Posted on 02/27/2011 7:26:01 PM PST by STE=Q
Arizona is considering passing a law that, among other things, would allow a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents to be recognized as a “natural born Citizen.” Such a law would be passed in error. Apart from the proposed law being unconstitutional for violating the Supremacy Clause and the Pre-emption Doctrine, a law that recognizes an Article II “natural born Citizen” as including a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents would be contrary to what the Founders and Framers designed as a national security safeguard for the Offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. In this article, I will address only that part of the proposed law that attempts to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is and specifically that part of the law that includes as an Article II “natural born Citizen” a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents. In a follow up article, I will address the other parts of the proposed law that I will show are also unconstitutional.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Governor will never sign that into law.
Governor will never sign that into law.
Ping to a few!
STE=Q
You can be sure if it’s AZ, they are up to no good!
I would just like to see the 57 states pass one very simple law before the upcoming 2012 presidential campaign:
"When a person applies to put his name on a political party's primary ballot for President of the United states, he must attach a copy of his long form birth certificate if he was born in a hospital in the United States.
"If he was not born in a hospital in the United States, he must attach a document from the state of his birth---one with the state's seal---that verifies that he was born in that state on a certain date."
Tell me, is that too much to ask?
Yes, a very simple and standard law that could easily be applied in all 57 states, in my opinion.
NOTE: But wait. Someone will inevitably ask me this question: What happens if a potential candidate says that there is no long form birth certificate in his case, because he was not born in a hospital?
My response is this: Again, if the presidential candidate claims that he was NOT born in a hospital----maybe he was born in a taxicab or a private car or a private home or in the woods somewhere---then he can ask his state of birth to provide him with an OFFICIAL letter---with the state's seal---verifying that the candidate was born in that state on a certain state.
Now, is it too much to ask state officials to pass a simple law like the one above? I don't think so.
>>> As such, Arizona and every other state can definite it how it sees fit. The 10th Amendment allows them to do so.
Like some of them have redefined marriage???
See what a tangled web we weave....
Don’t like the law??? No problem... just pass what you want according to your own definition, and see if taxpayers are willing to pay the costs of testing your definition in court!... then see how much damage you can do until you get your hands slapped.
I agree with your analysis of the situation.
I DO NOT agree that states have a right to redefine language...
And I certainly DON’T agree with OUR tolerance of the legislators undermining the constitution this way.
I guess I’m not a natural born American since both my parents were aliens when I was born. So even though they were legal aliens, I too am ineligible to run for POTUS, even though I was born in this country.
Bump
More and more proof every day that McRat pimped for Hussein's campaign.
>The Supreme Court will make the correct interpretation.
I do not agree with that sentiment. For one thing the Supreme Court has gutted the prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws by declaring {in 1798*!!) by deeming that it *only* holds against CRIMINAL LAW. It is for this reason that Congress can deem “tax laws” to be ‘merely regulatory’ in nature and therefore apply retroactive changes thereunto; yet, at the same time violations of the tax-laws are pursued in CRIMINAL COURT.
Now either tax-law violations are either criminal or civil: if they are civil then why are they tried in criminal courts; and if criminal, why is congress allowed to make ex post facto tax-law?
Even by the USSC’s own ruling the USSC is inconsistent.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull
Yeah, THAT is REALLY curious - I just saw that over the weekend. Sure makes one wonder, huh?
So even though they were legal aliens, I too am ineligible to run for POTUS, even though I was born in this country.
*******
How about some details about your parents?
For instance, how long were they legal aliens? If it were up to me, I would vote to let you run for president if your legal alien parents had been legal aliens for at least a year.
Long form birth certificate: Would you have any objection to showing the public a copy of your long form birth certificate---especially, if you were born in a hospital or a clinic--- with the state's seal that OFFICIALLY verified that you were born in the United States as you claimed?
there is new discussion on the scars?? can you point me?? I like the whole scenario of Manchurian Frankenstein-ing...I think they gave him marsupial toes, too.
beforeitsnews.com/.../Obama_Why_Varying_Scar-Places_Head-Scars_Not_The_Same_Depending_on_which_pictures_you_look_at..html - Cached
wtpotus.wordpress.com/.../obamas-movable-features-his-newest-scar-open-thread/ - Cached
My HTML has not caught up to linking on this MAC thing. Forgive?
At any rate, the latest on the scars is that they seem to be in different places in different photographs. Perhaps Soros has had a number of Obie-puppets built and rotates them as needed, or he's using doubles, which I very well consider, were I he. Or, they might be the modern equivalent of those old "canals on Mars" things. It ain't like you can ask him!
The scar thing is very easily cleared up, though. I think I'll just take a look at his medical rec.......................Hmm? Oh, I know, I must have put them in with the birth certificates, or the passport file ... in a big box in Aunt Zeituni's house? You'll have to wait until we clean out the attic, bitt. Sorry. In the meantime Google "Obama's Scars" and you can have hours of unemployed fun at the library until the Depression II is over and the Chinese can use us as cheap labor* to drill for our own oil. That will be about 2020, as it will take our POTUS (or appropriate Soros-provided double, or device) at least 4 terms to figure out his job as caudillo of the hemisphere's northernmost Latin-American nation.
*If you speak Spanish AND Chinese.
Mr Rogers said: “Ah, yes....in 1787, the Founders used a phrase found in the 1797 translation of Vattel, and a bad translation at that.”
What a silly thing to say. The Founders read French. All the historic correspondences show that the Founders had the French version of Vattel, NOT the English version (until later).
The Founders’ primary language was English—well, most of them—as is probably yours and mine.
Like most of the Founders, I can read and speak French quite fluently as a second language. So, I have a pretty good perspective on what English words the Founding Fathers were seeing in their mind’s eye while reading Vattel’s work in French.
You see, when you learn a second language, you automatically gravitate towards using common words with common meanings in both languages, such as the common word “brunette.”
English and French speakers each recognize the word “brunette” to mean someone with brown hair. Right? You with me so far?
Okay, now in French, “brunette” has a subtle usage rule as it is used only when talking about women, not men. But, to an English speaking person whose secondary language is French, it’s just a person with brown hair and will always be just that unless someone enlightens the reader as to the subtleties contained therein.
Still with me? Okay. A person whose primary language is English will ALWAYS tend to gravitate towards common words in both the primary and secondary languages whose meanings are close in nature.
This also applies to words which are similar in spelling or sound whose meanings are similar.
For instance, if you came across the phrase, “les membres de la société civil,” even without knowing much French, you should have no problem in breaking it down and figuring it out based upon similar English words.
You’ll probably deduce that “les membres” means “the members”; “de la” might give you pause, but since French phrases are so prevalent in English, it is inevitably deduced as meaning “of the”; and, “société civil” is easily decoded into English as meaning “society civil,” or—so that it sounds better to the English ear—”civil society.”
Gee, look at that! You’re translating French already!
Now that you are following me, let us take a look at the offending text in which so much ado has been made of:
“Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de parents citoyens”
An English speaking person whose secondary language is French will naturally gravitate towards breaking it down and translating it this way:
“Les Naturels” = “The Naturals”
“ou indigènes” = “or indigenous”
“font ceux que font” = “are those that are”
“nés dans” = “born in”
“le pays” = “the country”
“de parents citoyens” = “of parents citizens”
So, now it gets strung together in your mind’s eye and Voila!:
“The Naturals, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country of [their] parents [who are] citizens.”
Nope. No 1797 translation is required to understand where the Founding Fathers came up with the idea that Vattel was talking about “Natural Born.”
P.S. STE=Q - Thanks for thinking of me!
Cheers
Nope. You are NOT a Natural Born citizen. But, as far as I know, the only thing prohibited to you is the Presidency (and, via extension, the Vice-Presidency). Since it is highly doubtful you will ever run for President, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it if I were you.
:)
Cheers
My parents also were not citizens when I and my brother were born in the USA. We both served in WWII. I cannot speak for my brother as he was killed in WWII, but speaking for myself I can accept my ineligibility for POTUSA because of parents. No loss of love for them or for this Nation, as the opportunities from both overwhelm my childhood thoughts of being POTUSA .
My parents also were not citizens when I and my brother were born in the USA. We both served in WWII. I cannot speak for my brother as he was killed in WWII, but speaking for myself I can accept my ineligibility for POTUSA because of parents. No loss of love for them or for this Nation, as the opportunities from both overwhelm my childhood thoughts of being POTUSA .
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.