[Quote]
In any case, the Supreme Court long has rejected the notion that naturalized citizens may or should possess rights different from those of other citizens under the law:
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.”
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964) (quoting Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 827 (1824)); see also Osborn, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 827- 28 (“[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”).
[End Quote]
The important aspect of this Judgment is that it reaffirms the Court's stance a Natural-born citizen derives their citizenship at birth from the US Constitution. A Naturalized citizen derives their citizenship from federal statutes AND it is unconstitutional for Congress to pass legislation determining who is a Natural-born citizen.
We are the authority. We are the punishment.
And, so we are left with the same basic question: Is 0bama a natural born US Citizen, or not?
IMO, he’s not. All the bluster of the left aside, and all the talking heads nattering on don’t make it so. The most telling argument, IMO, is the hundreds of thousands of dollars the anointed one has spent to keep that information hidden from view.
Certainly, there are a couple other pesky issues, too. The passport he used to travel to Pakistan, and the manner by which his college tuition was paid, to name just two.
All in all, the self described ‘transparent’ administration is anything but...
It’s time to take back the country.
A Native Born of the land but not necessarily a Natural Born citizen as intended by the Constitution. Tada!
So, the courts are going to continue to throw out every case because the court hasn’t defined “natural born” even though the Constitution and, quoting Sen. Leahy and everyone on that SR 511 committee (including Hussein himself) said it was defined by the Constitution and by “common sense.” In other words, the courts are going to defer all future cases to BJ’s “is” dictionary.
How about a judge, any judge, anywhere, find his cajones and declare it defined and let the chips fall where they may.
obumpa
This issue is not over....
Excerpt-
Note that Craig had previously appealed to the Supreme Court while the appeal was pending and is scheduled to be discussed on September 29, 2009.
In case you haven’t seen this.
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
Info.
Although there’s is no judgment in this case, the court did weigh in with an opinion making a distinction between Natural Born Citizen vs. Native born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen.
Native Born is not the same as Natural Born. And the trolls, probably are paid Axelrod posters, who conflagrate the two terms into meaning the same are wrong.