Posted on 05/06/2013 9:44:33 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
As I suspected, Berg had nothing to do with the "natural born citizen" issue. From Justia.com...
BERG v. OBAMA et alPlaintiff Philip J. Berg alleged that Defendant Barack Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Plaintiff further alleged that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old to regain his U.S. citizenship status.
The case was dismissed on October 24, 2008. See Jurist for a summary of the dismissal.
So, we're back to "nary a one"...
That is precisely what I am trying to say, Jerry.
It starts. By the time it's finished and the Supreme Court gets around to the other thing, he'll already be long gone.
That is NOT to say it shouldn't be done. But it does become a massive distraction which could prevent his damage from being undone, particularly if the other team holds the House and Senate, and then the Presidency again.
His job was to give Obama legitimacy by filing a law suit what a law-school freshman could have dismissed. He succeeded.
Okay, even if Cruz’ father were not a Cuban national but a man without a country - for decades, no less - he was still NOT a US citizen. So you are quibbling about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Whether he was Cuban, Canadaian or a man without a country, he was not a US citizen, and it is a known fact that Cruz was born and domociled in Canada for four years.
It doesn’t take a lawyer or judge to see simple facts.
You’re kidding, right?
I’m “quibbling” about being subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereignty via the two legally recognized means of acquiring such status at birth as opposed to being free of it. This is the crux of the matter. Where you’re born matters if you’re legally encumbered by something other than US citizenship as a result, and does not if you aren’t. By the same token, legal incumbrance of a parent in the form of citizenship other than US citizenship matters if a child is encumbered as well, and does not if not.
Here is what Senator Ted Cruz should do:
On the surface he would show his great concern that his family circumstances make him ineligible to be President. Because of that concern, he would ask from the courts a judgement on what is the most accurate definition of a Natural Born Citizen. This would be for his own satisfaction on this level. And, the Left would be in favor of it because it may take out Cruz’s chances to be President. It would operate like a Trojan Horsebecause there would be a secondary level that the Left would not catch: that of a blow to the heart of the Great Usurper. It would open wide the microscope for Zer0. I am sure the courts would rule against Zer0’s favor and put into crisis mode his presidency.
I think that Benghazi is going to be a huge game changer, and with Zullo and Arpaio getting closer to convincing peopel who can do something that all of his docs are forgeries, this will bust the dam open and things may happen rather quickly at that point.
My copy of the Constitution reads as Amendment XIV (ratified July9,1868) ‘All persons born or naturalized IN the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the United States and the state wherein they reside’. Nothing here about a “Natural Born Citizen” as required for POTUSA in Article II and it is certainly the same terminology as to just plain ‘citizen’ used in Article I for eligibility of Congresspersons. To argue that the Founders who were educated persons in writings did not intend a specific difference between the two categories in the same document of citizen is a specious argument. That Amendment XIV does not use ‘natural born’ tells me it was not intended to be the same or be interchangeable for eligibility for POTUSA.
As I recall, the record is that Berg was a strong HRC supporter -- and probably not an Obama agent provacateur.
But I've little doubt that this whole "natural-born citizen" issue was born as a distraction to the birth certificate and Indonesian citizenship/reaffirmation issues that were more likely to bear fruit.
It's a shame that so much time and energy has been absorbed in what was always bound to be a doomed venture.
You are full of it. The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of anything, unless Congress lets them be. Then you have the pesky problem of the Executive branch choosing to ignore laws they don't like. Lawyers are the problem, not the solution.
Come on Grace, you can do better than that. twice....LOOSES what? Turn the dogs LOOSE?
It is quibbling. Because Cruz’ father was not a US citizen when Cruz was born, he is not a NBC; regardless of whether his father was Cuban, Candanian, Venusian, or nothing. You’re winding yourself up into knots that are irrelevant.
Was he born to two Citizen parents?
No.
Was he born on US soil?
No.
End of story.
You must be a lawyer.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
What's also notable is that 15 years after Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court unanimously omitted any reference to the Ark decision in Luria v. United States, affirming that naturalized citizens cannot be eligible for president. The only way they could do this is by citing the original cases that defined native citizenship as those born in the country to citizen parents, owing no allegiance to any foreign power.
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
Wrong. The Supreme Court rejected this idea in Minor v. Happersett and it was affirmed in Wong Kim Ark and in Ex Parte Reynolds.
... women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.
The part that says "as since" means AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment. The Minor court said women did not need this amendment to be citizens.
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.
Purpura v. Obama, New Jersey (2012): No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.
Allen v. Obama, Arizona (2012): Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
Voeltz v Obama, Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”—June 29, 2012
No court has ever ruled that Obama is ineligible or that he is not a natural born citizen, whether Minor v. Happersett has been cited or not.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3016295/posts?page=101#101
I myself am married to a non-naturalized foreigner, and as I explained to my naturalized-at-birth (and therefore ineligible) child, the Founder's reasoning was that they/we shouldn't have to worry about her loyalty to the US if she ever had to decide whether or not to bomb Tokyo if hostilities were to break out (again) on her watch.
It's about the presumed undivided loyalties expected to be found in a person born both on the soil and of parents who are citizens themselves. This I believe was the Founder's intent in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. Until SCOTUS does their job and rules on the definition of Natural Born Citizen however, we're all arm chair quarterbacking on the subject.
I do know what my sense of logic says on the subject. Your mileage may vary.
“You’re kidding, right?”
Yep.
“So under your theory its God’s will that Hillary Clinton can be the next president but Ted Cruz can’t.”
God’s will? No.
God’s law (natural law) and the Founders’ qualification for President? Yes.
Do we need to point out the obvious divided loyalties of the current CIC?
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.