Posted on 08/04/2009 1:26:49 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Obama’s father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled in the US. At birth, Obama was a British citizen. [He's also been a Kenyan citizen and perhaps a citizen of Indonesia as well.] Obama admits his birth status was governed by Great Britain. The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without a single allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.
For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
It was never proved while he was alive, and the democrats did their best to do so, so why are you stating as fact what they could never prove?
You need to read Fuller's dissent in the Ark case. Fuller, in criticizing the majority opinion says...
"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
Fuller believes it to be unreasonable, but is proffering that will be exactly the practical application of the majority's opinion, which is why he's so critical about it.
WKA has been discussed extensively in previous threads and across the web. I’ll quote back some of it. The Infamous passage from the WKA opinion that Obama supporters refer to is the following:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.
Have another look:
“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
Do you see the difference?
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:
“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
You misunderstand the word precedent.
It does not equal amendment.
As i said you can argue that some amount of precedent was set but the Court was NOT hearing a case involving the “elgibility clause for POTUS” so your point is just an opinion and NOT a real precedent in any way.
His Father was from Ireland, moved to Canada and then to the United States months before Arthur was born.
Is it reasonable to believe that his Father was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth?
I don’t believe so. I will be looking for my primary source on that.
They would not be sworn in today.
That is all fine and good but the case was still NOT about eligibility for president.
The issue before the court was just the man’s citizenship. So it is not a solid ground for claiming precedent in a real case whereas the Consitution is at question directly such as this.
“Obama is that presuming that I understand the context that you are using that word..”
My context: Obama born on US soil to a parent whom is not a US citizen. I think that qualifies as a so called anchor baby.
It is one of the great rumors of Arthur’s presidency, and they (the democrats) were never able to unseat him because of it.
I disagree. It seems odd to assume that 220 years after the Constitution was established that we know more about what “intent” was there than people around 100 years after the Constitution was established.
It’s like people claiming that the President cannot commit troops to combat without a Congressional declaration of war despite the fact that Washington, Adams, and Jefferson each did so.
It is one of the great rumors of Arthur’s presidency, and they (the democrats) were never able to unseat him because of it.
Excuse me but people in this thread have given you direct evidence that immediately before and after the Constitution was ratified that a ‘natural born citizen’ meant a person born to two American citizen parents but yet you seem to want to ignore that.
There's no Amendment needed. Since Marbury v. Madison, this has been the role of the US Supreme Court. When there's ambiguity in the Constitution, or when laws are passed to give more clarity on a Constitutionally related question, it's been the role of the Supreme Court to weigh in and decided those challenges, or to narrow or broaden the scope of language that's found in the Constitution.
"Natural-born" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution, just like "arms", as in the right to keep and bear, isn't defined anywhere in the Constitution. But, there's ample Federal law and judicial precedent that allows the government to forbid you from stockpiling explosives or cannons in your garage.
Because "natural-born" was never defined, either in the Constitution or in statute, is exactly why it's such a contentions issue today. And, one that isn't likely to be solved while Obama's in office. I'm sure what will eventually happen, is that the legislative branch will get around to codifying a definition. That definition will be challenged, and that challenge will either be affirmed or denied by the Supreme Court, thereby settling this matter in law, once and for all. But, there's no Constitutional amendment that is required.
Read the article even and it provides evidence that a ‘natural born citizen’ meant a person born to two American citizen parents at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Again that is all fine and good but the case of U.S. vs Ark was NOT dealing with the elgibility clause of the Constitution.
Courts deal with specifics and not generalities.
Welcome to the world of constitutional law. Marbury v. Madison is about an appointment to the Federal bench. But, it's been the precedent for literally thousands of cases completely unrelated to judicial appointments. This is why the confirmation process for the Supreme Court is so damned contentious. It should be.
To claim a precedent is to make an argument in front of the Court. If you want to argue that you ‘think’ a precedent is set then you are freee to argue that but...
The U.S. vs. Ark case was not dealing with a claim about this man’s elgibility to be president. If you want to join Obama’s defense team and claim you can defend him using this case then fine.
I and many others though disagree.
Why do you think that many ‘general’ issues have been heard before the Courts more then once?
Why do you think that some decisions have been overturned?
It is because the Courts deal with specifics and not generalities.
Each ‘specific’ case brings new focus to an issue.
It is no different here.
You are making a very weak case for precedent based upon a case that had no bearing upon the ‘elgibility for president’.
I’m not ignoring it, I don’t believe their arguments hold legal water.
Do you believe that Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1404 of the U.S. Legal Code provides the definition of “natural born citizen”?
One of the things I disagree with in this blog by “Natural Born Citizen” is the statement....
“I’m not worried about Obama as President. I’m worried about who comes next because of the precedent he sets.”
I am worried about Obama as President. He is a danger to this country in more ways then just the precedent that he sets.
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.