Posted on 02/05/2015 6:37:16 AM PST by wtd
Washington D.C. (MMD Newswire) February 4, 2015 – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was ineligible conceding that point was now moot. Instead, Mrs. Fair raised the question of the eligibility of declared Presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and Governor Bobby Jindal. In particular, Mrs. Fair argued that unresolved is whether or not these three are in fact "natural born Citizens".
Mrs. Fair said: "Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to parents who were not United States citizens at the time of their respective births. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents only one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen. Under the law existing at the time of their birth, each became a 'citizen' of the United States at birth. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal by the 14th Amendment, Ted Cruz by statute."
As most all know, under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution: "No person except a natural born Citizen . . ., shall be eligible to the Office of President." Mrs. Fair continued: "That phrase 'natural born Citizen' has yet to be defined by the Supreme Court. So are they "natural born Citizens" eligible to be President? I think the People deserve to know the answer to that question before the next Presidential Campaign starts in earnest."
Mrs. Fair, who has shepherded her case through the complexities of the legal system by herself to the Supreme Court concluded: "My efforts were never about Mr. Obama as a person or a politician. Instead, my efforts were about insuring that the Constitution was respected and enforced by those charged with those duties. Where a phrase in the Constitution - such as 'natural born Citizen' - is undefined, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret such a phrase. As the Supreme Court itself said in the 1922 case of Fairchild v. Hughes, I have: 'the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law.' By repeatedly refusing to 'say what the law is' regarding 'natural born Citizen', the Supreme Court would abolish the rule of law and replace it with the rule of their whim and caprice to whatever political ends that super-legislature may possess."
See a copy of the petition here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/254604115/Fair-v-Obama-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari
See the Supreme Court Docket for Case No 14-933 here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-933.htm
For More Information Contact: TRACY A. FAIR: (410-552-5907) OR TRACYSPLACE2002@VERIZON.NET
So in your view the Constitution lives and breathes? Churchill would have been ineligible in say 1800, but not in 1950 because they had become an ally?
Exactly. Talk about argumentum ad absurdum.
NOOOOOOO - it’s an absurd argument....CHURCHILL would NEVER RUN and people would NEVER VOTE FOR HIM if he did.
It’s just a pathetic argument vis a vis Cruz, Jindal, Rubio.....
Again, the false choice...the failed analogy.....refuge of the argument loser........
Obama’s problem is not WHERE HE WAS BORN...it’s WHERE HIS IDEAS were born....and while you nor I know for sure where HE was born, we ALL KNOW where his ideas were born.
But your argument is even more absurd. There are people who act and think just like Obama who are as natural born as baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet.....there are people who voted for Obama twice who are also pure bred American thru and thru. Obama being who he is doesn’t apply.
SCOTUS knows full well what the next few questions will be. The only way out of this for SCOTUS will be to define it in such a way that President dip$hit is also an NBC.
These bastards need to be strung up.
After covering up and preventing any verification of Obama’s eligibility, they dare challenge the republican’s candidates?
i’m not arguing over ideals... that’s for other threads.
THIS THREAD is about upholding the integrity of the Constitution.
your inability to track the subject matter after a few posts it very telling.
while that may be the situation, they must focus on the issue at hand ... and let the cards fall where they may
It definitely means something and frankly, if the founders didn’t define it, then it should be used in the strictest sense and include every possible exclusion as I see it only benefits our nation from the threat of foreign allegiances. The definition is only needed by those seeking to usurp it.
I’m in total agreement with that understanding.
Can you be any more childish? Rather than engage the discussion, you are SHOUTING.
People voted for Obama, so how do you know who else they would vote for? I bet the left can find someone even worse than Obama. And if all that matters is garnering the support of the American people, then why have a natural born citizen requirement? Do you have more wisdom than the Founders?
I used Churchill because he fit the fact pattern perfectly. The law is supposed to be blind. It should not matter if a particular person is liked or if we believe he would be a great president. Since you don’t like using Churchill, let’s pretend Stalin had an American mother. The legal analysis should be the exact same whether we are considering Stalin or Churchill for presidential eligibility. And the analysis for those two should remain the same when dealing with any candidate today with only one American parent. It should not matter what nation their other parent is from, whether from an obvious ally (Britain or Canada) or an enemy (Syria or commie Cuba).
Another thing, I am certain the Founders didn’t intend to establish an “Enemy Test” for presidential eligibility. After all, who gets to decide who is and is not an enemy. There are lots of Dems who loved communist Cuba and Russia while simultaneously hating Israel. The current political climate should not matter whatsoever in a determination of who is and is not a natural born citizen. The purpose of having a Constitution is so that the law is set and does not blow with changing political winds.
I am becoming increasingly convinced that this can be the only way to interpret the phrase "natural born citizen". All the other interpretations are convoluted and quite frankly advocate a form of nobility that is anti-American. Indeed, if the only thing that could disqualify a man from being President is that he wasn't born to two citizen parents at the time of his birth, we make citizenship out to be some kind of noble class. At least "natural born citizenship" is under such thinking which is even more anti-American at its core. The notion that there are different kinds of citizens, different classes?
The only interpretstion that is consistent with the idea of "all men created equal" is that as you stated. The "natural born" destinction is merely meant to ensure the man in question didn't become a citizen just last year, or at some point past birth, and thus may have foreign allegences. Anyone who is objective about the situation can see the spirit of this intent is kept adequitely by merely ensuring the man in question was made a citizen by his birth. Either by who he was born to, or where he was born, in either event raised by parents who themselves lived in country most of their adult life thus ensuring children they raise have at least a fundamental allegence to this country. Any more requirement is superfluous and therefore aristocrat in nature.
Or, it could possibly be the work of Jeb Bush in an attempt to eliminate competition.
Bottom line, you are gonna LOOOOOOOOZ this argument. He is going to run, and it’s not going to be a Constitutional problem except in the minds of a very few people.
Period. Game. Set. Match. Thanks for playing. Drive safe.
yeah, me and every other conservative legal scholar....while you hide behind a meaningless screen name and spout spout spout.
Give the a SINGLE NAME of anyone worth quoting who agrees with you. And no, your husband doesn’t count.
Yes, he’s a natural born citizen. But he still can’t be president because he’s not 35 year old and he hasn’t lived in the US for 14 years. The NBC requirement wasn’t the only bulwark the Founders raised against foreign influence.
unlike you and your mindless ramblings ... from behind a meaningless screen name
if you did your homework, which i doubt you ever did, you would know NBC has been mentioned at least 3 times over the years.
i realize supreme court justices aren’t nearly as authoritative as the cracker jack talking heads you look to for information.
oh well.
you mean like Ted Cruz himself? Mark Levin? These are not talking heads. They are legal scholars first and foremost. Constitutional Law WAS THE OCCUPATION of these men before they became what they are now.
How is your Constitutional Law career doing?
Interesting.
Infantile
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.