Posted on 05/31/2012 7:21:58 PM PDT by abigkahuna
U might want to lay off the sedatives and pain killers if u are...I'm guessing you want to be a lawyer someday?...lol
Think about it.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
Page 17:
7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301On a side note, why is this issue no longer valid?(CT:CON-317; 12-08-2009)
a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952,section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children.
It is still valid. This is critical to understanding why it was so important for Obama to provide the best available documentation of his birth, yet the MSM steadfastly refused to report it.
I wonder how many Americans now understand that Obama's mother, at age 18, was one year too young to have transmitted her citizenship to her son if she gave birth outside the United States? Do even five percent of Americans know that?
Am I serious? I guess you did not see my winky face ;-) indicating that I was being sarcastic. That is my standard reply to folks over the entire “naturally born” thing.
Whoops....missed the wink....sorry about that!...my bad
“....so far not one member of congress is making or has made that argument and called for obama to resign ...”
.
And not one of them ever will — we can’t depend on Congress, they’re a bunch of eunuchs.
Citizen parents matter. It’s a discussion that needs to be held and confronted with Foggers, Faithers and Obama’s Excuse Makers. The question they can’t explain away is why the Minor court rejected Virginia Minor’s 14th amendment citizenship argument and why they said ANYTHING about citizen parents. Further, why does Wong Kim Ark also talk about citizen parents when it gave the holding in Minor?? There’s an obvious answer, but the Obama apologists don’t want to admit what that answer is. Citizen parents matter and they were used to exclusively define natural-born citizenship per Article II of the Constitution. What other reason would there be for saying anything about citizen parents??
That’s actually not the statute, but rather the State Department *interpretation* of the statues that exist now, and that existed in the past.
But it’s clear that *IF BORN ABROAD*, BHO was not a citizen at birth, a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a natural born citizen.
But if born in the US, even if one parent was not a citizen, he was a citizen at birth... I repeat.. a necessary but not sufficient condition for NBC status.
No that is the law of the land, which is enshrined in statute. It is "interpreted" that way by the entire federal government, not just the State Department.
But it’s clear that *IF BORN ABROAD*, BHO was not a citizen at birth, a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a natural born citizen.
No, if he was born abroad out of wedlock, then he would be a citizen. The interpretation of natural born citizen as it applies to Presidential eligibility to be President under the Constitution has never been decided by the courts.
But if born in the US, even if one parent was not a citizen, he was a citizen at birth... I repeat.. a necessary but not sufficient condition for NBC status.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not settled law. Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson disagree with you. They believe that jus solis is sufficient for NBC Their opinion, asked for by the Senate, carries some weight--perhaps even more than your opinion. The bottom line is that we need the courts to decide this sooner rather than later.
While I'm sure Olson and Tribe's opinions carry more weight than mine, they're still historically wrong on this issue. Plenty of evidence that the founders meant your father had to be a citizen and you had to be born in the country, or while your father was in it's service outside of it. In those days a woman became a citizen when she married one, automatically, so this was in effect the same at the "parents who are it's citizens" requirement in "Law of Nations".
Opinions being like assholes, everyone having one. The truth is whatever it is, regardless of opinions.
While I'm sure Olson and Tribe's opinions carry more weight than mine, they're still historically wrong on this issue.
LOL. That's your opinion. Like you said, opinons are like assholes, everyone has one. We do know that Senate Resolution 511 declared that McCain was eligible to run for the Presidency based on the Tribe/Olson opinion. He ran and so did Obama. Obama is in the WH. Until the courts decide what was the Founder's intention, Obama is not going anywhere.
Opinions being like assholes, everyone having one. The truth is whatever it is, regardless of opinions.
The "truth" will be what SCOTUS decides. I will reiterate, we need a decision sooner rather than later. With 40 million foreign born in this country--about one in 8--and projections indicate it will be one in 5 by 2050, we need a decision. Moreover, there are 300,000 to 400,000 anchor babies born each year to illegal aliens and the birth tourism industry is thriving.
A natural born citizen does not need a statute or any law to be a citizen. It is a result of nature. It seems that congress and the courts recognize this fact or they would have passed a law to define an NBC. They tried more than once but nature does not yield to laws of congress. If you need a statute to define your citizenship then you are not a NBC.
As long as people think that the court needs to rule on the subject, they will wait. I doubt that SCOTUS will do anything before the election. In the meantime, we keep the status quo. After the election, we’ll have more of the same.
Citizen by nature or citizen by law?
Both political parties have realized for more than a decade that the wording in the Constitution is very restrictive, and this has led to —IIRC— at least legislative efforts to amend the meaning without success. These efforts fail because the proper way to amend the Constitution is being ignored by the ones trying to change things. The most recent fraudulent effort was supposedly red into the Congressional record to give Mccain a free pass on being born in a Hospiatl in Colon, Panama. Even in that fraud, little barry bastard commie tried to write in a lie to fit his illegitimate status.
Both political parties have realized for more than a decade that the wording in the Constitution is very restrictive, and this has led to —IIRC— at least legislative efforts to amend the meaning without success. These efforts fail because the proper way to amend the Constitution is being ignored by the ones trying to change things. So is it any wonder that the feckless pubbies are looking the other way while little bastard barry usurps the Constituion? The most recent fraudulent effort was supposedly red into the Congressional record to give McCain a free pass on being born in a Hospital in Colon, Panama. Even in that fraud, little barry bastard commie tried to write in a lie to fit his illegitimate status.
Both political parties have realized for more than a decade that the wording in the Constitution is very restrictive, and this has led to —IIRC— at least legislative efforts to amend the meaning without success. These efforts fail because the proper way to amend the Constitution is being ignored by the ones trying to change things. So is it any wonder that the feckless pubbies are looking the other way while little bastard barry usurps the Constituion? The most recent fraudulent effort was supposedly read into the Congressional record to give McCain a free pass on being born in a Hospital in Colon, Panama. Even in that fraud, little barry bastard commie tried to write in a lie to fit his illegitimate status.
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.