be loyal to another country by birth, but they wanted to leave it somewhat open because they knew situations would eventually change.
Either that, or they wrote it in so that 224 years later about 50 people would still have something to argue about that was of no consequence and with which they could impugn the reputations of the “non pure.”
As for Rubio, I would say “probably?”
Wow how blinded must one be to give Sarah a pass on this of all issues.
There were TWO people on the planet who would definitely have standing to challenge the usurper’s eligibility. Traitor McCain was one - guess who the other was. Palin completely sold us out on this.
Obama showed them a fake Birth Certificate and they all folded up like a cheap suit.
“Thats been decided a long time ago, but a few refuse to accept reality:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
All four of these cases held essentially the sam
e definition: That two citizen parents are require.
But the squirmers try to find a wiggle word somewhere in the decisions to frasp at rather than just accepting what the court held four times.”
Hey thanks I get into heated battles with the Commies, here in Fort Leftyville over their Pets eligibility!
The wheels on the bus go thump-thump-thump, thump-thump-thump, thump-thump-thump,
The wheels on the bus go thump-thump-thump, all through the town.
Where is your evidence that McClintock supports Romney or Paul for the 2012 Presidential nomination?
Where is your evidence that as a Congressman, he has been a RINO?
Yep. And begs questions answered.
I think it literally screams for answers. I believe that treason was in the House that night.
>> “I think it means that the writers of the Constitution used vague language in writing the rules for who could become President by using a term that did not get defined in the document.” <<
A truly absurd statement for a number of reasons.
First, none of the terms used in the constitution are defined in its text, because they were terms of common usage. That is especially true for Natural Born, since the Supreme court had little difficulty coming up with the correct definition four times in succession.
Second, it is rare for a legal document to include definitions of terms unless those terms are newly created for the purpose of the document.
No evidence. - Obama’s elligibility is McClintock’s first folley as far as I can see.
You are dead wrong.
Only the Presidential candidate could be said to have that particular standing. Palin won no electorial contest to be the vice presidentian candidate, thus her position generated no such standing.
See, that last little point is the tricky one. In common British law at the time, all one required to be natural born citizen was to be born in England and subject to their jurisdiction. The only way you were not a natural born citizen under British common law was if you were born to foreign diplomats, on a foreign ship, or born to foreign parents who were at war with England. That was the majority ruling from The United States vs Wong Kim Ark. The ruling said that the use of natural born citizen, being undefined in the Constitution, must come from English common law. In that, there was no requirement of 2 citizen parents.
Thank you for contacting me with your questions regarding President Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States and your concern for the Constitution. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue, and share your deep regard for the U.S. Constitution.
While initially refusing to release information due to state privacy laws, Hawaii's Health Director and Head of Vital Statistics have since examined and vouched for the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate. The document has also been reviewed and deemed authentic by experts at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. Likewise, multiple challenges to President Obama's eligibility have been made in several federal courts across the country. These courts are the proper, constitutionally-designated place for such grievances. To date, all the challenges have been summarily dismissed.
Three people - Hillary would have standing, too. If Obama was ineligible, she would have been the Democratic nominee.
And Hillary is heavily linked to the legal challengers to Obama's elibibility - but she won't give the suits standing by filing them on her own behalf.
I wonder why. Could it be for the same reason she got her butt tossed to the the curb in the first place? Her ham-handed fingerprints are, as usual, everywhere.
That must have been one of those chinese busses that has four trailer cars behind it, huh? :o)
WTF is he talking about?
Who the hell vetted Barry and where are his vetting docs?
Hawaii has nothing to do with it.
Its his British citizenship that makes him inelligible.
Yes, those are the questions, along with “is Tom getting Alzheimers?”
Actually, the US vs Wong Kim Ark supports the opposite. The court ruled that determining the citizenship was up to English common law because the Constitution did not offer it. And under English common law, there were only 3 ways that a person born in England would not be a citizen of England:
Born to foreign diplomats
Born on foreign ships
Born to parents who were citizens of a nation that was at war with England
There is nothing about having two parents be citizens for their child to be natural born. And the Courts ruling actually further stated that even though his parents were foreigners, Ark was a US citizen.
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.