Posted on 08/04/2009 1:26:49 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Why dont you post for me what it says if you want my opinion on it.
But regardless legislation does NOT amend the Consitution.
I never said it amended the Constitution, but it absolutely clarifies the Constitution when it refers to specific terms.
Here is the content of the section:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
I am more than happy to find sources and post sections of the U.S. Code, but it’s not that hard to look things up.
And it also does not at all mention elgibility for president which is what you are trying to use it for in order to amend.
Again when you deal with law you are dealing with specifics and not generalities which is why when new specific claims come up the Courts will hear the case in order to be more specific.
Everything you bring up is fine and good to bring up as arguments if you want to defend the position that you have but they are not a specific ruling on the ‘elgibility for president’ as you seem to think that they are.
Let me ask you:
Are you making the arguments that you are making because you actually believe that the Framers wanted to have people born with dual citizenship or dual allegiance be elgibile for President?
Is that what you support? Or are you just arguing it because you think it is precedent?
No, Marriage was Void Ab Initio
Bigamy.
Doesn’t matter what Obama says..he can say it until his face matches his lips.
NO UK citizenship unless born in Kenya or Mom had a customary marriage.
Law of nations has nothing to do with whether Obama was a UK citizen. UK law is what is relevant and I posted the discussion on it from the UK Border Agency.
And if you are going to cite Vattel, then you had better read the Elg V Perkins case.
Wrong law. YOu need to look at the out of wedlock provision and then find something in the immigration law that would protect children in Obama’s situation.
Like a lot of lay people, this is the part you just can't seem to wrap your head around. A definition of "Natural Born" citizen is not in the Constitution. You would argue that there is a definition that was in common usage during the drafting of the Constitution, and therefor, that is the definition that should be used. That's fine. That's a defensible position. Unfortunately, that's not always how it works.
A Definition or the practical relevance of phrases or specific words can be altered, narrowed, broadened or reinforced. This can happen in one of three ways; Through the legislative branch, through an executive order (much more rarely), or through a judicial decision. "Natural-born citizen" has never been addressed in the the first two ways, but it has been addressed - at least in a peripheral way - through judicial decision.
Until the the Supreme Court rules in a specific case of eligibility, it would seem that the practical definition of that phrase would include "any child born to parents subject to the jurisdiction thereof". And, given how the Supremes have already rejected writ of certiorari in Donofrio v. Wells, it would appear that they are signaling that they don't want to weigh in on the matter anytime soon.
This is unfortunate, but it is what it is. I have no doubt that this is because the Justices, and especially these justices, want to maintain a wide divide or separation between the branches of government. And, they seem to be indicating that this is a matter best solved through the political process, not a judicial one.
In their landmark decision (which they went to the unprecedented step of prefacing the decision with a statement that specifically denied the decision any precedent, and therefor denied the decision as a landmark in any way)of Bush v. Gore, the telegraphed how painful the decision was for them precisely because they didn't want to weigh into the political arena. It's long been the cultural disposition of the Court to let politicians handle purely political matters - the election of a US President is a purely political matter. This case is no different.
Nope. His parents were married in February, 1961. Then there is a six month gap where no one knows her whereabouts. Now this alleged certified copy of Obama’s birth certificat pops up indicating he was born in the Coast General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya, on August 4, 1961.
His father registered his son as a British citizen and Obama II was born in a British protectorate (if you accept he was born in Kenya). This makes at least for dual citizenship (mother being an American), at most solidly British. If he was born in Hawaii, he is a citizen by birth but not a natural born citizen as his father was never a U.S.citizen.
Either way, what it means for us, is that Barack H. Obama II is ineligible to be U.S.President per article 2 of the U.S.Consitution.
Interesting. I hadn't thought of his polygamist practices and what effect they may have had on the legal status of his marriage(s). So, it turns out he wasn't married at all?
All the same, I don't think the status of Obama's parent's marriage (or lack thereof) would have any impact at all on the status of his US citizenship. There wasn't a marriage caveat in US v. Ark. Do you agree?
Very well written post and I do not disagree. But regardless of all of the points you are bringing up I still think that this issue must be pursued specifically because it is in a sort of undecided state.
And, to clarify my position, I do NOT believe Obama to be eligible. Despite what was written in Ark, I find that the original intent, and specifically the semantic intent, is too compelling. But, I'm also not blind to the limitations of the argument nor do I ignore the unlikely-hood of the court weighing directly into the matter. I just don't think it will happen, and that is unfortunate.
Well I do not at all really disagree with you then. I really think though instead of getting discouraged that conservatives need to keep pushing the envelope.
Yes it may not be too realistic to think that we will get a court to rule on the specifics of Obama’s elgibility but I do still believe that some good will come of the effort.
One mistake that too many conservatives make is to be too grounded in the probable instead of pushing for the ideal.
In this case it may be that all we get out of this is some legislation that clarifies the issue for future times or that we help make the issue even more of an issue in the minds of the American people.
Either way I think that the case for two American citizen parents for eligibilty for president should not be abandoned nor should the case for trying to force Obama to release all of the records of his past to be released.
All in all the people are starting to pay more attention to this issue and many do not like that Obama has so many secrets in his past. Nor do they really like the idea of having the left defend the idea of having a foreigner elected as president.
For sure he would not have UK citizenship if born in the US.
Unclear on US citzenship if born in Kenya. The out of wedlock Statute would only require one year residency for Ann. The difference between unwed fathers and mothers has been upheld by SCOTUS in the Nguyen case.
Clearly, the marriage in Hawaii was not a valid contract.
There is a current Hawaiian statute that says children of Bigamist marriages are legitimate. However, that is not binding on Immigration law.
Would INS protect poor little bastard from lying bigamist foreign daddy OR would they say too bad we don’t make exceptions in this case because all kinds of foreigners would pull this stunt.
Haven’t seen an applicable law or case yet on it that would create an exception.
If you are correct then it makes you wonder why Obama himself said that he was half Kenyan/British citizen and half American citizen at birth.
Read Elg V Perkins and rethink your reasoning.
Law of Unintended Consequences.
Btw, his parents absolutely were not legally married in Feb of 1961...if a ceremony even took place. Daddy had to lie on the marriage application to get married.
Yes. He was a Constitutional Lawyer. He is held to a higher standard.
So, why make that claim? He should have known better.
Does it mean that he was born in Kenya or that his mother had a customary marriage in Kenya???
Or does it just mean he didn’t know a damn thing about the law and just made stuff up..... ;-)
It would seem that Obama himself denounced half of his American citizenship at birth through his own words.
You claim that he could not be a UK citizen if born on American soil but he himself disputes you on that when he claimed that he was a dual citizen at birth.
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.