Posted on 04/07/2011 12:46:23 PM PDT by patlin
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE II
Sec 5 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Nearly a year ago now, Mark R. Levin with all his constitutional expertise stated the dual citizenship is not 14th Amendment citizenship. Rather it is citizenship by statute. If so, the how cone he is ignoring Article II qualifications and promoting Bobby Jindal for president, knowing that Jindal was born a citizen of India? Would that not make Jindal a citizen by statute, not by nature? Also, he recently has been promoting Marco Rubio. I like Marco, but do we know for a fact that his parents were naturalized citizens at the time of Marco's birth?
Caller: Yes, how does dual citizenship work? How can person have dual alliances for example…… let’s say we got into a war with say IsraelYello! Yello! Could someone get Mark on the phone & ask him to explain this to us please?Mark: hahahahaha
Caller: You know what I am saying
Mark: yeah, yeah, the jews, we gotta watch out for them
Caller: No, no, it could be that….
Mark: Let me explain something to you. In terms of dual citizenship, that is done statutorily, you understand? In other words, Congress determines, us, the nature of dual citizenship, what qualifies for dual citizenship and so forth; which is why it is so absurd to argue that 14th Amendment by itself confers citizenship on illegal aliens
Caller: Well, that’s a good point, that’s a very good point. I understand
Mark: Well, it’s the truth, it’s not even, yeah
Caller: No, no, I understand ya, I’m not arguing with ya, I listen to you to learn
Mark: Alright my friend, thank you, you’re a good man, thank you…I’m no fan of dual citizenship either, I’ll be perfectly honest with you
And it can get even more complicated.
For example, I was born in a S. American country to two US citizens.
Not only am I considered a citizen of that country, but so is my wife and children who have never been to the country where I was born.
According to that nation’s law, my grandchildren and their grandchildren would be considered citizens.
And that is why other nation’s citizenship laws have no bearing on US citizenship.
Sorry, but the courts and history override your temper tantrum. Natural born is a simple definition and there is not superior greade of citizen.
Your desire to oust Obama is like all other emotional demands, it ruins something just to try to have your way this once.
You have a perfectly good opportunity to prove Obama isn’t even a citizen by showing he wasn’t even born here, but you want the lazy way out by trying to redefine what a natural born citizen is because you think that would be easier. Well, it isn’t easier, and it degrades and insults all of us nautral born citizens.
Both the 14th Amendment and the resulting federal law state clearly what it takes to be a citizen, and you just can’t try to go and redefine it to go after someone you don’t like.
“In other words, Mommy and Daddy had to be a U.S. citizen at the time of birth in the United States. “
They are your words, no one elses.
Yes she was and my post indicated Levin may not be aware of that.
Sooohhh, your point?
The Congress shall have Power To... ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...
Will you eat those words when you can't explain how Congress overstepped it's Constitutional powers if Title 8 covers something other than naturalization?
Only if Romney’s parents were Mongolian and their laws conferred citizenship automatically on their children. Any more dumbass questions?
Speaking of Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico and Mexican law specifies that all persons born in Mexico are citizens of Mexico.
In addition, Mexican law specifies that all children of Mexican citizens born outside of Mexico are Mexican citizens.
Is it your view that Romney cannot be president do to the fact that Mexico recognizes him as a citizen?
You are comparing apples to oranges, as usual.
Romney’s father was an American citizen. If by virtue of his being born in Mexico and that government’s conferring its citizenship upon him, it does not remove his American citizenship. It could be argued that Romney’s father was a dual citizen, but an American citizen nonetheless. The same can not be said of Barack Heussein Obama, Sr., who never enjoyed one moment of US citizenship.
A poster earlier in the thread wrote:
“I wonder if any recalls in all the birth certificate debates whether Kenya recognizes Obama as a citizen. If it does, then he shouldn’t be president.”
My argument was that there are many Americans, myself as well as my wife and children included, who are recognized by other nations as citizens of their nation.
Kenya may recognize Obama
Mexico may recognize Romney
The country where I was born not only recognizes me as a citizen, but also my wife and children who have never been to that country.
Now, simply because another country may recognize us as citizens of their nation, that factor has no bearing whatsoever on our status as U.S. citizens.
Regarding my prior post:
It appears that there has been no ruling overturning or affecting Minor v. Happersett as an opinion, though the 19th Amendment granted suffrage to women, which was the subject of the case. So the precedent apparently would be that of this case ?
