Skip to comments.FIRST TIME IN U.S. HISTORY THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT’S ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Posted on 01/06/2010 6:30:17 AM PST by SvenMagnussen
(Jan. 5, 2010) The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.
Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgias 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obamas staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
The founders didn't need to elaborate. To them, "natural-born citizen" was a term of art with a settled definition:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, of Emerich de Vattel's Law of Nations.
The Law of Nations was used as a guide and reference by the Founders while drafting the Constitution. Their personal letters are filled with references to it.
The Supreme Court also cited Vattel repeatedly. It's considered one of the references to determine "original intent".
But, the Supreme Court apparently doesn't want to settle this particular issue, and would rather let it play out in the political arena.
Do you find it odd that Hawaii will not answer what date filed and date accepted mean?
Do you not find the timing of the Homelands change of requiring a long form to be June 2009 when the Obama issue heated up? Since Hawaii went “paperless” in 2001 why the wait?
Do you know why a long form is desirable over a short form?
Did you know the State Department will not accept short form BC’s from California, Texas and some other areas for passport applications? Why? If Obamas Hawaii BC is shown to be problematic, do you think the State Department will put them on the same list?
I realize you are old and tired, but use some common sense and logic please, this is not DU where emotions and subterfuge rule the day.
We finally agree on something, I seriously doubt some of his family read much other than the Kenya Times or the post office wanted posters.
Mods taking sides is a fast way to ruin any forum, just sayin’, especially when everyone knows the mods real FReeper name.
He is an ugly ole cuss isn’t he? Geek. Major geek. LOL
parsifal isn’t a troll. He just thinks Orly is silly. I wouldn’t include him in that group, he’s a nice guy, the rest are a’holes
Yeah. He *is* a nice guy.
Lucy, who has a crush on parsifal, too.
Are you sure about that? What if I put on my Ruby Red slippers, close my eyes, and click my heels three times? I bet that would make it so. ;-p
Again think about it, no professional politician would ever allow the federal clearance process to be a gateway to office. Remember during the clearance investigation process, the investigating agency is required by law to report any illegalities it might uncover to the appropriate authorities. What modern American professional politician would put himself in such a potentially compromising position?
Yet the Congressional record from 1967 (and many other sources) claim that English Common Law was the foundation for the Constitution. Explicit references to the Law of Nations was needed for specific issues because that was the exception, NOT the norm.
For issues that were not specifically stated or referenced as "from the Law of Nations" it was understood that it was based on English Common Law. And that would include citizenship. And English Common Law holds that if you are born on English soil, you are a natural born citizen - regardless of the citizenship of your parents.
Indeed, "It's all about allegiances..."
And what better way to guard against dual loyalties than that a perspective Presidents parent's BOTH be American citizens, at his/her birth?
Does this mean that a native born citizen or even a naturalized citizen wouldn't make a good president?
Of course not!
However, it eliminates many who could be influenced by a parent(s) who is loyal to a foreign power.
It's like "profiling" the Muslim terrorist.
All Muslims are NOT terrorist but almost all terrorist are Muslims.
The Natural Born Citizen directive in the constitution is a security issue intended to insulate the executive branch against ANYONE who would be less than 100% devoted to the interest of "the People" of the United States.
A little more serious than the mild anti-incumbent sentiment expected after a tough year.
I said the same thing to my wife today. Lots of Democrats running away when they now have the veto-proof majority? It doesn’t make sense unless something is about to break.
I am sure that somewhere there is a transcript of that debate, again if Obama had made such a statement it would broadcast everywhere.
I agree. He is one cool little dude.
Yes, I agree with your evaluation. But, I will not get my hopes up over this.
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.