Posted on 04/09/2011 6:35:30 PM PDT by publius1
I know that doesn't answer the question, maybe muddles it more, but at least it goes back to the Founders, whom Story knew (he was appointed to the US Supreme Court in 1811 by President James Madison) and served with Justice Marshall for many years.So, find out what "native " meant in 1850's and you may find a clue.
Barry can't be President because he holds an allegiance to Indonesia by way of Soetero, and England by way his his Dad. He doesn't have our Nation's best interest at heart and this is why our Founders addressed the Natural Born qualification clause for the President.
Sure he can be a Senator, but he can't be President, as he cares about more about Indonesians and Muslims all over the world than he cares about Americans. So that means his allegiance isn't for America. He doesn't care about Americans. He sees us as the enemy and is more in favor of helping his fellow Indonesians and Muslims.
Natural Born is all about allegiance. This guy Barry refused to put his hand to his heart during the pledge of Allegiance during the democrat primaries for 2 reasons. He was never taught the significance and importance of the Pledge of Allegiance in grade school because he was in Indonesia. And secondly, he doesn't have a 1 and only allegiance to America.
It's like those that live in America from other countries and sport their home country's flag. They are proud of where they come from and want to bring their culture over here. Well, whatever. WE are PROUD of our Culture even more and don't feel the need to move to ANOTHER country to display our country. If your country was all that, why not stay there and enjoy it?
That's the problem with Barry. He loves Indonesia and Islam because that's what he grew up with. And it's normal to be patriotic for your home town. That's why he hates America. He never learned about our great nation and is a loser citizen of the world. He needs to just embrace his world citizenship and exit stage left. Barry is a FRAUD.
The bold text in my post 17 above - which you are quoting - is excerpted from an 1874 Supreme Court ruling, which happened to be a unanimous opinion.
That case is the latest SCOTUS ruling which refers to the definition of ‘natural born’ as used in the Constitution.
Just look up the ruling for: MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874) to read the entire opinion.
You mean "if" it altered. Of course it can. An Amendment can alter any previous constitutional entry.
The Selective Service System is a means by which the United States maintains information on those potentially subject to military conscription. U.S. Male citizens between the ages of 18 to 25 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthday.
Barry failed this test. It is a minimum requirement to be President.
He forged a Selective Service document in 2008? Ha .... Again, Barry is toast on all fronts. He’s not natural born and he has committed fraud.
How about “altering” a fake birth certificate and/or selective service document? LOL Trump has the evidence.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post whatsoever.
While certainly fascinating to some, your post has absolutely nothing to with the post you are replying to just like the previous one. I can’t tell if it’s a lame attempt to erect a strawman, or if you just found my post confusing.
president johnson vetoed the 14th amendment.
Knowing the basis for any of the “doubts” the court referred to would certainly be helpful. However, that discussion itself recognizes the basis for the highest form of citizenship.
On what basis could one conclude the founders did not intend the highest form relative to the two highest offices, and only those two, in the entire government scheme.
As I wrote to my state politician regarding an impotent eligibility bill:
It is possible pursuant to this bill that a candidate born in the U.S. of two visiting foreign citizen parents could have immediately returned to his parent’s native country and remained there for all but the past 14 years. That country may not be an ally of the U.S., the candidate would have received much or all of his schooling there and perhaps even served in that country’s government or armed services.
That sounds the opposite of what the founders would have had in mind for our president and vp..
Andrew or Lyndon? I’m only asking because it’s equally impossible.
They were both common law terms that have been defined.
natural born was defined by the first continental congress second session.
Bottom line
native born is born on American soil
natural born is born on American soil of American parents
U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark was decided in 1898, 23 years after Minor v. Happersett. The Kim Wong Ark case explicitly dealt with citizenship.
Registering for Selective Service is in no way an eligibility requirement for the office of President.
Presidents can’t veto amendments.
the SCOTUS has consistently pointed out that they were not defined in the constitution and have, to date, not defined them. The US constitution lays out citizenship requirements, however, in the 14th amendment.
Ironic that barry is usurping the Presidency in the same fashion as pregnant illegal aliens do when they run across our border to give birth. He bases his Presidential eligibility solely on being physically within U.S. borders at the moment of birth regardless of the citizenship of his parents.
Which is why:
A) he desperately needs to maintain that he was born in Hawaii
and
B) he desperately needs to distract attention from the fact that his father’s British citizenship at the time of his birth makes him most definitely not natural born in the Constitutional sense, except for the above-cited vague precedents surrounding the meaning of natural born versus born on U.S. soil regardless of parentage (something to research)
and
C) once the Constitutional meaning of natural born breaks wide open in the media there will be a general outcry for an original copy of his birth certificate to prove that he was born in Hawaii, at which time he will resign because undoubtedly there is something incriminating about it.
IMHO !
Please cite the law or constitutional provision stating that a man who has committed fraud is ineligible to be elected President.
There ain't one.
You are quite correct that such a man should not be elected President, but that doesn't mean he is ineligible for this reason.
I don't believe there is even a constitutional bar that would make a convicted felon, even a traitor or murderer, ineligible for election. Hopefully the people would never elect such a person, but there is no provision to keep them from doing so.
Most of your other arguments are of similar type. He shouldn't be eligible to be president because of X, Y or Z. But that is a personal opinion with no legal force.
Thanks, but I’m quite familiar with the ruling.
It states the situation quite clearly. If Obama’s parents had both been American and he was born here, there would be no question of his NBC status.
Change any one of those three factors and questions arise. Questions, not legal facts.
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.