Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McClintock: Obama passed eligibility requirements (throws constitution under bus)
Worldnetdaily ^ | July 16, 2011 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 07/16/2011 5:14:24 PM PDT by editor-surveyor

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last
To: The Old Hoosier
Everyone gets the basics on this issue except the few deluded birthers who remain sadly in denial.

Talk about delusion! LOL

Take a poll sometime of where Freepers stand on the eligibility question, and I think you'll find something like 80% believe he's not eligible, per the Constitution.

I'm afraid that your interpretation of Article II, Section 1 is the minority view among conservatives and patriots. Even the most cursory glance over conservative blogs, forums, etc., will show that to be the case.

51 posted on 07/16/2011 6:38:24 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

But who gets to decide what the Constitution means by Natural Born Citizen?


52 posted on 07/16/2011 7:04:47 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Uh uh, unruh. Ya got it all wrong. Using all of those discredited sources which have been vetted and shown to be biased and fraudulent.

The article was probably written a couple of years ago and Unruh just has not kept up with the exposes'. I sure makes him look like a cretin who is brought to his office on the short bus.

53 posted on 07/16/2011 7:08:12 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

You silly cheesers with your fanciful moon theories...


54 posted on 07/16/2011 7:09:38 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

Corrrection: It sure = I sure.


55 posted on 07/16/2011 7:11:19 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

It should have been “ladder” of respect. I guess you did hot find my poor chice of being funny, I once thought Ben was one of the good guys, representing us instead. He looks out for his own a$$


56 posted on 07/16/2011 7:19:18 PM PDT by JimmyMc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Can you trust ANY politician from California?


57 posted on 07/16/2011 7:36:20 PM PDT by Shamrock-DW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

That’s 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 samr 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.


58 posted on 07/16/2011 7:46:48 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

That’s 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.


59 posted on 07/16/2011 7:47:13 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Frasp = grasp


60 posted on 07/16/2011 7:53:16 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc

>> “It should have been “ladder” of respect.” <<

.
He knew that; honesty is hard to come by for the afterbirthers.


61 posted on 07/16/2011 7:55:19 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
That was one of the most shameful moments of American history, in my view.

Yep. And begs questions answered.

62 posted on 07/16/2011 8:00:47 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Linda Frances

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?”


63 posted on 07/16/2011 8:03:15 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

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.


64 posted on 07/16/2011 8:07:20 PM PDT by 83Vet4Life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Obama showed them a fake Birth Certificate and they all folded up like a cheap suit.


65 posted on 07/16/2011 8:07:20 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“That’s 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!


66 posted on 07/16/2011 8:10:59 PM PDT by Cheetahcat ( November 4 2008 ,A date that will live in Infamy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

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.


67 posted on 07/16/2011 8:10:59 PM PDT by RichInOC (No! BAD Rich! (What'd I say?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

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?


68 posted on 07/16/2011 8:12:03 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
"That was one of the most shameful moments of American history, in my view."

Yep. And begs questions answered.

I think it literally screams for answers. I believe that treason was in the House that night.

69 posted on 07/16/2011 8:18:41 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam; Linda Frances

>> “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.


70 posted on 07/16/2011 8:22:49 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam

No evidence. - Obama’s elligibility is McClintock’s first folley as far as I can see.


71 posted on 07/16/2011 8:25:39 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: 83Vet4Life

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.


72 posted on 07/16/2011 8:30:05 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

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.


73 posted on 07/16/2011 8:31:04 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Here is the bs response from my Congress Rep, Joe Heck (R-NV):

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.

74 posted on 07/16/2011 8:31:06 PM PDT by circumbendibus (Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president. Quo Warranto in 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 83Vet4Life
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.

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.

75 posted on 07/16/2011 8:33:24 PM PDT by Talisker (History will show the Illuminati won the ultimate Darwin Award.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: RichInOC

That must have been one of those chinese busses that has four trailer cars behind it, huh? :o)


76 posted on 07/16/2011 8:33:33 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

WTF is he talking about?

Who the hell vetted Barry and where are his vetting docs?


77 posted on 07/16/2011 8:34:52 PM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circumbendibus

Hawaii has nothing to do with it.

Its his British citizenship that makes him inelligible.


78 posted on 07/16/2011 8:36:15 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Yes, those are the questions, along with “is Tom getting Alzheimers?”


79 posted on 07/16/2011 8:37:41 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

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.


80 posted on 07/16/2011 8:39:10 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; savagesusie

In the vagaries of the most vicarious life...


81 posted on 07/16/2011 8:41:00 PM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam; faucetman

>> “That was the majority ruling from The United States vs Wong Kim Ark” <<

.
No it was not. - In WKA they held the same definition for Natural Born as was given in Minor vs Happersett: Two citizen parents.

British had no citizenship under common law; they were “subjects” meaning that they were property owned by the lords. That is the basis of the feudal claims to the product of the subjects’ labor.


82 posted on 07/16/2011 8:43:39 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Different members of Congress are giving different answers. This article goes on to give statements from members on both sides of the aisle.

I am just posting what the guy wrote to me in his email. I don't agree with him at all, and, I made the "natural born citizen" case in my email to him. It is like he got his response from the DNC.

83 posted on 07/16/2011 8:43:51 PM PDT by circumbendibus (Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president. Quo Warranto in 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Natural Born Citizen was not a term in common usage in a way similar to 35 or resident. The fact that James Madison thought that birth was the criterion of allegiance, and that to him, place was more important than lineage, shows that some of the founders did not agree with what you “know” is true. So if there were disagreements about the term, and the Supreme Court ruled in Inglis vs Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor that children of aliens, who are protected by the jurisdiction of the US, owe allegiance and are citizens at birth.

