Posted on 03/11/2013 12:15:07 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ
Herb Titus Credentials:
Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.
Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.
So Mr. Titus considers himself a “respected constitutional scholar.” Obama makes the same claim.
Here is a workable link to part 2 of Herb Titus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ
I doubt that the Founders imagined that a child could be on a trip with his parents or that a parent could be in the service protecting America while being based in Germany or Japan, when they wrote about “natural born”.
But 0bama is a proven LIAR!
WHAT ???
Nana cant be president ???
1. Im 35+
2. Ive lived in the US more than 14 years
3. My NBC ancestors reach back several generations
so my father wasnt born here SO WHAT ???
and uh nor was my Ma ???
Yewz iz meanies...
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Did I tell yewz I love America and Im a US veteran ???
LOL!
It took me a sec...
It is unconstitutional to treat U.S. Citizens differently or as a seperate class, regardless of how they obtained their U.S. citizenship, with the only exception that the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. See Art. II, § 1 of the U.S. Constitution and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), a U.S. SCOTUS decision which invalidated a law that treated naturalized and native-born citizens differentially under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. SCOTUS held that since no provision of the INA stripped natural-born Americans of their citizenship as a result of extended or permanent residence abroad, it was unconstitutionally discriminatory to apply such a rule only to naturalized citizens.
Consequently, only naturalized U.S. citizens are not eligible to be President or VP of the U.S. The determination of eligibility is the only exception the U.S. Constitution allows for distinguishing between a naturalized U.S. Citizen and any other U.S. Citizen.
If you don’t have a Certificate of Naturalization on file with DHS and you’re a U.S. citizen, then you’re eligible to be President. Obama is ineligible because he naturalized in 1983.
Indeed, Obama is also a constitutional scholar. Which is why on his fightthesmears website prior to the 2008 elections he claimed to be “native” born. He thought a majority of voters wouldn’t notice or wouldn’t care that that wasn’t “natural” born. And he was right.
Do you have anything substantial to say about Mr. Titus’s definition of a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen?
Would you care to offer a intellectual substantiated response to what Mr. Titus had to say?
If he really had something of academic legal substance to say on the issue, he ought to be able to set it out in writing where it could be examined.
He, like many people here, lives in a dream world on this issue--if the issue ever gets to the United States Supreme Court, the Court will decide the case on a place of birth record.
Credentials? One of those issues where if you have them, it is kind like an argument about whose is longer. Although in Herb's case, he does have a fairly extensive paper academic record.
Since I also don't think he is playing with a full deck on the facts either, it probably doesn't add much to the debate to get into the discussion on his assumed record--I do agree that the paper birth record in Hawaii is conclusive--nothing on the record in Hawaii that proves zero was born there in August of 1961; nothing we have seen demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii on any other date either; in fact, no real hard record evidence of where he was born or who his parents were or much of anything else about him.
I suppose to be fair, his oral statements and approved published bio stating that he was born in Kenya would be admissible evidence; since I think there are significant reasons to believe he was not born there either, I view that evidence as significant only in that in a contested proceeding, it might be useful to shift the burden of proof to zero.
None of those listed needed to be ‘Natualized’ and were Americans at birth. I had two children born in Greece while stationed at the American Embassy there. They were natural born americans born abroad. Do all diplomats and military give up the right to have their children be natua=rally borrn? No. Give it up - it is a silly argument.
Fortunately, there are several helpful devices that help us decide which is the stronger of the two claims.
For instance, it would be important to compare the credentials of each of the two claimants, their experience and accomplishments. The article above is helpful in this regard.
One should also wonder what motive either may have to make the claim.
It might also be beneficial to examine and compare the credentials of those casual but qualified observers who may or may not agree with the claim of either.
There are more points, but I am in the middle of a late lunch.
Do you have anything substantial to say about Mr. Titus’s definition of a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen?
____________________________________
Yes OK
When he says “Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Barack Obama are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency”
he is correct...
Obama managing to wiggle his way into the White house did not make him eligible...
Meanwhile dont we have anyone who is not eligiblity challenged to run in 2016 ???
As the video explains, the requirement for a "natural born citizen" was to prevent anyone with a reason to have divided loyalties from being President.
A soldier who is a U.S. citizen serving overseas accompanied by his U.S. citizen wife would be able to have children with no presumption of divided loyalties on the part of the children.
A U.S. citizen who is born IN THE U.S. to immigrants who are not U.S. citizens could be expected to have extremely divided loyalties.
geez, that is about as rational as saying that the child that converts to Christianity from any other faith of their parents, could not be a good christian or a minister, eventually raising up to head the national organization of say, Baptists or Catholics.
That is two term president Obama.
Maybe republicans can keep out it’s candidates with one set of rules, while the democrats continue to elect Presidents of the United States with the rules that they and the rest of the Untied States follows.
Republicans can just voluntarily use their own rules in excluding candidates for the GOP, what republican needs a Ted Cruz when the party has Jeb Bush and Chris Christie.
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.