Posted on 06/29/2010 1:40:59 AM PDT by jdirt
That last red section is wrong. There was a special
exception made for those alive at the time of
the signing of the Constitution as they had already
been born. The exception doesn’t apply to those
born after the Constitution was signed. Whoever
wrote that passage is factually incorrect and
intentionally deceptive.
That is why I highlighted it. A huge crock!
EXCELLENT.
THX THX.
If 0d0rk0’s eligible, so is Hitlers son.
I thought it was clear when they were actually doing it (first the bill and then the resolution in the Senate) that the prime intended beneficiary was Zero. The principle movers were Dems (Clare) and the clerks all knew that Zero was involved in the drafting process.
With respect to McCain which I still expect to be a substantive issue, neither Panama nor Kenya have ever been a part of the sovereign states and I don't see either one of them born in the US.
What the Court will or would do with the issue if ever forced to decide is obviously speculation.
But the analytical bottom line from the point of view of the Constitutional lawyer is that neither one of them is eligible.
The Constitution has been amended on the direct point of citizenship since the founders chose the words. Whatever the argument that historical legal doctrines impacted the meaning of "natural born citizen" at the time of adoption, the 14th Amendment specifically turns the question of the rights of a citizen exclusively on birth in the geographical territory of the US.
It shouldn't work that way. There is no excuse for not amending it to eliminate the obvious disconnects (such as the anchor babies); but what it now says and how it operates on this issue is pretty well understood.
As far as the Senate Resolution is concerned, the Court has historically been offended by directions from Congress as to how a Constitutional legal issue should be resolved by the Court. The reason the Dem's were comfortable moving the resolution along was that it was presented as a McCain issue.
Tribe and Olson are both political whores--their opinions on this issue are irrelevant to its ultimate resolution.
There was no such hearing?
Then how, pray tell, did we arrive at Senate resolution 511?
Re: There was no hearning on McCain’s eligibility.
There most certainly was. Here’s testimony:
http://theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm#LeahyResolution
Good points. There is also a logical argument to be made from the intent of the natural-born citizen clause regarding dual or split loyalties.
The case has clearly been made that OBummer has zero loyalties to America. We’ve been thrown under the bus. Now, we’re just waiting for the steamroller.
excellant post , but you are assuming that liberal o-bots can read.
Of course! McCain's own Presidential campaign retained two legal experts to write a memo about McCain's eligibility for Obama's benefit. It all makes perfect sense now. How did I not see through this conspiracy before?
Maybe I missed it because McCain hired Olson before anyone was even attacking Obama's eligibility. That was both sneaky and psychic of him.
From the last paragraph of Loren's blog post, The Tribe/Olson Memo on Natural Born Citizenship:
At http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2010/01/tribeolson-memo-on-natural-born.html , for those following along.
How exactly, Loren, do you conclude from their memo that this is a nail in the coffin of the 'two-citizen-parent' theory of Presidential eligibility,
"the phrase ''natural born'' includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation's territory and allegiance."
You'd think if "to parents who were citizens" were a requirement in both cases, they might've, y'know, said so. But then, maybe you know more about citizenship law than Tribe and Olson because you have degrees in unrelated fields and decades of experience with, I dunno, being a US citizen.
when Tribe and Olson specifically mention "two US citizen parents" like NINE (9) TIMES?
And they also mention "born abroad" four times! Plus several other references to being born on a military base!! So clearly, a natural born citizen must be someone of citizen parents who is born abroad and/or on a military base. I mean, they say it multiple times, and that's how real legal scholars interpret things.
No, it's not. To cite one prominent example, George Romney (Mitt's father) ran for President in 1968. And he was born in Mexico.
Nope. I detailed the full extent of all Senate hearing testimony regarding McCain's eligibility here. It consisted of one question and one answer, during an unrelated hearing about the Department of Homeland Security. You can read the transcript for yourself here.
At the same site, you can browse transcripts of every other Senate Judiciary committee hearing. You're also welcome to search THOMAS. There were no hearings held about McCain. There was no floor debate about McCain. McCain never testified, and never produced any documents to the Senate for their review.
Then how, pray tell, did we arrive at Senate resolution 511?
The ordinary way. It's introduced, referred to committee, some written supporting statements are put in the record by the sponsors, and the Senate votes. That's the general gist of it. Some honorariums skip the committee stage.
See, for instance, Senate Resolution 514, introduced the same day as 511 and described as "A resolution commemorating the life and work of Dith Pran." Do you think the Senate also held hearings about the life and work of Dith Pran?
This part just sets me off! Claire McCaskill and her evil cronies think or want you to think that being born outside the US while the parents are serving in the military is anything close to marxist obama while his parents and grandparents were communists and hated the United States.
One fighting for the country and one fighting against the country. This is why POTUS must be NBC.
The subject of the hearing was not McCain's eligibility. Leahey asked exaclty ONE question about the circumstances under which a person not born on US soil might be a natural born citizen.
A non-binding resolution need not be preceding by a hearing, and usually isn't.
A hearing, is a hearing, is a hearing.
You saying there was none is a lie.
There was a haring, and Sen. Leahy presided over that hearing.
Quit dissembling.
Obama was chosen over Hillary by the NWO elites at the Hotel in Chantilly VA before the election. We will all be slaves soon if we don't stop the Washington idiots.
Uh, no. Hearings have topics, and each hearing has a different topic. There was no hearing whose topic was McCain's eligbility.
Re: A hearing, is a hearing, is a hearing.
You responded, “Uh, no. Hearings have topics, and each hearing has a different topic. There was no hearing whose topic was McCain’s eligbility.”
You Obots are a tricky lot — twist a word here, dissimelate there, change the focus, but you couldn’e be more wrong.
The following statement is from Sen. Leahy’s website. I want you to pay particular attention to the word “hearing.” It seems Sen Leahy thought he was at a hearing, but then again, he isn’t as all-knowing as “curiosity” (sounds like a bad Bobby Brown song).
Ready? Here it is, from Leahy’s own website (watch for the word “hearing” now):
“At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.”
Oh — and check out that phrase — “McCain was eligible” — looks like you’re wrong twice in one little itty-bitty post.
http://theobamafile.com/_exhibits/LeahyResolution.mht
I don't see why this would be such a big deal to you. Why are you getting so excited over it?
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.