As for your cases, you have it backwards at least in Wong Kim Ark. I have not studied the others, but Im sure you are taking great liberties to try and find a proof for your thesis.


84 posted on 07/16/2011 8:49:07 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
I found this remark particularly disturbing:

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., "I believe that President Obama has met all the requirements of citizenship as set forth by the U.S. State Department, and therefore is eligible for the office of the presidency."

85 posted on 07/16/2011 8:49:12 PM PDT by circumbendibus (Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president. Quo Warranto in 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam

>> “Actually, the US vs Wong Kim Ark supports the opposite” <<

.
No, it was not. Here is the exact wording from WKA:

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

That wording was copied from Minor v Happersett.

Two citizen parents was the standard of the time.


86 posted on 07/16/2011 8:50:32 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: circumbendibus

Sessions is a moron.


87 posted on 07/16/2011 8:51:29 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam

>> “but Im sure you are taking great liberties to try and find a proof for your thesis” <<

.
This can be applied only to you, in as much as all of the court cases and learned writings of the day support the two parent definition.

The question is “Why do you wish to diminish the allegiance constitutionally required of our presidents?”


88 posted on 07/16/2011 8:55:05 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Im looking at the opinion right now, and that is what it says.

Your statement sounds more like the dissenting opinion. But nowhere does it say 2 citizen parents.


89 posted on 07/16/2011 8:56:31 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

That is only the first part of the ruling, and was not the part in question. All that says is that children of citizens are naturally born. It does not say that children of non-citizens are naturally born. And in WKA, the court went on to say that Ark was a citizen at birth because his parents had been living under the US jurisdiction and not acting as agents for China.


90 posted on 07/16/2011 9:00:23 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam

You, sir are a squirming liar!

I clipboarded the text from the decision.


91 posted on 07/16/2011 9:01:08 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Yeah, and you clipboarded information that was not under consideration in the case. The question to the court was “Was WKA a citizen at birth?” And their answer was yes, he was a citizen at birth because his parents were not working on behalf of the Chinese empire and he was born in the US.

What you are doing is being intentionally deceitful by leaving off the actual ruling that the case was about because it doesnt fit your platform. You are attempting to confuse people by saying that because children of 2 citizens were natural born, that no one else can be. And that is simply not true.


92 posted on 07/16/2011 9:08:52 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Sessions is a moron.

My point is this is the Top Republican on the Senate Judiciary committee who chooses who will sit on the Supreme Court and he appears to be uninformed about NBCs. If Obama has US citizenship, the State Department could tell me if he were a naturalized citizen, but not if he were a natural born citizen.

93 posted on 07/16/2011 9:09:07 PM PDT by circumbendibus (Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president. Quo Warranto in 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Why have all the Rs lost their gumption? Every single one of them. They must have all been threatened and now they’re pantswetting eunuchs.


94 posted on 07/16/2011 9:13:01 PM PDT by little jeremiah ("I think you are the sicko! and I think you are an embarrassment to FR.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam

>> “The question to the court was “Was WKA a citizen at birth?” And their answer was yes, he was a citizen at birth because his parents were not working on behalf of the Chinese empire and he was born in the US.” <<

.
No, you missed that one too.

WKA had 14th ammendment citizenship because he was born here legally to a mother that had a valid resident visa.

The WKA decision even coined a name for that level of citizenship, and it was not “natural born,” it was “native citizen.”


95 posted on 07/16/2011 9:16:56 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam

Anchor babies born to illegal aliens are “citizens” too. Are those offspring eligible to attain the Presidency? A Natural Born Citizen is one that is born of two American Citizens. No. Divided. Loyalties. It really is that simple.


96 posted on 07/16/2011 9:18:23 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam

>> “You are attempting to confuse people by saying that because children of 2 citizens were natural born, that no one else can be. And that is simply not true” <<

.
Then so were the school systems of the entire country, since the textbooks used to teach the US constitution to eigth graders held that very same definition for over 80 years, until they stopped even teaching the constitution.

You must be from the un-taught generation.


97 posted on 07/16/2011 9:23:23 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Rather than try to debate case law I will simply ask:

Is there any chance that you, as a lay person, are simply mistaken as to what those cases decided and what the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is under current US law?

98 posted on 07/16/2011 9:31:08 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
I assume you aren't a Sarah Palin supporter, or at least that you don't follow her statements, or pay attention to what she says.

She has made it clear what her position is on the birther issue, and at NO time has she ever said Obama was ineligible.

In fact, here is her Facebook entry about the issue, which unfortunately didn't keep some of her supporters from continuing to project their opinions onto her instead of simply believing her:

Stupid Conspiracies-Sarah Palin::

"But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.
I think that is a very clear statement: AT NO POINT did she suggest Obama wasn't born in the United States. Why any of her supporters would claim that she said the opposite is beyond me.

Believe all the conspiracies you want. But don't drag Palin into it, when she's made it clear what she believes. She fully supports people looking into his birth certificate, and she does not dismiss the birthers, but she is NOT one of them, and has not herself questioned Obama or asked for his birth certificate.

99 posted on 07/16/2011 9:52:12 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
As I understand it, no one has yet been able to actually produce any civics textbook with specific definition.

I'm not saying they don't exist, just that no one has been able to produce any.

The ones I've seen just say born in the United States rather than naturalized.

100 posted on 07/16/2011 9:56:25 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson