Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Strunk Filing in New York Supreme Court: Take Note Obots; Grab the Popcorn Patriots!
BirtherReport.com ^ | Tuesday, May 31, 2011 | ObamaRelease YourRecords

Posted on 06/01/2011 7:21:28 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike

Christopher Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections, et al. - Combined Response w Exhibits to Barack Obama / John McCain Motion to Dismiss - Supreme Court of the State of New York Kings County

(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: barrysoetoro; certifigate; colb; corruption; globalists; hopespringseternal; naturalborncitizen; nbc; nwo; obama; thistimeforsure
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last
How about RICO charges against McCain and Obama for conspiring to defraud the American electorate?
1 posted on 06/01/2011 7:21:35 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

That’s the first I’ve read that McCain was not born in the Canal Zone. Is this true?


2 posted on 06/01/2011 7:40:05 AM PDT by battlecry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: battlecry

He was born in a public hospital in Colon, Panama.

But it doesn’t matter - the Canal Zone always was, and still is, Panamanian sovereign soil. We leased the Canal Zone and operated it administratively - we never owned it outright.

There have been many Freepers, born in the Canal Zone, who’ve posted here that they have always known that they are not eligible to be President. For the record, neither is John McCain.


3 posted on 06/01/2011 7:45:00 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: battlecry

Yes. Many naval bases were Spartan in Overseas sites. Conditions such as family care and child birth were handled at local hospitals. McCain was born outside the CZ in Panama.


4 posted on 06/01/2011 7:52:38 AM PDT by xkaydet65 (IACTA ALEA EST!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: battlecry

Yes. Many naval bases were Spartan in Overseas sites. Conditions such as family care and child birth were handled at local hospitals. McCain was born outside the CZ in Panama.


5 posted on 06/01/2011 7:52:56 AM PDT by xkaydet65 (IACTA ALEA EST!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
There have been many Freepers, born in the Canal Zone, who’ve posted here that they have always known that they are not eligible to be President. For the record, neither is John McCain.

Not settled law. Senate resolution 511 passed saying he was, including a joint legal opinion by Tribe and Olson. The Senate had no business passing such a resoultion, but McCain was nominated and on the ballot without a challenge from the Dems or the GOP.

The issue needs to go to SCOTUS for resolution. Anything else is mere speculation.

6 posted on 06/01/2011 7:54:46 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: battlecry

That’s why the Senate Judiciary Sub-committee did their little dog and pony show resulting in Senate Resolution 511 which is non-binding. The full Senate never voted on it and the House did not pursue a similar resolution as well.

Further there were multiple ballot challenges to McCain prior to the 2008 election including New Hampshire and California. Guess what, all the cases were dismissed due to LACK OF STANDING!


7 posted on 06/01/2011 7:55:29 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Senate resolution 511 was illegal and unconstitutional. I suggest you read the Constitution thoroughly. Screw Tribe and Olson - only God knows how much Soros paid them.

To alter the Constitution requires two-thirds of the States approval. It can take years to make changes or additions.


8 posted on 06/01/2011 8:01:22 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Before you alter the Constitution, you need to get a ruling from SCOTUS defining the meaning of "natural born citizen" as it applies to eligibility under the Constitution. The ruling will determing what further action should be taken.

The fact remains that both McCain and Obama were on the ballot and Obama sits in the WH. That is an inescapable, undeniable fact. Anyone who says that this is settled law or that the Constitution is perfectly clear on the issue, so clear in fact that no one disputes it, is clearly living in a parallel universe.

9 posted on 06/01/2011 8:12:25 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kabar

It’s natural law. It doesn’t need any stinking statute or definition.

“A person born in a nation of citizen parents.” (Jus solis + jus sanguinis.)

It is natural law - period. Simple and logical.


10 posted on 06/01/2011 8:18:15 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Obama is ineligible and a usurper.

The only thing necessary to change the situation is peasants with torches and pitchforks to remove him.


11 posted on 06/01/2011 8:19:42 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
No, it is not as simple as that. It is jus sanguinis or jus solis. Birthright citizenship is the law of the land and children born abroad to American citizen (s) can automatically acquire US citizenship. I know that as a fact professionally and personally.
12 posted on 06/01/2011 8:34:40 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
The only thing necessary to change the situation is peasants with torches and pitchforks to remove him.

Go ahead and organize it and see how many people join you. Talk is cheap.

13 posted on 06/01/2011 8:36:15 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kabar

You are confusing citizenship with an eligibility requirement for public office.

The USCIS recognizes exactly what you’re talking about.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

Natural born citizenship is not mentioned - anywhere! - on the USCIS - Citizenship page. Why? Because it is NOT a type of citizenship!

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S.Constitution makes it very clear that one need only be a citizen - native born, derived citizenship, naturalized, it doesn’t matter which - to be either a Representative in the House, or a Senator.

To be President of the United States one must meet three eligibility requirements: natural born Citizen; 35 years of age; resided the last fourteen years inside the U.S.

One must be more than just a citizen to be President. One must be a natural born Citizen.

Are you still confused?


14 posted on 06/01/2011 8:44:54 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“Talk is cheap.”

That’s all you’ve got!


15 posted on 06/01/2011 8:46:01 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Those who are still confused are confused because they want to be.


16 posted on 06/01/2011 8:49:36 AM PDT by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

You got that right!!


17 posted on 06/01/2011 8:52:41 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kabar

No, it is not as simple as that. It is jus sanguinis or jus solis. Birthright citizenship is the law of the land and children born abroad to American citizen (s) can automatically acquire US citizenship. I know that as a fact professionally and personally.


There is no argument that a person born to American parents abroad is a “US citizen”, but not a Natural Born Citizen which is a “sub-set”. Our Founders intended NBC for a reason.


18 posted on 06/01/2011 8:53:25 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Senate resolution 511 was illegal and unconstitutional.

SR 511 was also untruthful because it contained this little fib:
"[snip] Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

19 posted on 06/01/2011 8:54:23 AM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius, (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
I believe you are the one confused. There is no clear defintition of what is meant by natural born citizen under Article 2 of the Constitution as it pertains to eligibility for the Presidency. The Supreme Court has never issued a ruling on it.

Here is what Tribe and Olson said. I know you think that they are tools of Soros, but they are considered Constitutional scholars. You can't easily discount their views, because they influenced the vote on Senate Resolution 511.

The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United Suites v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.

Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.

Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.

I have read the opinions of other constitutional scholars who disagree with Tribe and Olson. But that doesn't resolve the issue one way or the other. We can't resolve it on this thread or in public discussions. It must go to SCOTUS. Everything else is speculation. It is not settled law.

Re citizenship: There are only two ways to acquire automatic citizenship--jus sanguinis or jus solis. Naturalization is the third way. The question is whether SCOTUS would consider the automatic ways of citizenship to equate to "natural born citizenship" under the Constitution or that there would be another class of citizenship beyond the other two. This would not affect residency or age requirements, which are a separate issue.

20 posted on 06/01/2011 9:02:38 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Talk is all you got. In the meantime, Obama is the President and will continue to be until at least 2013.


21 posted on 06/01/2011 9:04:50 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

See my post #20. The courts have never ruled on what our Founders intended by “natural born citizen” as it applies to eligibilty for the Presidency under the Constitution. Last time I checked, McCain was on the 2008 ballot along with Obama, who has now been President for almost 30 months.


22 posted on 06/01/2011 9:08:43 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kabar; SatinDoll

Natural Born Citizen Crisis - Presidential Usurpation

http://vimeo.com/pixelpatriot/naturalborncitizen-constitutionalcrisis


23 posted on 06/01/2011 9:13:07 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kabar; SatinDoll

See my post #20. The courts have never ruled on what our Founders intended by “natural born citizen” as it applies to eligibilty for the Presidency under the Constitution. Last time I checked, McCain was on the 2008 ballot along with Obama, who has now been President for almost 30 months.


Never say never...

Executive Summary Re: NBC Defined in Constitution Plus 4 SCOTUS Cases

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55105383/Executive-Summary-Re-NBC-Defined-in-Constitution-Plus-4-SCOTUS-Cases


24 posted on 06/01/2011 9:15:58 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Wow! The Supreme Court has never issued a ruling on it because it isn’t their Constitutional role to do so.

One - the Supreme Court has no say in any of this. All cases, such as Strunks, will go nowhere.

Only Congress can address the issue concerning the definition of ‘natural born Citizen’. Only Congress can remove a President, and not the Supreme Court.

Hell! Congress can’t even pass a budget to run the nation, much less come up with a definition concerning one of the eligibility requirements for President.

By the way, that statute you quote, “Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.”

That statute above was rescinded in 1797. It was at odds with the Constitution.

The Founders knew what natural born Citizen meant. I’m quite certain they never intended the spawn of illegal aliens to end up as President of the United State, which is what you’re advocating.


25 posted on 06/01/2011 9:20:13 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: y'all

I always said McCain was a colon birth.


26 posted on 06/01/2011 9:20:15 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans freed the Slaves Month")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kabar

not to mention Dukakis.

the only clear issue is “born inside the USA” makes one a natural citizen.

The tinfoil hat part II has never been discussed in the courts as to elected office.


27 posted on 06/01/2011 9:21:50 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
I have read several constitutional law professors review of natural born citizen status and have never heard that it depends on where you are born but on the citizenship status of your parents at the time of your birth. Both parents citizens of the United States when you are born then you are a natural born citizen.
The argument about McCain being born in Panama while his father was in the military so he does not meet the NBC requirement. Absurd. If my husband and I had been on vacation in Iraq when my son was born he'd be a NBC. It is not where you are born but the citizenship of both of your parents when you are born.
28 posted on 06/01/2011 9:42:28 AM PDT by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
The operative phrase I used was "'natural born citizen' as it applies to eligibilty for the Presidency under the Constitution." Notice that Tribe/Olson referenced Wong Kim Ark case in their opinion along with other citations.

I don't know how many times I have said it, but this issue will not be resolved until it is decided in the courts. Until then, all we are doing is trying to figure out how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.

29 posted on 06/01/2011 9:45:02 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Wow! The Supreme Court has never issued a ruling on it because it isn’t their Constitutional role to do so.

LOL. If everything is so clear, cut, and dried. Then why was McCain put on the ballot and Obama in the WH? Where is Congress or the candidates who have standing to challenge it in the courts? We the People get the government we deserve.

The Founders knew what natural born Citizen meant. I’m quite certain they never intended the spawn of illegal aliens to end up as President of the United State, which is what you’re advocating.<

I am against birthright citizenship, which is currently the law of the land. Some in Congress are trying to change the law. I support Steve King and others who are trying eliminate birthright citizenship. I actually lobby on the Hill to that end as part of a grassroots immigration group.

H.R.140 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

30 posted on 06/01/2011 9:53:11 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kabar

passing a constitutional amendment does not require SCOTUS input.
\
As for born overseas to two USC parents being natural born it appears you are wrong. in 1790 congrees passed a law stating such then revoked it as it was not an amendment. That gives more ammunition to the fact that born overseas to two usc parents is not natural born. if so why pass a law? Kinda like the resolution.


31 posted on 06/01/2011 10:39:25 AM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
According to the oft cited Vattel .....

McCain is a natural born citizen as those children born to service men overseas are ‘deemed’ to be born in Country - according to Vattel.

Now that Vattel has been elevated by many to some pre-founding Founding Father - are you going to absolutely dismiss his argument?

Whose definition are you going by then?

Your own?

32 posted on 06/01/2011 10:44:12 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: battlecry
That’s the first I’ve read that McCain was not born in the Canal Zone. Is this true?

What of it? His parents were citizens, so it doesn't matter where he was born. He's eligible.

Of course, so is/was Zero, both because he was born in Honolulu and because his mother was American. And so are his neighbors Billy and Bernardine. All it takes is a sheeple stupid enough to elect them. Strunk is a joke. We can't depend on the Constitution to protect us from a stupid sheeple.

33 posted on 06/01/2011 10:47:11 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
That gives more ammunition to the fact that born overseas to two usc parents is not natural born.

Just the opposite.

Many of the Founding Fathers served in the Congress that passed the 1790 law. Thus, it's language is a far better read of their thinking on the issue than idle speculation about the definitions spun up by a non-American political philosopher.