Also, if this indeed is the rub, then it would appear that the man who wound up winning the election of 2008 had simply gained too much traction before it was discovered within the Democratic party that he was ineligible. That would explain the extraordinary facts surrounding how the Democratic party certified him in the various States and the last-minute secret wrangling of Democratic party leadership, i.e., Pelosi & co. in final certification. I had come across these claims on the internet but I always took them with a grain of salt and simply “filed them away”. I guess until now. Now this makes sense. It was a while until it was pointed out to leadership that there was an issue. Then it took a while to research and figure out what approach was to be taken.
Regarding Chester Arthur, I think nobama’s father’s non-citizenship was known fairly early on. Perhaps the Chester Arthur handling would or could be applied. I also submit that since nobama was sworn in, and is holding the office, any actions while in office are those of a sitting President. However, the whole idea of people knowing he was ineligible would and should result in many criminal prosecutions, including that of nobama if he knew before he was elected. No doubt if he stepped down he would pardon himself beforehand - is that possible ? I don’t know, but Pelosi and any others who knew - they seem like the really need pardons or they will be wide open to prosecution.
Mostly, if this came out, it would reflect terribly on the Democratic party for not vetting. Finding out after it’s too late and trying to avoid some “Constitutional crisis” is one thing, but knowing before the election and not going public - which would have, of course, ensured a clintonista win - that would look very bad.
IMHO.
I HAVE been saying this for 2 years! The 1965 Nationality Act changed only 1 thing, the demographic of the numbers of immigrants allowed from foreign countries.
That act has provisions for "ALIENS BORN WITHIN" the United States. When a child is born it am alien in the United States, the Act says that it will be "CHARGED" to the number of immigrants allowed from the country of the parents. The child is born an ALIEN. If he/she was born an American, there would be no charge placed against the country of the parents.
And don't let someone tell you it pertains to diplomats, those children born in the country never were never entered into our system.
So, in 1965, how can a child born on US soil to parents who were NOT diplomats be considered an alien?
“The country where I was born not only recognizes me as a citizen, but also my wife and children who have never been to that country.
Now, simply because another country may recognize us as citizens of their nation, that factor has no bearing whatsoever on our status as U.S. citizens.”
On your status as “US citizens”, no. No bearing whatsoever.
But, let me pose a couple questions. If you were born of American parents in, say Argentina for example, and Argentina recognized you as a citizen because you were born there (as an anchor baby), would you not at that time be born a dual citizen - of Argentina and the US? A dual citizen subject to the jurisdiction of both Argentina (your place of birth) and the US (through the citizenship of your parents)?
Based on your theory, I think you think you would still be considered a natural born Citizen. Let’s then say you were elected President of the US and and we found ourselves at odds with Argentina. Let’s say you went to visit Argentina to negotiate a treaty with them. Could Argentina legally have you arrested because they consider you one of their citizens (let’s ignore the political consequences for this exercise), try you for treason and then execute you?
Interested in hearing your thoughts.
You are correct. The proof is the fact that the Framers changed Article II from "born a Citizen" to "natural born Citizen" after John Jay's letter to General Washington warning of foreign influence.
By his own admission, he was claimed by Great Britain until he reached the age of majority. I believe Obama still has the right to obtain official UK citizenship, as it is his birthright.
Where does the 14th Amendment even mention the term 'natural born Citizen' ? It doesn't.
The intent of the Founding Fathers is clear:
In order to enter the country where I was born, I must carry that country’s passport. Therefore, I have two passports. However, when I re-enter the US I must use my US Passport.
Other than that and living there until I was seven, I have no connection with that country except that I have gone there for work a few times.
I was going to go there for work when I was around 25 but my company legal department pulled me from the trip as there was a chance I would be conscripted upon my arrival.
And when I am there, I am subject to their laws and the State Dept may have difficulty getting me out of a jam.
But then my kids, who have never been there are also considered citizens as will their children and so on.
The bottom line is that the nationality laws of other nations have no bearing on US law or citizenship status.
Otherwise, other nations could control who becomes and cannot become the US president.
A naturalized US citizen renounces all other allegiance. Mexico may claim him, but the individual's later decision is controlling.
"Natural Born Citizen" is a question of fact that aims to limit the pool of individuals eligible to the obtain the office of president, by probing the "accident" of birth. That Congress accepts a dual citizen at birth (again, naturalized citizens are often MORE patriotic that those raised by citizen parents) as meeting the constitutional eligibility qualification is a travesty.
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.