34 posted on 06/01/2011 10:54:59 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: battlecry; Hotlanta Mike

Like Obama, Eerily like Obama, even if the ‘narrative’ story is true and McCain was born ‘inside the zone’ it did not matter at the time. That did not given him right of citizenship. It did make him a US national and entitled to the protection of the US. His parents lineage allowed him to be a NATURALIZED citizen via the 1795 Naturalization act.

The Supreme Court made it clear in in early 1900s ruling that in the case of the Canal Zone - “the Constitution did not follow the flag”.

See Section on “Citizenship” here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone

Via the 1795 act McCain DID acquire citizenship. And he did so at the moment of birth. But he was still not a ‘natural born Citizen’. See here:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.html

“the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”

Thus EVEN IF HE WAS BORN IN THE CANAL ZONE McCain is a NATURALIZED CITIZEN! Since he is CLEARLY a naturalized citizen he is OBVIOUSLY NOT a natural born Citizen.

We argue a lot here in the forums. But everyone seems to understand that being ‘naturalized’ and being ‘natural born’ are mutually exclusive. Birther, faither, obots, etc. Anyone who truly follows this knows this to be the case. McCain was not a nbC - even if he was born in the Zone. Period. Documented. Easy to show (look above).

Some will argue that later laws changed McCain’s situation? But how is that? How can man made law ‘change a natural law’? No, McCain was a naturalized citizen. From the moment of birth he was red, white and blue. But just not ‘natural’ red, white and blue.

So is McCain the first domino to fall in this god awful mess?


35 posted on 06/01/2011 10:57:05 AM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike; LucyT; Bikkuri; faucetman; warsaw44; ColdOne; wintertime; Fred Nerks; ...
Ping...........................

Further there were multiple ballot challenges to McCain prior to the 2008 election including New Hampshire and California. Guess what, all the cases were dismissed due to LACK OF STANDING!

You're exactly right.

Setting up the defense for 0b0z0 to protect him from the impending avalanche of lawsuits...LACK OF STANDING!

Hey, Brilliant One, where are the education records? Your over 10.0 GPAs should be shoved down our throats to eternity. Can't your Communists fake some quickies? No, 0h0m0, not those kinds of gym quickies.

36 posted on 06/01/2011 11:01:13 AM PDT by melancholy (Papa Alinsky, Enslavement Specialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

no its an admission they wanted to change the law to cover something that was not originally included.


37 posted on 06/01/2011 11:15:18 AM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

he was born in Honolulu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Really? Have you seen certifiable and certified evidence?


38 posted on 06/01/2011 11:16:47 AM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

The 1790 act is is interesting.

It gives us insight into what was considered important to the founders. Clear insight. And that is this:

“Blood is thicker than dirt”.

But they also seemed to recognize they had altered the Constitution in an invalid way and thus dropped the provision in 1795.

This tells us there was more than just being born of two parents to be a ‘natural born Citizen’ but that the parentage and blood line was the critical factor. So what was it beyond the bloodline? It seems there can only be one answer - jus soli.

So by including this clause - and then removing it 5 years later - Congress gave is the exact definition of ‘natural born Citizen’ and indicated what it considered the most important element of the two.

Obama fails to have what they considered most critical and McCain lacked the other element that is still Constitutionally required.


39 posted on 06/01/2011 11:22:53 AM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: battlecry

“That’s the first I’ve read that McCain was not born in the Canal Zone. Is this true?”

Yes. It is true.

I was born in Gorgas Hospital, Ancon, Canal Zone, and I still live here in Panama. I have dug crap up about Colon Juan for several years and can state the liar is a fraud.

First and foremost, he is a Panamanian citizen having been born in Colon Hospital, Colon, Rep of Panama. This is stated on his certificate of Live birth (or whatever) issued by the Canal Zone. It states very clearly he was born in Colon Hospital, Colon, Rep of Panama. He probably didn’t think anybody would notice...which is true. But he didn’t fool me or some of us.

Having been born in Panama, his parents never registered his birth in Panama’s National Public Registry. I discovered this after spending a couple of hours at the Public Registry. The staff and I looked a year before his birth, the year he was born, and the year after.

Since he was now a Panamanian citizen by birth, whether his Panamanian birth was registered or not, he took out his parents’ citizenship as a second nationality since they were Americans and could by US law. This means, his second citizenship is U.S. He is considered dual.

And yes, he could run for president of Panama, but he would be laughed out of the county.

P.S.

All of us Americans born in the Canal Zone are not eligible to run for president….Good. Who wants to.
I can’t state the law, but that is fact. Had Colon Juan been born in the Canal Zone, he still could not have run for president.


40 posted on 06/01/2011 11:31:48 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

“We leased the Canal Zone and operated it administratively - we never owned it outright.”

Not true. That is a total misinformed and misconception. And please don’t try arguing with someone who was born here and continues to live here.

We the taxpayers bought every square inch of the Canal Zone.

Every square inch belonged to the U.S.

Jimmmy Carter decided to give our property away.


41 posted on 06/01/2011 11:52:34 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
As for born overseas to two USC parents being natural born it appears you are wrong. in 1790 congrees passed a law stating such then revoked it as it was not an amendment. That gives more ammunition to the fact that born overseas to two usc parents is not natural born. if so why pass a law? Kinda like the resolution.

As someone who had a child overseas as well as issuing passports and visas, I do know that my daughter is automatically a citizen entitled to all of the rights and benefits thereof. Whether she can run for the Presidency will be a matter for the courts to decide. I do know that there have been precedents.

John McCain ran for the Presidency in 2008. He also ran in 2000 and did not get the nomination. Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964.

So there is still hope for my daughter who just turned 35.

I did not say pass a law defining natural born citizenship for eligibility for the Presidency. The law I want passed is against birthright citizenship, which is the law of the land and part of US Code.

42 posted on 06/01/2011 12:05:08 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kabar

McCain’s case is most certainly settled law. McCain gets his citizenship via the Immigration and Nationality Act — “by statute.”

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

Sec. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403] Persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.


43 posted on 06/01/2011 12:14:09 PM PDT by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

Re: “a person born to American parents abroad is a “US citizen”, but not a Natural Born Citizen which is a “sub-set.”

Actually, “natual born” is a superset, not a subset.


44 posted on 06/01/2011 12:16:30 PM PDT by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

” Those who are still confused are confused because they want to be.” you forgot about those who are paid to be confused, and doing the confusing.


45 posted on 06/01/2011 12:23:17 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
McCain’s case is most certainly settled law. McCain gets his citizenship via the Immigration and Nationality Act — “by statute.”

His citizenship is undeniable. It doesn't matter if he was born in Panama or some other country. The question is whether he is a natural born citizen under the Constitution eligible to run for the Presidency.

"A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock if the child is the genetic issue of the married couple.

46 posted on 06/01/2011 12:30:05 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“As someone who had a child overseas as well as issuing passports and visas, I do know that my daughter is automatically a citizen entitled to all of the rights and benefits thereof.”

Yes, as myself. But I still can’t run for president but the U.S. is glad to take my taxes.

When are you going to learn to read?


47 posted on 06/01/2011 12:30:21 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
LOL. Read what? I do know that John McCain was on the 2008 ballot. And so were the other examples I cited of people born outside the US, including one elected Vice President.

This is not settled law. SCOTUS has never ruled on the definition of natural born citizen as it applies to eligibility to run for the President per the Constitution.

48 posted on 06/01/2011 12:37:35 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Notice that Tribe/Olson referenced Wong Kim Ark case in their opinion along with other citations.


I must have missed something. Did Tribe/Olson amend the US Constitution or are they merely stating an opinion?


49 posted on 06/01/2011 12:39:09 PM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
They were stating their opinion, the same as you are. I venture to say that they have a more extensive background on this issue than you do. Regardless, the fact that the Senate felt it necessary to get their opinion in order to determine McCain's eligibility and pass a Resolution demonstrates that this is not settled law.

As I have said previously, the Senate had no business or authority to pass such a resolution, but they did. Evenutally this will have to come before the SCOTUS. It can't continue in a country where one out of every 8 residents is foreign born and that will increase to one in every five by 2050. We need clarity and SCOTUS is the only one to do it. If and when they decide, we may need a constitutional amendment to correct what they rule if that is what the people want.

50 posted on 06/01/2011 12:45:49 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson